[Pages S3031-S3107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, AND 2003

The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.

Amendment No. 2218

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is Dorgan amendment No.
2218, on which there are 2 minutes of debate equally divided, with the
Senator from North Dakota controlling 1 minute and the Senator from New
Mexico controlling 1 minute.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the budget resolution contains a sense of
the Senate that the Tax Code shall be sunsetted at the end of the year
2001. It doesn't provide what might be replacing that. It doesn't
suggest whether after the current Tax Code is sunsetted there will be a
flat tax, a VAT tax, a national sales tax; it just says sunset the Tax
Code.
The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, says the
following:

I believe that a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code
should be in place before any action is taken to sunset the
existing Tax Code.

The Tax Executives Institute, which represents thousands of
corporations around the country, has said the same thing. It would be
irresponsible to say let's get rid of the Tax Code without telling
people what they are going to put in its place. What do you say to
somebody who is going to buy a home tomorrow and they expect their
mortgage interest deduction is going to be----
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. There
will be order in the Senate.
Mr. FORD. I think the Senator from North Dakota should have some of
his time back because nobody has heard him.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last evening, the Senator from New Mexico
characterized the amendment as an amendment which supports the current
Tax Code. It is a clever way to debate, I guess, what this amendment is
about. I support reforming the current Tax Code, making it better, more
simple, more fair, but I don't believe we ought to say, ``Let's abolish
the current Tax Code and tell the American people there is nothing that
we are going to put in its place this moment, you guess about that; you
guess about that.''
It may be a national sales tax of 30 or 35 percent. That is what the
recent study from the Brookings Institute says it would have to be.
Maybe it is a flat tax where a billionaire pays the same rate as a
person who works for $20,000 a year.
Let me conclude. The Senator from Maryland makes the point that I
made last night. How would anybody tomorrow plan their expansion, plan
their next action if they didn't know what the Tax Code was going to be
in the year 2002?
How will anybody decide to buy a house wondering whether they are
going to have a mortgage interest deduction?
How will anybody decide about their charitable contributions if they
don't know that the tax system is going to allow that as a deduction?
That is the point.
This is not the thing to do. The chairman of the Finance Committee
said so and many, many others around the country, including the
President, said so.
Let us strike this provision and replace it with the language I have
suggested that supports the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable
deduction, and others in the current code. We can improve the current
code, and we should, but we ought not allow this provision to stay in
the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Please, could we have order in the body.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I compliment the occupant of the Chair,
the distinguished Senator from Kansas, and I compliment the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson. They have
given us an opportunity to see to it that we reform the Tax Code of the
United States. It has been talked about for so long and nothing ever
happens. They have devised a way where they are saying to the
committees of the U.S. Congress, and to the President, let us get on
with it. And here is the leverage: If you do not, we will not have a
Tax Code in the year 2001.
I believe this is the only way you are going to get tax reform when
those who are in charge of the job--with all the special interests
gobbling them up not wanting any change. I think the only way it will
occur is if this sense-of-the-Senate proposal becomes law. It is not
law today when we approve of it. It will become law when a committee
sends a bill to the President. But we ought to go on record saying we
want reform, we want major reform of a broken down code, and we want it
soon, not 15 more years of debate.
If I have any additional time, I yield it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

[[Page S3032]]

Amendment No. 2279 to Amendment No. 2218, As Modified

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding passage of an
IRS restructuring bill that provides real relief for taxpayers and
provides appropriate oversight as well as to express the Sense of the
Senate that the tax code should be terminated)

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

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an
amendment numbered 2279 to amendment No. 2218, as modified.

Mr. FORD. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time does the Senator from
Arkansas have on his second-degree amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, there is 1 minute on each
side.
Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Did the unanimous consent request entered into last night
prohibit second-degree amendments?
Mr. DOMENICI. No, it did not.
Mr. DORGAN. Second-degree amendments would be allowed? I did not hear
your answer to Senator Ford. How much time is allowed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute on each side.
Mr. FORD. One minute.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I do not believe we need to be voting on the Dorgan
amendment, which is simply a vote on behalf of the status quo. We need
an affirmative vote on the need to sunset the current Tax Code.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator withhold?
Could we have order in the body?
Mr. BYRD. May we have a reading of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Strike all after the first word of the matter proposed to
be inserted and insert the following:

SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PASSAGE OF THE SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE'S IRS RESTRUCTURING BILL.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2676 on
November 5, 1997;
(2) the Finance Committee of the Senate has held several
days of hearings this year on IRS restructuring proposals;
(3) the hearings demonstrated many areas in which the
House-passed bill could be improved;
(4) on March 31, 1998, the Senate Finance Committee voted
20-0 to report an IRS restructuring package that contains
more oversight over the IRS, more accountability for
employees, and a new arsenal of taxpayer protections; and
(5) the Senate Finance package includes the following items
which were not included in the House bill:
(A) removal of the statutory impediments to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue's efforts to reorganize the
agency to create a more streamlined, taxpayer-friendly
organization,
(B) the providing of real oversight authority for the
Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board to help prevent
taxpayer abuse,
(C) the creation of a new Treasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration to ensure independence and accountability,
(D) real, meaningful relief for innocent spouses,
(E) provisions which abate penalties and interest after 1
year so that the IRS does not profit from its own delay,
(F) provisions which ensure due process of law to taxpayers
by granting them a right to a hearing before the IRS can
pursue a lien, levy, or seizure,
(G) provisions which forbid the IRS from coercing taxpayers
to extend the 10-year statute of limitations for collection,
(H) provisions which require the IRS to terminate employees
who abuse taxpayers or other IRS employees,
(I) provisions which make the Taxpayer Advocate more
independent, and
(J) provisions enabling the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue to manage employees more effectively.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
budget resolution assume that the Senate shall, as
expeditiously as possible, consider and pass an IRS
restructuring bill which provides the most taxpayer
protections, the greatest degree of IRS employee
accountability, and enhanced oversight.

SEC 302. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE SUNSET OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that a simple and fair
Federal tax system is one that--
(1) applies a low tax rate, through easily understood laws,
to all Americans;
(2) provides tax relief for working Americans;
(3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax
collection abuses;
(4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment;
(5) promotes economic growth and job creation;
(6) does not penalize marriage or families; and
(7) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections process to
replace the Internal Revenue Service.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the provisions of this resolution assume that all taxes
imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall sunset
for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001 (or in
the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a taxable
year, on any taxable event or for any period after December
31, 2001) and that a new Federal tax system will be enacted
that is both simple and fair as described in subsection (a)
and that provides only those resources for the Federal
Government that are needed to meet its responsibilities to
the American people.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 1 minute of debate on each side.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, if I might just explain the amendment.
There are two major provisions to the amendment. One would say that
until we are able to replace this Tax Code, we need to restructure and
reform the IRS. Senator Roth has done a marvelous job in highlighting
the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service. This puts us on record, in
the sense of the Senate, that we should as expeditiously as possible
provide taxpayer protections.
The second major provision is that we should set a date certain in
which this massive, incomprehensible Tax Code will be sunsetted, and we
will have a replacement code written 6 months in advance of that.
We give the sense of the Senate in those two respects.
This chart in the Washington Post shows what we did in the Taxpayer
Relief Act regarding one provision, IRA rules. We complicated it from
this to this. The American taxpayer knows that. We need to simplify, we
need to reform the IRS. And there is nothing irresponsible about
setting a sunset date on sunsetting the existing Tax Code.
We sunset the ISTEA bill, we sunset the higher education bill, we
sunset the farm bill. But we just add to, and add to, and add to the
Tax Code. We have elections. We have a process. We have hearings. We
will have a responsible process by which we write a replacement code
and the American people will come to a consensus.
I ask your support for this second-degree amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe I have a minute in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from North Dakota
has 1 minute.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is, with all due respect, a sloppy
way to legislate. I do not--I guess I heard part of this being read a
moment ago. The reason it is offered, I assume, is some do not want to
vote on the amendment that I offered.
I wrote the amendment, noticed it to the Senate. Everyone had an
opportunity to read it, look at it yesterday, make a judgment about it.
Now we have an amendment that is sent to the desk as a second-degree.
Certainly you have a right to do that, but we are going to vote on my
amendment. However, your amendment is disposed of, I might say to the
Senator, my amendment is going to be offered as a second-degree. We are
going to vote on my amendment. So we can do it sooner; we can do it
later. One way or the other, we are going to vote on my amendment. It
just seems to me that in a day in which we are going to be dealing with
30, 50, 60 amendments, if we start doing second degrees because
somebody doesn't want to vote on an amendment, we will be here until
next Tuesday.

[[Page S3033]]

As I said, the Senator has every right to offer a second degree. I
don't contest that. I'm saying we are not going to get out of here if
this is the way the Senate is going to do its business. We will not get
out of here.
I wrote an amendment. I made it available to everybody in the Senate
to see, review, look at it, to make a judgment. I expected when I came
here this morning we would have a vote. That is what I thought the
unanimous consent was about last evening. Now I discover we have a
second-degree and we go through a reading. We will be here forever if
this is the way we will do business.
Again I say if you think you will avoid a vote on this, you will not.
When we dispose of this, if I'm recognized, I will offer a second
degree. If I'm not, I will be here because I'm going to get recognized
and I will offer a second degree, and when I do, we will vote on my
amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment would
put the Senate on record in support of sunsetting the tax code on
December 31, 2001, before a system was set up to replace it and without
assurance that such a system would be in place.
There is no question that the Internal Revenue Code is too
complicated and needs reform. In fact, as a result of the tax bill
which was signed into law last year, 285 new sections were added.
One of the problems with the amendment before us is that it would do
away with the current tax system without a guarantee that it would be
replaced in a timely and orderly manner, if at all, so people can plan
their lives. The sunsetting is not dependent on the adoption of a
replacement. Households and businesses rely on provisions of the tax
code for budgeting purposes.
Mr. President, we need a new tax code, but we also must make sure
that a simplified and fairer tax code is in place. To pretend that we
can sunset the current code without knowing what will take its place
and without having the guarantee of a replacement in a timely manner,
is misleading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Hutchinson amendment No. 2279. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

YEAS--59

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--40

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The amendment (No. 2279) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2280 to Amendment No. 2218, As Modified and Amended

(Purpose: To strike section 301 of the concurrent resolution, which
expresses the sense of Congress regarding the sunset of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, and replace it with a section expressing the
sense of Congress that important tax incentives such as those for
encouraging home ownership and charitable giving should be retained)

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) proposes an
amendment numbered 2280 to amendment No. 2218, as modified.

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

At the end of the amendment add the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE TAX TREATMENT OF HOME
MORTGAGE INTEREST AND CHARITABLE GIVING.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) current Federal income tax laws embrace a number of
fundamental tax policies including longstanding encouragement
for home ownership and charitable giving, expanded health and
retirement benefits.
(2) the mortgage interest deduction is among the most
important incentives in the income tax code and promotes the
American Dream of home ownership--the single largest
investment for most families, and preserving it is critical
for the more than 20,000,000 families claiming it now and for
millions more in the future;
(3) favorable tax treatment to encourage gifts to charities
is a longstanding principle that helps charities raise funds
needed to provide services to poor families and others when
government is simply unable or unwilling to do so, and
maintaining this tax incentive will help charities raise
money to meet the challenges of their charitable missions in
the decades ahead;
(4) legislation has been proposed to repeal the entire
income tax code at the end of the year 2001 without providing
a specific replacement; and
(5) sunsetting the entire income tax code without decribing
a replacement threatens our Nation's future economic growth
and unwisely eliminates existing tax incentives that are
crucial for taxpayers who are often making the most important
financial decisions of their lives.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the levels in this resolution assume that Congress supports
the continued tax deductibility of home mortgage interest and
charitable contributions and that a sunset of the tax code
that does not provide a replacement tax system that preserves
this deductibility could damage the American dream of home
ownership and could threaten the viability of non-profit
institutions.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me explain to my colleagues that the
findings are the same as the underlying amendment that I offered with
the exception that at the end, under ``Sense of Congress''--I will
simply read very briefly what I have added.

It is the sense of Congress that the levels in this
resolution assume that Congress supports the continued tax
deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable
contributions--

That was my previous amendment--

and that a sunset of the Tax Code that does not provide a
replacement tax system that preserves this deductibility
could damage the American dream of home ownership and could
threaten the viability of nonprofit institutions.

This is a second degree that I am offering.
I don't know that I need to say much more about it except that it
essentially is a vote on what I had offered in the first instance.
My intent here is very simple. It is not to denigrate those who have
different ideas than I have about this issue. It is, however, to say
that I think suggesting that we throw away the current Tax Code, as
imperfect as it is and as much in need of reform as it is, without
suggesting what will come in its place is to say to all Americans who
are homeowners that we are not sure that we are going to have a tax
system in the future that allows you to deduct your home mortgage
interest, we are not sure we are going to have a tax system in the
future that allows charitable contributions to be deducted.

[[Page S3034]]

So I think the responsible thing to do is to say to the American
people that when there is a sunset, if there is, that there is a
replacement that will be included in these provisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yield's time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, 15 minutes ago, 59 Senators voted in
favor of what I think all of us support: reforming and restructuring
the IRS and protecting the taxpayers to a date certain on sunsetting
the Tax Code that no one in this country defends.
Do not be fooled. This amendment is a second-degree amendment offered
by my dear colleague from North Dakota that would undo much of what we
just did. We don't want to undo that. There is nothing in the sense of
the Senate that we just adopted that would threaten in any way
charitable deductions or home mortgage deductions or any of the other
particular aspects of the current code that you may like. It would say
that on a date certain we are going to have a new code that is fairer
and simpler, more comprehensible to the American people, and that it is
a tax code that they deserve.
I ask my colleagues to reject this second-degree amendment designed
only to undo what we just expressed to the American people--that we
believe the IRS is out of control and that we have a code that needs to
be simplified and that needs to be made more fair.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that on the remaining stacked
amendments there be no second-degree amendments in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the second-degree amendment that is
pending and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I propose a parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in a nondebatable posture.
Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. The second-degree amendment that I am offering does not
in fact replace what the Senate voted on previously. Is that not
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The language is added
onto the amendment as amended.
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 North Dakota No. 2280. On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 98, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

YEAS--1

Thompson

NAYS--98

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2280) was rejected.

Vote on Amendment No. 2280 to Amendment No. 2218, as modified and
amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the Dorgan
second-degree amendment.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I think Senator Domenici's motion to
table gave all of us on this side of the aisle time to look closely at
what the second-degree amendment by the Senator from North Dakota
actually did. I have no objection to that second-degree amendment. I
think it merely expresses--it does not undo or reverse the sense of the
Senate that we adopted earlier with 59 votes. It expresses support for
the charitable tax deduction and the homeowner deduction. I ask my
colleagues to join me in support of Senator Dorgan's second-degree
amendment.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to speak for
30 seconds simply to say the intent of the second-degree amendment was
to say to the American people that whatever the merits of reforming our
Tax Code--and most of us, myself included, think it does need reform--
that when we decide to change the Tax Code, if we decide to do that,
its replacement shall give some assurance to the American people that
we are not going to scrap their ability to deduct their home mortgage
interest, to scrap the ability to deduct charitable contributions. That
is the purpose of that second-degree amendment. I appreciate very much
support on that amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.
The amendment (No. 2280) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for an
observation? The last vote took approximately 25 minutes.

Vote on Amendment No. 2218, as modified, as amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the first-degree amendment
as further amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be
vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 2218), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. We are ready for the next amendment, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 2170

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is amendment No. 2170,
offered by the Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard.
The yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion to waive the Budget
Act.
Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Colorado is
seeking recognition.

[[Page S3035]]

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to just briefly explain what my
amendment does. Right now, the total debt that we are facing in this
country is $5.6 trillion. The interest that we pay on that total debt
is more than the entire defense budget, and I believe we need a plan to
pay down that total debt.
My amendment proposes such a plan. It takes the surplus that is
reflected in the budget proposal that is before us here on the floor of
the Senate today, and takes those first 5 years and allocates them
towards that debt pay-down plan. It says that after the 5 years that
are reflected in the budget plan, then we dedicate $11.7 billion a year
towards paying down the debt. If we will do that, we can pay down the
debt in 30 years and save more than $3.7 trillion in interest.
The $11.7 billion which we set aside after the 5 years which is
reflected in this budget, that is less than 1 percent of the total
budget. I am here to ask the Senate to join me in putting in place a
plan to pay down the total debt.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Allard
amendment. It is going to impose excessively rigid strictures on the
way we function. What it says, very simply, is that any time that
income does not exceed expense, that revenues do not exceed outlays,
there is a 60-vote point of order to make any change to accommodate it.
Just think what the consequences might be. We use our opportunities
here to sometimes adjust to an economy that is in stress. We could be
endangering our national security, because though a declaration of war
may not have been made, the fact of the matter is that military
preparation may be necessary in advance of that.
What happens if our outlays exceed our revenues? We cannot go ahead
and take care of our necessary business. What happens in times of
depression when, in fact, revenues may be down and we may have a need
to increase our expenses to help us carry our citizens through that
period of time?
What it does is it excessively restricts our ability to function.
Proper fiscal policy is an important part of operating our Government.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the request to waive the Budget Act.

Motion to waive The Budget Act

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act with respect to the Allard amendment No. 2170. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--45

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Landrieu

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 53, and the nays are
45. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting, not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not agreed
to.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. What is the next amendment?

Amendment No. 2195

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2195, the amendment offered by
the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, motion to waive the
Budget Act, is the order of business.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a reserve
fund to allow revenues, taxes paid by large corporate taxpayers, to be
used in a manner that is directly connected to environmental cleanup.
Right now, the bill that we are considering permits only the use of
$200 million out of a total revenue base of $1.7 billion to be used for
environmental cleanup. Frankly, I think that is wrong.
What we need to do is make sure that these funds are available for
the purpose that it is collected. We don't want to see it going to tax
breaks or other programs. Only $200 million of this will be used to pay
for the ``orphan shares,'' those shares for which no polluter can be
found. It is insufficient to take care of the job. That is the way
Superfund was originally designed.
I hope we can waive the budget point of order that has been raised.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. This is another reserve fund. The reserve fund has the
advantage, for the proponent, of creating a new series of entitlement
programs, thereby indirectly breaking the caps. If you would try to
spend these in the normal way, we would be breaking the budget.
So it creates a series of potentially new entitlement programs. If we
ever get taxes increased or other programs cut, the resources can be
put into this reserve fund. I don't believe we ought to be doing this.
I have objected to them regularly here on the floor when there is no
real source of money.
I think we should sustain the budget point of order on this one and
not start another approach to a new series of entitlement programs.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from
New Jersey and my fellow member of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, Senator Lautenberg.
This amendment will allow the Congress to increase funding for
important natural resources and environment programs without increasing
the deficit or lowering the surplus. That is an important point.
We would be able to address additional needs in these areas without
affecting the overall deficit or surplus. The amendment would do this
by allowing the excess receipts from a reinstated Superfund taxes to
offset the cost of the programs.
What kind of programs might be funded through in this amendment? We
could hasten the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. We could provide
assistance to states to protect waterways from polluted runoff. We also
could fund construction and maintenance for our deteriorating national
parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands.
These priorities were included in the President's proposed
Environmental Resources Fund for America, but they are not included in
Senate Concurrent Resolution 86.
The amendment would allow the authorizing committees, including the
Environment and Public Works Committee on which Senator Lautenberg and
I sit, to set direct spending levels for environmental and natural
resources programs. Furthermore, it would allow any excess funds from
an extension of the Superfund tax to offset the added costs.
The Republican budget assumes that if a Superfund tax is reinstated,
$200 million would be used to pay for that

[[Page S3036]]

portion of the cleanup that is attributable to parties that are
bankrupt or otherwise cannot pay their share. The balance of $1.5
billion each year could be used to offset the cost of unspecified
spending or tax breaks.
By contrast, the Lautenberg amendment would direct the money from the
Superfund tax to needed environmental improvements--investments in the
future of our natural resources and sustained health of our
environment, not just for us, but for our children.
Directing more resources to states to help address the problem of
polluted runoff will be an investment in the future of clean water.
Cleaning up Superfund sites is an investment that can protect public
health and foster economic redevelopment.
Maintaining our national parks--our national treasures--is an
investment that we must make, or see that part of our heritage fall
apart.
Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Jersey for his
amendment and urge my colleagues to support it for the future health of
our citizens and the environment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Lautenberg's
amendment to increase funding for the protection of the environment and
our nation's natural resources. This important amendment would
establish an environmental reserve fund, so that receipts from a
reinstated Superfund tax can be used for environmental protection
initiatives.
The environmental and natural resources programs funded in the
President's Budget are critical to our efforts to protect these
resources which are so vital to our society.
Several critical programs proposed by the President are not included
in the Budget Resolution. Among others, these include operations and
maintenance funds for the administration of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and program support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's execution of the Endangered Species Act. Both of these
programs are critical to the State of Florida and our ability to
protect and preserve unique ecosystems, habitats, and species.
Today's 93 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System has its roots
in the state of Florida. It was public outrage over the devastation of
wading bird populations in Florida that led to the establishment of the
Pelican Island Federal Bird Reservation in 1903. This action is
recognized as the genesis of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Each year, nearly 30 million people visit our National Wildlife
Refuges and enjoy activities such as wildlife observation, hiking,
fishing, photography, hunting, and environmental education. These lands
are home to millions of migrating birds, big game, and hundreds of
critically endangered species.
In the State of Florida, there are 25 National Wildlife Refuges that
are an essential part of our natural heritage. I learned this lesson
firsthand in May 1990 when I did my 241st workday at the ``Ding''
Darling Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island. Working with refuge
naturalists, I spent the day surveying the refuge's bird population,
cleaning up mangrove areas, reinforcing water retention ponds and
speaking with local citizens who had a keen interest in the refuge's
future.
I also learned that the success of wildlife refuges since 1903 had
occurred not because of any action taken by the House or Senate, but in
spite of congressional neglect. While Congress has been willing to fund
refuges, it had failed to ascribe a mission for the refuge system or
clearly define environmental objectives for each individual refuge.
This situation was corrected with the passage of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997. I was pleased to play
an instrumental role in this law's enactment. It provides new
protection to the more than 500 national wildlife refuges, and is a
great step forward in our efforts to preserve the unique species and
ecosystems located in these areas.
However, these lands must be maintained if they are to remain
national treasures. The President has requested an increase of $25.8
million in FY 99 for the Fish and Wildlife Service operation and
maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These funds would
be used in the State of Florida for projects such as protection of the
Florida Panther in the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge.
They would support the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force, which
is working to protect the Florida Keys from invasive exotic plants
which threaten the restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem.
The current budget resolution does not support this increase. The
Lautenberg Amendment, which I have co-sponsored, will help ensure that
the National Wildlife Refuge system receives the funds that are so
critical to its future.
In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the President's
Budget request for an increase of $35.7 million in FY99 for the Fish
and Wildlife Service's threatened and endangered species program is a
critical element in our ongoing efforts to improve the level of
protection of endangered species. As currently written, the Senate
Budget Resolution does meet the President's request. Senator
Lautenberg's amendment will give us the opportunity to review this
decision and provide the required funds to this critical program.
I believe that the Endangered Species Act is one of our nation's most
critical environmental statutes. While it goes without saying that the
Act could be more effective in recovering endangered and threatened
species, I believe that the ESA has helped to forestall further
declines and possibly even the extinction of many of our most imperiled
species.
Senate approval of this Amendment will give us the ability to review
the current needs of the ESA program and appropriate the required funds
to support these programs.
Funding for implementation of the ESA is critical both today and into
the future. As the Senate considers the Endangered Species
Reauthorization Bill introduced by Senators Chafee, Baucus, Kempthorne,
and Reid, our commitment to provide funds to support the revisions in
the ESA Reauthorization Bill will be essential. Without this
commitment, we run the risk of losing an opportunity to boost the
worthy cause of endangered species conservation.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I make the point this is not a new entitlement. It is
direct spending and the revenue source would be it.

Motion to waive the budget act

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--52

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
52.

[[Page S3037]]

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
On the last vote, vote No. 64, the Allard motion to waive the Budget
Act, I was unavoidably delayed and did not vote. But I want the Record
to reflect that if I had voted I would have voted ``no.''
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will so reflect.

amendment No. 2213

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2213 offered by Mr. Bond of Missouri.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the section 202 Elderly Housing Program is
the most important housing program for elderly low-income Americans
providing both affordable low-income housing and supportive services
designed to meet the special needs of the elderly. The President's
budget request proposes reducing the funding from a current year level
of $645 million to $109 million, an 83 percent cut.
On behalf of myself, Senator Mikulski, and numerous other colleagues,
we offer this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to say that we must
maintain the section 202 program. The alternative is to provide
vouchers. Vouchers for the typical resident, an elderly woman, frail,
in her seventies--to give her a voucher to go out and walk to find a
new apartment, or new dwelling place, is simply unacceptable.
I urge my colleagues to show an overwhelming vote in support of the
program that maintains housing that our frail elderly so badly need.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? Is all time in
opposition yielded?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. On this
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--2

Coats
Nickles

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The amendment (No. 2213) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2228

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). There are 2 minutes equally
divided on the Bumpers amendment. The Senator from Arkansas is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in 1975, the U.S. Congress passed a bill
called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I apologize, but we cannot hear the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will have to come to order before
we proceed.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we promised the school districts of this
country that if they would abide by the rules we set for taking care of
disabled children in school, we would foot 40 percent of the bill. We
cried tears galore around here about unfunded mandates to the cities
and the States and the counties, and we took care of it. Here is the
biggest unfunded mandate of all. We promised the school districts of
this country 40 percent for disabled children, and so far, after 23
years, we are giving them 9 percent.
You get a double whammy. You get a chance to fulfill that mandate
and, No. 2, take care of a totally unjustified tax break we give the
mining companies. We give them Federal lands for $2.50 an acre, they
mine the gold and silver off of it, and we pay them to take it, a 15
percent depletion allowance. So I would take that depletion allowance
and give it to disabled children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this year this Senate will vote for $2.5
billion in new money to go to the disabled. We are doing our part for
the first time. What the Senator from Arkansas fails to say is he is
proposing half a billion dollars in new tax increases on the working
men and women of the mining industries. It is not that simple. If you
want to vote for a big tax increase, then vote not to table this
amendment. But if you want to vote to maintain a strong mining industry
in this country that is the foundation of our industrial might, then
you ought to vote to table because we are doing the right thing this
year. We are funding for the disabled with an additional $2.5 billion.
I ask my colleagues to vote to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment (No. 2228). The yeas and nays have been
ordered on the motion to table.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

YEAS--55

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--44

Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Bumpers
Chafee
Coats
Collins
Dodd
Durbin
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords

[[Page S3038]]

Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2228) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Armed Services Committee as much time as he desires off the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able chairman.

Amendments Nos. 2191 and 2192

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendments numbered 2191 and 2192. In doing this, I do not in any way
minimize the seriousness of the outlay problems that national defense
faces in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter. I want to commend the
chairman of the Budget Committee for working with the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee and myself to reach an agreement on an
amendment to help alleviate this problem. We appreciate the assistance
of the chairman of the Budget Committee as well as his assurances that
he will work with CBO, OMB and the Secretary of Defense to resolve this
problem.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2191 and 2192) were withdrawn.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thurmond for his kind
remarks. Obviously, he has, for a number of weeks now, been very
concerned about the situation with reference to the Defense Department
and the many things we must do in order to be militarily prepared to
take care of our men and women in the military.
I believe the issues that confront us have more to do with how you
make estimates of what the program is going to cost than anything else.
We are trying to work something out where those will be more
realistically evaluated than perhaps have been in the past. I thank the
Senator for his compliments and pledge I will do everything I can to
get this done right.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, again, I wish to thank the able
chairman.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the floor
manager of the bill, what order of amendments do we have now? I have an
amendment that I am certainly prepared to take up at this time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that we have, between the
minority and the majority, a list of six amendments that we would like
to present. Senator Brownback is No. 1 on that list; followed by
Senator Boxer; followed by Senator Specter; followed by Senator
Lautenberg; and then we would have another one in there, and we do not
know whether it would be Senator Connie Mack or otherwise; and Senator
Kennedy.
I want everyone to know that we are trying very hard to get to a
point where there is not very many amendments left for full debate. It
does not mean we have yet arrived at how many would be entitled to a
vote under the ``vote-arama'' with 1 minute. We are working on that
right now. We need a lot of cooperation. But I think it is fair to
proceed, I say to the leader, with this amendment. This is not one of
the three or four we would choose to resolve these issues, but we had
already made that commitment. And we will work on it as best we can.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 2177

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2177 to be the
pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 2177 previously proposed by the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
Mr. BROWNBACK. As I understand, I have 15 minutes to make the
presentation under the unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I don't know that I will take that amount of time. If
the Chair will advise when I have used 10 minutes, I will appreciate
that.
I ask, as well, that Phil Gramm be added as a cosponsor to this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. The Brownback amendment is a simple amendment that
calls for a change in the budget law, the pay-go rules of the budget
law, to allow for discretionary spending program eliminations, all
those key words, to be used for tax cuts or to save Social Security. It
allows for that usage to be able to do those things.
Now, according to current budget law--and I realize some of this can
be arcane to a number of people--we cannot make cuts in discretionary
spending programs in order to finance tax cuts. You have to make cuts
in mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare to pay
for tax cuts. That is just not fair and it is not right and it is
wrong.
That is why we put forward this amendment. At this time I will read
the amendment because it is short, sweet, and to the point and it is
important.

It is the sense-of-the-Senate that the functional tools
underlying this resolution assume that--
(I) the elimination of a discretionary spending program may
[with emphasis on the ``may''] be used for either tax cuts or
to reform the Social Security system.

There is some other language under that.
That is the extent, basically, of the amendment.
Now, I want to ask people, I know a number of folks watching this
have concerns about what is taking place in waste in Government
spending. We have a $1.7 trillion Government on an annual basis. We
have things in that Government--like tobacco subsidies, like corporate
welfare--that when I go home and talk to people in Kansas, they say,
why in the world are you still spending money on tobacco subsidies? Why
are you spending money on corporate welfare? Why don't you cut those
programs? I don't think most people recognize the system works to
protect those programs like tobacco subsidies.
For instance, what you get is a system in place where there are a few
people protecting tobacco subsidies, or corporate welfare, and a lot of
people who want to eliminate it, but the few people can offset the
greater number because if you eliminated tobacco subsidies today, what
happens to the money? It just gets spent somewhere else. So people
argue strongly in favor of their program no matter how wasteful it
might be and say, even if you cut this, it will not reduce the budget,
it will not cut taxes, it will just be spent somewhere else. That is
the system. The system works against our getting rid of Government
waste.
Now, what if we created a competitive force back the other way? What
if you said, OK, if we eliminate tobacco subsidies, we can use that to
pay for a tax cut. Or, if we eliminate corporate welfare, we can use
that to save Social Security. So they create a competing force of
people who want tax cuts or save Social Security against the domestic
discretionary spending programs that in many cases are very wasteful of
precious taxpayer dollars. So that all this amendment attempts to do is
to create that competing force to knock out some of this wasteful
Government spending that everybody knows is here but nobody can ever
seem to get at.

We are at the point of record high levels of taxation. The average
American family pays nearly 40 percent of

[[Page S3039]]

their income for taxes at all levels. It is the highest level since
World War II. People are starting to ask why. Why are we paying such a
high level of taxation? You add to that we are also broke, $5.4
trillion worth of debt, we have unfunded obligations more than double
that amount, and yet we waste money on tobacco subsidies or we waste
money on corporate welfare, and people don't get it.
The problem of it is the set of rules that we are operating under
that create a system where the few, who protect a portion of waste that
may be good for their constituents but is not good for the rest of the
country as a whole, have a far greater stake in the system than the
people who want to eliminate it, who, if they eliminated it, it just
goes to be spent somewhere else and nothing happens to the debt or
level of taxation or Social Security.
This amendment is very simple and straightforward on that. You
eliminate--and it is not just cutting; it is eliminating programs. A
lot of times people might cut back on a discretionary spending program.
Say we cut tobacco subsidies $100 million and use that for offsetting
tax cuts somewhere--corporate welfare is a better example in that
area--the next year we just add it back. We still have the tax cut that
is pulling and draining resources from the Federal Treasury, which
frankly I don't mind because it goes back to taxpayers' pockets, but on
the other side you haven't paid for that tax cut. What we say is
eliminate--not just shave, not reduce, but eliminate --a program so
that this one doesn't come back and you can have an actual true offset.
So, Mr. President, it is past the time for us to start changing the
system that has yielded to us a $1.7 trillion Government, that
maintains tobacco subsidies at a time when everybody in the world knows
this contributes to the causes of cancer. We are trying to stop young
people from starting to smoke, and yet we are still subsidizing tobacco
subsidies. We still have corporate welfare all over the place, and we
can't seem to get at it. This change in rule, this little change in
rules would help us get at these issues. That is why I put this
amendment forward.
At the appropriate time I will ask for the yeas and nays. I reserve
the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment by the Senator from Kansas. This amendment calls for a change
in the Budget Act that would allow discretionary programs to be
completely eliminated in order to provide new tax breaks for purposes
other than the initial direction for this funding. I'm not sure that I
understand who would determine that. Would it be the Budget Committee
that would determine that? Would it be the specific committees? Would
we go to Environmental and say, eliminate this environmental cleanup
program? Or would we go to the Department of Transportation and say,
eliminate safety programs, eliminate parts of the programs that are not
financed through the trust fund?
This would be an incredible departure from the rules that are
established in the balanced budget agreement. It could threaten just
about anything--education, anticrime efforts, environmental programs--
defense, as well, by the way.
We know that we have a debate here between those who would typically
like to spend more for defense or those who say, look, we have spent
enough on defense to keep our security intact. How about the Coast
Guard? You could come from a landlocked State and say, what do we need
the Coast Guard for? How about other departments? Some might disagree
with us on a program to protect our water or any number of programs
that are often represented regionally.
Frankly, I see this as a terrible prospect to contemplate. The Budget
Act is designed to ensure that if we incur permanent obligations such
as permanent tax cuts or new mandatory spending, we pay for these
obligations with permanent savings.
That is what the pay-as-you-go plan rules are all about. It has
worked out well for many years. This amendment would change these
rules. It says we should make cuts in temporary spending--that is,
annually appropriated discretionary programs--and use those temporary
cuts to fund permanent tax breaks. Well, it doesn't take a CPA to
figure out that this can create serious problems in the long run.
Cutting funding for a program in one year doesn't mean those savings
are going to remain available in future years. Once you have a tax
break on the books, its costs regularly occur, year after year.
I am not opposed to tax cuts for ordinary Americans. In fact, I
supported targeted relief like the expanded child care credit that the
President proposed. But I think we ought to pay for tax cuts with
permanent savings. I am also concerned that Senator Brownback's
proposal could encourage further cuts from programs that educate us and
help us continue the pursuit of a cleaner environment, put the cops on
the streets, and make sure that our service people are well housed and
equipped to do their duty.
The budget agreement is already calling for substantial real cuts in
discretionary programs. Under the agreement, nondefense discretionary
spending in 2002 will reach its lowest level in almost 40 years as a
share of GDP. These cuts are getting close to the bone, and we need to
be careful about cutting further, especially if further budget cuts are
to be used for large tax breaks that could very well blow a hole in the
budget for the future.
So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will agree that this is no
time, nor is it the correct process, for radical surgery on the Budget
Act. If we want to do that, we can discuss it within the Budget
Committee. This is a new subject. Let us not create fiscal problems in
the future by allowing short-term cuts to pay for long-term costs,
because I suspect that in there, there is a mission, and that is to
kind of take care of the people who are largely at the top of the
ladder, who benefit from most of the tax cut proposals we have seen.
Let's not encourage further cuts in programs that deal with education
and crime. Do you want to tell veterans--I am a World War II veteran. I
served 3 years in the Army overseas during the war. Do you want to tell
my colleagues--and many are not as fortunate as I am, to have this kind
of a position--do you want to tell them that someone may want to cut
their programs on behalf of the tax cuts for the well off? I don't see
it, and I sure don't want to tinker with defense. I am not what you
call a traditional hawk, Mr. President.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 36 seconds. The
Senator from New Jersey has 9 minutes 12 seconds.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to respond to a few of the
statements. I think the Senator from New Jersey, whom I appreciate, and
I appreciate his service in the U.S. Senate, probably made the exact
accurate point. That is, if you are going to cut veterans programs for
tax cuts, people will come unglued, and it will not happen, because
there will be a number of veterans out there saying, ``What are you
doing cutting veterans programs and paying for tax cuts? I am not going
to let you do that.'' And that would work.
If we went out and said, you know what, we are going to eliminate
tobacco subsidies to pay for tax cuts, or we are going to cut the
corporate welfare for the wealthiest 50 corporations in America and pay
for a tax cut with that, would people come unglued? I sense an applause
line in Kansas for something like that.

If I go to Kansas and say, ``I am going to cut veterans programs and
write tax cuts,'' they will say, ``We are going to give you your head
for that one.'' That is the whole point here. The system is currently
tilted toward no tax cuts and growing Government, because if you are
going to provide for a tax cut, you have to cut Social Security or
Medicare basically to pay for that tax cut. That is wrong. We should
not be cutting Social Security and Medicare. We should not be cutting
them at all, let alone offset them against a tax cut. The system was
set up exactly this way to build Government and make it bigger.
Why are we at $1.7 trillion and growing? It is because the system is
built to

[[Page S3040]]

build. Why do we still subsidize tobacco? This makes absolutely no
sense. So what we are trying to do here is make a little change.
The Senator from New Jersey raises another very important point about
permanent savings paying for permanent tax cuts. I think that is a
valuable issue to raise. That is why, in the measure, we state that you
have to eliminate the program--not just cut it back, but eliminate the
program to pay for tax cuts.
So let's take my example again. If we go to tobacco subsidies and say
we are going to eliminate tobacco subsidies and pay for this tax cut,
it will be a small tax cut. What about the next two then? Do you think
they are going to be able to add back in tobacco subsidies once you get
it finally pulled out by its roots? I don't think so. What if you are
able to pull out corporate welfare by its roots to pay for that tax
cut? Are we going to be able, the next year, to add back in that
corporate welfare? I don't think so, once it is pulled out. There is
such a system of inertia to build the bill that I think we are going to
be able to get at this with this little change in the budget rules.
This is exactly the time to be doing this, as we will be looking
forward to the future as to how we are going to protect, preserve, and
save Social Security. We need to do that. What are we going to do to
further tax cuts on this burdensome level of taxation that we have for
the American people? This little budgetary change will actually help us
make some sense and sanity out of this place to a lot of the American
public.
So that is why I am putting this forward. Suggestions can be put
forward by Members of Congress and by the Finance Committee on how you
do it. That is the same way we do tax cuts right now--from Members,
from people from the Finance Committee.
This is a good provision. If you asked the American people about
this, they will say that is the way the place ought to work, instead of
this arcane way that we have set it up that actually hurts the American
public and maintains wasteful programs. That is why I am going to urge
my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.
Mr. President, I retain the balance of my time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I didn't hear the Senator's closing
comment. Did he yield back his time or reserve it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He reserved the balance of his time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have respect for the Senator from
Kansas. We have gotten to know each other a little bit. When we
disagree, it is with a purpose of accomplishing something. When he
talks about getting a big applause line in Kansas if there were to be
the elimination of the subsidy for tobacco, well, I happen to agree
with the Senator on the elimination of the subsidy for tobacco, but I
wonder whether it would get an applause line in North Carolina or
Kentucky or South Carolina. What if I were to say, well, let's reduce
the cost for the Corps of Engineers, we don't have to do all that
flooding work, or maybe eliminate the program for agricultural
subsidies because in New Jersey our farmers are pretty close to market
and they don't need a lot of subsidy, they don't draw down subsidy?
The point I make--without being too challenging, or too pedantic--is
that what the Senator described is exactly the problem, a Nation with
50 States, one Nation wanting each of us here--and there isn't anybody
here who hasn't stood up to protect a program in their State without
feeling that they are doing the right thing. I don't know of anybody
here.

We have to respect those differences. I am not saying promote
tobacco. I am not saying encourage agriculture. I am not saying that we
ought to have our ports dredged and no one else ought to have an
opportunity to move their economies along. When we lose our beaches in
a storm, it is no different than a flood in Kansas, or a drought, or a
tornado. It is our economy that is kept going. But, apart from that,
the notion that we could suddenly change the rules and say, OK, who is
it that is going to decide we are going to eliminate this program? I
guarantee you that there will be quite a debate in this body about what
programs get eliminated. There is only one way you can do this. That is
through a deliberate, slow, and tedious discussion among us. It is
called debate. It is called discussion, dialog.
I hope that the Senator from Kansas would not prevail with this. I
think it would be a disastrous conclusion.
Imagine risking some of the services that we talked about. How would
we feel about reducing the program in FEMA, the Emergency Services
Program, where everybody calls up, picks up the phone, dials the big
911, saying, ``Help. Get out here. Hurry.'' We wouldn't have the funds
to do it because we were giving tax breaks to well-off people. That
would really create a stir in this country. I will tell you, it would
be louder than an applause line.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could respond to some of the
comments of my colleague from New Jersey, for whom I have a great deal
of respect. He makes the exact point I am making. Tobacco subsidies
aren't cut because North Carolina and Kentucky and a few other States
protect those basically. Everybody else says, ``Look, if you cut it, we
are really not going to do it. We are not cutting taxes. We are not
cutting spending.''
So, all right, I will go along on it. We are trying to create
competitors. If somebody comes up with a good idea, a program, and a
need, we are going to fund it. We have proven throughout history that
we will fund that. That is why actually today there is nothing so
permanent as a temporary Government program. That is one of President
Reagan's lines. Because we will do it. The problem is we never undo it,
or we never stop doing it. We don't have any competing force back the
other way.
I think it would be a very helpful debate if we would have these
regularly on the floor about, Should we actually be spending this money
on corporate welfare? What if we gave it back to the taxpayer or used
it to preserve and protect Social Security? That would be a good,
healthy idea, because instead of the way we do it right now, which is
basically we are going to add that spending, we will never look back
here at what we previously paid for over the past 60 years because
there is no competing force on the other side of it.
That is why I am suggesting this would be an excellent change for
this body. It would be an excellent force that would be set up in favor
of the taxpayer, in favor of good government, in favor of Social
Security.
How much time is remaining on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 3 minutes. The
Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. BROWNBACK. If the Senator from New Jersey would be willing to
yield back his time, I would be willing to yield back at this time and
ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield my time in fairness to the Senator from
Kansas. I am going to, obviously, oppose the amendment.
I yield the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 2176

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2176.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) proposes an
amendment numbered 2176.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the March 30, 1998 edition
of the Record.)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that the following Senators be added
to this amendment: Senators Daschle, Sarbanes, Murray, Johnson,
Kennedy, Bingaman, and Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in picking up where the Senator from
Kansas left off, I think it is important when we recommend a priority,
we figure out a way to pay for it.

[[Page S3041]]

I am going to give you and my colleagues in the U.S. Senate an
opportunity to cut funding, which is what the Senator from Kansas is
very concerned about, out of the Government travel budget--cut that
funding by one-tenth of 1 percent--and take those funds away from
traveling bureaucrats and put them into after-school programs.
I know you are a family man with many children and grandchildren.
Often we talk about the joys of parenting and grandparenting. I think
we all are concerned not only about our own children and grandchildren,
but about America's children. I believe that is true across the party
line.
I think if we ask ourselves the question right now, right here, what
our children will be doing after school today, I really do not think
the answer would come back in a way that satisfies us as U.S. Senators,
as parents, as grandparents, and, frankly, as community members.
Unfortunately, many of our children after school have no place to go,
are alone, get into trouble with gang members, or are lured into gangs.
Frankly, if you look at the crime statistics, which I will show you
later on a chart, the highest crime rate among juveniles occurs from 3
to 6 p.m.
Here, we have an opportunity with this amendment, which I am very
proud to offer today, to take a stand to fund up to 500 after-school
programs for our children and to cut out unnecessary Government travel.
It seems to me it is a choice that, as my children say, is a ``no-
brainer.'' It makes sense.
If you look at the faces of these children, and just look at their
hands that they are holding up to answer a question--this is an after-
school program in Sacramento, Sacramento START, which I have seen. You
can see in the faces of these children that they are interested, that
they are engaged, that they are involved, that they are learning.
Clearly, being in this program after school means they are not alone,
they are not getting into trouble, they are not sitting home alone
watching television, waiting for a working parent to arrive.
I want to show you some other photos of these children. Here is
another one from Sacramento START. This program, which my amendment
encourages, includes drug counseling and anticrime measures. They
invite policemen and firemen and businesspeople in. Here you can see
the children engaged with this police officer; they are very engaged in
what he is explaining to them.
I am going to show you a couple of other photographs of these
children.
Here is one from the city of Oakland's after-school program. It is a
music after-school program where the children are preteens. We talk a
lot about preventing teenage pregnancy and the need for abstinence and
the need for our children to understand that their self-esteem is
important to them. Here we see the faces of these children and how they
are engaged in this music program. Why? Because there was some funding
that they scraped together to put together an after-school program.
These programs are holding together in a very difficult way, and they
want to see the National Government get involved.
Here is another photo. This one is from Sacramento, also. You can see
that this is an environmental lesson. They have, it looks like, a
crocodile. The children are engaged in learning about science.
We love our children in this country. We cannot afford to abandon
them just because the school bell rings at 3 o'clock. Our
responsibility does not end at 3 o'clock.
Let me show you the crime statistics.
When do juvenile offenders commit violent crimes? You can see the
spike up at 3 p.m., and it doesn't begin even turning down until 6 p.m.
If we overlay on this chart after-school programs that keep our
children busy, we can see the real need for these programs. I might add
that the victims of these crimes are also juveniles. The victims and
the perpetrators of these crimes are juveniles.
I think when we support such an amendment as this, we are not only
going to increase the academic performance of our children across the
board--and I will explain that--but we also absolutely take a step
forward to reducing the crime rate.
Mr. President, I ask that you let me know when I have 3 minutes
remaining in my presentation.
Let's see what some law enforcement people are saying about after-
school programs. This is a proclamation signed by Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids. Fight Crime is made up of 170 of the Nation's leading police
chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors, and the presidents of the Fraternal
Order of Police and the International Union of Police Associations,
which together represent 360,000 police officers. Let's hear what they
say about the need for after school programs.

No one knows better than we----

The law enforcement people----

that the most important weapons against crime are the
investments which keep kids from becoming criminals--
investments which enable all children to get the right start
they need to become contributing citizens, and which show
them that, as adults, they will be able to meet their
families' basic needs through honest hard work.

What else is being said? Further:

We therefore call on all public officials to protect public
safety by adopting commonsense policies to . . . provide for
all of America's school-age children and teens, after-school
programs.

So if you are pro--and this is important--pro-law enforcement, let us
not turn our backs on law enforcement, who is urging us provide
``after-school programs and access to weekend and summer programs that
offer recreation, academic support and community service experience.''
Let's see what the police chief of Los Angeles has said.

Police leaders know America's commitment to putting
criminals in jail must be matched by its commitment to
keeping kids from becoming criminals in the first place.

We are at a turning point in our country. We now know how important
our children are to our future. We now know that if we invest in them,
we save 10 times, 20 times on the other end when they are good
citizens, when they learn, when they have self-esteem, when they get
help with their homework. These are all important things that will
happen from my amendment.
Remember, if you want to fight crime, this is certainly one way to do
it.
What do we say in our amendment? We say that local school districts
should design the program to meet the local needs. They will be
competing with other local districts across this country. If we get a
great application from Ohio and it brings in the police and it brings
in the business community and it brings in the local college, all of
those things will give that program higher scores. We say that the
schools must offer at least two of the following activities: academic
assistance; mentoring; recreational activities; or technology training.
They have the option of offering any of the following in their program:
drug, alcohol and gang prevention programs; health and nutrition
counseling; or job skills preparation.
We also believe that this amendment is setting our Nation on the
right track. Across the country we pay millions and billions of dollars
for school facilities. We do not use these facilities after school. We
put a lock on the door because it is 3 o'clock. So what happens? Our
kids leave those buildings and they get in trouble. Then we wonder why
we have to build more prisons for our society.
I would love to see us break this pattern of partisanship today. This
is not a program that is new. Education is not new. These programs are
out there already. They are working. If we in fact believe that our
children are important--the Boxer amendment simply says cut out travel
for the bureaucrats. They can take a little less travel. Put it into
the classroom after school. Our children face many more risks today
than our children faced when I was growing up. We know that. We know
about drugs. We know about gangs. We know about the war of after-school
hours. We know from our crime fighters that we need to get these kids
off the streets.

I want to tell you about LA's Best after-school enrichment program.
There are 5,000 students in 24 elementary schools who participate. LA's
Best children, well, they just like school a lot more. I have been
there. I have seen them. I invite anyone to go there. Some of these
schools are in tough neighborhoods and some of them are in less tough
neighborhoods. But the results of this program show that the

[[Page S3042]]

children who participate like school more. Their grades significantly
improve. They show positive behavioral changes. There is less crime at
LA's Best schools. LA's Best children feel safe.
Let's hear what the children say. We always talk here about how we
love our children. Let's hear what they say.

LA's Best is the best place to be after school. I like the
games and the work. I like going to the computer lab and I
like going to the Library. But most of all I like the people.

Another child says:

If we didn't have LA's Best, I would probably still be
going home to an empty house.

We used to call those kids latchkey children, home alone after
school.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me tell you about Sacramento START.
I will close here and reserve my time.
The children in Sacramento START are showing a 75 percent increase in
their grades because they are getting help with their homework,
tutoring and mentoring, and they feel good about their lives when they
go to Sacramento START. The homework of these children has improved--by
85 percent in quality and completion.
Why would we not step in to support these important programs? The
President has suggested in his budget that we do so, in a much larger
way. This is a small, small measure here, cutting out one-tenth of 1
percent of the Government travel budget and putting it into programs
such as Sacramento START, such as a program like we have in the
Tenderloin district in San Francisco, such as LA's Best, and give our
kids something to say yes to.
Here is the closing photograph, because to me it says it all. This is
a beautiful photograph from a program in the Tenderloin district in San
Francisco. These are kids after school, loving what they have there in
that after-school program, enjoying their life, being kept busy
learning, and it shows on their faces.
I hope we will have an overwhelming vote for this. I hope we will
break down this terrible partisanship that is dominating today and cast
a vote for our kids, cut our Government travel, go home and feel a
little bit better about what we are doing here.
I yield the floor. Actually, I will reserve the few moments that I
have.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the request could be deferred.
Mrs. BOXER. I defer that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do the proponents of the
amendment have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 1 minute 23
seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. So the Senator is yielding me 1 minute?
Mrs. BOXER. If my colleague would like to support this amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will support it because I think it is a terrific
amendment. I commend the distinguished Senator from California for her
leadership. Too many kids spend more of their waking hours without
supervision, without constructive activity, and it is only in school
that they are able to have some supervision that makes sense. As many
as 5 million kids are home alone after school each week. The prospect
of a child alone without proper supervision is sometimes too grim to
even think about when we think about those who would molest them, those
who would invade the privacy of the home, those kids who might get
their hands on a weapon. We have seen what happens there.

I want to see that this amendment carries. It puts things in proper
focus. We talk here constantly about children and about how important
they are in our lives and what it means to every one of us. Anybody who
has been a parent, a grandparent, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle, knows
about the relationships that children need and require in terms of
their growth and development.
So I support the amendment of the Senator from California. We want to
make sure there are quality after-school programs. The kids who do have
good programs can do better in their schoolwork, get along better with
their peers. I think it is a great amendment, and I want to see it pass
even modestly if it passes. It doesn't have to be overwhelming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired for the proponents. The
opponents have 15 minutes remaining.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask it be in order for Senator Specter
to proceed with an amendment that he has, and that time in opposition
to the Boxer amendment, which is 15 minutes, be retained to be used by
the opponents subsequent to the debate as agreed to heretofore on the
Specter amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. May I ask the chairman a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I know you are reserving your time to speak
on the Boxer amendment. I am hoping to get back when you do that.
Would it be possible for me to just take 1 of your 15 minutes,
because I don't know where you are going to come out on this, but just
so I can at least have 1 minute to respond?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure, when I said the opposition will have 15 minutes,
we will have 14 and we will give 1 of them to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. That is very sweet of you. I appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman. I hope maybe we are not in opposition, maybe we can come to
agreement on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 2254, as modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call amendment No. 2254.
Mr. President, before the amendment is read, I ask unanimous consent
I be permitted to modify the amendment. What I intend to do here is to
change the source of the funding for an additional $2 billion for the
National Institutes of Health. Instead of taking it from the tobacco
reserve fund--instead, to have an across-the-board cut of four-tenths
of 1 percent. That is the modification which I seek to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the modification.
Mr. SPECTER. Did I understand the distinguished Senator to say that
he had no objection to the modification?
Mr. DOMENICI. I did say that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the modification
not be read because it simply strikes certain lines, which will be
unintelligible, but the import of it is to have a four-tenths of 1
percent cut across the board.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 17, line 9, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
On page 17, line 10, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
On page 25, line 9, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I compliment the managers of the bill, especially my
distinguished colleague Senator Domenici, for his very prodigious work
on this budget and the budgets in the years that I have been here,
going back to 1981.
I offer an amendment to what Senator Domenici has done with some
trepidation, but I do so because I think it is a very important matter,
and I offer this amendment really in my capacity as chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the funding for
Health and Human Services and for the National Institutes of Health.
As I read the budget resolution with my expert staff, there is not
funding for the subcommittee to be able to add funds for the National
Institutes of Health. The distinguished chairman

[[Page S3043]]

and I have had some disagreement on the import of the budget
resolution, but as I read it, with my experts on the staff, there is
only $350 million for outlays, which would not accommodate the kind of
increase which this Senate is on record as being committed to.
Last year, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution was adopted to double NIH
funding over the next 5 years, and that has been a rallying cry and one
with which I agree. Were that standard to be met, it would mean more
than $2.5 billion a year.
Notwithstanding that amendment having been adopted for fiscal year
1998, the year we are in, when the Budget Committee returned last
year's budget, the health account was cut by $100 million. Therefore,
Senator Harkin, my distinguished ranking member on the subcommittee,
and I had set a target of a 7.5 percent increase for NIH, which is a
good bit below the doubling over 5 years. We thought that was all we
could afford.
We then offered an amendment, similar to the one now being offered,
for an across-the-board cut to enable us to increase NIH funding by
$1.1 billion. That amendment was defeated 63 to 37, so that when it
came to expressing our druthers, or our preferences, we were very
generous as a Senate body, and said we would double NIH funding over 5
years, or more than $2.5 billion a year. But when it came time to
specify where the money was going to come from and have a hard dollar
amount, that was defeated, as I say, 63 to 37. We are very generous
with our druthers, but we are not very generous with our dollars.
We had a hearing, coincidentally, just yesterday in our regular
quarter for the experts at the National Institutes of Health to come in
and testify about the grants which are made, about 28 percent of those
which are offered, and there would be a very, very substantial
additional number of grants awarded if the additional funds were there.
We have a total budget of $1.7 trillion. I believe that it is a
matter of assessing our priorities. It is my submission in this
amendment, with my distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, that
we ought to up the ante by at least $2 billion. I know that when it
comes across the board, it is goring a lot of oxen, and there will be
many who will object because it comes out of their funds. If we are
going to articulate our priority for NIH, then we ought to put our
money where our mouths are and put up the money to actually fund it.
I changed the thrust of the amendment, as noted, to move away from
the tobacco reserve fund, because that is a giant pot we are talking
about on the tobacco settlement, but I think it is pie in the sky. It
is questionable, speculative, and perhaps doubtful that those funds
will be realized.
In making the plans for our subcommittee, I want to know where we
stand. That is why we are talking about hard dollars in this amendment.
It is not too hard to say, ``Well, we'll get it from the tobacco
reserve fund, because it really is highly speculative as to whether it
will ever exist.''
I believe that with the identification of many of the genes by the
National Institutes of Health, we are on the brink of conquering
cancer, on the brink of conquering Alzheimer's, on the brink of
conquering Parkinson's, on the brink of conquering heart disease, on
the brink of conquering AIDS, on the brink of conquering many of the
maladies which afflict mankind, but it takes dollars.
When you allow 28 percent of the grants, that means 72 percent of the
doors are closed; 72 percent which are not allowed. If we open those
doors, I think we will be enormously productive in seeing to it that we
make the maximum effort to pursue breast cancer and prostate cancer and
cervical cancer and Alzheimer's and a long list of maladies which
confront us at the present time.
That is the essence of the amendment, Mr. President. I know my
distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, wishes some time, so let me
inquire at this point how much time is left on the 15 minutes of
allocation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Eight minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will have printed in the Record a
``Dear Colleague'' letter on the amendment which I had intended to
offer, as I described earlier, opening the tobacco reserve to permit it
to be used for biomedical research. This letter was circulated on March
31, 1998, cosigned by Senator Harkin, Senator Boxer, Senator Hollings,
and myself. We had a list of some 18 cosponsors to Senate Resolution
170, which was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which I had submitted
earlier in the session.
It had been my intention to have a freestanding sense-of-the-Senate
resolution to increase NIH funding by $2 billion. I had made an effort,
with the cooperation of our distinguished majority leader, to have that
listed as a freestanding resolution which I had hoped to bring to a
vote before the budget resolution came up. We had anticipated voting on
it on Monday or Tuesday, but it was not cleared. So we did not have an
opportunity to bring up that resolution.
The point of the resolution was to see how many people would say, as
a matter of druthers or sense of the Senate, that they would support
it, and contrast it to the number of people who would support the hard-
dollar transfer. I do not know--the budget resolution moves so fast--
how many more of the 18 who are cosponsors of Senate Resolution 170,
which is sense of the Senate, will join here. These four Senators on
this letter support increasing biomedical research by $2 billion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the ``Dear Colleague'' letter to which I referred.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, March 31, 1998.
Dear Colleague: We intend to offer an amendment to expand
the tobacco reserve fund to permit funding to be used for
biomedical research. In addition this amendment would also
expand the reserve to allow funds to be used for anti-tobacco
education and prevention, counter-advertising, smoking
cessation, transition assistance programs for tobacco
farmers, and other public health research and prevention
programs. The Senate is on record regarding doubling the
funding over the next five years for the National Institutes
of Health. To do that would require an average annual
increase of $2.7 billion. This amendment would make it
possible to increase funding for biomedical research by
$2,000,000,000 as the first lesser step in reaching the goal
of doubling the National Institutes of Health.
In the past few years, this nation has seen dramatic
research developments that are offering great promise for
developing treatments for a host of diseases. These
developments have been made possible because Congress has
year after year increased the funding to fight the war
against disease.
There has never been broader bi-partisan support for
comprehensive tobacco legislation. We therefore urge our
colleagues to join with us in supporting this amendment as
the first step toward adopting a tobacco reserve fund which
can accommodate enactment of historic legislation to protect
the health of this nation.
Sincerely,
Tom Harkin,
Ernest Hollings,
Arlen Specter.
Barbara Boxer.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a budget year when the total
amount of money available for discretionary spending out of which the
NIH is funded was agreed to last year in the bipartisan budget
agreement. It is a total dollar number for all of the Government that
is not entitlement programs.
So it is for education, it is to run the agencies of our Federal
Government, it is for the money the IRS needs to pay its workers, and
on and on.
While it is very close to a freeze this year, there is an additional
budget authority of $1.9 billion year over year and an additional $6.1
billion in outlays, about one-half percent. For those who say this
portion of Government is growing dramatically, for the next 4 years,
because of the agreement, it will be growing at about this amount or
less, literally close to a freeze for a sum total of 4 additional
years. Very tough.
Nonetheless--nonetheless--the President of the United States, in the
President's budget, provided some restraint

[[Page S3044]]

by way of reductions in expenditures. I will just go through to give
you examples. The President's budget, in function 150, international
affairs, reduced that total function by $530 million; function 300,
that is the environment, a $260 million reduction; function 350,
agriculture, $240 million; function 370, housing and commerce, that is
$640 million; function 400, a $1.25 billion reduction.
They go on all the way through. And the sum total in cuts is $7.83
billion. That means the President provided room for programs that he
wanted and reduced these. What we have done in our budget resolution is
we have taken these reductions but we have given different priorities
to how we would spend the money.
I want to say to my good friend, Senator Specter, there is no one
here who, when it comes right down to being in the trenches where you
provide money for NIH, there is nobody who has been more of a leader
than he. And, frankly, his subcommittee, which covers a myriad of
programs--education, NIH, and on and on--is a subcommittee that is
constantly under pressure.
I am not going to suggest, as some, that it always needs more and
more money. Rather, I will say it is under difficult pressure because
of the kinds of programs they have to fund. Having said that, in the
budget resolution, where we have some responsibility to establish
priorities, somebody else follows us and perhaps can change some, but
we know that their subcommittee has most of the priorities that we are
for and that he would like to fund. There is no other function with
more priorities, other than perhaps the function of defense, which
stands there singularly all the time.
What we did, we funded that program, because of its being a priority,
by increasing significantly the NIH assumption for expenditures. We
also increased in that function education because we knew that from the
Republican standpoint we wanted to fund the disability program in
education, and we wanted to fund some flexibility programs for the
States so they could do some things on their own, being relieved of
some mandates that we had given them.
In that alignment and that set of determining where we spend money
and with that backdrop, we have provided in this budget resolution a
larger increase in NIH, in the assumption for NIH--the assumption; the
budget resolution isn't binding--we have provided the largest increase
of any domestic program that is appropriated. That amount is $1.5
billion in the first year. That is an 11 percent increase. Then, in
estimating our assumptions for the remaining 4 years, we increase that
a total of $15.5 billion for the premier institution researching health
in the world--the American National Institutes of Health.
We do not determine in the budget resolution which of the numerous
NIH activities get what amount of money. I have been to the
subcommittee with the distinguished chairman presiding, making a very
strong, strong pitch that we put more money in researching mental
illness. He recalls that. We were able over the years to raise those
kinds of institutes to a level of funding where I can give you two or
three which are now on the cutting edge again and which have excited
young scientists and the very best to get into fields they might not
have that are critical to our solving some of the enormous problems of
the suffering of human beings, not only Americans but humans.

So I am an advocate. But I guess I would say, in a tight budget,
``Enough is enough.'' And $1.5 billion is enough; $15.5 billion over 5
years is enough. And I cannot do any better. I cannot make the funding
any more sure in a budget resolution than I have done in this budget
resolution. If Senator Specter is to prevail, we cannot assure anyone
that the desired level of NIH funding will be what Senator Specter
assumes by his amendment, because he is once again going to be back
into the competition of taking all the money that his committee gets,
and deciding among hundreds of programs how much the NIH gets. So that
is one side of this coin.
Now, with every coin, there are two sides. When you add, you have to
take away. Because the distinguished Senator did not try to break the
budget. He did not try to break the caps, because he pledged last
year--and he kept his pledge--that we would stay on this path of a
balanced budget and the caps.
There are some who would like to break the caps for any good
proposal. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is not doing
that. He is saying, let us cut other domestic programs to pay for the
new increase over and above the $1.5 billion that we provided. And the
Senator included defense in the .4 percent cut. So defense gets cut
across the board, and domestic programs get cut across the board. So
defense gets cut $1.1 billion over 1 year in order to pay for this $2
billion increase. I will just tick off some so everybody knows. The
veterans get a $76 million reduction; the environment gets an $89
million reduction; agriculture, because it is smaller, gets a $17
million reduction; transportation, $160 million; and on and on.
It may very well be that the U.S. Senate today wants to say, in
addition to what the budget resolution contains, with all the other
programs being restrained dramatically, that in order to give it $2
billion more, we ought to do these things, including cutting defense
$1.1 billion. I do not believe the Senate will do that. But if they
choose to do that, then obviously the appropriators will have to give
that every consideration. I do not see how we can do the defense one,
because we are already having a very difficult time meeting the defense
needs with the numbers that are in the budget and the firewall that
protects.
Let me just share a thought with the distinguished Senator. I say to
Senator Specter, you said you want to do this to defense also. I would
like you to think about that, because if you do, then I believe the
firewall prevails and you may have a supermajority requirement. But I
leave that to you; that is not for me.
Having said what I have said, I do not want to detract from the fact
that the National Institutes of Health are a fabulous community of the
best scientists in the world. When you really look at what they are
doing, they are on a course to cure many, many aspects of human
suffering and human disease. When you add to what they are doing in the
normal research, you add something like the genome mapping, the mapping
of all the chromosomes of the human body, and those are being looked at
in terms of their relationship to disease. You have a formidable group
of scientists and research equipment moving in a path of, perhaps, what
may be called the generation yet to come, which will be a wellness
generation. That could be, when the dread diseases are no more.

So I don't want to sound like this is just a typical entity. It is a
very prominent and important one. I do believe, consistent with limited
resources and because we have to tax our people, we have limited
resources. Some think they are taxed too much already. I believe the
budget resolution treats this formidable research community fairly
well.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and a half minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the
distinguished chairman, Senator Harkin has made a request to have 5
minutes reserved and he is at another hearing. I wonder if we might
accommodate him at a later time.
Mr. DOMENICI. You have 5 minutes remaining?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will try to work it in.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator
Domenici, for his comments. He has enumerated programs which will be
cut. It is a matter of priorities.
When he has recited there is an assumption of $1.5 billion for the
National Institutes of Health, I have to disagree, because the Budget
Committee assumes only an outlay increase of $350 million over the
level from fiscal year 1998. There are also increases in education and
child care programs. So there could not possibly be an increase at NIH
with an increase of only $350 million in outlays.
As Senator Domenici has recited a number of cuts, let me just recite
a

[[Page S3045]]

partial list of the people who come to me as chairman of this
subcommittee, who want increases in funding for breast cancer, cervical
cancer, colon cancer, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes--
including juvenile diabetes--kidney ailments, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, scleroderma, epilepsy, heart
disease, prostate cancer, pulmonary disorders, AIDS, osteoporosis,
Huntington's disease, to mention only a few.
The fact is that many Senators receive awards from Alzheimer's or
Parkinson's or AIDS, et cetera. This is a matter of priority, pure and
simple.
Senator Domenici is a valued member of the committee. He and I sit
next to each other on the Appropriations Committee, have for years, and
he comes and talks about mental illness programs. We have accommodated
that as a very high priority. That is what the Senator has to do,
establish the priorities. I say that it is worth the four-tenths of 1
percent cut across the board for this high priority for the National
Institutes of Health.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent the 3 minutes remaining in opposition and 5 minutes remaining
by the proponent be retained subsequent to the debate on the Kennedy
amendment, which will start now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2183

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is the Kennedy
amendment numbered 2183.
The Senator has 15 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
This sense of the Senate is very, very simple and, I believe,
extraordinarily compelling. I find it difficult to understand why it
would not be accepted.
I think the best way to really explain it is to go through the
amendment itself, because it is so simple and so compelling. All we are
saying is that it is a sense of the Senate that we should pass a
patient's bill of rights.
It says that Congress finds that patients lack reliable information
about health plans and the quality of care that health plans provide.
We have had demonstrated this through a number of different hearings in
the Labor Committee and in other Committees. Secondly, it says that
experts agree that the quality of health care can be substantially
improved, resulting in less illness and less premature death. We have
heard this statement or similar statements from the business community,
from the provider community, in hearings before the Presidential
Commission and the Labor Committee, and in many peer-reviewed journal
articles written by experts in the field of quality measurement and
improvement. No one can argue with this finding.

Third, this amendment finds that some managed care plans have created
obstacles for patients who need to see specialists on an ongoing basis
and that some have required women to get permission from their primary
care physician before seeing a gynecologist. These were central
findings, again, of the President's Commission on the Quality of Health
Care and, again, these rights are overwhelmingly supported by the
American people and by the doctors and other professionals who care for
them.
Fourth, this amendment finds that a majority of consumers believe
that health plans compromise their quality of care to save money. One
study shows an astonishing 80 percent of the American people have
reached that conclusion. All you have to do is see the movie ``As Good
As It Gets,'' and see Helen Hunt's extraordinary performance. Attend
any movie theater in this country if you have any questions on this
particular issue, and they will be resolved.
Fifth, this amendment finds that the Federal preemption under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 prevents States from
enforcing protections for 125 million workers and their families
receiving health insurance through the employer-based group health
plans. This factual statement has been repeatedly confirmed by the U.S.
Department of Labor and by the courts. In fact, Federal judges have
pleaded with Congress to fix ERISA. State insurance commissioners see
these problems on a daily basis, but their hands are tied with respect
to these plans. There is no reason at all to maintain this special
exclusion for one group of health plans. Those who make medical
decisions that result in death or injury must be held accountable for
those decisions.
Sixth, Mr. President, the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection
and Quality in the Health Care Industry has unanimously recommended a
patient's bill of rights to protect patients against abuses by health
plans and health insurers. Let me repeat this--the President's
Commission, which included representation from health plans,
corporations, consumers, providers and others, unanimously recommended
that each patient be accorded the protections reported in their Bill of
Rights. Regardless of whether they receive their health insurance
through an employer or on their own.
So, this sense of the Senate says that the assumption underlying this
resolution provides for enactment of legislation to establish a
patient's bill of rights for participants in health plans. Then, Mr.
President, we point out very briefly exactly what those protections
ought to be, and if there are Members in the Senate who want to differ
with these, I welcome the opportunity to debate those or discuss them.
This amendment says that our legislation should include the following
provisions.
First, a guarantee of access to covered services, including emergency
care, specialty care, gynecological care for women, and prescription
drugs. Does anyone really dispute that we ought to be able to ensure
patients have access to the coverage and health care that they have
paid for?
Second, provisions to ensure the special needs of women are met,
including protecting women from being forced to endure drive-through
mastectomies. There are more than half a dozen Members of the Senate
who have various pieces of legislation to address that particular need.
This sense of the Senate refers to those efforts.
Third, provisions to ensure the special needs of children are met,
including access to pediatric specialists and centers of pediatric
excellence.
Mr. President, this is an extremely important and significant need.
All you have to do is listen to parents and pediatricians. Senator Reed
is a leader in this particular issue. We know the kinds of challenges
that exist, particularly for newborn babies. It used to be that 90
percent of the kinds of health difficulties that newborns faced were
excluded from any coverage of health insurance.
Some insurance forms say any particular needs of a child that occur
within the first 10 days of life ``will be outside the coverage of this
insurance policy.'' The fact of the matter is that 90 percent of the
difficulties occur during that period of time. But so many mothers do
not know that. We are still facing very, very important needs in terms
of protecting children in this country.
Four, provisions to ensure that special needs of individuals with
disabilities and the chronically ill are met, including the possibility
of standing referrals to specialists or the ability to have specialists
act as the primary care provider.
Forcing a patient who has a legitimate need to see a specialist to
jump through extra hoops before every appointment is counter-productive
and more expensive in the long run. Persons with disabilities and
chronic illnesses face these kinds of challenges every single day. They
can cite chapter and verse about the various exclusions and barriers
they face--not just physical barriers, but barriers put up by their
health insurance. They have special needs and they need special
protections.
Five, a procedure to hold health plans accountable for decisions and
a procedure to provide for appeal of a health care decision to an
independent impartial reviewer.
This is to make sure that when these accountants in many of the
insurance companies say ``no'' to a patient--say that they are not
entitled to that particular health care service--there is an appeal
procedure that can bring about a timely and independent decision. I
won't take the time now, nor do I have the time, to point out the
number of

[[Page S3046]]

individuals who have lost their lives or been permanently disabled
because the plan's accountant or an insurance executive turned thumbs
down on a procedure recommended by the treating physician.
Six, measures to protect the integrity of the physician-patient
relationship, including a ban on gag clauses and on improper incentive
arrangements.
We have had testimony time and again that says that doctors cannot
tell the patients about all of their options because the plan denies
them the chance to do so. That is absolutely, completely wrong. We have
other instances where doctors have moved ahead and prescribed expensive
treatment, only to effectively be dropped from the panels of various
HMO's. We want to protect the physicians in these circumstances. We
want to permit the physicians to be able to do what they should be able
to do, and that is to be able to practice medicine to the best of their
abilities.
Finally, measures to provide greater information about health plans
to patients and improve quality care.
Mr. President, that is the sum and substance of this amendment. I
really question how anyone can take issue with the findings and how
anyone can take issue with the kinds of protections that we believe
ought to be accepted by the Senate and included in a patients' bill of
rights.
This particular measure has the strong support of the American
Medical Association, and of the AFL-CIO. It has the support of the
National Breast Cancer Coalition; it has the support of Families USA;
it has the support of the mental health community, including the
National Alliance for Mental Illness, the National Mental Health
Association and the American Psychological Association; it has the
support of the Consumers Union and countless other consumer and patient
groups representing hundreds of thousands of people.
So I hope that we can have this measure accepted as a sense of the
Senate on this budget, and then we will go about the business of
debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate the actual legislation that
incorporates these provisions. If some Senators have better ideas and
they want to adjust or change something, we will have the opportunity
to do so. But let's go on record at this time, on this occasion, to say
that we want to make sure that the patients in this country are going
to be guaranteed the kind of protections that we would want for every
member of our families, and that we are going to put health care needs
first, rather than the bottom line of the health insurance industry.
Let's say that we are going to permit our doctors, not industry
accountants, to practice medicine.

Mr. President, I withhold the rest of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the proponents'
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes remain.
Mr. DOMENICI. There is a total of 15 on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Don Nickles is on the way. I want to discuss
the issue a little bit with the Senate.
Mr. President, my good friend, the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, said that he doesn't know how anyone could disagree with
these findings--the findings of a national commission appointed by the
President. Well, just so everyone understands, the very commission made
the findings, and then the commission itself split on whether they
should be put in law or not. So I say, with reference to a sense of the
Senate and whether we ought to adopt them in law, at least we ought to
start with the premise that half of a commission was concerned about
the broad picture of health care costs in America and other things and
suggested that perhaps it would be better not to put them in law but to
handle them some other way.
Let me talk a little bit about the upside of what is going on in
America with reference to health care costs during this very short era
when we have moved away from fee for service toward managed care and
HMOs. In doing that, let me hearken back to the joy that permeates this
body and the American people when they hear that we have the budget
under control. We are in an era of balance.
Mr. President, it is almost unequivocal that had we not gone to
managed care and HMOs, we would not be celebrating a balanced budget
today. That is because under the other system--and I note that the
doctors support regulating HMOs more--but under the doctor system, up,
up and away went the costs. We had 3 or 4 years when the Federal
Government's accounts that paid for health care were going up,
compounded in double digits every year, which meant that in short order
you would not be able to pay for Medicare, you would not be able to
afford Medicaid because, even if we had the ability to borrow and
borrow and incur debt, the States would not have been able to pay for
it. So let's make sure that everybody understands this short era of
moving to managed care and HMOs has brought within the reach of many,
many Americans and many American businesses health care coverage they
could not have afforded under the old system.
As a matter of fact, it was interesting. As I listened to my friend
from Massachusetts, I thought about a couple of speeches I gave when we
were talking about our not being competitive with Japan on automobiles.
I was able to say to audiences that one of the reasons we are not
competitive is because the automobile is carrying around in the trunk
four times the health care costs the Japanese car is, because our
health costs were so enormous as compared with theirs. I am not
suggesting theirs is as good as ours, but neither am I suggesting that
ours is four times better than theirs.
So I think when we talk about tying HMOs and managed care into some
kind of rigidity in an effort to solve some problems that may be solved
otherwise, we better be careful as to how much we do and how much we
mandate versus how much we handle in other ways in an effort to get
quality.
I also indicate, just by way of an observation, that it is a lot
easier to find the shortcomings of HMOs and managed care than it was
the old system, because this one is all focused in on management
running a system. Before, it was hundreds and hundreds of doctors. To
be able to focus on the lack of quality care is much easier. That works
both ways. It is good because it calls it to our attention. But it
ought to be easier to get quality care than it was before without
having to write it into rigid law.
I note the presence of my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma.
I want to close by just saying that before we make it so impossible
for managed care and health care to control costs within reason and
deliver health care, everybody should understand that whatever we do we
ought to get quality at the best price. We ought not get quality at the
expense of those who are paying for it, and at the expense of the U.S.
Government. That is what I think ultimately we should do when we get
down to trying to legislate. This isn't legislating. It is just us
giving our opinion and our ideas as a Senate. When it comes right down
to it, that is what we are going to be talking about sincerely in our
committees and on the floor.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. On the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution. Members of the
Senate and the House often wonder about America and the districts and
States, and try to perceive the issues that American families really
care about. I invite the Members of the Senate to go to the movie
theater and see ``As Good As It Gets,'' with the top actor award

[[Page S3047]]

going to Jack Nicholson and the top actress award going to Helen Hunt.
At one point in this movie, Helen Hunt, the mother of an asthmatic
child, vents on her beliefs about HMOs and managed care. Do you know
what happens in movie theaters across America? They break out in
applause--applauding the fact that this poor woman on the screen is
struggling with an asthmatic child and is caught up with the
bureaucracy of managed care.
I will concede the point made by the Senator from New Mexico. Managed
care is designed to reduce costs. The people who manage these systems
are trying to reduce costs, reduce services, and, of course, maximize
their profits. The resolution offered by the Senator from Massachusetts
looks at it from the perspective of the patient, of the family, and of
the physician. Are we going to speak to that as well?
This goes beyond the bottom line. This goes to a basic question. If I
go into a doctor's office with my wife, myself, or one of my children,
can I trust that doctor giving me advice based on his medical education
and the science that he has available? Or is he telling me that the
option for my family is one dictated by some manual, some code, some
book out of a managed care office in some part of the country that
bears no relationship to my personal need?
That is what this is about--the trust that we need to restore so
patients seeing doctors know they are getting medical advice and not
insurance recommendations.
Second, accountability--that these managed care plans are held
accountable. Today, they dictate to doctors what they will do, the
procedures that are allowed, where they will take place, and how long
they will last. Forget the patient. We are talking about the bottom
line. When they make a mistake--and sometimes these mistakes are
fatal--they are not held accountable under the law.
What Senator Kennedy is suggesting here is not only restoring the
trust between doctors and patients but also restoring accountability in
the system. So that when the managed care clerk off somewhere in Omaha,
NE, pages through the manual to decide your fate in that hospital bed
they are held accountable--not just for the bottom line but what
happens to your health, your family, and your future.
I am glad we are having this debate. I think this is just the opening
salvo.
For those who think everybody is rosy in America, American families
could care less, and managed care is all perfect, please take a trip to
the movie theater and see ``As Good As It Gets.''
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Pennsylvania and the remainder of my time to Senator
Nickles following that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
I would just suggest that if you went to a movie theater you would
not see a Government-regulated movie because no one would go to it
because it would be of such poor quality. It would be so burdened down
by bureaucracy and red tape, because it simply could not produce the
quality that the free market produces.
There have been dramatic changes in health care. This continues every
day. I met the other day with the chairman of the national board that
certifies health care plans. She told me they are constantly updating
quality standards, constantly updating to see whether patients are
getting the kind of care and access through these plans that are
certified. It is important to let this dynamic system of health care
operate in the system of the free market which has brought us so far.
Do not burden it down with all sorts of bells and whistles and
bureaucracies and red tape that will just stifle innovation, stifle
quality, stifle progress in medicine, result in more uninsured, result
in less comprehensive care. This is about patients.
Look, I am not a great fan of managed health care. But I am a fan of
the marketplace working and getting the response. I would suspect that
the Senator from Illinois knows that there are managers of health care
companies who probably saw that movie. In fact, they didn't have to see
that movie. For years, they have been coming to my office--and I know
offices around this Capitol--and they have been going out in America
getting the message. The Senator is right. A lot of people are upset
about managed care. I am not a big fan of it, but I understand that, in
time, the marketplace, the employers, and the employees will work much
more effectively through that place in changing the system to produce
quality where people will go somewhere else. Employers will go
somewhere else. In fact, they are already. It is working out there. It
takes time.
What we don't need to freeze in place is some Government standard
implemented by a bunch of bureaucrats who take 4 years to implement
regulations to control something that is already out of date. Let the
dynamism work. Don't put the hand of the Federal Government over the
system that has improved the quality of health care so dramatically for
so many millions of people. Allow that system to continue to improve.
Allow that system to continue to grow to serve more people more
compassionately. Yes; there are problems. But don't add the ultimate
problem--Government suffocation to a dynamic system where ``change'' is
the operative word of the day.
Senator Kennedy suggests that his bill is supported by the
President's commission. His hand-picked commission does not support the
legislation that the Senator has proposed. He would give you that
impression. They recommended no legislation. They recommended the
marketplace. It is in the process of working. It is working. In many
areas it is working, and will continue to work. Managed care is still a
relatively new thing.
Again, I repeat. I am not a big fan of managed care. But it is new.
It is improving. Like any new product, it takes time to work out the
bugs and to get to the point where they are doing the kind of customer
satisfaction and quality that we need. But the last thing we need is to
put the Government in charge of health care plans, the Government in
charge of regulating what is quality and what is not. Oh, my goodness.
Compare any private sector organization on quality. Compare what goes
on at HCFA, at the IRS, or a whole variety of other agencies. Are we
now, in Government, the arbiters of quality? Think about that. Do you
really want the Government of the United States through their
regulation process to dictate to you what quality is? I don't think so.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
Kennedy amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that we
should pass legislation establishing a patients' bill of rights.
Mr. President, legislation to reform the way health plans often treat
patients is long overdue. The integrity of the doctor-patient
relationship is being whittled away, and that must be stopped. For
example, many health plans have gagged their doctors, preventing them
from presenting their patients with all possible treatment options.
That's wrong.
Mr. President, Democrats have introduced a bill that would remedy
many of the problems that consumers are facing in their managed care
health plans. Our bill would put an end to drive-through mastectomies.
It would ensure that individuals with disabilities and others with
special needs have direct access to specialists. And it would ensure
that children have access to pediatric centers of excellence.
Mr. President, the American people are demanding that we enact a
managed care reform bill this year. And that's exactly what Senator
Kennedy's amendment promises we will do. I commend the Senator for
offering his amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want the record to show that while I
am not supporting the Kennedy amendment, I am supportive of many of the
principles behind this amendment. I took the lead in sponsoring
legislation (S. 701) last year to provide Medicare beneficiaries with
consumer protections such as: (1) detailed comparative information and
access to a 1-800 number for Medicare beneficiaries to choose the best
health plan; (2) an expedited appeals process for urgent cases; (3) a
prohibition on gag clauses that restrict patient/physician
communications; (4) access to specialty care when needed, with special
attention to the chronically ill; and (5) limits on the

[[Page S3048]]

use of financial incentives by managed care plans. Many of these
provisions were enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Often,
Medicare sets the example for the private sector, and this is my hope.
I believe consumers should have good information about their health
plans; that they should have protections in place for a fair and timely
appeals process; that they should have access to specialty care when
needed; and that physicians should be able to discuss all treatment
options with their patients.
Regulating the private sector is more difficult because regulations
cost money. These costs are shifted onto employers and ultimately
employees. I will want to evaluate proposed legislation based on the
impact this will have on employees' health benefits. I do not want to
do anything to increase the number of uninsured, which is as much as 41
million Americans who lack health coverage. I commend my colleague from
Massachusetts for raising this important issue, but as we all know
``the devil is in the details.'' I would like this issue to be debated
and for legislation to be proposed and analyzed thoroughly for any
unintended consequences to ensure that we are not doing more harm than
good. We cannot afford to increase the number of uninsured and must be
careful not to hurt those that currently have coverage.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Your side has 5 minutes. The other side has 4
minutes.
Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Generally speaking, Mr. President, the proponents should
go last.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be happy to go. We generally
alternate back and forth. It doesn't make any difference.
Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy amendment.
At a certain point I will be offering a second-degree amendment.
Senator Kennedy's amendment--maybe I should read from it. It is a
sense of the Senate that Congress should pass the bill called the
``Consumer Bill of Rights,'' I believe.
Now, I might mention the Senator introduced this bill 2 nights ago. I
have a copy of the bill which was introduced, the companion bill which
is in the House. It is 68 pages. It is the Federal Government getting
involved in many areas that possibly my colleagues haven't had a chance
to examine. I know this bill has only been introduced for a couple
days, but it is a pretty far-reaching bill. It is a bill that treats
private plans differently than union plans. It is a bill that says we
in Government know best. It is a bill that has lots and lots of
mandates. It is a bill that will increase the cost of health care. It
is a bill that does not track the President's Commission on Quality
Care.
I met with some of the Commission on Quality Care just recently. They
didn't have a consensus to legislate. As a matter of fact, there was a
push by the administration and others that we need to legislate a
patients' bill of rights. But that was not the consensus of the
commission. As a matter of fact, the commission did not recommend
legislation. Yet even though the commission, which studied this issue
for 10 months, didn't recommend legislation, here comes a bill, 68
pages, and now, without even having the ink dry on the bill, we have
people saying let's pass this.
It has a great title. I agree it is a great title. I compliment my
colleague from Massachusetts. Boy, any time you say something has a
bill of rights, it has to be good. Unfortunately, the closer you look
at this legislation, it is not good. I don't think it is good if you
increase costs for patients. I don't think it is good if you increase
Federal mandates. I don't think it is good if you increase costs to
where a lot of people cannot afford insurance. And I don't think there
is a relationship between increasing regulations and increasing
quality. As a matter of fact, it may be inversely related; you may have
more Federal regulations and more money and resources that health care
providers have, and instead of using those for providing quality, they
are going to be using them to provide for compliance and health care
quality goes down.
So while I compliment my colleague from Massachusetts for having a
great title on this proposal that is only 2 days old, I don't think the
Congress should be committing itself to passing it. I think it would be
a serious mistake.
I might mention, this is not just the Senator from Oklahoma saying
this. I am looking at health care providers who have serious
reservations. I will just give you one example. This is a quote from
the American Hospital Association regarding the bill which was recently
introduced:

However, the President's quality commission confirmed there
is no consensus that Federal legislation introduced today by
House and Senate Democrats is the way to achieve these best
objectives. The AHA believes the private sector can and must
meet the challenge to protect consumers and improving the
quality of care. Federal legislation should be considered
only if all private sector efforts fail.

We have not even given them a chance. We are saying we know best and
we are going to mandate it. We are going to dictate it.
Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I am absolutely appalled at the response of our friends and
colleagues on the other side. First of all, the President's panel
unanimously said that these rights ought to be available to every
American consumer, No. 1.
Now, what good does it do to have a right if you don't have a remedy?
That is like saying we are for the Bill of Rights but we don't want to
put it in the Constitution. Come on, Senators. You have to have a
better answer than that. It doesn't hold up.
No. 2, this is not our legislation; this is a sense-of-the-Senate. I
listened to my friend from Pennsylvania. He is talking about a slogan,
not a program. What does he object to in here? Do you object to drive-
by mastectomies? Do you object to making sure that women are going to
have gynecological and obstetrical care? If you do, let's say it. Do
you object to being able to get the best information and not have your
doctor gagged?

This is what is in this amendment. This is what is important, not
just some gray areas. So let's respond to what is in this sense-of-the-
Senate. We have outlined it. It incorporates what the President's
commission unanimously recommended should be available to every single
consumer.
That is all we are saying--no specific legislation but extending it
to every consumer. And if you think it is bureaucratic to say we are
not going to permit health care plans to deny you at the emergency room
when you have chest pains and are short of breath and may be having a
heart attack, then go and defend that position.
Ask any consumer in this country. Ask any woman in this country. Ask
any disabled person in this country. They are entitled to the best that
their particular policy has guaranteed.
Finally, Mr. President, I am not going to yield to anyone about
defending HMOs. I introduced the legislation and passed it in 1974. I
supported it. We passed it five times here, and I led the fight for it.
All I want to do is to make sure that all of the HMOs are going to
live up to what the best of the HMOs are living up to today. The best
of the HMOs today support this. They support our resolution. We just
want to make sure that every HMO is going to provide that kind of
protection for the consumers they have enlisted and whose premiums they
are accepting and using to pay very substantial salaries to their
executives.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Just a couple of comments.
My colleague said that the President's Commission on Quality endorses
these proposals, but they specifically did not endorse legislation.
There is a big difference. Do we want to encourage the private sector
to improve quality and access and information? You bet. But when you
come up with a 68-page bill and say here is what you must do, there is
a difference. The President's commission did not say legislate. The
Senator's sense-of-the-Senate says legislate. The underlying sense-of-

[[Page S3049]]

the-Senate resolution provides for enactment of legislation to
establish a patients' bill of rights which was just introduced 2 days
ago that will increase health care costs. I think that is a serious
mistake.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. No, not on my time. I only have a minute left.
So I just make the comment that people can talk about these goals. I
will agree with the goals. But when you try to mandate them by
legislation, saying that we know better, that we are going to dictate
to the Mayo Clinic, here is what you must do, we are going to dictate
to the Cleveland clinic; we know better, Congress knows better, the
Senator from Massachusetts knows better, we are going to dictate it by
legislation, I disagree. I do not think that will improve quality. I
think it would be a serious mistake.
I urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to vote no on the
Kennedy amendment, and I will offer a second-degree amendment shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 25
seconds remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much remains on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Their time has expired.

Amendment No. 2281 to Amendment No. 2183

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the enactment
of a patient's bill of rights)

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and
send the amendment to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Parliamentary inquiry. I believe time has to expire
before the Senator can send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded back his time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.
Mr. NICKLES. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts had the floor.
He yielded his time back and sent the amendment to the desk.
Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the second-degree amendment of the Senator
from Massachusetts is the pending business.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2281 to Amendment No. 2183.

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

Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING A PATIENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) patients lack reliable information about health plans
and the quality of care that health plans provide;
(2) experts agree that the quality of health care can be
substantially improved, resulting in less illness and less
premature death;
(3) some managed care plans have created obstacles for
patients who need to see specialists on an ongoing basis and
have required that women get permission from their primary
care physician before seeing a gynecologist;
(4) a majority of consumers believe that health plans
compromise their quality of care to save money;
(5) Federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 prevents States from enforcing
protections for the 125,000,000 workers and their families
receiving health insurance through employment-based group
health plans; and
(6) the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and
Quality in the Health Care Industry has unanimously
recommended a patient bill of rights to protect patients
against abuses by health plan and health insurance issuers.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense Senate that the
assumptions underlying this resolution provide for the
enactment of legislation to establish a patient's bill of
rights for participants in health plans, and that legislation
should include--
(1) a guarantee of access to covered services, including
needed emergency care, specialty care, obstetrical and
gynecological care for women, and prescription drugs;
(2) provisions to ensure that the special needs of women
are met, including protecting women against ``drive-through
mastectomies'';
(3) provisions to ensure that the special needs of children
are met, including access to pediatric specialists and
centers of pediatric excellence;
(4) provisions to ensure that the special needs of
individuals with disabilities and the chronically ill are
met, including the possibility of standing referrals to
specialists or the ability to have a specialist act as a
primary care provider;
(5) a procedure to hold health plans accountable for their
decisions and to provide for the appeal of a decision of a
health plan to deny care to an independent, impartial
reviewer;
(6) measures to protect the integrity of the physician-
patient relationship, including a ban on ``gag clauses'' and
a ban on improper incentive arrangements; and
(7) measures to provide greater information about health
plans to patients and to improve the quality of care.
(8) a requirement that the network of providers included in
the plan are adequate to ensure the provision of services
covered by the plan.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 20 minutes of debate divided
equally on the amendment.
Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the other side wants to yield back
their time, I am prepared to yield time and move ahead to a rollcall
vote on this.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Otherwise we will have a long quorum call, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield back
time?
Mr. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 2282

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning health care
quality)

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to consideration of the
amendment?
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I had understood, there had been
representations that were made that the Senator from Oklahoma would be
able to get a vote on his amendment and then we would go ahead with a
vote on my amendment, the Kennedy-Durbin-Boxer amendment. That is my
understanding. If my understanding is correct, I have no objection. Is
that the----
Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has sent to the desk
an amendment. If there is no objection, the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an
amendment numbered 2282.

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:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE QUALITY.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Rapid changes in the health care marketplace have
compromised confidence in the our Nation's health system.
(2) American consumers want more convenience, fewer
hassles, more choices, and better service from their health
insurance plans.
(3) All Americans deserve quality-driven health care
supported by sound science and evidence-based medicine.
(4) The Federal Government, through the National Institutes
of Health, supports research that improves the quality of
medical care that Americans receive.
(5) This resolution assumes increased funding for the
National Institutes of Health for

[[Page S3050]]

1999 of $15,100,000,000, an 11-percent increase over current
funding levels, which are 7 percent higher than in 1997.
(6) As the largest purchaser of health care services, the
Federal Government has a responsibility to utilize its
purchasing power to demand high quality health plans and
providers for its health programs and to protect its
beneficiaries from inferior medical care.
(7) The Federal Government must adopt the posture of
private sector purchasers and insist on high quality care for
the 67,000,000 medicare and medicaid beneficiaries and the
9,000,000 Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents.
(8) The private sector has proven to be more capable of
keeping pace with the rapid changes in health care delivery
and medical practice that affect quality of care
considerations than the Federal Government.
(9) As Congress considers health care legislation, it must
first commit to ``do no harm'' to health care quality,
consumers, and the evolving market place. Rushing to
legislate or regulate based on anecdotal information and
micro-managing health plans on politically popular issues
will not solve the problems of consumer confidence and the
quality of our health care system.
(10) When health insurance premiums rise, Americans lose
health coverage. Studies indicate that a 1 percent increase
in private health insurance premiums will be associated with
an increase in the number of persons without insurance of
about 400,000 persons.
(11) Health care costs have begun to rise significantly in
the past year. The Congressional Budget Office (referred to
as ``CBO'') projects that the growth in health premiums will
be 5.5 percent in 1998 up from 3.8 percent in 1997. CBO
continues to project that premiums will grow about 1
percentage point faster than the Gross Domestic Product in
the longer run. CBO also warns that new Federal mandates on
health insurance could exacerbate this increase in premiums.
(12) The President's Advisory Commission on Consumer
Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry developed
the Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. This
includes information disclosure, confidentiality of health
information, and choice of providers.
(13) The President's Commission further determined that
private sector organizations have the capacity to act in a
timely manner needed to keep pace with the swiftly evolving
health system.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the assumptions underlying this resolution assume that
the Senate will not pass any health care legislation that
will--
(1) make health insurance unaffordable for working families
and increase the number of uninsured Americans;
(2) divert limited health care resources away from serving
patients to paying lawyers and hiring new bureaucrats; or
(3) impose political considerations on clinical decisions,
instead of allowing such decisions to be made on the basis of
sound science and the best interests of patients.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is a first-degree amendment and now
has 30 minutes equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have sent my amendment to the desk for
various reasons, one of which is, my colleague from Massachusetts has
an amendment which he calls a Patients' Bill of Rights. It sounds like
a good title, but, frankly, I am concerned it will increase costs, I am
concerned it will increase regulation, and because it will increase
costs, the number of uninsured will rise, and without question it will
increase regulation.
The bill that he refers to, the bill that he recently introduced--it
also has the same title--called the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of
1998, is 68 pages long and has a lot of details in it. It has a lot of
things that every health care plan in America would have to provide.
That would cost a lot. It has a lot of the same language that is in the
so-called PARCA, the Patients Access to Responsible Care Act. Estimates
were made on that bill that it would increase costs 23 percent. That is
a big increase. If you increase health care costs 23 percent, you are
going to put a lot of people who had insurance in the uninsured
category. I think that would be a serious mistake. People who have done
their homework on this legislation, and maybe are experts in it, have
come out and said, ``We have reviewed this Patients' Bill of Rights and
find it severely lacking.''
Here is a quote from the Health Care Leadership Council. They said,
``a vote for the Kennedy amendment is a vote for greater involvement by
lawyers and bureaucrats in our health care system. To improve American
health care we need to empower individuals, not government. We need
every medical dollar to go to medical services, not to lawyers and
legal fees.''
One of the reasons for the reference to lawyers and legal fees is
that it would allow insurers and businesses to be sued for not
providing coverage; not just for the coverage, but also for pain and
suffering, for punitive damages. So you would have health care insurers
as well as businesses, who would be worried more about litigation than
consumer care. I think that would be an enormously expensive provision,
and people need to know it.
I will continue with the Health Care Leadership Council. They said:

The bureaucratic regulations that would result from the
Democrats' patient bill of rights legislation would add
unnecessary complexity to the health care system. Complexity
steals time from patients and forces health care providers to
focus on regulatory compliance instead of improving the
quality of care.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, which represents
companies throughout the country says:

We urge your opposition to an amendment expected to be
offered by Senator Kennedy to the budget resolution today
expressing the sense of the Senate that a patient bill of
rights proposal should be enacted this session . . .
The goal of improving health care quality can be better
achieved through the power of the marketplace.

The National Federation of Independent Business says:

The Kennedy amendment would dangerously place the Senate on
record in support of health care mandates prior to carefully
examining the issues of cost, coverage, regulation and
litigation. Additionally, it is premature given the work of
respective health care task force groups in the Senate and
House and private-sector efforts. Thus, we hope you will not
rush to legislate on the basis of antidotes rather than sound
decisionmaking. Big Government mandates substitute Government
intervention for quality innovations currently taking place
in the private health care market are the wrong prescriptions
for America's health care system.

Also, I have a letter from the Council on Affordable Health
Insurance:

Bill of rights is a cruel hoax when the cost of those
rights will result in health insurance which is unaffordable
for those privately purchasing or causes employers to drop
health insurance coverage altogether. Both Congress and the
States have enacted laws to make health insurance accessible
to almost every American who seeks coverage. Access to health
insurance is meaningless if Congress makes it unattainable
because of regulations placing it financially out of reach
for many Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Healthcare Leadership Council,

Washington, DC, April 1, 1998.
Hon. Don Nickles,
Assistant Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: We understand that Senator Kennedy
intends, during Senate floor debate on the Budget Resolution,
to offer an amendment placing the Senate on record as
supporting enactment of the provisions incorporated in the
Patients' Bill of Rights legislation introduced by Senate and
House Democrats yesterday. It is critical that the Senate
strongly oppose this amendment.
The approach toward health care embodied in the Kennedy
amendment is exactly the wrong medicine for our health care
system. The Democrats' bill introduced yesterday would raise
costs, increase the numbers of uninsured people and eliminate
consumer choices.
A vote for the Kennedy amendment is a vote for greater
involvement by lawyers and bureaucrats in our health care
system. To improve American health care, we need to empower
individuals, not government. We need every medical dollar to
go to medical services--not to lawyers and legal expenses.
The bureaucratic regulations that would result from the
Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights legislation would add
unnecessary complexity to the health care system. Complexity
steals time from patients and forces health care providers to
focus on regulatory compliance instead of improving the
quality of care.
As you know, the members of the Healthcare Leadership
Council are the chief executives of the nation's leading
health care companies and organizations, America's health
care innovators. We are working toward a market-based
approach to making health care more accessible, more
affordable and of the highest quality for all Americans.
Again, we strongly urge the Senate to reject the government
micromanagement approach to health care that is embodied in
the Kennedy amendment.
Sincerely,
Pamela G. Bailey,
President.

[[Page S3051]]

____
Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 31, 1998.
To Members of the U.S. Senate:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the world's largest business
federation, representing more than three million businesses
and organizations of every size, sector, and region--strongly
opposes proposals that will increase the cost of health
coverage. We urge your opposition to an amendment expected to
be offered by Senator Kennedy to the Budget Resolution today
expressing the sense of the Senate that a patient bill of
rights proposal should be enacted this session.
Health care reform easily has been one of the most
emotional, complex and divisive domestic issues facing our
nation. Many members of Congress have responded by
considering a wide variety of proposals to regulate the
health care marketplace, impose additional mandates, or most
dangerously to expand medical malpractice liability. The
Chamber strongly opposes these measures and may consider
votes in connection with these proposals for inclusion in our
annual ``How They Voted'' voting guide.
``Patient bill of rights'' proposals--such as that
advocated by a majority of the deeply flawed Clinton managed
care commission--more closely resemble provider than patient
protections. Higher costs for health coverage will be the
certain result of further government micro-management of the
health care marketplace and increased litigation, making
health coverage less affordable and available to small
businesses and individuals. Of what use is the ``perfect''
health plan if businesses cannot afford to offer and
employees cannot afford to accept health coverage?
The goal of improving health care quality can be better
achieved through the power of the marketplace. The Chamber
has recently joined other members of the business community
in forming the Employer Quality Partnership, a new coalition
intended to empower the health coverage purchaser--whether
employer or individual consumer--with the tools necessary to
evaluate health plan quality in a changing marketplace. In
addition, we strongly supported the development of the
American Association of Health Plan's Patients First
initiative.
The expected Kennedy amendment is, at best, premature given
the work of the respective health care taskforce groups in
the Senate and House and private sector efforts like the
Employer Quality Partnership and Patients First. We urge you
not to commit today to legislation that will certainly prove
a losing proposition tomorrow.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten,
Executive Vice President.
____

The Health Benefits Coalition

for Affordable Choice & Quality,

Washington, DC, April 1, 1998.
Dear Senator Nickles: We urge your opposition to an
amendment to be offered by Senator Kennedy to the Budget
Resolution today putting the Senate on record in favor of
passage of so-called ``patient protection'' legislation this
session.
The Health Benefits Coalition agrees with you that
Congress' first obligation is to Do No Harm. We share your
view that patients would be hurt by any health care mandate
bill that increases premiums on American families, reduces
coverage or causes a new wave of costly litigation and
regulation.
Concerns about congressional action increasing costs and
reducing coverage are well-founded. An example is the
Democrats' Patient Bill of Rights Act, unveiled just
yesterday, which combines many of the worst elements of so-
called ``patient protection'' proposals. It would result in
further government micro-management of the health care
marketplace and increased litigation, making health coverage
less affordable and available to small businesses and
individuals.
Ironically, by increasing costs and forcing millions of
low-wage workers to choose between higher premiums or
dropping coverage for their families, the Democrat proposal
would hurt the very people who need help the most. Studies
show that last year some six million Americans declined
health insurance, largely because of cost, and these workers
are ``more likely to be young, Hispanic or black, or
unmarried and have low wages or low education levels''.
(Health Affairs, Vol. 16, No. 6)
America has the finest health care system in the world
because our private health care market--unlike a government
run system--improves to meet consumers' needs. There is much
that is currently being done voluntarily by health care plans
and employers throughout the marketplace to improve the
quality of care. However, if we trade the innovation and
excellence of our private health care system for the
regulation of a government-run system, this progress and
innovation will be stifled. Furthermore, it won't be doctors
making decisions about our health care--it will be
Washington.
The Kennedy amendment would dangerously place the Senate on
record in support of health care mandates prior to carefully
examining the issues of cost, coverage, regulation and
litigation. Additionally, it is premature given the work of
the respective health care taskforce groups in the Senate and
House and private sector efforts. Thus, we hope you will not
rush to legislate on the basis of anecdotes, rather than
sound decision-making. Big government mandates, which
substitute government intervention for quality innovations
currently taking place in the private health care market, are
the wrong prescription for America's health care system.
Sincerely,
Dan Danner,
Chairman, The Health Benefits Coalition, Vice President,
National Federation of Independent Business.

Health Benefits Coalition Participants:

National Federation of Independent Business
U.S.Chamber of Commerce
The Business Roundtable
National Association of Manufacturers
National Restaurant Association
Associated Builders and Contractors
National Association of Health Underwriters
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
National Business Coalition on Health
American Insurance Association
Food Marketing Institute
The ERISA Industry Committee
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
Food Distributors International
CIGNA
American Association of Health Plans
Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans
National Retail Federation
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Society for Human Resource Management
Council for Affordable Health Insurance
Aetna U.S. Healthcare
Prudential HealthCare
Health Insurance Association of America
Healthcare Leadership Council
Humana Inc.
International Mass Retail Association
Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.
New York Life/NYLCARE Health Plans
Premier
Council for

Affordable Health Insurance,

Alexandria, VA, April 1, 1998.
Hon. Don Nickles,
Assistant Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: On behalf of the Council for
Affordable Health Insurance, representing 3 million
policyholders we are writing to voice our strong opposition
to the Kennedy amendment No. 2183 to S. Con. Res. 86. The
Kennedy amendment, Sense of the Senate resolution regarding
Patient's Bill of Rights, although nonbinding would place
Senators on record in favor of enacting legislation to
establish a patient's bill of rights. A Bill of Rights is a
cruel hoax when the cost of those rights will result in
health insurance which is unaffordable for those privately
purchasing or causes employers to drop health insurance
coverage all together.
The ``rights'' listed in the Kennedy amendment amount to a
litany of mandated benefits, and mandated providers. One only
need to look to the states to see what these rights have cost
policyholders. In the state of Maryland, there are over 40
state mandates. These mandates; some benefit related, others
provider related, add more than 20% to the cost of insurance
premium in that state. Major studies have been released in
the last year that show the uninsured in the United States is
increasing. The reason for the increase is not lack of access
but lack of affordability!
Both the Congress and the states have enacted laws to make
health insurance accessible to almost every American who
seeks coverage. Access to health insurance is meaningless if
the Congress makes it unattainable because of regulation
placing it financially out of reach for many Americans.
The Kennedy amendment is premature when both the Senate and
the House have established Health Care Task forces to
carefully examine this issue. We are strongly opposed to the
Kennedy amendment and urge Congress not to enact legislation
which will increase the cost of health care insurance.
Sincerely,
Angela M. Hunter,
Director of Federal Affairs.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 40 seconds.
Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the remainder of my time, because I have a
couple of colleagues who wish to speak on this.
I ask that the second-degree amendment No. 2281 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2281) was withdrawn.
Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have, Mr. President? Is it 15 minutes
on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. President, I disagree with some of Senator Nickles' findings, but
I

[[Page S3052]]

have no quarrel with the general words, and I urge the Senate to
support his amendment and then go ahead and support our sense-of-the-
Senate amendment, because the sense-of-the-Senate amendment
incorporates the basic kind of protections that are essential in order
to protect working families in this country.
I might differ with some of the particular words that the Senator has
provided in his resolution. I was just handed the resolution a moment
or two ago. It says:

Sense of the Senate. It is the sense of the Senate that the
assumptions underlying this resolution assume that the Senate
will not pass any health care legislation that will--
(1) make health insurance unaffordable for working
families.

How can you differ with that? I am not for making health insurance
unaffordable.
And:

(2) divert limited health care resources away from serving
patients to paying lawyers and hiring new bureaucrats. . .

I certainly agree with Senator Nickles on that one.
And:

(3) impose political considerations on clinical decisions.
. .

That is basically what we are talking about in our amendment.
Restoring the patient-provider relationship.
I hope the entire Senate will support the Nickles amendment, and then
we get back to our amendment, the real enchilada, the real McCoy. The
essential protections we have spoken of today are included in the sense
of the Senate advanced by myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer and
Senator Sarbanes. Our amendment asks the Senate to pass legislation to
ensure that women in this country are going to get the gynecological
and obstetrical care they need. It identifies and ends the evils of
forced drive-through mastectomies. It says that a person who has a
medical emergency does not have to drive past the nearest emergency
room to a more distant one in the plan. It says that we will eliminate
the use of gag clauses, and respect our medical professionals and the
decisions they make. And it says that health plans will be held
accountable for their decisions that deny care for patients and result
in serious illness or death for those individuals. Why should we
continue to shield negligent plans?
This Senator listened carefully, and neither the Senator from
Oklahoma nor the Senator from New Mexico nor the Senator from
Pennsylvania have addressed for one single moment the six essential
elements of our sense-of-the-Senate resolution--the elements of which
are strongly endorsed by the American Medical Association, the National
Breast Cancer Association, Families USA, Consumer's Union, the
emergency physicians, groups representing people with mental and
physical disabilities, pediatricians across this country and a great
number of consumer and patient groups that understand exactly what is
at risk.

We are going to vote. We are going to vote not only this afternoon,
but we are going to vote continuously in this Congress until we pass
this legislation. This afternoon is the first time.
But I certainly hope that Senator Nickles' amendment will be
supported, and I hope, if I can have the attention of the Senator from
Oklahoma, that he will accord the same courtesy and support to our
amendment as well, and we will have a happy afternoon here together.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, I say to my friend from
Massachusetts, for his leadership on these issues.
I certainly am going to support the Nickles amendment, as the Senator
from Massachusetts has stated. The Nickles amendment simply says we
shouldn't do anything when we legislate on this issue of a patient bill
of rights to make things worse for patients. Of course we wouldn't do
that. But the ultimate vote comes on Senator Kennedy's amendment,
because that is a positive statement of things we must do and we should
do for the average American who has an HMO plan and who deserves to
have quality health care.
I think we should vote for the Nickles amendment and then for the
Kennedy amendment.
I want to tell a couple of stories, because they really illustrate
why the Kennedy amendment is so important.
In the course of looking at the HMO issue, I met a gentleman named
Harry Christie from Woodside, CA. He had a daughter who, at age 9,
developed a very rare cancer. And it required a very delicate operation
that could really only be performed by a surgeon who had experience in
dealing with what they call Wilms' tumors.
So Mr. Christie, as any parent, loving his child with all of his
soul, went to find out which physicians could do this operation and
found out who they were, went to his HMO, and said, ``I assume that you
will pay for a specialist to perform this delicate operation on my
daughter.'' The HMO said, ``Sorry, Mr. Christie, we do not have such a
specialist on our staff. You will have to take a general surgeon, a
very good general surgeon, or you will have to simply pay for this out
of your own pocket.''
Mr. Christie made the argument to no avail: ``This is my child. She
is 9 years old. This is a delicate operation. This is a rare tumor. And
I will not have someone with no experience, no matter how good a
surgeon, take a knife to my child.'' Well, they said, ``You're out of
luck.'' Mr. Christie had to come up with $50,000, and he did. Years
later, his daughter is now 14. She is cured of this disease. She had a
successful operation. What if Mr. Christie had not been able to come up
with the $50,000? She may never have recovered.
What is it that we are doing here? We tell people we believe in
quality health care, and yet we stand here and say we cannot do
anything about it. The Kennedy amendment says that if your plan does
not have a specialist that you must have for you or your family, yes,
you can go outside that plan.
We held a press conference on this important bill that we hope will
pass the U.S. Senate soon. And we heard over satellite from a gentleman
named David Garvey from Illinois. He had an HMO; he thought it was
terrific. Everyone loves their HMO until they get sick. Then,
unfortunately, too many find out it was not what they thought it would
be. What happened to this family is, Barbara Garvey, his wife of 30-
some years, got a very rare immune condition. She was on vacation in
Hawaii. And the HMO said, ``No, no, no, no. We cannot treat her in
Hawaii. She has to be flown on a commercial airplane, at your expense,
back to Illinois.'' Well, to make a very sad story shorter, she never
survived that experience because her immune system was so damaged in
this particular anemia condition that she could not withstand the
infections that she got on that airplane.
We have to take action. There is nothing in the Nickles amendment
that disturbs me at all. Of course, when we take action, it ought to be
with all the concerns that Senator Nickles puts in. Of course we should
not fix a plan because of political reasons--I do not even know what
that means--but we should do it because we want to help the people of
this country get quality health care. That means specialists, and that
means, as Senator Kennedy has pointed out, a plan where doctors will
not be gagged. We do not want doctors gagged. We want doctors to be
able to tell you the truth about your condition. And if there is a
remedy that might be a little more expensive, you deserve the right to
know. That is in the Kennedy amendment.
A woman who needs an OB-GYN--and many of us use our own OB-GYNs as
our first line of support. We do not go to an internist, should not
have to go through a gatekeeper, to get that kind of help. So we have a
wonderful opportunity today to support both the Nickles amendment and
the Kennedy amendment. We have an opportunity to say that patients in
America who pay premiums deserve to have the quality put back in health
care. This is a chance for us to make that statement.
I hope we will cross over party lines on both these amendments and go
home feeling we have made a statement that is important to the American
people and follow it up with real action on a real patients' bill of
rights.
I yield back my time to Senator Kennedy.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee 4 minutes. How
much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 15 seconds.

[[Page S3053]]

Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment from the Senator
from Oklahoma and in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, which I think we are
going to have widespread agreement on, basically says that--

The Senate will not pass any health care legislation that
will--
make health insurance unaffordable for working families and
increase the number of uninsured Americans . . .

And in addition, it will not pass any health care legislation that
will--

. . . impose political considerations on clinical
decisions, instead of allowing such decisions to be made on
the basis of sound science and the best interest of patients.

I would like to take the time and say why passage of the Nickles
amendment means we should defeat the Kennedy amendment. Basically,
physicians do not treat patients unless we know that the anticipated
risks to that patient are outweighed by the benefits. If we were to
pass the amendment by Senator Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts,
those unintended disadvantages would far outweigh the good intentions
that we have.
No. 1 is the issue of cost. We know that if we are mandating benefits
today the cost of health insurance goes up. When health insurance goes
up, those hard-working men and women, the single mom, working mom with
the child, can lose her health insurance.
So we feel good because we are out there arguing quality. However,
what we are really doing is putting mandates on the American people. I
can guarantee you, because the data shows it, we drive health care
costs up when we impose mandates. Who is hurt? The people we think we
are helping--the working poor people who are out there.
A study by the Lewin Group showed that a 1 percent increase in
premium implies that 200,000 people will lose their insurance. In fact,
they said 200,000 to 400,000 people will lose their insurance. Yet,
when we hear a little increase of 1 percent in your insurance premium
we think anybody can take that. They do not. People will lose their
insurance with these mandates. We should make the commitment, which the
Nickles resolution does, not to pass legislation that drives the price
of health care costs up and makes the uninsured a bigger problem.
No. 2, good science. We need good science. Some mandates in some
cases may be OK, but let us base that on good science where we are
really helping people.
Length of stay--mastectomy. Let me point out length of stay, how long
you stay in a hospital, is not even mentioned in the landmark NIH
consensus statement and guidelines for the management of breast cancer.
In the guidelines that were determined by consensus to effect quality
of care, the length of stay is not mentioned. In fact, in this
particular bill where we talk about length of stay, length of stay is
not necessarily the right issue.
A 1996 study of 525 women who underwent outpatient mastectomies at
Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan reported increased quality, accelerated
physical recovery, earlier return to occupational activities, and
numerous improved psychological advantages.
My point is, if we are talking quality, this rubric of quality, we
need to look at critical quality issues. Inpatient versus outpatient
isn't necessarily a quality issue. It is an oversimplification. There
are numerous studies.
A 1995 study at the New Jersey College of Medicine of 133 women who
underwent outpatient partial mastectomies showed a lower rate of
postoperative infection and a higher rate of satisfaction in comparison
to a group having surgery on an inpatient basis.

In addition, the amendment itself also has other mandates, mandating
reimbursement for prescription drugs. That is something that Medicare
does not even do. If you mandate coverage for prescription drugs, I
will guarantee you, you are going to drive the costs of health care
insurance up to the point that you are going to be driving people out
of the marketplace where they will not have access to even an adequate
level of health care.
Thus, in closing, I rise to support--and I hope we will have a 100-0
vote for the Nickles amendment. Listen to what the Nickles amendment
says. Let us not hurt quality of health care when we think we are
helping it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields the time?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator from Maine 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 6 minutes. The
Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
All of us agree that medically necessary patient care should never be
sacrificed to the bottom line, and that medical decisionmaking should
remain in the hands of medical professionals, and not in the hands of
accountants. The question is, how can we best achieve that goal? Is the
answer, as the Senator from Massachusetts suggests, massive new Federal
regulations, mandates, and a preemption of the State's traditional role
to regulate insurance? Or is the answer to trust the private-sector
organizations that have made great progress in improving the quality of
health care plans? Or is, perhaps, the answer somewhere in between? Is
the answer carefully crafted, minimal Federal legislation that supports
the efforts in the private sector?

The reason this issue is so important is because we don't want to
take a misguided step in the name of improving quality and end up
making health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans.
The Lewin Group recently released an important study that deserves
the attention of all of our colleagues. It estimates that every 1
percent increase in private insurance premiums results in an additional
400,000 Americans who become uninsured. A 1 percent increase in costs
brings 400,000 additional uninsured Americans.
Health insurance rates are already projected to increase by more than
5 percent in 1998. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported earlier this
week that California's largest HMO was seeking an 11 percent increase
in some rates. Therefore, we face an extremely delicate balancing act
as we attempt to respond to concerns about quality without resorting to
unduly burdensome Federal Government controls and mandates that will
further drive up the cost of insurance and reduce access. Furthermore,
we want to make certain that our efforts actually improve the quality
of health care and not simply increase the amount of Federal
regulation.
Under the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma, I serve on the
Republican health quality task force. We recently heard from the
director of the Mayo Clinic, who voiced their own reservations about
the Federal Government's ability to regulate quality. To quote Dr. Bob
Waller:

Quality is a continuous process that must be woven into the
fabric of how we think, act and feel. Government regulation
places a stake in the ground that freezes in place a quality
standard that may become obsolete very quickly. The
Government simply cannot react quickly to the changing
quality environment. The goal of quality is to continuously
improve patient care--not to achieve some defined regulatory
objective.

Congress, in its haste to do good, should take care not to violate
the first principle of medicine, which is, ``first of all, do no
harm.'' Congress should not be acting precipitously, but rather should
engage in a thoughtful and thorough debate on how best to ensure that
Americans continue to enjoy the highest quality health care in the
world. The amendment offered by the assistant majority leader adopts a
reasoned, balanced approach to improving health care quality. All of us
should be able to agree, as the amendment states, that Congress should
not do anything to make health insurance unaffordable for working
families and to increase the number of uninsured Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator has expired.
Ms. COLLINS. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 53 seconds.

[[Page S3054]]

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I urge our colleagues to support the Nickles amendment. I have
outlined, as the Senator has, and, while I disagree with some of his
statements, I think the Senate ought to go on record in favor of it.
But I also invite others to support the amendment offered by myself,
Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer and others, which basically says the
Senate should pass a patients' bill of rights. Our amendment and the
rights embodied in it is commonsense.
As we know around here, if you don't have a remedy for a right, you
don't have a right. We have a Bill of Rights that we have enshrined in
the Constitution of the United States. We have that to ensure all of
our rights. All we are saying now is let us go on record in support of
the rights that are included in this sense of the Senate.

This amendment says that we will protect women from being thrown out
of the hospital hours after a mastectomy and against the advice of
their physician. We will assure that women are going to be able to get
direct access to the gynecological and obstetrical care they need.
These are rights that many plans say they already offer. With this
amendment, we will make sure that they are realized.
We will make sure that children with special needs have access to
qualified pediatric specialists. We will make sure that we protect the
rights of persons with disabilities. These rights are written in some
of the various insurance policies, but too often they are not realized.
We want to make sure that every American, if they have a heart attack
or a stroke, can go to the nearest emergency room.
Here are the basics, and they have been undisputed. No one has
challenged that. Let's get aboard and say let us, in this Congress--
Republicans and Democrats--draft legislation that will protect those
consumers. That is what the President's commission did unanimously. It
said these ought to be the rights of every single American. We have a
chance this afternoon for the Senate of the United States to say
``yes.'' Every good plan already provides these rights. Consumers need
protections against those insurance companies who put profits ahead of
patients. Many organizations representing patients and doctors are on
our side. Only those who profit from the current abuse are opposed to
us.
I hope the Senate will go in favor of this resolution.
I yield the remaining time to the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 2 minutes
23 seconds remaining.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his, as
usual, stalwart defense of what is right in health care. I am struck by
the referral of the Senator from Maine to the increased number of
uninsured, which has always been put out by those--particularly the
insurance companies--who oppose any kind of adding on to health care
coverage or the quality of health care coverage in this country.
It is the oldest irony in the books. They have never supported
anything, anything that I can remember, over the last 10 years that
increased health insurance coverage. They have opposed everything. She
quotes them--and she was even shot down by the Republican appointed CBO
Director June O'Neill, who says in her letter, ``CBO has not estimated
how PARCA [the bill referred to in the estimates under discussion]
might affect the number of people covered by insurance.''
So on the one hand there is no argument, there is no case to be made
about the increase; and secondly, in talking about this consumer bill
of rights, we are talking about very, very fundamental things.
I had to take my own son into an emergency room within the last 2
weeks with my wife. There was nobody in the emergency room except us.
It was held open, Sibley Hospital, because it was open and we were able
to take advantage of it. It is the most important room in a hospital.
This bill would guarantee that an emergency room would be open for
everybody in America--not just people named Rockefeller or Kennedy--24
hours a day, 365 days a year. That is necessary.
I have another relative who has been through a mastectomy. People who
say mastectomy quality is going up and people are not being urged to
get out of hospitals simply don't know the facts because I have seen
otherwise and I know otherwise.
I suggest we support the amendments of the Senator from Oklahoma and
that we support the Senator from Massachusetts, both.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Massachusetts has
expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the fact that my colleagues on the
Democratic side say they will support our amendment, but I want to
inform them that our amendment is in direct contradiction with their
amendment.
Our amendment says we shouldn't do anything to increase health care
costs. My colleagues want to say that the proposal by the Senator from
Massachusetts doesn't increase costs. They can say it, but it is not
true.
The facts are the Lewin Group, for example, did a study on the so-
called PARCA bill and said it increased costs 23 percent. Granted, the
bill that the Senator introduced 2 days ago and is calling upon the
Senate to pass may not be exactly the same thing, but it has a lot of
common elements, and it will increase costs.
The Nickles resolution says we shouldn't increase costs because that
increases uninsured. Common sense. And it says we shouldn't require
health care providers to spend a lot of money defending themselves
instead of providing quality care.
The proposal by my colleague from Massachusetts refers to the patient
bill of rights. His bill of rights says we should pass legislation. I
mention that the President's commission did not say we should pass
legislation. They are not consistent. Should we try to improve quality
care? Sure. Should we pass legislation mandating a fixed definition of
quality care? I don't think so.
To give an example, a letter from Bob Waller of Mayo Clinic says,
``Providers of care are in the unique position based on the personal
commitment to the well-being of the individual patient to drive quality
improvement initiatives. Nothing could stifle innovation quicker than
external mandatory standards.'' Now, that is not from some insurance
carrier. That is the director of the Mayo Clinic, one of the top
providers of quality health care in the world.

The Cleveland Clinic states:

We are already subject to extensive Federal, State and
private regulations through oversight by private payors and
accrediting bodies. Adding yet another layer of regulation
will only further complicate matters, add administrative
costs to our organization, and in all likelihood have little
or no effect on the actual quality of care provided.

I ask unanimous consent to have these statements printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

mayo clinic

Mayo Clinic, Baylor Health Care System, and the Cleveland
Clinic are all raising their voices in opposition to federal
regulation of health care quality.
Dr. Bob Waller of the Mayo Clinic has stated: ``Quality is
a continuous process that must be woven into the fabric of
how we think, act and feel. Government regulation places a
stake in the ground that freezes in place a quality standard
that many become obsolete very quickly. The government simply
cannot react quickly to the changing quality environment. The
goal of quality is to continuously improve patient care--not
to achieve some defined regulatory standard.''

baylor health care system

``There has been an enormous commitment on the part of
Baylor Health Care System and providers throughout the
country to evaluate and put in place the processes for
continuous quality improvement. We believe it must be done at
this level. Providers of care are in the unique position,
based on their personal commitment to the well-being of the
individual patient, to drive quality improvement initiatives.
Nothing could stifle innovation quicker than external
mandatory standards.''

cleveland clinic

``We are already subject to extensive federal, state and
private regulations through oversight by private payors and
accrediting bodies. Adding yet another layer of regulation
will only further complicate matters, add administrative
costs to our organization, and in all likelihood have little
or no effect on the actual quality of care provided''.

[[Page S3055]]

american hospital association (this was in response to senator
kennedy's bill announced yesterday)

``The President's quality Commission confirmed there is no
consensus that federal legislation like that introduced today
by House and Senate Democrats is the best way to achieve
these objectives. The AHA believes the private sector can and
must meet the challenge of protecting consumers and improving
the quality of care. Federal legislation should be considered
only if all private sector efforts fail.''

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, these are not insurers. They are
providers of care saying that more regulation will do just the
opposite--it will increase costs. Experts are saying the Kennedy
proposal will increase costs and therefore increase the uninsured and
add a lot of money being expended for defensive purposes in litigation,
not for improving quality of care. That is a mistake.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, cosponsored by
Senators Jeffords, Frist, Collins, and others. I thank them for their
comments. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friend from Oklahoma sets up a
strawman and then knocks it down. There are not going to be any
additional costs for those insurance companies and those HMOs that are
doing a good job. Massachusetts' HMOs, for example, are the best in the
nation. I have the highest regard for them. But there may be an extra
cost for HMOs that are shortchanging the consumer--the Senator is
right--but not for those that are doing what they have represented to
the consumers. In other words, if they are doing a good job, they have
nothing to fear. That is why we have the support of a number of HMOs at
the present time. This sense of the Senate focuses on the ones that are
not doing a good job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for participating
in what has been an exciting debate. I have a consent agreement that
has been worked out between the majority and the minority.
I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be debated
between now and approximately 4 o'clock, under the same terms as agreed
to last night, with the exception of second-degree amendments, which
are now limited to 10 minutes equally divided:
Brownback amendment No. 2177, which has already been debated; Boxer
amendment No. 2167; Specter amendment No. 2254; Lautenberg amendment
No. 2244; Kyl amendment No. 2221; the two amendments that we have just
heard debated, the Nickles amendment and the Kennedy amendment, Nos.
2282 and 2183, respectively; a Hutchison from Texas amendment No. 2208;
and the last in this series is the Rockefeller amendment No. 2226.
I further ask that at the conclusion or yielding back of time on each
of these amendments, and any second degrees, all remaining time on the
budget be considered yielded back, and the and the Senate proceed to
stack rollcall votes, under the same terms as last night.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, at
approximately 4 p.m.--it looks like it will be a little bit after
that--today, the Senate will begin what has been fondly called a
``vote-arama.'' Some might not want to say ``fondly''; they may have
other words to describe it. I choose that today for no particular
reason. If all Senators will remain in the Chamber and refrain from
insisting on rollcall votes on their amendments, all Members will
survive this cruel process and the Senate can conduct the final vote on
this resolution within 3 or 4 hours after 4 p.m.
I understand that is wishful thinking, I say to my fellow Senators.
Nonetheless, I urge my colleagues, once we start the ``vote-arama,'' to
remain here in an attempt to work with us on the amendments that they
may have to be included in the ``vote-arama'' or be disposed of
otherwise. We still have a lot of amendments that we have not reached
agreement on that might end up in the ``vote-arama.''
We are making some very significant headway. We started today with 72
amendments. We have worked to clear a number of those. Today, I think,
with the amendments we will shortly adopt by voice vote, we are
probably down to about 30 amendments that will fall into the ``vote-
arama,'' and we have not had a chance on each of them to discuss them
with the Senators. Perhaps a significant number of those will not
require votes.
I yield so that my distinguished friend, the ranking member, can
address the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I encourage all to listen carefully to
what is proposed in this UC. The mission is to respond to the
entreaties by Senators on both sides, ``When are we going to complete
our work? We have plans to make, we have our appointments to keep.''
You cannot have it six ways. What we have done here is we have tried
to be as considerate as possible. The Senator from New Mexico has
clearly stated the case. I have a further request that would apply to
both sides, and that is, where the subjects are in common in two or
more amendments, if those parties would consent to try to consolidate,
we can further eliminate any time for discussion. Even though it is
only 1 minute on each side, we are looking at a considerable amount of
time. I plead with our colleagues--10 minutes on their clock has to be
the same as 10 minutes on our clock; they can't be a different 10
minutes.
So if we are going to keep the voting limited, I urge the chairman of
the Budget Committee to exercise all of the ``meanness'' that he can,
be a bad guy and criticize and punish and all that. This is serious,
and if people don't want to be looking at this clock at midnight, then
they are going to have to adhere to the rules as we have them. I think
I heard the Chair declare that the unanimous consent is in place. I
would like to get on with the business at hand and do what we can to
expedite the program and the time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, following the next amendment, which I
think will be the Lautenberg amendment, we will propose to the Senate a
long list of amendments that we will accept and propose to accept by
voice vote or by accommodation by both sides agreeing. So we will do
that and that will take care of another long list of amendments. Then
what will be left will be the ``vote-arama,'' and we will try to narrow
those down in our personal conversations with Senators. Our leader will
be along shortly to discuss this with Senators, also.
According to the order, Senator Lautenberg's amendment will now be
the pending business.

Amendment No. 2244

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Lautenberg
amendment, No. 2244.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment presents a modified
version of the budget that President Clinton submitted to the Congress
last month. The amendment delineates all of the important priorities in
the President's budget.
First, it maintains strict fiscal discipline and adopts the
President's commitment to save Social Security first. The amendment
reserves all surpluses--I want to emphasize all surpluses--until we
solve Social Security's long-term problems. This will help ensure that
when the baby boomers retire, Social Security will be there for them,
just like it has been there for their parents and grandparents. Second,
this amendment, like the President's budget, makes education a top
national priority. It calls for an initiative to reduce class sizes by
hiring 100,000 new teachers; it promotes higher standards and greater
accountability; it provides more after-school opportunities for young
people; and it would help modernize and rehabilitate many of our
schools.

These initiatives are not included in the budget before us. That is
one of its greatest shortcomings.
Third, this amendment, like the President's budget, includes a
historic commitment to helping families afford

[[Page S3056]]

quality child care. It would double the number of children receiving
child care subsidies by the year 2003. It would provide tax relief to
working families who struggle to afford child care, whose biggest
concern is that their kids are in good, safe, secure hands and it
doesn't matter what your income is or what your assets are. Everybody
wants that. It includes many other measures to improve the quality of
child care. Again, the Republican budget in front of us fails to
include a meaningful child care initiative and would do little for
working parents and their kids.
Fourth, this amendment, like the President's budget, would expand
Medicare to provide health care to many older Americans who now lack
private insurance. It would assist those people to help them pay for
their fair share so that there are no additional burdens on the
taxpayers at large. The Republican budget rejects this proposal.
Fifth, this amendment, like the President's budget, includes a major
investment in research, especially medical research at the National
Institutes of Health, with all of the lifesaving possibilities it
promises. The Republican budget claims to provide funding for NIH, but
it provides no new money to do so. It merely assumes that the
Appropriations Committee will cut other programs--cut education, cut
environmental protection--to find the money to provide NIH with more
resources. That is not likely to happen.
Sixth, this amendment includes a significant investment in our
transportation infrastructure in accordance with the agreement reached
on ISTEA funding. That includes not only funding for highways but
transit and safety matters as well.
Seventh, this amendment, like the President's budget, reflects a
commitment to environmental protection. It calls for reinstatement of
the Superfund taxes on polluters and to use those funds for a variety
of environmental objectives. The Republican budget, by contrast, uses
most revenues from the Superfund tax for purposes that have nothing to
do with environmental protection.
Mr. President, this amendment accommodates a wide range of Democratic
priorities that have been shortchanged in the Republican budget--
education, child care, health care, environment. We accommodate all of
these priorities using real numbers scored by the Congressional Budget
Office. This alternative budget fully complies with the discretionary
spending caps in the balanced budget amendment, and it doesn't spend a
penny of any surplus to meet the goals that we have had to modestly
scale back some of the spending included in the President's original
proposal.
We have adjusted the levels of both nondefense and defense
discretionary spending to be consistent with the spending caps, and we
have held about $15 billion in the President's funds for America's
initiative in reserve. Those reserves will become available upon the
enactment of tobacco legislation, if that legislation produces more
revenues than proposed by the President.
I note that all of these priorities could be funded if we enact the
proposal that Senator Conrad and I have been advocating; that is, to
promptly increase the cigarette taxes to $1.50 a pack. Mr. President,
to avoid any confusion on this point, let me explain. We are assuming
that many of the President's discretionary initiatives will be funded
in authorizing legislation, which largely means tobacco legislation. We
think that is the most likely way that many of these priorities will be
funded. If so, they would all be scored by the Congressional Budget
Office under the pay-as-you-go system separate from the discretionary
spending caps. Of course, as the administration has proposed, this
could also be accomplished with the rules change included in
appropriations legislation.

The point is that, in any case, the President's priorities can be
accommodated here within the current rules or with the rules change for
tobacco legislation.
I want to be up front about this. I don't expect a Democratic
substitute to be approved by this Senate. I am not asking for an
extended debate about this proposal. We aren't looking for a partisan
fight. We simply wanted to put this forward to reassert our support for
the President's budget and to counter those who might try to argue that
the President's priorities cannot be accommodated using the
Congressional Budget Office scoring. We have shown that they can be. If
the Senate wants to reject the President's proposals to expand
Medicare, child care, reduce class size, that is their right. We can
disagree. We can disagree on these in good faith. But we shouldn't just
blame it on the Congressional Budget Office. It will be our choice and
an expression of our priorities.
Speaking for most Democrats, we think that this budget represents the
values and priorities that we care about and that this country ought to
care about. It reflects our commitment to fiscal discipline. It saves
Social Security first. It would improve the lives of millions of
American families.
Mr. President, I yield the time so that the Democratic leader can use
as much of that time as remains. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes eighteen seconds.
The distinguished Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished ranking member for
his excellent statement.
Mr. President, it is with some disappointment that Democrats offer
any substitute at all. The times when we work best are the times when
we can find agreement in the Budget Committee, as we did last year. We
were disappointed that agreement could not be reached to everyone's
satisfaction. So we find ourselves compelled to offer an alternative to
the budget now being proposed by the majority.
The distinguished ranking member has laid out very thoroughly some of
the reasons why our resolution is superior and the reasons why
Democrats feel compelled today to express our differences with our
Republican colleagues about this budget.
Our plan very simply does what the President of the United States
said we should do in his State of the Union address a couple of months
ago. We put Social Security first. We provide targeted tax cuts for
working families. We make very important domestic investments so that
working families across this country can experience the tremendous
economic gain and economic vitality that this country has realized in
the last several years. We stay within the spending ceilings
established in last year's budget agreement. We maintain balance in
1999 and produce budget surpluses well into the next century.
We are very proud of what we have been able to achieve thus far. It
is on the basis of what we have achieved that we now propose a budget
to build upon those achievements and allow this nation to be as
successful in the future as we have in the past. Before I describe our
fiscal priorities, let's take a brief look back at the past.
In 1993, the budget deficit was a whopping $290 billion, the highest
deficit our Nation had ever experienced.
The deficit at that time was projected to grow to over $500 billion
by the end of the decade. In 1993, the President presented an economic
plan and the Democratic Congress--unfortunately, without the help of a
single Republican vote--took action.
Today, the results are very obvious. The 1993 plan produced the
largest deficit reduction in our history. The plan produced the first
unified balanced budget in 30 years. The plan created 15 million new
jobs. The plan contributed to the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years.
The plan put us on the road to the lowest core inflation rate since
1965. The plan has led to the fastest annual growth rate in real
average hourly earnings since 1976.
The results could not be more clear. Because we made the commitment
in 1993, because we turned the economy around, because we were able to
come to grips with the significant economic and fiscal problems that we
were facing at that time and address them consequentially, we celebrate
success in 1998. Now it is our responsibility to build upon that
success.
We would like to highlight the differences between our vision for the
future and that of our Republican colleagues. The most visible and the
most important of those differences relates to public education. Our
budget contains a series of proposals that will provide our children
with the educational opportunities they need to successfully confront
the challenges of

[[Page S3057]]

the 21st century. We provide tax credits for local districts that build
and renovate public schools. We provide funds for local districts to
hire an additional 100,000 teachers. This proposal will allow schools
to reduce class size. For grades from 1 to 3, class size will be
reduced from an average of 22 children down to 18. In addition, we
provide opportunities for after-school learning programs. I will not
elaborate on any of those proposals, because they have each been the
subject of a targeted Democratic amendment already offered during this
budget debate.
The Republican budget freezes spending on the most important
educational programs. It freezes spending on the new programs I have
outlined as well as the programs already established to provide
children the opportunity to grow and to learn. As a result, 450,000
children will be denied access to safe after-school learning centers if
this Republican budget passes; 30,000 kids will be denied access to
Head Start if this Republican budget passes; 6,500 middle schools will
not have drug and violence prevention coordinators if this Republican
budget passes.
There is another important difference--and my colleague, the
distinguished ranking member, noted the difference. Democrats have a
fundamentally different approach to tackling the problem of teen
smoking. On this issue there is a very clear difference between the
Republican budget and our budget. Every American should carefully
examine each side's approach to ending tobacco's insidious hold on
young people in this country. Our proposal ends Joe Camel's reign over
America's teenagers by fully funding the anti-youth-smoking
initiatives, by providing tobacco-related medical research, by allowing
smoking cessation programs, by ensuring public service advertising to
counter the tobacco companies' targeting of our children today.
The Republican budget does none of those, not one. There is no anti-
youth-smoking initiative, there is no tobacco-related medical research,
there are no smoking cessation programs, there is no public service
advertising--there is none. It stacks the deck against meaningful
tobacco reform and the effort to end teenage smoking.
So we see a host of important initiatives in the Democratic plan--
investing in education, anti-teen smoking efforts, health care and an
array of other proposals designed to build upon the success our plan
has enjoyed over the last 5 years. Unfortunately, our Republican
colleagues have said no to virtually every single one--no to education,
no to child care, no to comprehensive solutions to teen smoking.
For all these reasons, I ask my colleagues to say no to the
Republican budget and to say yes to the way we have proposed to build
upon our success in the past, to say yes to the Democratic alternative.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from New
Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains on the Democrat side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 18 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. I see the minority leader is here. Maybe he wants more
than 18. He can try to get it off the bill, but I remind him that we
made a deal we weren't going to do that, so I will keep my remarks
brief.
First, Mr. President, I would like to say the basic difference
between this proposal and the President's--and it is very fundamental,
and everybody should understand it--is that we thought if there was
going to be some new money to spend, that we ought to take a look at
what American programs were most in need of money, and we found that
there are two American programs. They are not State programs, they are
not city programs, they are not school board programs--they are ``the
U.S. Government does them, or they don't get done.'' They are the
Social Security system and the Medicare system for our seniors--but we
are all going to get to be seniors, so therefore all of us.
What we did in our budget was say very, very simply: If you settle
this tobacco agreement--which seems to me to be getting further and
further from reality, but let's just say if it gets settled--put all of
the Federal Government's receipts from it into the program that is most
in need and that has been most adversely affected by smoking. That is
the Medicare Program.
It is interesting that while the President's program and the Democrat
program--the President suggests $124 billion in new programs, and the
litany sounds wonderful. We have heard some of it here this afternoon.
I can't tell for certain, but it looks like the budget before us does a
little better. It looks like it has $88 billion to $100 billion in new
programs, new spending.
I ask, whether it is $124 billion in new money or $88 or $90 billion,
is it right? Is it correct? Is it the right thing to do, to put not one
nickel toward Medicare, which is the largest American program in
jeopardy? And, as I debated this earlier in the week, I showed in a
very simplified, simple chart, what will happen to the Medicare trust
fund starting in about 10 years. And the deficit line goes in a line
downward as if we are aiming it towards the middle of the Earth--which
we used to say that's where Hades was, when we were little kids.
For starters, that is one big difference, and we are proud of that
difference, for we put a very substantial number of billions into that
very needy program so those national commissioners trying to put it
together will have some extra resources to save Medicare for the
seniors of today and the seniors of tomorrow.
When you do that, you cannot pay for all the new wish list of
programs that have been alluded to here today and that our President
alluded to in a dramatic speech to the American people as the State of
the Union. As a matter of fact, had that wonderful pot of gold--to wit:
the cigarette companies' agreement--not been around when the President
of the United States was preparing his speech, he could not have told
the American people that there were any new programs. You know why?
Because he agreed. He agreed that for the next 5 years there would be
little or no increases in the discretionary programs of this country.
That was the deal. That was the agreement.
So, lo and behold, the expectation quotient rises from that night to
this moment on the floor of the Senate, when the big pot of gold is
there, to start a whole bunch of new American programs. Frankly, as I
indicated, everybody should know that most of the list of good things
that we cannot afford, that the Democrats are speaking to, most of them
won't come into existence if we don't have a big, gigantic pot of gold
coming from the tobacco companies. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2: With reference to smoking and its relationship and cost
to the American taxpayer, and to our programs, the distinguished
occupant of the chair has the most forthright sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that he will offer during this debate, and I hope we adopt
it. It just says that every penny we get out of the tobacco settlement
should go to Medicare, because Medicare suffers a $25-billion-a-year
hit because of seniors who, when they were young, smoked, got sick, and
Medicare pays their bill. Pretty logical. I commend him for it and for
his leadership in that regard.
Nonetheless, they would ask, aren't we going to take care of some of
the needs that we know about because of smoking? And we say yes. But we
didn't wait around to do them based upon a settlement; we did it by
reducing other programs and paying for them. So, for those who wonder,
the National Institutes of Health, which everybody says should be
increased so they can work on some prevention areas of cancer that have
been affected by smoking, gets a $15.5 billion increase in the next 5
years, the largest in the history of any research entity that the
United States funds.
And then, education. You see, we don't forget what we agreed to last
year. We have a 5-year agreement on education, and it is one of the
high-priority agreements between the President and the Congress. We
didn't forget about it in the second year. We fully fund the increases
in education, and they are very significant. What we said is, we should
put $2.5 billion, minimum, for the disabled of our children being
educated by our public schools.
A disgrace exists today with a Federal Government which mandated this
assistance years ago, committed to pay 40 percent of its cost, and is
still paying 9 percent as of this day. While the

[[Page S3058]]

schools foot the bill, we write the laws, even though we agreed last
year that education money would first be applied there to bridge the
gap between the 9 percent and the commitment. The President saw fit to
go with new programs and not that; but not us--$2.5 billion. That means
those school systems can hire new teachers. We don't have to pay for
teachers from the Federal Government's tax coffers, which we have never
done in history. We say relieve the burden on the schools and they can
hire them.
We put an additional $6.3 billion in education--an increase--so that
we can fund in due course some programs which will have flexibility
built in for our public schools, including such things as teacher
training and those kinds of things that will bring some accountability
to the public school system of our country. And we are proud of that,
too. It is not as if there is nothing in, it is just we chose these
instead of others, and we think these are prudent choices.
Then we could go on from there and talk about criminal justice. We
all know we cannot cut that; it must go up. We increased that in our
budget, because it was a high priority item when we made our 5-year
agreement that we worked so hard together on, Democrat and Republican
and President.
So it is not as if we did not do some of these things that the
Democratic leadership is here touting that they would do and we didn't
do. It is just that we did not increase net spending by $84 billion.
The Democrat budget does. Net tax increases of one type or another--$80
billion in that proposal. We did not do that much. The reduction in the
surplus--there is a cutting of the surplus in half, under their
proposal, from 8 to 4. That is not a lot of billions, as we throw them
around here, but nonetheless a significant thing to note.
Mr. President, I believe the budget we produced in the Budget
Committee, if it were to become the cornerstone for this year's
appropriation bills and tax reduction--for there is $30 billion worth
of tax reduction in ours. It is provided for by closing loopholes and
other tax advantages, many of which have been listed as items that we
should consider for more than a decade, and some of them 15 years.
So ours is pretty well balanced. I am convinced, having familiarized
myself as best I can, and I think perhaps with a few exceptions as well
as anyone in the Senate, ours would be good for the future growth of
the American economy and would continue this dramatic, sustained
economic growth that is bringing us revenues and bringing us jobs.
Frankly, Mr. President, I don't believe there is very much in the
Democratic budget or the President's budget that would contribute
significantly to those positive things that we all cherish and want so
much.
I yield the floor and reserve whatever time I have.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a couple minutes of my leader
time. I know we are out of time, and I don't want to take any time off
the resolution.
I know the distinguished Budget chair has made his arguments, and I
think they merit some response. I will yield in a moment to the
distinguished ranking member as well.
Let me just make three points. First of all, the distinguished chair,
the Senator from New Mexico, alluded to our budget proposal as one that
seems to be outside the realm of the agreement we made last July. He
also noted the Republican budget is in keeping with these same
commitments.
Let there be no mistake about this, the Democratic alternative
adheres to the requirements. It keeps the agreement--agreed to and
signed by Republicans and Democrats last July--intact. That is the
whole premise upon which we based our alternative budget resolution.
We recognize how important that agreement is. We recognize the
importance of investments. But as I noted in my opening comments, there
is a profound difference between the vision expressed in our resolution
toward major investments in education, in child care, in those areas
for which we believe it is essential this country continue to invest,
and the Republican proposal which fails to invest in those areas.
The second point: He sets up a false choice. He says he believes it
is important for us to recognize the critical nature of using tobacco
revenue to shore up the Medicare program. I agree with that. I too
think there is an important need to invest in Medicare to ensure its
solvency. However, it is a false choice to say this is the only option
available to us as we pass tobacco legislation. Indeed, the Senate
Commerce Committee itself takes issue with the statement just made by
the distinguished Budget Committee chair.
Yesterday, on a vote of 19 to 1, the Commerce Committee voted out its
recommendations to the Senate with regard to tobacco legislation. They
note it is important for us to take some of those revenues and dedicate
them to reimbursing public health care programs in Medicare. However,
they also say that, in addition to Medicare, it is critical we
recognize the importance of prevention and cessation activities,
efforts to stop teenage smoking, to support health-related research, to
ensure tobacco farmers receive the resources they are going to need, to
ensure that we deal with the tobacco-asbestos trust fund, to ensure
that we deal with the problems in Medicaid, and to ensure that problems
with black lung are addressed through these resources.
In other words, the committee, in the 19-to-1 vote just yesterday,
said we agree with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, but we
think we ought to do more. We think that it is critical that we look at
how we prevent teenage smokers from starting, how we assist tobacco
farmers in during the transition, and how we deal with research in ways
that are not adequately addressed in this budget.
I think it is very critical to acknowledge that on an overwhelming
basis many in Congress have already indicated their support for
dedicating tobacco revenues to an array of different needs including
Medicare.
The bottom line is really very fundamental. We have to recognize that
this is our one opportunity to state our priorities. Our priorities
ought to be in education. Our priorities ought to be in child care. Our
priorities ought to be in preventing teenage smoking. That is what our
budget does. That is what our priorities are. And that is the
difference in vision between Republican and Democratic budgets.
I ask the ranking member if he has any need to express himself prior
to the time I yield the floor?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I can have 2 minutes.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 2 minutes of my leader time to the distinguished
Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't want to take any more time
than that, because we have an understanding about the use of time, but
I do want to say to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget
Committee, who is so articulate and who is so knowledgeable about the
budget, the only thing is he happens to be wrong. Other than that, we
are in very good agreement.
What do I think the chairman is wrong about? Priorities. I think that
when he lays out those things that are taken care of, we say, ``No,
they are not taken care of,'' and we will do all we propose, all the
President has offered by staying within the budget caps, and we are
going to use the pay-as-you-go mantra; that is, nothing happens until
it is paid for. That is the way we see it.
When I see the narrowness, the demand that the only way that we spend
any of our surplus is on Medicare--and I submit, and I proposed this
the other day--ask any grandparent, because by the time you get to
Social Security, you are pretty much a grandparent, if they would
rather worry today about shoring up Medicare or keeping their child or
their grandchild from starting smoking.
I can tell you what the answer is going to be. They would say,
``Listen, we have lived a pretty good life, and we are worried about
Medicare; we want you to help solve the problem, but if you are saying
take a choice between keeping my youngster from getting hooked on
tobacco, which will begin his or her final innings at sometime in life
when it is very inopportune, take care of those kids.''

[[Page S3059]]

That is what we are asking for. If the revenues come from tobacco, we
want those funds to be used for smoking cessation programs.
I think it is a fairly simple choice, and that is, do we want to say
to the American public that we are going to try to deal with all of the
problems that we have, but we are only going to do it if we have the
money to spend and, if not, then we are going to have to forego that as
well?
We committed to a balanced budget. I worked not only amicably but I
think efficiently with my friend from New Mexico in getting a balanced
budget into place. We were commended by people across this country,
including leaders of both our parties.
I want it to continue that way, Mr. President, and I hope we will be
able to have the votes that say, ``OK, let's give the priorities that
are for the people a chance to be put into effect.''
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time was used in excess of the
15 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 55 seconds of leader's time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to manage that
amount of time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, outside of this, Senator Stevens wants
to offer an amendment that is going to be accepted. I ask unanimous
consent that he be permitted to do that without it being charged to
either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2253, as modified

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2253, and I send
a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OUTLAY ESTIMATES OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a new era for
federal spending and forced the Department of Defense to plan
on limited spending over the five year period from fiscal
year 1998 through 2002.
(2) The agreements forged under the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 specifically defined the available amounts of budget
authority and outlays, requiring the Department of Defense to
properly plan its future activities in the new, constrained
budget environment.
(3) The Department of Defense worked with the Office of
Management and Budget to develop a fiscal year 1999 budget
which complies with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
(4) Based on Department of Defense program plans and policy
changes, the Office of Management and Budget and the
Department of Defense made detailed estimates of fiscal year
1999 Department of Defense outlay rates to ensure that the
budget submitted would comply with the Balanced Budget Act of
1997.
(5) The Congressional Budget Office outlay estimate of the
fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense budget request exceeds
both the outlay limit imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 and the Office of Management and Budget's outlay
estimate, a disagreement which would force a total
restructuring of the Department of Defense's fiscal year 1999
budget.
(6) The restructuring imposed on the Department of Defense
would have a devastating impact on readiness, troop morale,
military quality of life, and ongoing procurement and
development programs.
(7) The restructuring of the budget would be driven solely
by differing statistical estimates made by capable parties.
(8) In a letter currently under review, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget will identify
multiple differences between the Office of Management and
Budget's estimated outlay rates and the Congressional
Budget Office's estimated outlay rates.
(9) New information on Department of Defense policy changes
and program execution plans now permit the Office of
Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office to
reevaluate their initial projections of fiscal year 1999
outlay rates.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that the totals underlying this concurrent resolution on the
budget assume that not later than April 22, 1998, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall complete discussions and develop a common
estimate of the projected fiscal year 1999 outlay rates for
Department of Defense accounts.

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OUTLAY ESTIMATES FOR
THE BUDGETS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The federal civilian workforce in non-Defense
Department agencies shrank by 125,000 employees, or 10
percent, between 1992 and 1997.
(2) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 assumed over $60
billion in reductions in nondefense discretionary spending
over the period 1998-2002.
(3) These reductions were agreed to notwithstanding ever-
increasing responsibilities in agencies engaged in fighting
crime, combating the drug war, countering terrorist threats,
cleaning the environment, enforcing the law, improving
education, conducting health research, conducting energy
research and development, enhancing the nation's physical
infrastructure, and providing veterans programs.
(4) All Federal agencies have worked closely with the
Office of Management and Budget to balance much-needed
programmatic needs with fiscal prudence and to submit budget
requests for FY 1999 that comply with the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997.
(5) Reductions in the President's requests, as estimated by
the Office of Management and Budget, to comply with the
Congressional Budget Office's estimates could seriously
jeopardize priority domestic discretionary programs.
(6) There is no mechanism through which the Congressional
Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget
identify their differences in outlay rates for nondefense
agencies.
(7) Such consultation would lead to greater understanding
between the two agencies and potentially fewer and/or smaller
differences in the future.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that the totals underlying this concurrent resolution on the
budget assume that not later than April 22, 1998, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in consultation
with the Secretaries of the affected nondefense agencies,
shall complete discussions and develop a common estimate of
the projected fiscal year 1999 outlay rates for accounts in
nondefense agencies.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am offering a Sense-of-the-Senate
Amendment which urges the Office of Management and Budget, the
Department of Defense, and the Congressional Budget Office to develop a
common estimate of outlays under the fiscal year 1997 Defense budget.
Last year, the Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--
putting the Federal Government on a path to living within its means.
The act specified the budget authority and outlay levels for the
Defense Department for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
The Department of Defense is a $250 billion organization--an
organization which needs stability to run effectively.
The Defense Department relied on last year's Budget Act to build its
fiscal year 1999 budget.
Currently, the fiscal year 1999 budget submitted by the Defense
Department, and scored using OMB rates, complies with the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997.
OMB and the Defense Department built their outlay rates based on the
specific spending plans of each DOD program and based upon the policy
changes contained in the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget. In many
cases, the Defense Department increased outlay rates over last year's
levels.
DOD also adjusted working capital fund policies, and billing rates,
to generate positive balances and keep these funds solvent.
Mr. President, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which I
chair, has for the last 3 years, transferred cash into the working
capital funds and directed DOD to change its billing rates and
policies.
The Defense Department has done what the Congress asked. However, the
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that outlays under the fiscal
year 1999 Defense budget will exceed the limit imposed by the budget
agreement, as well as the OMB quality estimate, by $3.7 billion. These
differences are based on statistical analyses and projections of the
future based on the past. While this may all be theoretically
interesting, it has severe implications for the Defense Department.
The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would have to totally
restructure the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget to reduce outlays by
$3.7 billion. We would have to cut military personnel funding
unexpectedly forcing thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen out of
the force structure.
We would have to cut operation and maintenance funds--funds which
keep

[[Page S3060]]

our troops trained and ready, which pay to day-to-day bills for our
bases, and which repair the aging equipment relied upon by our military
personnel.
Lastly, we could turn to the procurement and research and development
accounts--cutting $2-$10 of budget authority for every dollar in
outlays we must save. This would bring modernization to a virtual halt
and increase the cost of the remaining, less efficient programs. These
cuts would not serve the Senate, and Defense Department, or the Nation
well.
I understand that there may be new and more detailed information on
the Defense Department's budget policies and execution plans--
information that the Congressional Budget Office did not consider.
It is essential that there be a common agreement on the outlay
estimate of the Defense budget--an agreement that does not punish DOD
based on a disagreement over statistical predictions and historical
interpolation.
My amendment urges that everyone work toward this common agreement--
an agreement which I hope will allow us adequate flexibility to
maintain balance in the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to address
my colleagues on a subject which is of increasing concern to me. I have
spent a great deal of time on the floor of the Senate during our
consideration of the budget resolution for this fiscal year and the
following 5 years. I have listened intently as the Senate has debated
taxes, education, child care, Social Security, Medicare and other
issues which Senators have raised with respect to this resolution.
It has been glaringly evident to me, and I suspect to some of my
colleagues, that there has been little or no mention of national
security issues during this debate. No one has raised the issue of
defense spending. Maybe its because defense doesn't rank very high
these days in the polls which reflect the concerns of the American
people; Or maybe it's because everyone assumes that the defense budget
is adequate and there is no reason to debate it. I am concerned first
of all because I believe there is clear shortfall between the ambitious
foreign policy of this Administration and the resources we are willing
to provide for national defense.
The operational tempo of our military forces is at an all time high.
American forces are deployed literally around the globe. The foreign
policy of this Administration has raised the number of separate
deployments to the highest in our history. Our servicemen and women
spend more and more time away from their homes and families on more
frequent and extended deployments. As a result, recruiting grows more
difficult and retention is becoming an extremely serious problem--
especially for pilots.
We are also beginning to see increasing indicators of readiness
problems. Spare parts shortages, increased cannibalization, declining
operational readiness rates, cross-decking of critical weapons,
equipment and personnel foretell a potential emergence of readiness
difficulties that could seriously cripple our military forces in the
very near future. The Chiefs of the military services indicate that
they are on the margin in readiness and modernization. The Chief of one
of our military services has recently stated orally as well as in
writing that his budget for fiscal year 1999 is, for the third year in
a row, inadequate.
While, at the present time, the American people may not be expressing
concern about threats to our national security or the readiness of our
armed forces, we in the Senate are not relieved of our responsibilities
to ensure that we have capable, effective military forces ready to
defend our nation's vital interests. It is our job in the Congress to
examine the readiness and capability of our armed forces and ensure
that we have provided adequate resources and guidance to the Secretary
of Defense so that he can carry out his mission with respect to
our national security. I believe, as I have stated so many times on
this floor, that nothing that we do here in the Congress is more
important than providing for our national security. I intend to
continue to make this point whenever I believe that we in the Senate
may not be paying enough attention to this most critical issue.

Mr. President, the Congress has endeavored over the past several
years to shore up our defense budgets with annual add-ons. However,
reductions in the defense budgets over the last 3 years to pay for
Bosnia have denigrated the effect of those congressional plus-ups.
Almost half of the $21 billion we added to the defense budgets over the
last 3 years which was intended to enhance readiness and modernization
was spent instead for operations in Bosnia. With the increased optempo
of our buildup in the Persian Gulf, the strain on our military forces
and budgets is more and more evident.
As many of you are aware, we face a potentially serious problem of
$3.6 billion resulting from scoring differences between the Office of
Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget. The chairman of the
Budget Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I
were able to work out an amendment to help alleviate this problem. We
appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the Budget Committee and
trust that in his discussions with the Secretary of Defense, the Office
of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, he will
resolve this problem. It is critical that this problem be resolved.
Otherwise, the impact on the defense budget would be devastating to our
military forces.
The Armed Services Committee will begin work on our markup during the
Easter recess period. We intend to have our bill on the floor before
the Memorial Day recess. Under the budget agreement, the Congress will
not be adding funds to the defense budget. I know that the majority of
Senators would not support adding funds to the defense budget in
violation of the budget agreement. Therefore, we will conduct our
markup consistent with the budget agreement. However, I have stated in
the past and I say again, I believe that we are not providing adequate
funds for defense. It remains my firm belief that we should provide
additional funds for our national security.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are a number of cosponsors to this
amendment. The amendment I offer is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment
which directs the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of
Defense, and the Congressional Budget Office to develop a common
estimate of outlays under the fiscal year 1999 defense budget. The
modification of my amendment adds a corresponding sense-of-the-Senate
section which urges OMB, CBO, and the Secretaries of nondefense
agencies to also develop common estimates for the 1999 outlays for the
nondefense discretionary programs.
I believe this amendment is one that is needed. It is a sense of the
Senate, but it directs, as far as the Office of Management and Budget
and CBO and the Defense Department, to find a common ground before we
start marking up either the authorization bill or the appropriations
bill. It has been cosponsored by both sides. I believe it will be
accepted. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2253), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Stevens, I understand,
working with the other side, this amendment includes nondefense where
there are serious discretionary estimating inconsistencies.
Mr. STEVENS. The chairman is right. We have added the nondefense
portion. It deals, however, just with the discretionary accounts, both
defense and nondefense discretionary. It is a matter that
Appropriations must have resolved.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know that Senator Hutchison is
waiting, but I want to use some of that 6 minutes. I am not sure I will
use all of it. Let me take a little.

Amendment No. 2244

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know how we judge right and
wrong, whether I am right or wrong after an eloquent speech, as my
friend called it. But, look, this afternoon we

[[Page S3061]]

are going to vote and sometimes in America, democracy says the one that
gets the most votes wins. I don't know if that means you are right, but
I can tell you we are going to win and they are going to lose. I don't
know what that means, but I think that is pretty good.
In addition, let me suggest, I, too, am worried about what is
happening to our young children who smoke. It is wonderful for me to be
able to say that I smoked heavily until 8 years ago. I have eight
children and not a single one smokes. So I am very pleased about that.
I don't know what that means either, except it is just a statement of
fact.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can I ask a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did they see you coughing?
Mr. DOMENICI. They did not. But they used to leave all kinds of
little notes on my pillow and stuff them underneath.
Mr. President, let me just say, it is a question in politics if there
is ever enough spending by a Government. How much is enough, I ask? Is
$825 million provided in this budget resolution to take care of
advertising to have a positive impact on our children smoking enough or
should we have more?

I tell you, that is twice as much as the President asked for. I
assume if a Democratic President has some $400 million and we have $825
million, that probably--probably--we have enough. Having said that,
there are so many programs being talked about to come out of that pot
of gold, that giant piggy bank, many of which nobody knows will even
work. If you have national advertising programs and preventive programs
in drugs where you are going into schools, talking to the kids, running
advertising and it is not working a bit--in fact, there are more
drugs--one would have a tendency to be a bit skeptical, it seems to me,
about whether we know how to do that, be it for drugs or for
cigarettes.
In the final analysis, we have decided in our budget resolution to
take every priority that we can find consistent with our 5-year
agreement and fund them as best we can consistent with the agreement;
that there be no new discretionary spending.
What is happening now, just so everybody will understand, we asked
those experts who talk about our money supply, our interest rates, the
wonderful economy, what are we supposed to be most concerned about to
keep the message out there that we are fiscally responsible and we are
aiming at a balanced budget for a long time? They tell us, ``Don't
breach the agreement that you entered into with reference to how much
you can spend each year as you appropriate annually.''
We all say we will not do that. That is right. But, Mr. President,
what this budget that is before us and what the President chose to do
is to take another pot of money and say, ``We'll spend it another way
and it won't count against those agreed-upon expenditures.''
That is called new entitlement programs.
So this litany of new programs cannot be paid for under the budget
agreement. But it can be paid for if you choose to create new
entitlement programs that will go on forever even though the money from
which they are paid has a terminal time. So I believe we did the right
thing. We look forward to an era of balanced budgets, an era of solid
economic growth, an era during which we fix Social Security permanently
and during which we fix Medicare permanently and we actually put our
budget where our mouth is, and that is to do those things.
I yield back any time that I might have. And in due course I will
make a point of order against the budget. But I do not choose to do it
now.
I say to Senator Hutchison, if you would let me dispose of a series
of amendments, I would really appreciate that.

Amendments Nos. 2187, 2204, 2217, 2212, 2225, 2233, 2235, 2236, 2237,
2239, 2240, 2246, 2248, 2250, 2253, 2258, 2263, 2264, 2266, 2269, and
2270, en bloc

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a list of amendments by number.
There are 21. And I will not cite each one but, rather, I will send the
list to the desk for consideration. These amendments have been agreed
to. And I would like to agree to them en bloc. There is no objection on
our side and no objection on their side, the Democrat side. They are
both Republican and Democrat amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the enumerated amendments
sent to the desk will be considered en bloc.

amendment no. 2235

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with Senator
Lieberman expresses the sense of the Senate that the next budget
submission by the President, and the next Congressional budget
resolution, should reclassify all civilian research and development
activities within the Federal government, now scattered among 12
separate budget functions in the Budget Resolution, into one budget
function--Function 250.
Function 250, entitled ``General Science, Space, and Technology,''
currently is comprised of funding for the National Science Foundation,
NASA, and some R&D programs at the Department of Energy.
The purpose of the functional analysis in the Budget Resolution is to
provide the Congress with insight into important crosscutting themes in
the budget. When it comes to the federal investment on R&D, though, the
current functional analysis in the Budget Resolution fails. It does not
facilitate any sort of cross-cutting discussion about the size and
direction of Federally supported science and technology research. In
fact, our current budget function structure hides more than half of the
Federal investment in civilian R&D. According to data from the Office
of Management and Budget, in addition to the agencies and programs
currently in Function 250, 20 other civilian departments and agencies
have research and development programs of consequence. My amendment
would address this problem by providing more transparency to our
support of Federal R&D. No funds or programs would be shifted among
agencies. But the President's next budget proposal would highlight
where in each agency R&D was being supported. If the President were to
implement the suggestion in this amendment, I believe that it would
have the following beneficial effects.
No. 1, when all civilian R&D is placed into one budget function, it
will become much easier for the Congress to examine the entire Federal
R&D portfolio. Questions of balance, coverage, and emphasis within that
portfolio will become easier to ask when the whole picture can be seen
more easily.
No. 2, the proposed change in my amendment will facilitate the
ability of each authorizing committee to review the Federally supported
R&D under its jurisdiction, as one element in preparing its views and
estimates for the Budget Committee. The amendment will also allow
committees such as the Committee on the Budget or the Committee on
Appropriations to conduct a global review of federal R&D early in the
budget/appropriations process. The National Academy of Sciences has
recommended that such a global look at R&D take place annually in
Congress in its 1995 report, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and
Technology. The Academy stated that the ``Congress should create a
process that examines the entire [federal science and technology]
budget before the total federal budget is dis
agggregated into allocations to appropriations committees and
subcommittees.'' This amendment would facilitate the implementation of
this idea, which has broad support in the scientific and technical
community.
No. 3, placing civilian R&D at mission agencies into Function 250
will reflect the reality that all Federal research and development,
regardless of sponsoring agency, is interrelated. All Federal R&D,
regardless of sponsoring agency, can and does make essential
contributions to the general fund of knowledge. These are realities
that are well known to the scientific and technical community. In the
words of former IBM Vice President Lewis Branscomb, ``One cannot
distinguish in any meaningful way `basic' from `applied research' by
observing what a scientist is doing.''
No. 4, placing civilian R&D at mission agencies into Function 250
will elevate the prominence of R&D supported by those agencies in
future budget and policy discussions.

[[Page S3062]]

I believe that this amendment will result in a valuable contribution
to our institutional ability to understand and manage one of the most
important parts of the Federal budget
I urge the adoption of both amendments.

amendment no. 2236

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is co-sponsored by
myself, Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator Lieberman. It expresses the
sense of the Senate in favor of a basic principle that is widely
supported in this body. That principle is that we should seek to double
the Federal investment in civilian research and development over the
next 10 years. This principle is contained in legislation co-sponsored
by us, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and about 10 other
Senators.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sense of the
Senate Amendment to double federal R&D investments over the next ten
years. Federal support for research and development is all about
creating wealth and opportunity and assuring a higher quality of life
for our citizens. As policy makers, it is worth our while to focus on
wealth creation because it enables everything else we want to do.
We have an awful lot of data these days that tell us there is a firm
connection between R&D expenditures and subsequent economic growth. One
commonly cited figure--derived from Dr. Robert Solow's Nobel prize-
winning research--is that 50% of America's post-World War II growth can
be attributed to technological innovation--innovation largely driven by
the discoveries that flow out of the nation's R&D laboratories.
Economists do not give us the tools to determine the optimum level of
R&D spending, but is clear from all the data that we are far, far below
the point of diminishing returns. Numerous studies indicate that the
marginal rates of return on publicly-financed R&D investments are
extraordinarily high. These high rates of return tell us that federal
R&D expenditures are an especially efficient investment vehicle, that
we are currently underinvesting in R&D, and that we are underutilizing
our nation's existing R&D infrastructure, including its pool of
talented scientist and engineers.
Why is the government involved in research in the first place? These
days industry funds nearly twice as much R&D as government does, why
don't we let them do all of it? The problem with that notion is that
the private sector, for the most part, does not fund discovery--
government does. The private sector funds the later phases of the
innovation process--those phases closest to product development.
Privately-financed R&D--which is mostly D--provides the critical link
between research and the subsequent creation of new wealth and
opportunity. It is vitally important, but it depends on publicly-
financed R&D for fundamental knowledge creation.
The benefits of knowledge created in the nation's laboratories and
universities are diffuse and typically yield economic returns only
after a significant time lag--a time lag well beyond the planning
horizon of most commercial firms. Moreover, the benefits cannot be
anticipated in advance. The chemists and physical scientists who first
conceived of utilizing nuclear magnetic resonance to determine chemical
structure never imagined that their discovery would become the basis of
a whole new medical diagnostic industry. Firms realize that they cannot
capture most of the benefits of fundamental research. It is a classic
market failure. The returns are very significant, however, and they are
fully captured by the society as a whole.

Because federal investments are typically focused on the early phases
of the innovation process, they exert tremendous leverage. This is part
of the reason why the returns on federal R&D investments are so high.
The early phases are the high-risk, high-payoff phases. There may be
many misses, but the hits are very large indeed.
In recent years, we have not maintained federal R&D investments at
traditional levels as a fraction of either discretionary spending or,
more significantly, as a fraction of national income. I would argue
that, in a society and an economy that are increasingly knowledge-
intensive, we ought to be increasing our investments in knowledge
creation not reducing them. Nonetheless, federal support for research
and development has declined substantially since the 1960s as a
percentage of national income. We have to turn this situation around.
Robust federal support for R&D and the American research enterprise is
one of the key elements in sustaining high levels of economic growth in
the future. We cannot take America's current economic and technical
leadership for granted. If we are to maintain our nation's leadership
position, we must be prepared to make the requisite investments in our
R&D system--the most productive system of its kind in the world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
amendments en bloc.
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 2187, 2204, 2217, 2212, 2225, 2233, 2235, 2236,
2237, 2239, 2240, 2246, 2248, 2250, 2253, 2258, 2263, 2264, 2266, 2269
and 2270) were agreed to en bloc.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments
were agreed to en bloc.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 2229

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I add to the list amendment No. 2229,
the Feinstein amendment. And I assume we will have to adopt that
separately.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of
the Senate that we must rededicate ourselves to making our public
education system the best. These reforms, if implemented by states and
local school districts in partnership with the federal government, will
improve: The achievement of students; the quality of teaching; and the
accountability of public school systems.
This sense of the Senate amendment has six elements. It calls on the
federal government to work with states, school districts and local
leaders to accomplish the following goals by the year 2005:
(1) Establish achievement levels and assessments in every grade for
the core academic curriculum; measure each regular student's
performance; and prohibit the practice of ``social promotion'' of
students (promoting students routinely from one grade to the next
without regard to their academic achievement);
(2) Provide remedial programs for students whose achievement levels
indicate they should not be promoted to the next grade;
(3) Create smaller schools to enable students to have closer
interaction with teachers;
(4) Require at least 180 days of instruction per year in core
curriculum subjects;
(5) Recruit teachers who are adequately trained and credentialed in
the subject or subjects they teach and encourage excellent, experienced
teachers to remain in the classroom by providing adequate salaries;
require all teachers to be credentialed and limit emergency or
temporary teaching credentials to a limited period of time; hold
teachers and principals accountable to high educational standards;
(6) Require all regular students to pass an examination in basic core
curriculum subjects in order to receive a high school diploma.

u.s. schools' performance unimpressive

In 1983--15 years ago--the National Commission on Excellence in
Education issued its startling report on the decline of America's
schools, titled ``A Nation at Risk.'' Our schools today are still at
risk.
A February report this year revealed that American high school
seniors are among the world's least prepared in math and science,
scoring far below their peers in other countries. Overall, U.S.
students outperformed only two countries in the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study--Cyprus and South Africa. In twelfth
grade advanced math and physics, U.S. students scored last in physics
and next to last in math. American eighth graders scored well below the
international average in math.
SAT scores today are near their lowest point ever, reports the
Brookings Institute. The National Assessment of Educational Progress
reported that math, science, writing and reading achievement have been
flat for the past quarter century.
The U.S. Department of Education last fall reported that 29 percent
of all

[[Page S3063]]

college freshmen require remedial classes in basic skills.
The 1997 annual report on our national education goals found that the
high school dropout rate has increased and more teachers reported
student disruptions in their classrooms.
The national goals report told us that performance has declined in
reading achievement at grade 12 and in the percentage of secondary
teachers who hold a degree in their main teaching assignment.
The goals report found no significant improvement in high school
completion rate or reading achievement at grades 4 and 8.

issue 1: achievement levels; no social promotion

The first provision of my amendment urges the establishment of
achievement levels and assessments in every grade for the core academic
curriculum and calls on state and local schools to stop social
promotion. Social promotion is the practice of schools' advancing a
student from one grade to the next regardless of the student's academic
achievement.
Forty-nine states are working to establish achievement standards and
assessments, but few have completed the task. AFT found: ``In most
districts, there are no agreed-upon explicit standards of performance
to which students are held accountable.''
Educators widely agree that tough, clear academic content and
performance standards are the only way to determine what students are
learning and how quickly or slowly they are learning it. Standards
should be the foundation of learning.
Social promotion is contrary to tough standards. Saying that social
promotion is ``rampant,'' AFT leaders found that school districts'
criteria for passing and retaining students is vague, that only 17
states have standards in the four core disciplines (English, math,
social studies and science) that are well grounded in content and that
are clear enough to be used.
It is time to end social promotion, a practice which misleads our
students, their parents and the public.
I agree with the conclusion of the September 1997 study conducted by
the American Federation of Teachers:

Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides school
failure and creates problems for everybody--for kids, who are
deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to be
successful or get the message that achievement doesn't count;
for teachers who must face students who know that teachers
wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for the
business community and colleges that must spend millions of
dollars on remediation, and for society that must deal with a
growing proportion of uneducated citizens, unprepared to
contribute productively to the economic and civic life of the
nation.

How Widespread Is It?

None of the districts surveyed by AFT have an explicit policy of
social promotion, but almost every district has an implicit practice of
social promotion. Almost all districts view holding students back as a
policy of last resort and many put explicit limits on retaining
students. Districts have loose and vague criteria for moving a student
from one grade to the next. This approach, concludes AFT, is implicit
approval of social promotion.
AFT found last year that 7 states are seeking to end social promotion
by requiring students to meet the state standards before being promoted
into certain grades, an increase over the 4 of the previous year.
Mike Wright, a San Diegian, is an example. Cited in the February 16
San Diego Union-Tribune, Mr. Wright say he routinely got promoted from
grade to grade and even graduated from high school, even though he
failed some subjects. At age 29, he is now enrolled in a community
college program to learn to read--at age 29.
Social promotion is a cruel joke. We are fooling students. We are
fooling ourselves. Students think a high school diploma means
something. But in reality, we are graduating students who cannot count
change, who cannot read a newspaper, who cannot fill out an employment
application.

The Academic Cost of No Achievement Levels, Social Promotion

Students' need for remedial work is one measure of the harm of the
lack of clear achievement levels and the practice of social promotion.
Here are some examples:
A January 1998 poll by Public Agenda asked employers and college
professors whether they believe a high school diploma guarantees that a
student has mastered basic skills. In this poll, 63% of employers and
76 percent of professors said that the diploma is no guarantee that a
graduate can read, write or do basic math.
In California, a December 1997 report from a state education
accountability task force estimated that at least half of the state's
students--3 million children--perform below levels considered
proficient for their grade level.
Nationwide, about one third of college freshmen take remedial courses
in college and three-quarters of all campuses, public and private,
offer remediation, says the AFT study.
A March 27 California State University study found that more than
two-thirds of students enter Cal State campuses in Los Angeles lack the
math or English they should have mastered in high school. At some high
schools, not one graduate going on to one of Cal State's campuses
passed a basic skills test. At Cal State Dominguez Hills, for example,
8 out of 10 freshmen enrollees last fall needed remedial English and 87
percent needed remedial math.
Sadly, these numbers represent an increase. In the fall of 1997, 47
percent of freshmen enrolled at CSU needed remediation, compared to 43
percent in each of the previous three years. In math, 54 percent needed
remedial help, compared to 48 percent in 1994.
Similarly, almost 35 percent of entering freshmen at the University
of California do poorly on UC's English proficiency test and must
receive help in their first year.
Florida spent $53 million in college on remedial education, says the
AFT study.
In Boston, school principals estimate that half their ninth graders
are not prepared for high school work.
In Ohio, nearly one fourth of all freshmen who attend state public
universities must take remedial math or English (Cleveland Plain
Dealer, July 7, 1997)
Employers tell me that their new hires are unprepared for work and
they have to provide very basic training to make them employable. For
example, last year, MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic skills
training (USA Today, 1996).

Support for Ending Social Promotion is Widespread

Fortunately, many policymakers are beginning to realize that we must
stop social promotion. President Clinton called for ending it in his
January 27 State of the Union speech. He said, ``We must also demand
greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade to grade who
hasn't mastered the work, we don't do that child any favors. It is time
to end social promotion in America's schools.''
On February 23, the President sent Secretary Riley a memo asking him
to prepare guidelines for educators on ending social promotion and
guidelines for using federal funds to adopt sound promotion policies.
``Neither promoting students when they are unprepared or simply
retaining them in the same grade is the right response to low student
achievement,'' the President wrote. ``Both approaches presume high
rates of initial failure are inevitable and acceptable.''
At least three states--Florida, Arkansas and Texas--explicitly outlaw
social promotion.
The Chicago Public Schools have ditched social promotion. After their
new policy was put in place, in the spring of 1997, over 40,000
students failed tests in the third, sixth and eighth and ninth grades
and then went to mandatory summer school. Chicago School Superintendent
calls social promotion ``education malpractice.'' He says from now on
his schools' only product will be student achievement.
Cincinnati's students are now promoted based on specific standards
that define what students must know.
In my own state, the San Diego School Board in February adopted
requirements that all students in certain grades must demonstrate
grade-level performance. And they will require all students to earn a C
overall grade average and a C grade in core subjects for high school
graduation, effectively ending social promotion for certain grades and
for high school graduation. For example, San Diego's schools are
requiring that eighth graders who do

[[Page S3064]]

not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses in summer
school.
As long as we tolerate social promotion and the absence of standards,
we will never know (1) what our students need to learn and (2) whether
they have learned what they should learn. How, I ask, can you measure
what you have accomplished if you don't know where you are going?

issue 2: more remedial programs

Some schools are trying to provide after-school help, tutoring and
summer school remedial programs as ways of intervening when students
are having learning problems, but a report by the American Federation
of Teachers found that only 13 states require local school districts to
provide academic intervention for students who fail to meet standards.
Similarly, a report of the Council of Chief State School Officers in
1997 on math and science standards, found that states were doing very
little to ensure that all students master the standards.
AFT's 1997 report on state standards found that only 13 states
require and fund intervention programs to help low-performing students,
up from 10 the previous year.
The Chicago Public School, for example, have launched a major
revamping of their school system, and have made after-school programs a
priority in helping students learn.

issue 3: smaller schools

The amendment calls on school districts to have smaller schools. In
California, some campuses sprawl across acres and acres and schools can
have thousands of students. The principal is just a voice over the
loudspeaker. School personnel hardly know the names of the students.
I believe that elementary schools should have no more than 500
students; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools, 1,500
students. I believe that in smaller schools children have a stronger
sense of community and connectedness, that school personnel become
closer to and more effective with their students.
One study of 744 large high schools found that the dropout rate at
schools with over 2,000 students was double that of schools with 667 or
fewer students. Another study of 357 schools revealed that large
schools have higher rates of class cutting, absenteeism, and classroom
disorders.
I believe these studies make a compelling case.

issue 4: longer school year

My amendment also urges states and school districts to have a school
year of at least 180 days. The U.S. school year averages around 180
days, an outdated calendar based on our agrarian past over 100 years
ago.

Currently, 29 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
require a minimum of 180 teaching days. California now requires only
172 teaching days, but a new state law does provide incentive funds for
adding up to eight professional days to the 172-day school year.
Many other countries have longer school years than we do. Students in
England, Germany and Japan go to school between 220 and 243 days a
year.
A 1993 study entitled ``Timepiece: Extending and Enhancing Learning
Time'' observed that American school children spend more days out of
school than in school and documented ``summer learning loss,'' finding
that teachers spend four to six weeks every fall going over lessons
from the previous school year. Similarly, A Nation at Risk recommended
lengthening both the school day and the school year.
Along with setting high standards, we must put more time into
teaching and learning and thus my amendment recommends 180 days of
instructional time, which still would leave us with a school year
shorter than many of our international competitors.

issue 5. trained teachers

Class sizes cannot be reduced without hiring more teachers. And these
teachers must be trained and credentialed teachers.
The National Commission on Teaching and Learning in November 1997
brought us some disturbing findings:
More than one-fourth of newly-hired teachers lack qualifications for
their jobs.
The U.S. has no real system in place to ensure that teachers get
access to the kinds of knowledge they need to help their students
succeed.
Twenty-three percent of high school teachers do not even have a minor
in their main teaching field.
School systems often waive or lower standards to hire people without
qualifications to teach.
California, unfortunately, is a case example. We have 21,000 teachers
on emergency credentials. In California, nearly 22,000 of the 240,000
public school teachers in California are not fully credentialed or have
not passed a basic skills test. Half of California's math and science
teachers did not minor in those subjects in college, yet they are
teaching. The October 13, 1997, U.S. News and World Report reported
that in Los Angeles, ``new teachers have included Nordstrom clerks, a
former clown, and several chiropractors.''
The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future ranked
California near the bottom of states in the quality of our public
school teaching force because we have some of the highest proportions
of uncertified or undertrained teachers, particularly in math and
science. The Commission defined ``well-qualified'' as a teacher with
full certification and a major in their assigned field. By this
measure, only 65 percent of the state's teachers meet the standard.
Nationally, that figure is 72 percent. In California, 46 percent of
high school math teachers did not minor in math. The national average
is 28 percent.
California will need up to 300,000 new teachers in the next decade
because of our escalating enrollment. But a 1996 analysis by Policy
Analysis for California Education found that my state could only expect
about 9,000 new credentialed teachers per year if current trends
continue.
Without good teachers, no school reform, however visionary or
revolutionary, can improve student learning. This nation needs a major
investment in teacher training, professional development and we need to
pay teachers decent, professional salaries to attract and retain them.

issue 6: final exams for graduation

Without achievement levels or tests, students today can leave high
school with a diploma.
According to the Council of Chief State School Officers, for the
1995-1996 school year, only 17 states require passing minimum
competency tests for high school graduation. California, for example,
does not require high school graduation exams.
The 1997 AFT report on state standards found that only 13 states have
high school graduation exams based on 10th grade standards or higher.
Therefore, without standards, with social promotion rampant, a high
school diploma means little. It is no measure of achievement. This has
to stop.

the public expects performance, accountability

In a recent survey of Californians, 61 percent agreed that our
schools need a ``major overhaul,'' up from 54 percent who answered the
same question two years ago. A mere six percent believe that schools
provide a ``quality education.''
A poll by Policy Analysis for California Education found that only 17
percent of Californians considers the state's schools ``good'' or
``excellent,'' down from about 33 percent three years ago. A 1997 poll
in my state found that improving elementary and secondary education has
replaced crime and immigration at Californians' top priority.
Nationally, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last year found that 58
percent of Americans say fundamental changes are needed in U.S.
schools. A Garin-Hart poll last year found only 9% of the public
believes our public education system ``works pretty well.'' Only 27
percent gave our schools an above-average rating. A whopping 84% of
people favor establishing meaningful national standards.

conclusion

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment
because we must stop shortchanging our students.
School achievement must mean something. It must mean more than
filling up a seat at a desk for 12 years. A diploma should not just be
a symbol of accumulating time in school. And school systems need to be
accountable.
I hope today the Senate will go on record in support of this modest
amendment that expresses 6 critical principles for school reform.

[[Page S3065]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
amendment No. 2229.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2229) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the distinguished chairman of the committee,
approximately how long is he asking authors of amendments to--
Mr. DOMENICI. We are operating under a time agreement where you are
in control of 15 minutes and the opposition has 15 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you. We will certainly yield back part of our
time. Well, I will wait and see what the opposition is.

Amendment No. 2208

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I call up amendment No. 2208 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

An amendment numbered 2208 previously proposed by [Mr.
Domenici] for Mrs. Hutchison of Texas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Grams as a
cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is what my amendment does. It is
a sense of the Senate that this resolution assumes that any budget
surplus should be dedicated to debt reduction or direct tax relief for
hard-working American families.
It is really quite simple. This Congress has labored mightily for the
last 2 years to come up with a balanced budget. This budget resolution,
which has been so ably led by the Senator from New Mexico, and helped
by the Senator from New Jersey, is an example of how difficult it has
been to actually balance our budget. It has not been easy. It has been
tough to make these hard choices, but Congress has done it.
We are talking about a balanced budget and, in fact, surpluses. I am
saying, do not fritter away the victory. We have done the tough things.
Now is not the time to get wimpy. Now is the time to remain tough, so
that we will be able to assure our children and grandchildren that they
will not inherit the $5 trillion of debt that has been built up in this
country for the last 40 years. It is a time to say we are going to be
responsible stewards of this country while we are on the watch deck.
It is time for us to say, it is the sense of the Senate that there
are only two responsible choices for spending any budget surplus:
either tax cuts for the hard-working American family that is today
paying over 38 percent of its income in Federal, State and local
taxes--and if you add the regulatory burden on top of that, government
is costing the average American family, at the $50,000 level, 50
percent of its income. If we say we are going to give tax cuts to those
hard-working Americans or we are going to start paying down the debt
for our children and grandchildren, and to keep interest rates low,
that would be the sense of this Senate for the responsible stewardship
of our economy.

We have the highest debt burden today of any peacetime in American
history. Economic research shows that tax cuts actually add to the
economy. They generate work; they generate jobs; they generate buying
power. So it would have a huge impact in a positive way. Debt reduction
also has positive returns because certainly it will keep interest rates
low and we can continue to invest in our savings.
Not only are taxes at record highs today, but the trend is in the
wrong direction. Since President Clinton came into office in 1993, the
tax burden as a percent of gross domestic product has climbed 2.1
percentage points. Just reducing taxes to the 1993 levels means the
average family would have a tax windfall of $2,500. This is their
money. This money is money they earn, and we believe it belongs to
them. That is what this sense of the Senate would say to the American
people--you earned this money, and it belongs to you, and if we are not
going to give you direct tax relief, the surplus is going to pay down
the debt so that you will be able to continue to enjoy the great
economy we have and we will also give to our children the same
stability in a great economy.
The amendment is very simple. I ask my colleagues to vote that we
will not undo the hard choices and the hard work that we have done in
this Congress over the last 3 years, but in fact we will do the right
thing, and that is, give the money back to the people who earned it or
pay down that debt so that our interest rates can stay low and so that
we can stop paying so much interest.
Mr. President, I now yield the rest of our time--up to 5 minutes--to
Senator Grams, the cosponsor of this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I thank the Senator from Texas for all her fine work on this
amendment.
I rise today to offer my strong support to Senator Hutchison's sense
of the Senate calling on Congress to look at and to reserve any future
budget surplus for tax relief and natural debt reduction or Social
Security reform. But this amendment represents, I believe, some very
sound, responsible fiscal policy, and again I commend Senator Hutchison
for her leadership and her efforts on this very important issue.
The question of how to use the potential budget surplus has been
debated extensively before this Chamber. In my view, tax relief and
debt reduction and Social Security reform are all equally important.
Tax relief will reduce the growing tax burden on our American families.
As Senator Hutchison pointed out, from 38 percent to more than 50
percent of the incomes of our average families in this country are
going to support government rather than supporting their families. But
if we give tax relief, it will increase incentives to work, save and
invest. It will help keep our economy strong. Debt reduction and Social
Security reform will address our long-term fiscal imbalances. These are
two closely related issues, and I believe they go hand in hand. We can
and we should be addressing both of these at the same time.
There are compelling reasons for supporting this amendment. When we
talk about how to use the budget surplus, let us not forget those who
generated this surplus in the first place. If, as the administration is
predicting, we do achieve a budget surplus, that surplus will have come
directly from working Americans, from taxes paid by corporations, from
individuals and investors. Clearly, this money belongs to the American
people. It has been an overcharge. It is only fair to return it to the
taxpayers who earned that money in the first place.

Families today, again, are taxed at the highest level since World War
II, with 38 percent to 50 percent of a typical family budget going to
pay taxes on the Federal, State and local level. Last year's tax cuts,
I believe, moved us in the right direction, but in reality those tax
cuts were too little, too late, too small. After spending the
unexpected $225 billion revenue windfall last year, busting the 1993
spending caps, Washington delivered tax cuts only one-third as large as
lawmakers had promised back in 1994.
Recent polls show that 89 percent of the American people believe that
taxes on all levels of government should not consume more than 25
percent of their income. Again, 89 percent of Americans believe that
all levels of taxes should not consume more than 25 percent of their
income, and 77 percent also believe that estate taxes should be
eliminated.
Lower tax rates, again, increase incentives to work, save and invest.
They help families to maximize their income and improve their standard
of living. They allow families to allocate their precious dollars to
meet their own needs, not to go out and meet the needs of disconnected
spenders located in Washington.
So, again, cut taxes and families today, who are forced to scrimp
just to cover their monthly bills and their taxes, would find that they
have more money to spend on their children's education, on their health
care expenses,

[[Page S3066]]

on food, clothing and insurance, et cetera. If we are truly interested
in giving our families the tools that they need to help raise their
children, isn't it about time that Washington cut their taxes instead
of limiting their choices?
Beyond the direct benefits to families, tax cuts can also have a
substantial and very positive impact on the economy as a whole. John F.
Kennedy proved it. Ronald Reagan proved it. So we should not spend a
budget surplus that does not yet exist. If a surplus, however, does
develop, the Government has no claim on it because the Government did
not generate it. So I do not believe Washington should be first in line
to reap the benefits of any surplus.
A surplus, again, will be the direct result of the hard work of the
American people, and, therefore, it should be returned to the American
people, either in the form of additional tax relief or beginning to pay
down this tremendous $5.6 trillion national debt.
So, Mr. President, a vote for the Hutchison-Grams amendment is a vote
for families. I believe it is a vote for fiscal sensibility in
Washington, and I urge my colleagues very strongly to give it their
support.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from
Texas have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 34 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is the minority going to respond?
I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent it be
charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise to oppose the amendment of the Senator from
Texas, Senator Hutchison. It would reject President Clinton's call to
save Social Security first.
Now, the Hutchison amendment calls for diverting part of any surplus
for tax breaks. It therefore directly contravenes the President's plan
to preserve Social Security benefits for baby boomers and other young
Americans. For the first time in 30 years, Mr. President, we are
probably going to have a budget surplus at the end of 1998--1998; that
is, the current fiscal year. It ends September 30.
The forecast for the coming decade is for continued surpluses--$1
trillion over the next decade. We have tightened our belts, we have
restored fiscal responsibility, and these surpluses are largely the
product of our joint hard work.
What do we do with the surplus? On this question, the President has
spoken clearly and unequivocally. I agree, before we spend a penny of
any surplus, we should save Social Security first. A decade from now,
the baby boom generation will begin to retire. Additionally, Americans
probably, Lord willing, are going to be living longer and having fewer
children. That means fewer workers will be contributing to Social
Security for each beneficiary. These forces will put severe strains on
the Social Security system. It could have a real impact on our economy.
If we do not maintain fiscal discipline, plan ahead, we could reduce
the quality of life for our children and thus jeopardize the most
important safety net for protecting senior citizens against poverty.
That is why the President has been so insistent that we save Social
Security first. That is why the amendment by the Senator from Texas is,
in my view, misguided.
I heard the Senator talk about restraining ourselves, about returning
money to the citizens as quickly as we can. The President shares that
objective. What he says when he says save Social Security first, he
talks about doing it through paying down the debt. If we look at where
we are now, I have to say, the President's leadership in managing this
economy is pretty good. This doesn't mean that our friends on the
Republican side haven't worked together with us and the administration
to do things. This isn't pointing a finger. It is recognizing where we
are: The lowest inflation rate, perhaps, in 30 years, in terms of the
consistency and the level of the rate; the lowest unemployment rate in
decades; the best growth rate in the economy that we have seen in
decades; perhaps the best economic condition that this country has ever
seen--maybe any country has ever seen.
We are on the right track, and we are paying down debt. We have gone
from almost $300 billion when President Clinton took over, down to a
prospective surplus in 1998, a period of 6 years. That is quite an
accomplishment.
Why is it, at a time like this, that we suddenly recognize, ``My
gosh, we have a huge deficit out there and we better get it paid
down''? The President agrees, except he provides the leadership to do
it.
I urge my colleagues to resist the short-term temptations. Confirm
the fact that we want to save Social Security. Confirm the fact that we
want to pay down the debt. Let's continue to work together, not point
fingers at who is at fault. If we are going to point fingers at who is
at fault, we had better point fingers at those who helped us in the
excellent job we have done together, and it was not all done by Alan
Greenspan, as much respect as I have for him. I want to make sure
Social Security will be there to protect younger Americans as it is
here today for parents and grandparents.
Mr. President, we have had all kinds of attacks on the present
condition. Frankly, I scratch my head and say, What are my friends
looking at? I see a stock market that is thriving--and I am not here to
prognosticate the future of the stock market, but I heard a very
distinguished economist, a personal friend of mine, on the air this
morning. His name is David Jones. He is with a New York firm. He says
that he thinks the economy is in pretty good shape in terms of the
market. He doesn't see any reason to get overly concerned about sudden
market dips. He doesn't predict that the market is going to continue
straight up, but he predicts it is on a good, solid base.
So the worry tree is sprouting buds here. I don't know whether it has
to do with the political condition we will be facing when we get out
there and talk to voters or exactly what it is. I want to be as frugal,
as thrifty, as the next one, but I also want to make sure we maintain
the service of our responsibilities to the people in our society, that
those who don't have as much money as some at the top are still able to
afford a college education for their child so that child can learn, to
make sure there is sufficient housing for people, to make sure there
are jobs for people who are moving from welfare to work. We had better
have work for them.
There are lots of worries and concerns, as I guess there always are
with mankind, no matter what the conditions are. Recognize what we
have, recognize where we have come, and at least admit we are doing the
right kind of a job.
So I don't want to do anything that will restrict the way we function
with this economy of ours. That is why I don't want to succumb to the
short-term temptation and take money out of programs to pay down the
debt. We have a program laid out on just how we will do these things.
I hope my colleagues will say no to the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Texas.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New Jersey
that he can very well vote for my amendment and still do what he says
he wants to do, and that is, save Social Security first, because my
amendment just lays out the framework for what our priorities would be.
What it says is that there are only two reasons we should spend the
surplus: For tax cuts for the hard-working American family, or for debt
reduction, which would save Social Security.
I support saving Social Security first with all of the surplus, and
that would be possible under my amendment. But what we are saying is,
we are not going to do anything else with the surplus. We are not going
to go on new spending binges. We are going to live within our income.
We are going to prioritize our budget, just like every family in
America does. We are going to live within that budget. And every penny
of surplus can only go to one of two purposes: One is tax reductions on
the

[[Page S3067]]

hard-working American family, and the second is to pay down debt. If we
continue to pay all the debt, to save Social Security, you can vote for
my amendment and be very happy that all of the Congress will support
debt reduction as one of our two priorities.

I hope everyone will support this sense of the Senate, because I
think it does set our priorities, just as this budget resolution does.
That is what a budget does; it sets the priorities.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is the Senator from Texas ready to
yield back time? If so, I yield back my time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kyl as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield back the remainder.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

Amendment No. 2176

Mr. DOMENICI. In the interest of reducing the time, I will accept the
Boxer amendment numbered 2176, and I yield back the time I was going to
use to speak, and she has yielded all her time but 1 minute.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield that time back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2176) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2226

Mr. DOMENICI. I believe we will go to Senator Rockefeller, if he is
ready.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 2226
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Amendment numbered 2226, previously proposed by the Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller].

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have a very interesting amendment
to propose and I think a very important one. I want to say first, I
fully support highway funding. Obviously, in a State like West
Virginia, where it is mostly mountainous, highway funding is more
important and more expensive than most places. I supported Senate
passage of ISTEA. We are spending $217 billion on highway funding this
year. When I was Governor, I helped get an amendment passed in this
Congress, which was actually referred to as the Rockefeller amendment,
which said if States had accumulated money, they went to the head of
the line on interstate highway building and got their money from the
Federal Government first.
Again, this is in no way an antihighway amendment, as some are very
anxious to label it. It is, however, very much a proveteran amendment.
The amendment has one purpose and one purpose only: To protect veterans
funding from a midnight raid--nothing less--by the administration and
the Budget Committee. The raid isn't really a raid, it is a ravage on
the authority of the Veterans' Committee to see that the needs of the
Nation's veterans are met. In this case, I am talking particularly
about disabled veterans.
It is as simple as that. The veterans' account under the budget
authority is being cut by $10.5 billion to pay for an enormous increase
in highway funds. This money is in the veterans' budget baseline. And
today they are taking it away from disabled veterans and putting it
into highways, where we already have $217 billion. My point is they
need to find another offset.
I think my colleagues would want to know just what is being done
here, because it is not a pretty sight. First, what is the law about?
Veterans law generally requires the VA to pay disability compensation
to veterans for any injuries, diseases, or conditions they incur while
they are in service in the military. After long debate, and for very
good reasons, the Government long ago decided that veterans disability
compensation is not limited to only combat-related conditions. The
budget resolution would change that.
In 1993, the VA general counsel in a Republican administration
interpreted the law to require the payment of disability compensation
to veterans who could prove they had become addicted to tobacco while
in military service if that addiction continued without
interruption and resulted in an illness and disability.

It is important to remember that this is a very, very tough test for
veterans to meet. And very few veterans--only about 8 percent of those
who have made such claims--have been able to meet this test so far. In
my home State of West Virginia, where there are approximately 200,000
veterans watching this debate closely, as of March 10, only 250
smoking-related disability claims have been filed and, of that number,
only 6--6--had been granted so far. What this says to me is that these
are tough claims to substantiate. This tough test is the very reason
that so few claims have been filed and why so few have been granted.
Even the military now acknowledges that it played a significant role
in fostering addiction in very young men and women in the service. How
did the military do this? One, by distributing free cigarettes in C-
rations and K-rations. Two, by creating a culture that encouraged
smoking at every opportunity, a culture of ``smoke 'em if you've got
'em.'' And three, by selling tobacco products at vastly reduced prices,
prices as much as 76% less than in civilian markets.
Mr. President, whether or not a veteran became addicted to tobacco
during military service, the results of that addiction are issues that
the VA has correctly decided, under existing law, should be determined
by its triers of fact. This is the law currently. This is the law that
the Budget Committee would unilaterally change.
Now we get to the midnight raid. In approving the fiscal year 1999
budget resolution, the Senate Budget Committee assumes a $10.5 billion
cut from the veterans account--from disabled veterans, in effect--to
partially fund the very large increase in ISTEA funds. The Budget
Committee made this transfer based upon their decision to totally bar
any veterans' claims for disabilities resulting from any tobacco-
related illnesses. But not only did the Budget Committee make this raid
on veterans' compensation for disabled veterans under the budget
resolution, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' jurisdiction over this
issue is totally removed. And lo and behold, where does it appear to
go? It appears to be solely placed in the realm of the Transportation
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. President, this type of gimmickry makes a mockery of our budget
process and of regular order in the Senate. It makes a mockery of the
system of the Senate, which so many of our Senators are fond of talking
about. This budget resolution will ultimately result in the erosion not
only of the Veterans' Committee's authority, but of all authorizing
committees' authority to determine policy. The budget committee is
saying to us on the Veterans' Committee, we who take our work
seriously, we will decide for you, we in the Appropriations Committee
will decide for you; you will not decide policy in the authorizing
committee.
Let's put a human face on this issue. Just who are the people that
this VA compensation is helping? In Huntington, WV, Robert Christian is
a 71-year-old World War II veteran. He entered the Navy when he was 17
years old. He began smoking cigarettes supplied by the Navy while on a
ship headed to the Pacific, where he was involved in three separate
invasions during that war.
Robert is just one of thousands of World War II veterans who became
addicted to cigarettes supplied by the military. Don't talk about
personal choice. His cigarettes were supplied by the military. So
Robert smoked and has been addicted for 24 years. Today, he has
bronchitis and emphysema as a result of his addiction. He receives
regular treatments to help him breathe.

[[Page S3068]]

Because Robert and his physicians were able to make the connection
between his bronchitis and his nicotine addiction, his medical
disability has been service-connected by the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Under the budget resolution, veterans like Robert would not be
able to seek help. That is a disgrace.
His disability check is not a lot of money, I might add. But the real
asset in this case is his VA health care. Now, as a service-connected
veteran, Robert is able to go to the VA medical center for treatment of
his service-connected condition. He is able to get his health care
because he is service connected. This would change under the budget
resolution.

And let's look at my friend, Larry Stotts of Spencer, WV. Larry
joined the Marines at age 18, and he, too, began smoking the cigarettes
supplied in service.
Larry is a Korean War combat veteran and one of the Chosin Few. The
Chosin Few are veterans of a bloody battle--in driving snow and sub-
zero temperatures--at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea in 1950.
After years of smoking beginning in the military, Larry has chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease. It is so severely disabling that the VA
has granted--under the very law now proposed to be struck down--a 100%
service-connected disability and free medical care.
So when you take away this Department of Veterans Affairs
compensation, remember that VA health care is now being provided on a
priority basis. It has to do with your service-connected status or
income level, and the first priority is for medical conditions linked
to service in the military. A vote to deny VA compensation for smoking-
related illnesses due to Government-sponsored nicotine addiction, which
began in the service when these young men and women were teenagers, is
also a vote to deny veterans health care--not just compensation for
being disabled, but health care to thousands of veterans who turn to
the VA for treatment of their smoking-related diseases. This is indeed
a sorry statement about this country's sense of obligation to those who
served our country. Mr. President, this issue is much clearer than all
of this discussion of the law and the cost estimates. The issue is
stunningly simple. Even if one opposes paying this compensation to a
disabled veteran, or even if one is totally comfortable with the cost
estimates that have been created, there is simply no reason--no
reason--morally, ethically, or otherwise, to take away money from
disabled veterans' programs and use it for other programs like tax cuts
and highways. It is outrageous that veterans' programs are being looted
in this way.
We are not asking for cuts in all accounts this year. In fact, we are
not even demanding that others, such as Social Security disability
recipients, lose their smoking-related compensation. No. Only veterans.
This year, we single out veterans and say: You, veterans, pay for all
of this by giving up your rights. We imagine your satisfaction,
disabled veterans, at $10 billion extra for highways, paid for by the
loss of your rights to compensation as a disabled veteran.
I oppose this raid. I urge a vote in favor of my amendment, and I
reserve the remainder of my time.
I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment after I yield to the
Senator from Colorado. How much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes 5 seconds remaining.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia. I
want to associate myself with his remarks. It is amazing to me how much
we praise the actions of our military when they are putting their lives
on the line and how quickly we forget them during peacetime or after
they leave the military. This highway bill is important. I believe
that, too, that our Nation's highways are in disrepair. But we have
human beings that are also in disrepair in our veterans' ranks. We put
$217 billion into the highway fund this year, which is almost $40
billion more than anybody expected. We have done a good job on funding
our highways. I hope that we do an equally good job on funding the
benefits for our sick veterans.
As my colleague from West Virginia mentioned, the administration--I
don't, frankly, think they understand the ramifications of this because
when I was in the service, I can remember, as Senator Rockefeller
alluded to, that there was no counseling not to smoke. In fact, as he
said, it was ``smoke 'em if you got 'em.'' That was the common thing to
do at virtually every break. We were told, ``If you want to smoke, go
ahead, do it.'' There weren't any labels on the packs, and the
cigarettes were free. You were actively encouraged to smoke. To say
that it is somehow the veterans' fault and to say that they voluntarily
smoked is a stretch of the imagination. I know we have potholes in our
highways, but we ought to also be concerned with the bullet holes that
were put in some of the veterans. To raid the veterans' health care
funds to put it in the highways, I think, is absolutely outrageous.
I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from
West Virginia. I applaud him for his courageous stand on trying to
protect the veterans of our Nation.
I yield back my time.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time,
and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is very difficult to listen to words
like, ``The President of the United States is looting a veterans'
health care program,'' and ``the Senate Budget Committee continues to
loot.'' Mr. President, almost everybody on that Budget Committee who
voted for this probably votes for everything the U.S. Congress proposes
for veterans. But what has happened here is very, very interesting.
Here is the expansion of a program in a dramatic way. One would assume
it is rather dramatic, since it is going to cost about $10 billion over
5 years. Congress has never voted on the program, number one. It is so
inconsistent, in terms of causal connection between something that
happened while you are in the military and your death, that the
President of the United States, on two occasions --not one, but two
successive budgets--has not funded any money to administer this
expanded program.
As a matter of fact, this year the President refused to fund it and
removed the money needed from the veterans' overall available moneys, I
assume because the President believed it probably was never going to
happen. That is two points. The third point: Not a single claim under
this proposed expansion has ever been granted to this day. I take that
back. The staff says 200 claims have been granted.

What we are saying is the President is right on this one. Before the
afternoon is finished, we hope we can talk about another way to see who
is right without having to do what the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, asks for. We are working on that, because,
if anything, Mr. President, and fellow Senators, we ourselves need some
clarification about what this program is all about. I want to give two
examples. I am not an expert like my friend Senator Rockefeller, who is
on the Veterans' Committee, apparently is, or Senator Specter, who
works hard in that area and is chairman.
Here is one example. If a young man started to smoke when he was 16
years old and he smoked for 4 years, and he joined the Army when he was
20 and he smoked for 4 more years, and he only served 4 years and he
got out, and then he continued to smoke for 40 years, and he got
cancer, this expansion of the program never before considered says that
the Federal Government, the military, is responsible for his cancer. Do
you have that? He started smoking before he went in. He smoked for only
4 years while he was there. Now he gets a benefit for cancer. If he
dies, his widow gets a widow's allowance because something happened to
him in the military and we should pay for the death and a widow's
allowance. Frankly, I do not believe anybody who has

[[Page S3069]]

been talking about this veteran's benefit understood that.
I will give you the more typical one. You join the military. Most of
these are going to be people who were not in for a long time because
they are the veterans who were coming in while we had the draft. So you
have a 20-year-old joining and he smokes. Here is one. He smokes for
the 2 years that he is in. Then he continues thereafter to smoke for 40
more years. He dies of cancer. His widow gets a benefit allowance
because he smoked for 2 years in the military, and continued thereafter
on the premise that he became addicted to nicotine in the military and,
therefore, we should pay for it.
There are all kinds of examples like that. I don't know all of the
examples. Of the three that I stated, one of them may not be exactly
right. But I am in the ballpark about what is happening.
I believe we ought to follow the lead of the President and not permit
this program to go into effect now. I did not say that we should kill
the program. I said I believe we should come up with a way so that we
don't implement the program now so that we don't create any false hope
immediately, but that we find a way to get this program appropriately
evaluated and that we find out here in the Congress what it is all
about. I am hopeful before too long that we will have an approach to
try to do that. I know frequently in these kinds of situations it
doesn't do a lot of good to talk and to explain because maybe people
have already made up their minds. I hope not on this.
Let me tell you, there is no question that we are not denying
veterans any health benefits they are getting today. If 200 people have
gotten the claims, it certainly is just the beginning. There will be
many more. We ought to take a good look at it before we decide that it
is right. Frankly, I look forward to taking another look at this in
some appropriate way for a reasonable period of time. I hope the
veterans' groups in this country will say, well, the Senate quite
appropriately wanted to take a look. They did not say we weren't
entitled to this. But it is very, very different than anything we have
done before. In a sense, it is sort of saying if you smoked at any time
in the military and smoked thereafter, that the military is responsible
for everything that happens to you if you smoke for 25 more years
because somehow or another you became nicotine addicted in those years
while you were in the military.

I repeat: This does not change all of the veterans' benefits with
reference to existing programs that are being carried out. I understand
with reference to hospital treatment that Senator Rockefeller is
alluding to the fact that if this isn't continued on and if it doesn't
continue starting right now that some veterans will not be as high up
in the rank of using the veterans' facilities as they would be if this
program were in effect. But I suggest even there that we ought to take
a look for a reasonable period of time and get this analyzed thoroughly
before we proceed.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield time to
the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho on my time
in opposition to the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I reluctantly stand in opposition to the
amendment by my colleague from West Virginia. I say that because I
appreciate and share with him membership on the Veterans' Committee. So
I don't take this opposition lightly. But I recognize its importance
because of the broad sense of obligation we have to our veterans
community. We in this Nation have elevated veterans and veterans' care
to a high standard. That is why it is a Cabinet agency. It didn't just
happen by accident.
We want to care for our veterans. Those men and women who have stood
in harm's way for the defense of our freedoms deserve that care, and
all of us appreciate the fact that is a great deal. That is why this
budget spends $3 billion more over the next 5 years than was assumed in
last year's bipartisan budget agreement. That is a true statement of
commitment and obligation to our veterans. But this administration and
I, and the chairman of the Budget Committee, have very real doubts
whether allowing a post-service, smoking-related illness as a part of
cash compensation to dependents is the right way to go--at a time
certainly when our Veterans' Administration is strapped for cash to
meet its current obligations to generate and create a new obligation
that is estimated will cost $45 billion over the next 10 years and
could reach as high as $10 billion a year by the year 2009.
That is the reality of what we are talking about. How did we get
there? There was a question asked inside the Veterans' Administration
whether it was reasonable and right. Could they compensate if this were
true? The answer was yes. But the chairman of the Budget Committee is
right. Did this Congress authorize it? No; we did not. Can we literally
start a new extension of entitlement that could cost $10 billion a year
without Congress speaking to it? I hope not. But that is the character
of the amendment offered by my colleague from West Virginia.
I oftentimes do not like to use the argument that maybe we ought to
study this. But maybe we ought to understand what we might be walking
into. Is it really going to be, by the year 2009, a $10 billion
expenditure at a time when our veterans' hospitals may be going
unserved or unmodernized or unadministered, at a time when we are
trying to strive for outpatient care, at a time when we are trying to
build obligations for State-managed and shared veterans' nursing homes
for the population of World War II veterans as they grow older and
older? If this is the kind of expansion of entitlement we are talking
about, how much of the other programs of the Veterans' Administration
will we be starving out?
That is why I have to say no and will oppose the amendment, and hope
we can look at the possibility of secondary amendments that would
analyze and study to see what this obligation might be. We really do
not have the parameters of it.
In the Veterans' Committee the other day, chaired by my chairman,
Senator Specter, there was a general analysis of how they would
interpret how they would judge. But, as we know, once you lay down a
set of regulations and make arbitrary decisions about who is and who
isn't eligible, all it takes is a court test to say, ``Wait a moment.
You have judged me, my husband's, or my wife's illness improperly
although they are deceased and I am entitled.'' And the judge says,
``Why not? It is the largess of the Treasury. And, by the way, the
Veterans' Administration is being arbitrary anyway.'' Boom. We have a
new expansion of an entitlement because this Congress didn't speak to
it and this Congress didn't set the tight parameters necessary when we
created new entitlement programs. We allowed an agency and their
administrators to interpret and, therefore, to judge and, therefore, to
define. I believe that is arbitrary. I think all of us do.

Let me remind you: $10 billion a year by the year 2009 is potentially
$45 billion over the next 10 years. That is a big chunk of money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time,
time is charged equally to both sides.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from
Pennsylvania?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to clarify the situation in my
mind. Senator Craig has not yet offered his amendment. Therefore, 5
minutes for responding to that amendment is not at this point available
to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Therefore, the Senator from West Virginia has 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 14 seconds.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will close on this portion.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask the Senator if he would like a couple of
minutes so he can give Senator Specter a couple minutes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I want very much to give the chairman time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page S3070]]

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Specter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe that veterans are entitled to
be compensated for illnesses related to smoking because that has been
the determination of the General Counsel of the Veterans Administration
and the doctors who have analyzed this program. The Veterans' Affairs
Committee had an extensive hearing on this matter a few days ago. The
reallocation of $10.5 billion to another expenditure line, I believe,
is unfair to the veterans of America. Young people are taken away from
homes. They are put in situations of stress. Cigarettes are provided
either free or at a low cost. The determination has been made by the
General Counsel that nicotine dependence is a disease and it is
compensable. If the money is not to go for tobacco-related illnesses,
it ought to remain in the VA funds generally, because the VA funds are
very, very limited for the tremendous obligation owed to the veterans
of America.
I believe another source of funding might be available from the
tobacco funding. And as much as I want to see the highway program
proceed, and highways are very necessary as a matter of infrastructure
for America, I believe the veterans' benefits come first. I do not
believe we need any additional studies on this matter. The analysis has
been made extensively by the general counsel that it is a disease, that
nicotine addiction is a disease, and the veterans are entitled to be
compensated. These funds ought to be made available to the veterans, as
Senator Rockefeller has proposed.
How much time do I have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one seeks recognition, time will run
equally on both sides.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico if
he wishes to speak. I would like to maintain my right to close the
debate on my amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have never been so certain that my
eloquence had that much to do with matters, as to whether I spoke first
or last, but normally I have been speaking last here as the floor
manager when we are opposing an amendment. But I will not follow that
now. I will speak now and let the Senator close.
I don't have much additional to say. Frankly, I think it is a
mistake, however, to categorize the money that the President saved in
the budget by saying he was putting this program off. I think it is a
mistake to categorize it that it all went for highways. The truth of
the matter is, it goes to discretionary spending for programs across
the board, which include highways. Frankly, what is going to happen is,
the programs of this country all go to the Appropriations Committee; if
there is not enough money for highways, then they are apt to fund
highways and cut NIH, or anything else, if they would like. It is going
to be a matter of what is the highest priority.
So it seems to me we are talking about a program that the President
of the United States for 2 consecutive years has said should not take
effect, has provided no money to let it take effect. That, at least, is
very questionable, whether the general counsel ruled or not. Congress
never voted. And we believe some additional time ought to be taken on
this matter.
Whatever time I have I yield back at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the distinguished floor manager
indicates that the President of the United States has done this. I am
not trying to protect the President of the United States. I think he is
wrong on this also. I am trying to protect disabled American veterans
who have been addicted to nicotine and who will be barred from getting
compensation as a result of this. All I can say is that my amendment
seeks to strike $10.5 billion that was put artificially, by trumped-up
means, into the veterans' baseline. If there is a study or something to
look at it in the future, it will then be too late--my purpose will be
dead. I want to return to veterans that $10.5 billion which is ascribed
to roads--which we treasure in West Virginia, but which, because of the
good work of my senior colleague, we are doing very well with. And that
is a common joke around here, and one which I enjoy and respect.
But I care about veterans. We have approximately 200,000 of them in
West Virginia. We have 26 million of them in this country. This is a
blatant attempt, under a whole new concept--despite our new
understanding of addiction to tobacco in general, and our new
understanding of addiction to tobacco by veterans in the service--which
DOD now admits for the first time--to take money away from helping
veterans and give it to highways.
Concrete and rebars and all of those things are important. But so are
human beings who have served in this country's military service and who
are addicted and have to go through an incredibly hard process to
become classified as disabled to get this kind of help from VA.
Yes, as the manager has indicated, some will get their health care
benefits. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking
about a process which, because of the addiction, they have to go
through a very difficult process to achieve a status where they can get
compensation for their disability due to addiction. It is a fundamental
American matter, and it is also the law of the land at the current
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back the remainder of my time and send an
amendment to the desk.

Amendment No. 2283 to Amendment No. 2226

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask it be reported.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Regular order, Mr. President. Mr. President, I
believe I had----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; the time of the Senator had expired, and
the manager was recognized.
The clerk will report the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself,
Mr. Craig and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 2283
to amendment No. 2226.

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

On page 14, line 7, strike ``$51,500,000,000.'' and all
that follows through line 24, and substitute in lieu thereof
the following:
$51,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $52,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $51,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $52,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,900,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000.'' and all that
follows through line 25, and substitute in lieu thereof the
following:
-$300,000,000,
(B) Outlays, -$1,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$4,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$3,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$7,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,000,000,000.
In lieu of the language proposed to be stricken, insert:
(6) For reductions in programs in function 700, Veterans
Benefits and Services: For fiscal year 1999, $500,000,000 in
budget authority and $500,000,000 in outlays; for fiscal
years 1999-2003, $10,500,000,000 in budget authority and
$10,500,000,000 in outlays.
(7) Sense of the Senate on VA compensation and post-service
smoking-related illnesses.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(i) the President has twice included in his budgets a
prohibition on the entitlement expansion that the Department
of Veterans Affairs (referred to as the ``VA'') is proposing
to allow post-service smoking-related illness to be eligible
for VA compensation;

[[Page S3071]]

(ii) Congress has never acted on this entitlement
expansion;
(iii) the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of
Management and Budget have concluded that this change in VA
policy would result in at least $10,000,000,000 over 5 years
and $45,000,000,000 over 10 years in additional mandatory
costs to the VA;
(iv) these increased number of claims and the resulting
costs may present undue delay and hardship on veterans
seeking claim review;
(v) the entitlement expansion apparently runs counter to
all existing VA policy, including a statement by former
Secretary Brown that ``It is inappropriate to compensate for
death or disability resulting from veterans' personal choice
to engage in conduct damaging to their health.''; and
(vi) Secretary Brown's comment was recently reaffirmed by
Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West, who stated
``It has been the position of the Department and of my
predecessor that the decision to use tobacco by service
members is a personal decision and is not a requirement for
military service. And that therefore to compensate veterans
for diseases whose sole connection to service is a veteran's
own tobacco use should not rest with the Government.''.
(B) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the function totals and assumptions underlying this
resolution assume the following:
(i) The support of the President's proposal to not allow
post-service smoking related illnesses to be eligible for VA.
(ii) The study and report required by paragraph (3) will be
completed.
(iii) The Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs,
the Office of Management and Budget, and the General
Accounting Office are jointly required to--
(aa) jointly study (referred to in this section as the
``study'') the VA General Counsel's determination and the
resulting actions to change the compensation rules to include
disability and death benefits for conditions related to the
use of tobacco products during service; and
(bb) deliver an opinion as to whether illnesses resulting
from post-service smoking should be considered as a
compensable disability.
(iv) The study should include--
(aa) the estimated numbers of those filing such claims, the
cost resulting from such benefits, the time necessary to
review such claims, and how such a number of claims will
affect the VA's ability to review its current claim load;
(bb) an examination of how the proposed change corresponds
to prior VA policy relating to post-service actions taken by
an individual; and
(cc) what Federal benefits, both VA and non-VA, former
service members having smoking-related illnesses are eligible
to receive.
(v) The study shall be completed no later than July 1,
1999.
(vi) The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of
Management and Budget shall report their finding to the
Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the chairmen
and ranking minority members of the Senate Budget and
Veterans' Affairs Committees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes equally divided on each
side on this second-degree amendment.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I
yield 3 minutes to Senator Craig.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator only has 5 total.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 2.
Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, and I think it is a
fair amendment. This amendment says that for the next year this program
will be held in abeyance. And during that year, the Veterans'
Administration, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of
Management and Budget will meet, analyze, and make recommendations to
the President of the United States and to the Congress of the United
States.
I believe that enough has been said here on the floor, enough is
there by virtue of the President of the United States deciding what he
has decided for 2 consecutive years, that we really ought to make sure
we receive the best information about what is the right and fair and
honorable thing to do.
I do not believe that anybody expects we should pay a widow's
allowance, and for cancer, for a veteran who spent 2 years in the
military and smoked, or for a veteran who spent 4 years in the military
and smoked, and then smoked for 40 years thereafter. I believe we need
some clarification and some real details on this, because this is a
very large expenditure of money and it should not be denied to veterans
if, in fact, there is a reasonably causal relationship between a
veteran's service and the illness from which a veteran died. If there
is a reasonable causal relationship and it does encompass as many as
might claim under this, then we ought to have this group of people
spend at least a year, or whatever time it takes, and report to us on
the effects of the General Counsel's interpretation of a general
statute with relationship to nicotine.
I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from
Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has
explained our intent with this amendment. Let me read it:

The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Office of Management and Budget and the GAO are jointly
required to--
jointly study (referred to in this section as the
``study'') the VA General Counsel's determination and the
resulting actions to change the compensation rules. . .
[and] deliver an opinion as to whether illnesses resulting
from post-service smoking should be considered as a
compensable disability.

That is one point. The other point, and I think the most important
one that drives this process, that alludes to the potential $10 billion
a year, or $45 billion over the next few years, is:

. . . estimate the numbers of those filing such claims, the
cost resulting from such benefits, the time necessary to
receive such claims, and how such a number of claims will
affect the VA's ability to review its current claim load.

In other words, this is not a dodge, this is a sincere effort to
determine the impact of this potential program, that not one dime has
been spent on yet. Are we truly going to damage other veterans'
programs that are ongoing, that current veterans believe they are owed
and, in all right, they are owed? I think we ought to have that
information. That is exactly what this study does.

Does it shove it off for years and years? Not at all. The study
concludes that this has to be completed no later than July 1, 1999. And
the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Office of Management and
Budget and GAO shall report their findings to the majority and the
minority leaders of the Senate and the ranking member and the chairman
of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
This is an honest and sincere attempt not to legislate into the dark
and to risk $10 billion or $45 billion, and to put in jeopardy current
and future ongoing programs of the Veterans Administration, but to have
a real understanding of where we might be treading.
I believe it is responsible, I believe it is right, and I hope my
colleagues will join with the chairman of the Budget Committee in
support of this second-degree. Let's find out where we are going before
we launch on a commitment that we would never be able to walk away from
once we created that obligation to veterans. If we truly have
dependents out there who start receiving the money, we will never cut
it off.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the proponent of the amendment has
expired.
The Senator from West Virginia has 5 minutes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator
from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I don't know how to say much in a minute and a half.
Let me just say to my good friend from Idaho that I believe the second-
degree amendment is not a step forward. I think it is a great leap
sideways. A study is not what we are talking about. You don't have to
be a rocket scientist to know what is at issue here. This is money that
we believe should have gone to veterans for compensation. If it doesn't
go directly for compensation, this $10 billion-plus ought to go into
the VA budget. It ought to be there for disabled veterans. It ought to
be there for health care for veterans.
There are a lot of gaps. There are a lot of holes in this VA budget.
As is, we are not living up to a contract for veterans. My colleagues
are absolutely right in what they are doing, and I rise to speak on the
floor of the Senate to support the Rockefeller-Specter amendment. I
hope we will defeat the second-degree amendment and pass this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Pennsylvania.

[[Page S3072]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment in the second
degree because an additional study is not necessary. The matter has
already been studied extensively by the Veterans Administration. There
has been an opinion of the General Counsel that nicotine is a disease
and that it is compensable. A study might be all right if we did not
take $10.5 billion off what ought to be in the Veterans' Affairs
account--the Department of Veterans' Affairs account--and put it
somewhere else.
I believe the underlying amendment by the Senator from West Virginia
is accurate. The second-degree amendment ought to be defeated.

I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to tell
the Senator from West Virginia when he has only 1 minute remaining.
Mr. President, the Craig amendment would cut $10.5 billion in
veterans' funds in the budget resolution.
No. 2, the Craig amendment still allows the money to be cut and then
to reauthorize--as he says, we will do a study for a year--
incidentally, by the same people, a study by exactly the same people
who came up with this solution, to cut the money.
But in order to reauthorize the veterans' disability benefit, the
Congress--everything would then be subject to PAYGO, and my colleagues
had better understand that Congress would then have to cut off another
veterans' benefit. So this is a blind path that we are going down. A
vote in favor of the Craig amendment is a vote to shift $10.5 billion
away from disabled veterans.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Amendment No. 2284 to Amendment No. 2226

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

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes
an amendment numbered 2284 to amendment No. 2226.

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 amendment is as follows:

On page 14, line 7, strike ``$51,500,000,000.'' and all
that follows through line 24, and substitute in lieu thereof
the following:
$51,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $50,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $50,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $48,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000.'' and all that
follows through line 25, and substitute in lieu thereof the
following:
$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$4,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
On page 31, line 24, strike subsection (6) in its entirety.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes on a side on this
amendment.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for
the yeas and nays on the perfecting amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has yielded
back all his time.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this puts us right back where we were at
the beginning. What I would like to do is remind the Senate that we
will have an opportunity to vote on the Domenici substitute which calls
for the 1-year study, and that does have the General Accounting Office
in it also, for those who are wondering whether it is just the
Veterans' Administration and the OMB.
In addition, if we table this Rockefeller amendment, we will vote
next on the Domenici amendment which will give us this 1-year study to
make sure that we are doing the right thing.
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I move, at the appropriate
time, to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Brownback amendment No. 2177. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know why we proceeded to the
vote. We did not intend to go to a vote. We are going to stack the
votes and have a series of votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rollcall was on the first series of votes.
The Brownback amendment----
Mr. DOMENICI. We are not finished with our pool of amendments. We
still have Senator Kyl to offer his, and then we will have the entire
package voted on one after the other.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico want to ask
unanimous consent----
Mr. DOMENICI. That is the consent. There is consent that these six
amendments be debated and that they then be voted on in order. Of that
group, Senator Kyl's has not yet been debated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona
to call up an amendment.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 2221

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2221.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 2221.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum
be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. I note, Mr. President, that this amendment was supposed to
have been discussed earlier. That undoubtedly accounts for the
confusion, because it should have occurred already. However, I was not
here at the time and, therefore, it will be the last amendment
discussed prior to the time the votes start, for the benefit of my
colleagues.
This is a very straightforward amendment. It expresses the sense of
the Senate in favor of a supermajority vote for raising taxes.
Mr. President, the tax burden imposed on the American people has
grown so large that it is beginning to act as a drag on the Nation's
economy. As a share of the gross domestic product, revenues to the
Treasury will rise from 19.9 percent this year to 20.1 percent next
year. That would be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be
only the third year in our entire history during which revenues have
exceeded 20 percent of the national income. Notably, the first two
times that revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into
recession.
Mr. President, we are talking about something very serious, and that
is the possibility that this great economic engine that has been
creating budget surpluses for the Federal Government and a great
standard of living for the American people could come to a screeching
halt if we do not begin to do something about the tax burden imposed
upon the American people.
Many of us believe it would have been prudent to consider more tax
relief in the budget this year. But it seems to me that if the Congress
and the President cannot agree on more tax

[[Page S3073]]

relief, we at least ought to be able to agree that taxes should go no
higher. The House of Representatives, I inform my colleagues, is
scheduled to vote in April on an initiative to make it much harder for
Congress to raise taxes. It would require a two-thirds majority vote in
each House in order to add to the tax burden.
The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I have offered now will begin
the debate in the Senate as well. I do not specify a particular
percentage that would constitute a supermajority for purposes of
raising taxes, but simply request that we go on record as expressing
support for the principle that a supermajority should be required. I
will briefly explain why.
A third of the Nation's population imposes tax limitations on their
State governments. Voters have approved tax limits by wide margins, so
this is not something new or risky. In my home state of Arizona, for
example, a tax limitation passed with 72 percent of the vote, and we
are one of the fastest growing States in the Nation. We have one of the
lowest tax burdens, one of the highest rates of growth. In Florida,
another high-growth State, a tax limitation amendment was adopted with
69.2 percent of the vote; in Nevada, with 70 percent. I daresay, Mr.
President, these are probably three of the fastest growing States in
the country.

A tax limitation ensures growth, reduces taxes, provides more jobs
and, I believe, would be a good thing for the Federal Government to
adopt for the entire country with respect to Federal taxes.
The proposed Constitutional amendment, which is referred to in the
pending sense of the Senate amendment, now has 23 cosponsors in the
Senate. It is something that was recommended by the National Commission
on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. In fact, that commission, which you
will recall was chaired by former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, advocated
the supermajority requirement in its report on how to achieve a simpler
single-rate tax to replace the existing maze of tax rates, deductions,
exemptions and credits that makes the Federal Tax Code so complicated
as we know it today.
Here are the words of the commission:

The roller-coaster ride of tax policy in the past few
decades has fed citizens' cynicism about the possibility of
real, long-term reform, while fueling frustration with
Washington. The initial optimism inspired by the low rates of
the 1986 Tax Reform Act soured into disillusionment and anger
when taxes subsequently were hiked two times in less than
seven years. The commission believes that a two-thirds
supermajority vote of Congress will earn American's
confidence in the longevity, predictability, and stability of
the new tax system.

Mr. President, there is no small irony in the fact that it would have
taken a two-thirds majority vote of the House and Senate to overcome
President Clinton's veto and enact the 1995 Balanced Budget Act with
its tax relief provisions. Yet, by contrast, the President's record-
setting tax increase in 1993 was enacted with only a simple majority
and, in fact, not even a majority of elected Senators at that. Vice
President Gore broke a tie vote of 50-50 to secure passage of the tax
increase in the Senate.
A tax limitation is based on a simple premise: that it ought to be at
least as hard to raise people's taxes as it is to cut them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
several documents.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, Apr. 8, 1997]

Making a Taxing Decision: Why Congress Should Pass The Tax Limitation
Amendment

(By Scott Moody)

On April 15, Congress will have an historic opportunity to
make a sincere commitment to the principles of a balanced
budget and a smaller government by voting for the Tax
Limitation Amendment (TLA) to the Constitution. If the
Congress and the president mean it when they say the era of
big government is over, then the deficit must be eliminated
by reigning in government spending, reforming entitlements,
and cutting wasteful and unnecessary programs. Passage of the
TLA--which would require a two-thirds vote of Congress to
raise taxes--will help take tax increases off the table. The
message from taxpayers to members on both sides of the aisle
is clear--pass the Tax Limitation Amendment.
A bipartisan message. According to voters all across
America, creating a more accountable tax policy is a
bipartisan responsibility. In fact, the congressional
delegations from the twelve states that have adopted a
supermajority tax provision are almost evenly split between
Republicans and Democrats.\1\ In the House of Representatives
there are 68 Republicans and 50 Democrats who represent these
states with a supermajority provision. In the Senate,
representation is evenly split with 12 Republicans and 12
Democrats. This even split reveals that states with
supermajority provisions do not strictly lean toward one
political party or another. It also shows, and politicians on
both sides of the aisle should take notice, that there is
growing consensus among all taxpayers for tax limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A two-thirds majority provision is gaining in popularity.
Within the last five years, the trend toward tax limitation
has accelerated. Of the twelve states with supermajority
requirements, seven of them have been enacted or expanded
since 1992. Although the requirement varies from state to
state, the most popular provision requires a two-thirds (66
percent) majority vote to raise taxes. As shown below, voters
are strongly supportive of tax limitation. Politicians can
only ignore this tidal wave of support at their own peril.
1992
1. Arizona--Requires \2/3\ elected majority, passed by 72
percent of voters.
2. Colorado--Requires \3/4\ elected majority, passed by 54
percent of voters.
3. Oklahoma--Requires \3/4\ elected majority, passed by 56
percent of voters.
1996
4. Florida--Requires \2/3\ voter majority, passed by 70
percent of voters.
5. Nevada--Requires \2/3\ elected majority, passed by 70
percent of voters.
6. Oregon--Requires \3/5\ elected majority, passed by 52
percent of voters.
7. South Dakota--Requires \2/3\ elected majority, passed by
74 percent of voters.
A TLA would boost economic growth and created new jobs.
States that have adopted a tax supermajority provision have
grown faster and created more jobs than states that do not
have any tax limitation. A look at these states reveals that
the existence of supermajority provisions help to limit tax
and spending increases by state governments. As a result,
more money is available for productive investment by
businesses and individuals which boosts economic growth and
creates new jobs. Other studies have found the same results:
A study by Jim Miller, former budget director under
President Reagan, and Mark Crain, an economist at George
Mason University, which is based on data from all 50 states
found that a supermajority provision for raising results in a
lower per-capita growth in state spending.\2\
Economist Dan Mitchell has also made a number of important
discoveries on economic growth in his study of ten states
that require a supermajority to raise taxes. He found that
between 1980 and 1992, states with supermajority grew by 43
percent (35 percent without) and employment increased by 26
percent (21 percent without).\3\
Increased accountability. Passed by simple majorities, four
of the last five major tax bills would not have met a two-
thirds approval requirement. In fact, the last tax bill
passed by one vote in the House of Representatives and the
Vice-President broke a tied vote in the Senate. As a
consequence, American taxpayers are not fully convinced that
Congress has carefully weighed the pros and cons of
increasing taxes that have since raised a staggering total of
$666 billion.\4\
Judging by the large support of a two-thirds majority
requirement by voters, most Americans realize the economic
benefits of creating a more accountable tax policy in
addition to a smaller tax burden. Many taxpayer from both
sides of the political spectrum have, in most cases,
overwhelmingly approved supermajority provisions for their
own state. Now they expect Congress to do the same and pass
the Tax Limitation Amendment.

FOOTNOTES

\1\These states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma,
Oregon and South Dakota.
\2\Mark Crain and James Miller, ``Budget Process and Spending
Growth,'' William and Mary Law Review, Spring 1990.
\3\Dan Mitchell, ``The Case for a Tax Supermajority
Requirement: A Look at the States,'' Citizens for a Sound
Economy Foundation, Issue Analysis, No. 25, April 12, 1996.
\4\James Perry, ``Growth, Prosperity, and Honest Government.
The Case for Constitutional Tax Limitation,'' Americans for
Tax Reform, Policy Brief, 1997.

OFFICIAL SUPPORTERS OF THE TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT

American Conservative Union
Americans for Tax Reform
Associated Builders and Contractors
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
Christian Coalition
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Coalition for America
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Family Research Council
National-American Wholesale Grocers Association/International
Foodservice Distributors Association

[[Page S3074]]

National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
National Federation of Independent Businesses
National Tax Limitation Committee
National Taxpayers Union
National Taxpayers United of Illinois
Seniors Coalition
Small Business Survival Committee
60 Plus Association
United Seniors Association

National Taxpayers Union,

Alexandria, VA, March 31, 1998.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: National Taxpayers Union, America's
largest grassroots taxpayer organization, strongly supports
your ``Sense of the Senate'' Tax Limitation Amendment to S.
Con. Res. 86, the FY '99 Budget Resolution.
Your amendment would put the Senate on record as favoring a
super majority vote for the enactment of legislation that
would raise tax rates, impose new taxes, or otherwise
increase the amount of taxpayers' income that is subject to
tax. As perhaps the most important tax limitation vote of
this Session of Congress, National Taxpayers Union will
likely score a ``YES'' vote on your amendment as one of the
heaviest-weighted pro-taxpayer votes in our annual Rating of
Congress.
In addition to supporting tax limitation, your amendment
establishes the basic premise of any genuine tax reform. We
urge your colleagues to join you in voting for the Kyl
amendment on the floor of the Senate.
Sincerely,
John E. Berthoud,
President.
____

[From Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, Apr. 12, 1996]

The Case for a Tax Supermajority Requirement: A Look at the States

(By Daniel J. Mitchell)

A number of states require at least a three-fifths majority
vote to raise taxes. These states have seen lower tax and
spending increases, faster economic and job growth, and an
accumulation of less debt. This evidence supports the case
for a supermajority requirement to raise taxes at the federal
level, which the House of Representatives is scheduled to
vote on this Monday.
On April 15th, the House of Representatives will vote on
whether the Constitution should be amended to require a two-
thirds vote to raise taxes. A supermajority requirement
eliminates the existing bias in favor of enacting higher
taxes. Such a provision is particularly important during
times when lawmakers are under pressure to control deficits
and balance the budget. Simply stated, if higher spending
cannot be achieved by increasing borrowing, the only other
way of financing new spending is by raising taxes. Requiring
a supermajority to raise taxes ensures that a simple majority
of politicians cannot continue to spend other people's money
and evade fiscal responsibility.
Critics charge that the supermajority requirement would be
a risky, untested idea. This accusation is false. Ten states
require at least a three-fifths vote of lawmakers to raise
some or all taxes. Supermajorities, needless to say, are just
one of many factors that influence these states' performance.
It stands to reason, however, that making it harder to raise
taxes would be at least partially responsible for these good
numbers. Three of the states instituted the tax limit in
1992, but seven states have lived under this requirement for
some time. In these states--Arkansas, California, Delaware,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Dakota--the
evidence shows that, on average, supermajority states have
smaller tax and spending increases, grow faster, create more
jobs, and accumulate less debt.

supermajority states control tax burden

On average, states with supermajorities saw their per
capita tax collections jump by 102 percent between 1980 and
1992. This is too high, but it is much better than the
average 121 percent increase in per capita tax collections
that occurred in states without these supermajority
protections. In other words, the tax burden rose nearly 20
percent faster in states that did not limit the ability of
politicians to raise taxes.

lower spending increases in supermajority states

In the supermajority states, per capita state spending on
average increased by 132 percent between 1980 and 1992. While
this is hardly a record to be proud of, states without
supermajority tax requirements experienced average total per
capita spending increases of 141 percent. This difference may
not be very large, but taxpayers are grateful for even modest
improvements in their state's fiscal performance.

Supermajority States Grow Faster

Lower taxes and lower spending are desirable, but the real
reason for controlling the size of government is to promote
prosperity. Not surprisingly, a supermajority is associated
with faster economic growth. States with restrictions on the
ability to raise taxes grew by an average of 43 percent in
real terms from 1980 until 1992. States that made it easier
for politicians to raise taxes, by contrast, only grew on an
average of 35 percent during the same period.

Supermajority States Create More Jobs

The combination of smaller government and faster growth in
supermajority states means that there is more money available
for the productive sector of the economy. This means more
jobs. In states with supermajorities, total employment
increased by an average of 26 percent between 1980 and 1992.
In states that allow taxes to be raised by a simple majority,
on the other hand, the number of jobs increased by an average
of only 21 percent.

Supermajority States Incur Less Debt

One of the criticisms of supermajority requirements is that
politicians would not have the power to raise taxes in times
of fiscal crisis, thus subjecting state residents to higher
levels of debt. Evidence from the states, however, appears to
dispel this fear. In the seven states with supermajorities,
state debt increased by an average of 271 percent between
1980 and 1992. This is not a good track record, but states
without limits on higher taxes saw average debt increases of
312 percent in the same period.

Conclusion

Empirical data from the states suggests that tax
supermajority requirements serve their intended purpose--
helping to limit the growth of government and enabling a more
rapid pace of economic growth and job creation. To be sure, a
supermajority requirement does not guarantee sound economic
policy. The record tax increase in California, for instance,
was enacted in spite of a two-thirds majority requirement.
And many states without supermajority requirements, such as
Tennessee and Nevada, scored well in most categories (not
surprisingly, the lack of a state income tax seems to be
associated with more growth and less government).
Nevertheless, examining the performances of states with and
without supermajorities seems to confirm the well established
relationships between sound fiscal policy and good economic
performance. If federal lawmakers approve similar legislation
on the federal level, there is every reason to expect
positive results.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time against the amendment?
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl
amendment. I assume we have 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise in opposition to an amendment presented by
Senator Kyl that would call for a constitutional amendment and require
a supermajority to vote to increase Federal revenues. This amendment
effectively would grant special protection for tax loopholes. In this
body, we only require a supermajority vote for things that deserve
special protection--Social Security, for example. It would be wrong to
give breaks for corporations and the well-off and permit them to have
the same protection as the Social Security trust funds, and it would be
outrageous to give those loopholes constitutional protection.
The Founding Fathers had it right the first time. A simple majority
vote is all that should be required for this body to act. That is a
democracy.
I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. It
calls for a sense of the Senate looking for a constitutional amendment
to be offered here.
I am not going to take any more time. I hope that the Members will
see that we are giving special protection to tax loopholes when
certainly the status doesn't warrant it, but worse than that, we are
talking about a constitutional amendment. Thank goodness it is a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment. It has about as much force as so many of the
other sense-of-the Senate amendments that we have already had here. I
yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Has all time been yielded back?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield back
his time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the rest of the time has been yielded back, then I
yield back the time I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.

Vote on Amendment No. 2177

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We now proceed under the previous order to
Brownback amendment No. 2177. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North

[[Page S3075]]

Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

{Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.}

YEAS--52

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye
#
The amendment (No. 2177) was agreed to.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I
move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment before the Senate is Specter
amendment numbered 2254. Under the previous order, there is 1 minute
per side to debate the amendment.
Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily lay aside
the Specter amendment and go to the amendment of Senator Lautenberg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2244

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment represents a modified
version of the budget that President Clinton submitted to the Congress
last month. The amendment incorporates all of the important priorities
in the President's budget, maintains strict fiscal discipline, and
adopts the President's commitment to save Social Security first. The
amendment reserves all surpluses until we solve Social Security's long-
term problem. That will help ensure when the baby boomers retire,
Social Security will be there for them.
Secondly, like the President's budget, this makes education a top
national priority, calling for an initiative to reduce class sizes by
hiring 1,000 new teachers, promotes higher standards and greater
accountability, and provides more after-school opportunities for young
people.
In short, what this does is remind us all what the commitment is that
the President made and what we would like to see in place. I will just
say that this presents the President's budget in a modified form. I
hope our colleagues will support it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, without this counting as part of my 1
minute, if I could remind the Senators of where we are now. We have
seven amendments stacked with reference to the previous order. Then we
will start the 1-minute amendments, and on our side we have about 10. I
am not sure how many are on the Democrat side, but we will work with
those 10 and see if we can put those down. They are mostly sense-of-
the-Senate amendments. For now, we are in a position to take up about
six more. The time is supposed to be 10 minutes on the votes. I know
that is difficult. For all additional time we take, we will be here
later and later tonight in order to get it finished. This is a 10-
minute vote on the Lautenberg amendment.
Now, let me say this is the Democrat amendment offered in committee.
In the committee, it did not even receive all of the Democratic
Senators' support. If you want to spend more money, like $88 billion
more, vote for this. If you want to vote to put the moneys that we get
from the tobacco settlement on Medicare instead of six new programs,
vote for theirs. If you want to spend new money on at least eight more
domestic programs, vote for theirs.
We have provided increases in NIH, education, the environment, and
the criminal justice. We think that is a good priority.
Have I raised a point of order on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. DOMENICI. I make the point of order it is not germane.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask to waive the point of order, and I request the
yeas and nays on my motion.
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.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--55

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Helms
Inhofe
Inouye
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 42, the nays 55.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is quarter to 6. We are still working to
try to get the list agreed on of what we are actually going to need to
vote on. We still have probably 24 or 25 amendments that we still have
to vote on--maybe more. But we are working to get that down. In order
to get this completed, we need to really start to get rolling on these
votes. We have been having them every 10 minutes. The Senator from
Alaska is in the Chair. He knows how to do it. I urge Members to stay
in the Chamber. We can move these along a lot faster. From here on they
will be gaveled to a close after 10 minutes.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2254

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on agreeing to the
Specter amendment No. 2254. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would provide for $2
billion extra for NIH to offset by four-tenths

[[Page S3076]]

of 1 percent a cut in all programs. This body has expressed a sense of
the Senate that we should double NIH over 5 years, which will call for
$2.5 billion a year. This is a lesser amount. We have expectations
built up by the sense-of-the-Senate expression of our druthers. Now is
the time to put our dollars behind it. Although there is paperwork to
the contrary, Mr. President, although the budget does not determine how
it is going to go, which is through the appropriations process, we will
have only $350 million in additional outlays for an $80 billion budget
by the subcommittee. We need this $2 billion if we are to move ahead on
the important NIH functions.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, we have $1.5 billion
next year for NIH. We have added $1.5 billion to NIH in this budget;
$15.5 billion over 5 years. The amendment would add another $2 billion.
That would cut defense $1.1 million, environment $88 million,
agriculture $17 million, veterans $76 million, justice $86 million, and
so on.
I believe we have done enough with the $1.5 billion increase and $15
billion over five years. We should not now add $2 billion more and
propose that we restrain every department of Government, including the
Defense Department, for half the cuts.
I yield any time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Specter 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 Pennsylvania. On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner

NAYS--41

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Collins
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2254) was agreed
to.

Amendment No. 2221

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is now the Kyl amendment
No. 2221. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, colleagues, this is a very straightforward
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It would simply express the sense of
the Senate that we support a supermajority to raise taxes. Many of the
States in this country now have supermajorities. In some of the fastest
growing States like Arizona and Florida and Nevada, our State
legislatures pass supermajorities to raise taxes with 69, 70, 71
percent of the vote. It has not hurt the economy. In fact, it has
helped the economy of those States.
The House of Representatives will be considering a constitutional
amendment to do this. The Senate will probably not be considering that.
But I do think it is important, before tax day, April 15, for the
Senate to at least express its view that it ought to be as hard to
raise taxes as it is to cut taxes. That means we should have some kind
of a supermajority to raise taxes here in the U.S. Congress.
It is a sense of the Senate. It expresses a very simple proposition
that Americans are taxed enough and that to tax them any more should
require more than a bare majority of the House and the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? One minute in opposition. Who
seeks time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we oppose the use of the supermajority
that the Senator proposes in this amendment, for a tax increase. We
think it is inappropriate. We think it ought not be offered at this
time. We hope everybody will stand against it, as opposed to putting
into concrete the proposition that it should take a supermajority vote
to close a wasteful corporate tax loophole, or other special interest
tax break.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time
has been yielded back. Are the yeas and nays required?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Arizona. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea''.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The amendment (No. 2221) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2282

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is Nickles amendment No.
2282. The time is to be equally divided. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist and Senator Collins
for speaking on behalf of this amendment. I now recognize Senator
Jeffords, who

[[Page S3077]]

is the principal cosponsor of this amendment, for our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
this amendment. It originally was a second-degree amendment to the
Kennedy amendment. I understand that the Senator from Massachusetts
agrees with our amendment. I appreciate that. But I point out that what
we are doing now is trying to make sure that our health care system
does what we want it to do, trying to make sure that it is fair to
patients and trying to make sure that we provide what is necessary for
us to improve the system that is now having some problems. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
An important and necessary role for the Federal Government is to
foster a competitive marketplace by ensuring that efficient and similar
information about the product is available to consumers. Consumers can
make their choices according to their own personal beliefs.
Another role is to ensure fairness, and this amendment provides that.
I urge Members to vote for it.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues will vote in
support of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It says that we should
not pass legislation that makes health insurance unaffordable for
working families; we should not divert limited health resources from
serving patients; we should not impose political considerations on
clinical decisions. I am all for that. Let's all support that.
But this does not address the issues raised when we talk about
protecting basic rights of patients. The amendment I have offered gives
the Senate the chance to go on record as saying it is time for Congress
to decide that profits should not take priority over patients. My
amendment and this amendment are not in conflict.
The broad principles in my amendment are supported by the American
Medical Association, the disability groups, the advocates for mental
health, consumer groups, the women groups, and the labor movement.
Let us all vote in favor of the Nickles amendment and then vote
equally, and return the favor, for my amendment as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Nickles
amendment No. 2282. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea''.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The amendment (No. 2282) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 2183

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the next amendment is a sense of the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Chair call the amendment up. The
amendment is No. 2183. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the time has come for action to protect
families and curb the insurance company abuses. This amendment gives
the Senate a chance to go on record as saying it is time for Congress
to decide that profits should not take priority over patients.
I just ask our colleagues to read page 3 of this sense of the Senate.
It ensures coverage of emergency services, and allows women direct
access for obstetrical and gynecological care. It ensures women will
not be subject to drive-through mastectomies. It meets the special
needs of children and the special needs of individuals with
disabilities. It provides for the protection of the relationship
between the doctor and the patient, and the elimination of the gag
clauses. And it provides greater information about health care plans to
the patients.
Our opponents will argue that these rights will raise premiums. But
it will not cost an additional cent for any of the good plans. It may
cost more for those plans who do not currently do these things. We all
know that the easiest way to save money is to deny care.
Let us stand for the patients and the medical profession. They have
basically endorsed these rights, as has the President's commission.
This amendment says that we are going to pass legislation which will
protect them. That is what this sense of the Senate guarantees.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against--Mr.
President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senators please take their
conversations to the cloakroom.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against
Senator Kennedy's amendment. I tell you, if you voted for the Nickles-
Jeffords amendment, you should not vote for Senator Kennedy's
amendment, because the amendment we just adopted, I guess unanimously,
said that we do not want to increase costs. The Kennedy amendment says,
let us pass the so-called patients' bill of rights. That was introduced
2 days ago. It is 68 pages long. It has lots and lots of mandates,
mandates that will increase costs. And as costs go up, the number of
uninsured will go up.
This bill has hundreds of regulations in it. So if you want more
regulations instead of patient care, that would be what you would be
voting for in Senator Kennedy's amendment. I mention that this is
opposed by individuals from the Mayo Clinic to the Cleveland Clinic to
some of the best health care providers in the world. They are saying:
You are going to make us provide and spend our time litigating and
regulating instead of providing quality health care.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kennedy amendment. And if they
voted in favor of the last amendment, they certainly should vote no on
the next one. You cannot tell me this thing does not have significant
costs to the consumers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired. All those in favor of the
amendment----
Mr. NICKLES. I move to table the Kennedy amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment No. 2183. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3078]]

The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2183) was agreed
to.

Amendment No. 2208

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Hutchison amendment
numbered 2208, with 2 minutes equally divided.
The Senator from Texas is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is a budget that will set our spending
priorities. What my amendment says is there are only two responsible
ways to spend any future surpluses: to pay down the debt, to save
Social Security; or to give tax relief to the hard-working American
family. If Congress decides to put all the money into debt relief and
Social Security, that is consistent with this amendment.
The only reason you would vote against this amendment is if you want
Congress in the future to be able to go on spending binges and give the
bill to our children. This allows us to put all the money on pay-down
debt or to give tax relief.
It is important that we recognize that we have labored mightily. We
should not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on the balanced
budget. This is our chance to take a stand. We are going to spend any
future surpluses in only two ways--to pay down debt or to give tax
relief to the hard-working American family.
I urge Members to support this.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Hutchison
amendment. It would reject President Clinton's call to save Social
Security first. Yet, I hear conversations constantly about how
everybody is saluting the sanctity of Social Security--preserve it,
make sure we shore it up, make sure that we take care of it for future
generations. But here we open the gate to use this money that would
otherwise be reserved for Social Security for tax cuts. I think that
the American people, if asked the question, would say no, we want to
pay down the debt, shore up Social Security, and let's not use this for
tax cuts, the benefit of which goes principally to those people in the
higher income level.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment in the interest of
saving Social Security first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The amendment (No. 2208) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2284

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Rockefeller
amendment No. 2284. There has been a motion to table, and the yeas and
nays are ordered. In the interest of moving things along, the Chair is
going to recognize each side for 1 minute, so we will know what we are
voting on.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the budget resolution would take
$10.5 billion of ``savings,'' which is in the baseline of the Veterans
Administration budget, and remove it, excise it, and put it into more
highway funds. There are $217 billion of highway funds over 5 years.
What this would effectively also do is bar any veteran's claim for
disability from a tobacco-related illness at a time when the test for
getting a tobacco-related illness in the VA is incredibly difficult.
Only 278 Americans, to this point, have achieved that. The whole issue
on tobacco and the military has changed in the last 3 or 4 years. We
want to restore the money, keep the money in the VA budget and not have
it taken out and given to highways, which could find a different
offset.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have moved to table.
I would like to withdraw my motion to table so the vote can be an up-
or-down vote. I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask everyone on our side to vote in
favor of this amendment. Then I want everybody to know that the subject
matter will be the Domenici amendment. I will have a minute then, but I
will use the remaining 30 seconds to tell you what I think we ought to
do. This is potentially a $40 billion program. Congress never voted on
it. The President has denied it twice and taken it out of his budget.
We believe the best thing to do is to have one more solid look at it by
the GAO, OMB, and the VA. They ought to report to us and the President
before we engage in a $10 billion-a-year program which is built around
the notion that if you ever smoked in the military and then you got out
and smoked for 40 more years, you are to collect benefits from the
military because you started smoking in the military. That is the
essence of this debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2284.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.

[[Page S3079]]

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The amendment (No. 2284) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2283 To Amendment No. 2226

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on an amendment in the
nature of a substitute numbered 2283.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 1 minute.
This is the amendment to the pending Rockefeller amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, essentially the Domenici amendment says
this program, which has never been voted on by Congress, which has been
put into regulation by order of the counsel for the Veterans
Administration, which will cost ultimately $40 billion, we are saying
let us wait 1 year and have the GAO, the Veterans Administration, and
the OMB study it and report to us and to the President. The President
has denied this program's efficacy, because of concern about the kinds
of benefits and whether they are relevant to service in the military, 2
years in a row. We ought to take a little bit of time before we get
involved in a $10-billion-a year program.
I will give you one example. A veteran who smoked 3 years before he
went into the service, 4 years in the service, and 40 years thereafter
his surviving spouse might very well collect a widow's benefit and
other benefits under this particular program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues
understand that by voting for the Domenici amendment--which I hope they
will not--they will simply completely reverse the vote which they have
just made and wipe it all out. That will seem strange, I think, to
veterans. This is an up-or-down vote on veterans and their disability
benefits. A 1-year study, in the humble opinion of the junior Senator
from West Virginia, is a farce, because it is going to be made by
exactly the same three groups that came up with the $10.5 billion cut
out of the veterans account to put the money into highways. I doubt
that they are going to be any different next year, because they will
need the money. They will have to go get the money in the next year.
This cuts veterans. A ``no'' vote is what I would ask of my
colleagues.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by
Senator Domenici to the amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller on
disability compensation for veterans with smoking-related disabilities.
It seems to me reasonable to ask for more deliberate review of this
issue. After all, President Clinton has twice proposed not to allow
post-service smoking related illnesses to be eligible for VA disability
compensation. Once the question has been thoroughly reviewed, we can
then reconsider the matter.
This Domenici amendment would ask the General Accounting Office, the
Office of Management and Budget, and the VA to review this matter over
the next year. This will allow the main analytical resources of the
Federal Government to come to bear on this question. And, when the
assessment is finished, we will have greater confidence that we are
doing the right thing.
With respect to the main Rockefeller amendment, we have to keep
several things in mind. This would be an expensive program. According
to the Congressional Budget Office, we are talking about around $10
billion over five years. It is also not clear that it is fair to all
the other veterans who have service-connected disabilities which are
clearly service-connected or low income veterans who have problems
clearly related to military service that have led, or would lead, to
receipt of disability compensation.
Furthermore, it is certainly possible that major inequities could
result were the underlying amendment enacted. By this I mean that
veterans who started smoking after military service could conceivably
be eligible for disability compensation under terms of this amendment.
Keep in mind also, that veterans who suffer from tobacco-related health
problems can still qualify for health care services from the VA if they
met the regular qualifying criteria.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the remainder of his
time?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I do.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Domenici amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second?
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from New Mexico. On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms), would vote ``yea''.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--46

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The amendment (No. 2283) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2226, as amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now the question will be on the Rockefeller

[[Page S3080]]

amendment as amended by the Domenici substitute. The yeas and nays have
been ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The yeas and nays are vitiated.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2226), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senators, and
this has been agreed to by the ranking member, we will now start the 1-
minute ``vote-arama.'' From the list we will call up an amendment and
it will be taken up. When it is finished, we will call up another one.
We will alternate back and forth.
We are getting it down to a reasonable number on our side. We are
hoping the other side will get rid of three or four more there, but we
are going to start this way.
The first amendment on our side is the amendment of Senator Grams,
No. 2222, and that will be followed by Senator Kennedy, amendment No.
2184. For each one, they will tell you the title and then the Senator
will have 1 minute to explain it.
Amendment No. 2222 by Senator Grams is called up.

Amendment No. 2222

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2222 is before the Senate. One
minute on each side. Senator Grams is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment expressing
the sense of the Senate that projected budget surpluses should be
dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security. This is a
very simple and straightforward amendment. It asks Congress and the
President to commit any budget surplus to reducing the Social Security
payroll tax and use the tax reduction to set up personal retirement
accounts for America's working men and women.
Mr. President, the latest report from the Treasury Department shows
that we may have a budget surplus as large as $60 to $80 billion this
year, if revenues continue to grow at the current rate. As I have
argued repeatedly, this surplus comes directly from taxes paid by hard-
working Americans, and it is only fair to return it to them in the form
of tax relief, national debt reduction, or Social Security reform.
We all agree it is vitally important to save and strengthen Social
Security. Many of my colleagues believe we should use the entire budget
surplus to save the system, but the real question is how to do it.
Finally, this amendment is complementary to Senator Roth's amendment.
I believe the Roth amendment is an excellent one. I support it. The
only difference is mine has the payroll tax reduction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Grams amendment.
As he clearly says, the budget surplus should be used to, perhaps,
establish personal savings accounts. At the same time I heard the
Senator say we all want to save Social Security.
If we want to save it, then we ought to pay down the debt, shore up
Social Security, and not turn over to the private sector the
opportunity now to engage in individual savings accounts. This is not
the place to do it. Perhaps it ought to be considered 1 day, but this
would completely upset the principle of saving Social Security first.
If we are going to talk about it, then we ought to really mean it and
put all surpluses into saving Social Security and reducing the debt. I
think that is the proper way to go, and I hope all my colleagues vote
against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Are the yeas and nays ordered?
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
(No. 2222).
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms

Inouye
The amendment (No. 2222) was agreed to.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open for amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 2184

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe one of my amendments on the
educational opportunity zones is before the Senate. Am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator talking about amendment No.
2184?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the last item of President
Clinton's education proposal. It basically provides help and assistance
to communities for these educational opportunity grants for those
communities in this country, both in rural and urban areas, that are
showing a special kind of designation in reforming and rehabilitating
their total educational package.
This is one of the areas that has been recommended by most of the
educational groups. It has been tried and tested in the past year and a
half with very small, modest programs, with very substantial
improvement in academic achievement and accomplishment.
It does provide $1.5 billion over 5 years, and it is paid for with an
across-the-board cut in nondefense by less than two-tenths of 1 percent
of the budget program. I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have kept our word, and we have
increased education spending by exactly what the President and the
Congress decided to do last year in the Balanced Budget Act.

[[Page S3081]]

We provide an additional $8 billion in additional discretionary
education funding over the next 5 years. In total, we will provide
close to $20 billion in K-12 education funding this year. That is a 98
percent increase over the last 10 years.
We agree with the President on the funding. However, we disagree with
the President on how to spend the money, because the President and his
party want to make Washington, DC, education central. Republicans want
to decentralize education decisionmaking and put power and resources
into the hands of the States, the localities, and the families. We
should oppose the amendment. I move to table the amendment.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. 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. 2184. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2184) was agreed
to.

change of vote

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on amendment 2184, believing it was an up-
or-down vote, I voted in the affirmative. It was a tabling motion.
Therefore, I inadvertently voted against my intentions. I ask unanimous
consent that my vote be switched and that I be recorded as having voted
in the negative. It would not affect the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Who seeks time on the next
amendment? What is the will of the Senate?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that we are calling them up
now. The Coverdell amendment is the next amendment we would like to
call up on our side.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 1 minute.

Amendment No. 2262

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, amendment No. 2262, parallels the
House-passed resolution passed unanimously this week that Congress set
aside money for Black Hawks--$36 million. In last year's foreign
operations spending bill the President signed this provision into law.
But the money has not been spent. Black Hawks will work better than any
alternative in eradicating the poppyseed that grows in Colombia. This
poppy is used for heroin, which is becoming increasingly a problem in
American cities.
We have a choice. We can either fight heroin at the source, or we can
treat the victims in our own neighborhoods. You do not win a war
treating the wounded. Let us get serious in this drug war and pass the
amendment.
I attempted to come to a resolution with the good Senator from
Vermont, but we could not reach agreement. Therefore, we will have to
vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who seeks time in opposition? Time in opposition is running. Unless
someone seeks time--
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am somewhat surprised by this because I
understood I had an agreement with the Senator from Georgia. I
understand now he does not want to follow through with that agreement.
I have already told our side that we would not request a rollcall. I
will stick to my agreement. We will not request one.
But I simply say there was a better way that would not have taken the
money away from Bolivia fighting drugs. But we will just take this
matter up when we get to conference. I will keep to my commitment to
the leaders not to ask for a rollcall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
amendment No. 2262.
The amendment (No. 2262) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I report to the Senate, on the
Republican side we have one amendment left, Senator Nickles; on the
Democratic side eight. I hope you can reduce that number some so we can
get out of here earlier than any of us expected.

Amendment No. 2185, withdrawn

Mr. DOMENICI. The next amendment to come up is Kennedy amendment No.
2185 regarding the EEOC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 1 minute.

Amendment No. 2185

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the equal employment amendment calls for
a 15% increase in the budget for the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission for the coming year. Under this amendment the EEOC's budget
will increase from $242 million to $279 million next year.
One of the most basic civil rights protected by current law is the
right to equal opportunity in employment, your right to be free from
job discrimination because of your race, your sex, your age, your
ethnic background, your religion, or any disability you may have. This
country has made significant progress against job discrimination, but
we still have a long way to go to guarantee that you are hired or paid
or promoted on the basis of your abilities. Too often, the right that
you have on paper is not a right in reality, because your remedy is
inadequate or non-existent.
The EEOC has the principal responsibility to combat discrimination in
the workplace and that responsibility has grown significantly in recent
years. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the growing
awareness of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, and the
effect of downsizing on older workers have all added greatly to the
responsibilities of the EEOC, but there has not been a commensurate
increase in the agency's resources. The Commission's workload is
growing and its budget must keep up, or vast numbers of Americans will
have a meaningless right--a right without a remedy.
In fact, EEOC funding has increased only by 5.2% over the last four
years. That is not enough to keep up with inflation--let alone keep up
with the agency's increased responsibilities. Without substantial new
funding, the

[[Page S3082]]

EEOC will fall farther and farther behind in its vital work. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
The numbers tell the story. In 1990, 62,000 charges of discrimination
were filed by employees in the private sector. That number increased to
81,000 in 1997, an increase of almost 30%. Ninety percent of the
Commission's budget is allocated for fixed costs, with the vast
majority--75%--going to salary and benefits. When its budget doesn't
keep pace with inflation, the Commission must get along with fewer
investigators and attorneys. As a result, although the workload has
increased, the size of the staff has fallen. The number of employees
declined from 2800 employees in 1993 to 2600 employees in 1997. Since
1980, the number of employees has dropped by 23%. Think about that--
mushrooming responsibilities, declining resources. That's an invitation
to employers to think they can get away with discrimination in the
workplace.
The agency has tried to hold the line, but there is a limit to doing
more with less. The Commission urgently needs this budget increase, and
I want the Senate to approve it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who rises in opposition?
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment requests that the
functional total in this budget that we assume in the EEOC should
receive $279 million in budget authority. This is the level requested
by the President. The amendment would raise a freeze baseline we assume
by $37 million.
From my standpoint, ultimately the Appropriations Committee will
determine between a freeze and a $37 million reduction, but if the
Senator insists on this, then I have to move to table and ask for the
yeas and nays.
I think you are just as apt to get the money without the amendment as
you are with it, because it will be up to, incidentally, the man
sitting in the chair, coupled with a couple of other Senators, which of
the two levels will be funded. There is plenty of money for them to go
either way.
Having said that, I urge you to withdraw your amendment. We stated
the case here, but if you would like to vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. If we could have 2 minutes and maybe save ourselves
time.
I ask unanimous consent to inquire of the manager, would we have the
assurance of the chairman that he would bite for the higher amount? Is
that what I understand the Senator is saying?
Mr. DOMENICI. Let's make sure we understand, I am not chairman at
that point. In my capacity as a Senator, I agree that I will do
everything I can in that regard.
Mr. KENNEDY. To get the amount.
That makes a good deal of sense to me.
Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2185) was withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2188

Mr. DOMENICI. Is Senator Wellstone ready?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, colleagues.
The veterans' health care--some background--is funded by two sources:
appropriations and a supplemental fund called the MCCR. The President's
budget cut veterans' health care appropriations by $29 million, and the
estimate is that the MCCR fund will generate $10 million less--a
conservative estimate; CBO says much more than that.
This sense-of-the-Senate amendment simply puts that $40 million back.
It makes the budget whole, takes it to last year's level. I hope there
will be a strong vote for this. This is a vote to restore the funding
and to make the veterans' health care system whole, at least as good as
it was last year. We ought not to be cutting veterans' health care
benefits. I hope I get an overwhelmingly positive vote on this.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone, if you will look at
the budget, what we recommended is precisely what you are saying in
your sense of the Senate. We reinstated $153 million in veterans'
programs that the President had cut. Your amendment would be totally
redundant.
I think what we could agree to here is that the amendment provides
for an assumption that increases the level to the exact level you have
recommended in your sense of the Senate. Thus, I don't think we need a
sense of the Senate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague my reading of it is different;
otherwise, I would not have done the amendment. If you are right, there
is no harm in a strong vote on this.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we voice vote it?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to have a recorded vote on it, but I
assume, based upon the reaction, that there is overwhelming support for
this amendment; is that correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. There is overwhelming support for the budget
resolution, which does the same thing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Let's have a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2188) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. We really roll when everybody is sitting in their
chair.

Amendment No. 2206

Mr. DOMENICI. Next is Senator Reid on amendment No. 2206.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment that has been offered by
Senator Reid and Senator Bryan is supported by all environmental groups
in the country. It is supported by the Counsel for Environmental
Quality and the Secretary of the Interior. The Endangered Species Act
is an important act. We have worked very hard to come up with a
compromise. We must have a source of funding that is realistic. This is
not. This is a quick fix that will fail just as quickly. It is
unrealistic to sell public lands basically from the State of Nevada for
a national project.
The amendment we have offered says that the landowner, instead of
programs included in the Endangered Species Recovery Act, should be
financed from a dedicated source of funding, and the public lands
should not be sold to fund the Landowner Incentive Program of the
Endangered Species Recovery Act.
This amendment should be passed. It is the fair thing to do.
Mr. BRYAN. I rise today in support of the Reid/Bryan amendment which
expresses the sense of the Senate that Federal public lands should not
be sold to fund the landowner incentive program of the Endangered
Species Recovery Act.
As some of my colleagues are aware, the budget resolution before us
today assumes the landowner incentive program of the Endangered Species
Recovery Act will be enacted. The landowner incentive program includes
habitat reserve agreements, safe harbor agreements, habitat
conservation plans, and recovery plan implementation agreements within
the Act. The report accompanying the budget resolution calls for
funding for these programs to be made available ``from the gross
receipts realized in the sales of excess BLM land, provided that BLM
has sufficient administrative funds to conduct such sales.''
Mr. President, this proposal is a short-sighted attempt to find a
solution to a very legitimate issue. I support efforts to find a
sustainable funding mechanism to provide incentives to landowners to
undertake conservation measures that are necessary for the protection
and recovery of threatened and endangered species. The problem with the
proposal before us today is that it fails to establish a reliable
source of funding. The one-time sales of BLM lands cannot be expected
to provide a revenue source for habitat conservation plans and other
landowner incentive programs that are designed to last for 50 years or
longer. This proposal is a classic example of selling a capital asset
to pay for operation and maintenance costs. In my opinion, it
represents the utmost in fiscal irresponsibility.
In addition, this proposal would set a dangerous precedent regarding
the management of our public lands by threatening the public land base
available to future generations of Americans. Currently, the land
disposal

[[Page S3083]]

method favored the BLM involves land exchanges. This process allows the
BLM to dispose of land it no longer needs in exchange for land that is
worthy of public ownership. The land exchange process allows the BLM to
trade an asset it no longer deems desirable for one that it does.
Ironically, the BLM often uses land exchanges as a means of acquiring
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. By disrupting
the land exchange process, the land sale proposal in this resolution
could actually weaken the federal government's ability to acquire
private, environmentally sensitive land that rightfully belongs in
public ownership.
Mr. President, I am also concerned with this proposal because it
would effectively eviscerate another piece of legislation that I have
sponsored concerning the BLM land disposal process in Southern Nevada.
It is no secret that the public lands that this budget resolution
contemplates being sold are those BLM lands in the Las Vegas valley. I
have worked closely with Senator Reid and our House delegation for the
last three years to develop the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act, which provides local governments in southern Nevada with more
input into the BLM land exchange and land sale process. Over the last
several years, BLM land exchanges have contributed significantly to
growth and development in the Las Vegas valley. My legislation would
allow local governments and the BLM to work more closely together in
managing growth in the valley. The land sale proposal in this budget
resolution would destroy the ability of the Las Vegas community to have
a voice in the BLM land sale process as envisioned under my
legislation.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Reid/Bryan amendment and
to reject the irresponsible sell off of our public lands as contained
in this budget resolution.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the minute we have to Senator Chafee.
Mr. CHAFEE. I will take 30 seconds, and the Senator from Idaho will
take 30 seconds.
More than half of all the endangered species in the United States are
in private lands. In the Endangered Species Reauthorization Act, we put
in moneys, we provide for assistance to private landowners, most of
them small landowners. We do that.
The chairman of the Budget Committee provided that if any BLM lands
are sold--if they are sold, those moneys, instead of going into the
general treasury, will be used for the Endangered Species Act to help
landowners, mostly small landowners.

Amendment No. 2285 to Amendment No. 2206

(Purpose: To recognize potential alternative funding sources for
landowner incentives under the Endangered Species Recovery Act)

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] proposes an
amendment numbered 2285 to amendment No. 2206.

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. FORD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

An amendment in the Second Degree to the Reid Amendment.
At the end of subsection (b)(2), strike ``Act.'' and insert
the following:
``Act through their proceeds alone, if subsequent
legislation provides an alternative or mixed, dedicated
source of mandatory funding.''

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I want to acknowledge the great work that the Senator
from Nevada has done on the Endangered Species Act, along with the
Senator from Montana and the chairman from Rhode Island.
This is not a question of whether we should sell excess BLM lands; it
is taking place; it is a question of where the revenues should be
utilized.
The Budget Committee--and I thank the chairman--came up with a
revenue source that finally we could compensate landowners who
voluntarily stepped forward so we could have an incentive to help
species and to help property owners.
Now the effect of the second-degree is to say that rather than
foreclose the use of that excess land revenue, we will continue to look
at all different sources of revenue so that we can come up with ways
that we can make good on our pledge, and that is, property owners
should be compensated when they come forward and help us save species.
This is good for species, good for people, and it keeps all options
open.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I acknowledge the good work of the Senator
from Idaho, the Senator from Rhode Island, and certainly the ranking
member of the full committee in coming up with a compromise. However,
the amendment that I have, the underlying amendment, does everything
they say it should do, except their amendment will still allow Western
lands to be sold at a fire sale to provide a quick fix for the
Endangered Species Act. We do not need a quick fix; we need a dedicated
source of funding.
Mr. D'AMATO. 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 amendment No.
2285. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

YEAS--55

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--43

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The amendment (No. 2285) was agreed to.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2206

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the underlying amendment
No. 2206.
The amendment (No. 2206) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2257

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the next amendment will be one from our
side. It is our last amendment, which Senator Nickles has. It is No.
2257.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

[[Page S3084]]

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by myself
and Senator Murkowski. The net effect of it would be that if we are
dealing with the budget process and the so-called wish list amendments,
the sense of the Senate and sense of Congress would basically be ruled
out of order. My amendment would instruct the Chair to make precatory
amendments not germane to the budget resolution. That means you would
need 60 votes to pass it. At one point, we had 100 amendments, and over
two-thirds of them were precatory amendments; they were wishes. The
word precatory means to wish. That doesn't change the budget
resolution, and it wastes a lot of time. It means that, yes, we have
some kind of sparring back and forth. I don't know how many votes we
have had in the last couple of days, two-thirds of them have been sense
of the Senate or sense of the Congress. And, really, they will have
very little impact on the budget process. I think they have made the
Senate look bad in the process.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I am not going to
request the yeas and nays unless it is necessary. I think this would
help us do our business in a much more orderly and efficient manner.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I recognize the fact that the
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has sent up a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution to prohibit sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. This amendment
would prohibit those sense-of-the-Senate resolutions----
Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, this is a concurrent
resolution.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then I owe the Senator an apology. I will start all
over. I don't call attention to the fact that he has sent a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution to the desk.
This amendment, however, Mr. President, would prohibit any Member of
the Senate from offering a sense of the Senate or sense of the Congress
amendment to a budget resolution. The budget resolution already places
serious restrictions on minority participation. This is how we get
there. When you are on this side next year, you will know how it feels
to be in the minority and you will have an opportunity to amend things
that you don't see.
I, frankly, don't see a lot of harm in it. It takes time, yes, but it
gives a chance for an exchange of ideas that I think is important.
I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order, and I
tell my colleague that you can still pass sense-of-the-Congress
resolutions with 60 votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the
point of order.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any Senators wishing to vote or to
change their vote?
The clerk will report.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, how am I recorded?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is reported as a
negative. The clerk will report.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how am I recorded?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is reported as
negative.
Mr. COVERDELL. Regular order.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 60----
Mr. FORD. Mr. President. You can't do that there, come on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 60 and the nays are 38.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how am I recorded?
Mr. SARBANES. No, no, no, no, no.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. SARBANES. Not when someone is seeking recognition here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is ruling the reporting of the vote
can occur and the yeas are 60----
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And the nays are 38.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SARBANES. I object.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will renew my request. I ask unanimous
consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Durbin be recognized to switch his vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Vote Change

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, no. I ask unanimous consent that my vote
be changed to no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Are we waiting for the vote to be turned in?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are waiting for the vote to be reported.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are
39, and the motion to waive is not sustained.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

YEAS--59

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--39

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion was rejected.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Nickles for the magnanimous
gesture he just made. However, I want to emphasize we are trying to
move these votes, and the Chair was absolutely right, because it is up
to the discretion of the Chair to respond when Members ask how they are
recorded, but also when regular order is called for, especially when we
are trying to move through all these votes, the Chair is under an
obligation to bring this to a conclusion.
I think we had the right resolution here, but I want to make sure
everybody understands, we are trying to move these votes through. We
are trying to get to a conclusion, and that brings me to my next point.
It is 5 after 9. We still have, it looks like, as many as five
amendments that

[[Page S3085]]

we may have to vote on. I urge Senators, if they are planning on
calling up those amendments, to see if we can't work out something
where maybe some of them can be accepted or not offered and that we not
go through the process of having second-degree amendments offered at
this point.
If we can do that, we can finish this within this hour, by 10
o'clock. I thank Senator Reid and others for the work they have been
doing in trying to help pare down the list. We are very close now, and
I think it important we not lose the decorum we have exercised through
a long day. I thank my colleagues for that.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also want to acknowledge the efforts
made by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, in
resolving this minor problem. I appreciate very much his efforts to do
what he did. I will say, however, that we have been working in good
faith on both sides to try to move this along. Regular order is called,
but also Senators deserve the right to be recognized when they seek
recognition for purposes of clarification of their vote, so there is a
need to be sensitive on both sides in a request of the Chair. I know
that the Chair was accommodating or attempting to accommodate Senators.
I also join with the majority leader in asking the five remaining
authors to work with us to see if we might reduce the number of
rollcalls necessary. We are very close now, and I thank my colleagues
on this side for cooperating thus far. Let's see if we can get it down
to a couple, fewer than what we have right now. We can finish this
within the hour, and I hope we can receive just a little more
cooperation to make that happen. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 2216

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2216.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2216 is the pending amendment.
The Senator from Washington is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, my amendment increases Function 500 budget authority
and outlays to include the President's education initiatives, and adds
the Resolution level for IDEA. The offset is a Function 920 across-the-
board reduction of less than one percent, taken from non-defense
discretionary funds.
The President's budget request only included a level of $35 million
for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (I.D.E.A). To
get the Federal Government back on track toward its responsibility to
cover 40 percent of the cost of educating special education students at
the local level, significant increases are necessary.
The Resolution level in fiscal year 99 for Function 500 is $500
million below a freeze. It does not provide enough funding for the
important education initiatives requested by the President and
supported by the American public: Continuing investments in education
technology, including teacher training reflecting my Teacher Technology
Training Act; creation of education empowerment zones; appropriations
for Minority Teacher Recruitment; funding for the 21st Century Learning
Centers; appropriations for Children's Literacy and Work Study;
increases for Title I funding; an increase in the maximum Pell Grant;
and increased funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
My amendment makes education a higher priority within the construct
of a balanced budget. I must point out that even with my amendment, the
President and the Budget Committee have left other critical educational
services unfunded. But by passing this amendment, we will take steps to
stop the cuts to education, and get on the road toward results for
American students.
Mr. President, the American people believe education should be a
higher priority than its current 1.8 percent of total Federal outlays.
They see the need to improve the quality of every Federal education
program, minimize red tape, improve efficiency, and create
collaboration. But, they also see our Nation facing increased
enrollments, a teacher corps nearing retirement, and other factors
which increase the overall need for education funding at this critical
point in our history. The American people see that education must
become a higher priority in our national budget.
Unfortunately, this budget fails to meet the education needs of
America. It does not invest in the future. It cuts from services that
are helping students in schools today. This budget resolution places
America at a crossroads--and it takes us down the wrong road. A vote
for the Murray amendment is a vote that honors our commitment to fund
40 percent of the cost of special education funding, but doesn't try to
pit students against one another over limited federal dollars. We need
to invest in the future, and we need a budget that reflects America's
priorities.
Mr. President, when looking at the budget resolution as it came from
the Committee, I think we need to ask ``what do the assumptions in the
Republican budget resolution leave out?'' The answers are disturbing.
Within Function 500, for sub-function 501 (Elementary and Secondary
Education), Chairman Domenici's Committee resolution starts with a
freeze.
The resolution then adds $2.5 billion for funding for the Individuals
with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), and $6.3 billion for Title
VI School Reform efforts, for a total of $8.8 billion over 5 years.
From this amount, the majority then assumes that $2.2 billion will be
saved through consolidation of current educational services, leaving
their overall add to a freeze at $6.6 billion.
Mr. President, another important question now arises: Which important
priorities of the American people were left out when the majority
ignored the President's new initiatives?
The only education programs explicitly left unfunded by the
discretionary Republican budget resolution are the President's new
initiatives (such as educational empowerment zones; teacher technology
training; the new transition to school program; community-based
technology centers; and Safe and Drug-Free Schools coordinators). These
programs total $2.4 billion.
When added to the $7.3 billion in mandatory spending for class size
reduction, the total President's request level for new sub-function 501
funds is $9.7 billion over a freeze.
Because the Republicans assume $2.2 billion in consolidation, we need
to ask another question: Which current programs will be cut under their
$2.2 billion consolidation proposal?
This list could include any discretionary elementary and secondary
education program, such as:
Title I Education for the Disadvantaged (including reading and math
assistance for needy students; Even Start; Migrant Education; services
for neglected and delinquent students; and others.)
America Reads Children's Literacy
Eisenhower Professional Development
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
Magnet Schools
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
Inexpensive Book Distribution
Bilingual Education
Goals 2000
Arts in Education
Women's Educational Equity
School-to-Work
Vocational Education
The American people will remember that last year, during debates on
consolidation and block granting, proponents of block-granting federal
education funds proclaimed that by eliminating bureaucracy under block-
granting, school districts would actually have more money to spend, not
less. Hold-harmless provisions were discussed, which would purportedly
assure that school districts would not see funding cuts.
But we had all heard this kind of talk before, from those who start
by ``consolidating,'' and then take the next step to ``downsizing.''
Too often a block-grant equals a cut, and our school communities know
it.
We were told that the fundamental philosophical question was whether
or not we believed that individual school districts and parents and
teachers know best how to handle education in their own communities, or
whether we

[[Page S3086]]

believed those fundamental decisions are best left to bureaucrats in
Washington, D.C.
I think the fundamental question is rather when certain people in
positions of authority in Washington D.C. are going to listen to their
state and local governments and the people. This is a time of
incredible renewal in education. Republicans, Democrats and
Independents in my state of Washington and other states are on a
serious, measurable road to school improvement.
From school report cards, to higher standards, to increased family
and community involvement--improvement is happening, accountability is
present, and students and their parents are seeing results. At a
minimum, there is a fundamental discussion about educational
improvement going on in every community in my state. When federal
consolidation is tied to questions of ``who knows best,'' I think those
who do know best, the parents, teachers, students, and community
leaders like those in my state have reason to feel betrayed.
Because money does matter. Yes, we need to consolidate services where
it has an educational goal. Yes, the federal government works best when
it creates red tape least--but Americans interested in improving
education already have venues to make these changes. And these
discussions--such as the one that will occur during the 1999 rewrite of
federal elementary and secondary education programs--respect the
knowledge and experience of those who actually learn with or work with
federal education services.
But when the Congress ignores needed investments to improve school
facilities and improve the quality of school personnel--then uses
block-grants as cover for education cuts--local communities have reason
to feel betrayed.
So, my hope is that those who want to improve the federal
government's efforts to help students learn, and who see consolidation
as a vehicle toward this end, will work with local school communities.
My hope is that they will work with those of us who have experience in
education. My hope is that we can work together to find results for
students.
Because when the Congressional majority begins to pay attention to
the appropriate federal role in school improvement, that is a positive
step. Now that the discussion is joined, however, it must be
productive, bipartisan, and aimed at efforts that will work.
When we look at this budget resolution, we also need to ask ``what do
the assumptions in the President's budget request leave out?''
The President's budget request assumes less than sufficient funding
(less than current-services funding, or complete terminations) for,
among others:
Impact Aid (Construction and payments for Federal Property)
State Student Incentive Grant
Innovative Education Program Strategies
Ellender Fellowships
Literacy Programs for Prisoners
Urban Community Service
National Early Intervention Scholarships and Partnerships
State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders
In addition, the President's budget includes only $35 million for
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act over a
freeze annually. My amendment would meet the $500 million increase per
year in Sen. Domenici's Committee reported resolution ($465 million
over the President's level). For too long, the Congress has not met its
obligation to pay 40 percent of the costs of educating each special
education student.
Education, especially public education, is near and dear to the
American people. Although the challenges are great, there are
productive discussions happening in public schools across the country.
Local people are making decisions that are producing results for
students. We know we need to expect more from our schools than folks
did in the past. We know we have an economy and a society full of new
demands. Regardless of political persuasion, ethnicity, income, age, or
any other dividing line one might find--all Americans want students to
succeed. And there is broad recognition that we should do more, not
less. More to improve the quality of our schools. And more to make
education a higher priority in the federal budget. I urge adoption of
the Murray amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters regarding
education funding be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

American Federation of Teachers

April 1, 1998.
Dear Senator: On behalf of over 950,000 members of the
American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge you to oppose
the FY 1999 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, S. Con. Res.
86, unless changes are incorporated to rectify the following
shortfalls.
Although the budget resolution assumes a $2.5 billion
increase for IDEA over five years, a $500 million increase in
FY 1999, total discretionary spending in Function 500
reflects only a $600 million increase over FY 1998. This
level is $1.6 billion below the President's budget and $1
billion below the amount needed to maintain current program
levels in education, job training, and social services.
This budget resolution should include funding for the
President's initiatives in class size reduction and for
school construction. The President requested $1.1 billion to
recruit and train 100,000 new teachers over the next seven
years in order to reduce class size to an average of 18 in
grades 1-3, when children need the most help in learning to
read proficiently and mastering the basics. The AFT also
supports he President's proposal for more than $20 billion in
interest-free bonds for school construction. An estimated
one-third of all schools need extensive repairs and new
academic facilities are needed to serve the booming
enrollments in elementary and secondary schools. Instead, the
budget resolution assumes a $6.3 billion increase, $522
million in FY 1999, for Title VI Innovative Program
Strategies, an education block grant program, while assuming
an estimated $2.2 billion in savings from unspecified
consolidation of elementary and secondary education programs.
In addition, the AFT opposes savings assumed in
discretionary spending resulting from repealing Davis-Bacon
and the Service Contract Act beginning in the year 2000. The
AFT also opposes the citing of S. 1133, The ``Parent and
Student Savings Account Plus,'' as an illustration of tax
relief, which would expand the use of Education IRAs to
include private and religious school tuition for elementary
and secondary students.
For these reasons, I urge you to oppose S. Con. Res. 86
unless amendments are adopted to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Gerald D. Morris,
Director of Legislation.
____

NAPSEC

March 25, 1998.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: On behalf of the National Association
of Private Schools for Exceptional Children (NAPSEC), an
association that represents over 900 private special
education schools for children with disabilities across the
nation both nationally and through its Council of Affiliated
State Associations, I urge you to oppose the FY 99 Budget
Resolution when it is considered by the Senate.
Although the resolution adds a billion dollars for special
education programs and Title VI innovative education
strategies programs, the resolution provides only $600
million more for all education and related programs. The
resolution would fund education programs at $1.1 billion
below current service levels. Programs like Head Start, Title
I, Pell Grants, and other education programs would have to be
cut or frozen to make up the difference.
This action appears totally inappropriate considering the
new challenges facing America's education system--rising
enrollments at all levels, more students with special needs,
growing teacher shortages, unsafe, overcrowding, and decaying
schools, just to name a few.
Recent polls ranked increasing federal funding for
education ahead of health care, reducing national debt, tax
cuts, crime, and defense. I urge you to represent this
priority by supporting a bipartisan budget resolution that
makes increased investments in education. I also ask you to
support the amendments that are offered that would increase
funding for education.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
Sherry L. Kolbe,
Executive Director & CEO.
____

NSBA,

March 25, 1998.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: The National School Boards
Association, representing 95,000 school board members through
its federation of 53 states and territories, urges you to
make education your first priority and to oppose the FY 1999
Budget Resolution reported from the Senate Budget Committee
last week because of its inadequate levels of funding for
education.
The Senate Budget Committee's resolution is more than $1
billion below current services for discretionary spending in
Function 500,

[[Page S3087]]

which includes education and related programs and is $1.6
billion below the President's request. While recommending a
billion dollars more for special education and the Title VI
innovative education strategies programs, the FY 1999 Budget
Resolution provides only $600 million more for all education
and training programs. Programs like Title I, Impact Aid, and
charter schools would have to be cut or frozen to make up the
difference.
In contrast, the FY 1999 Budget Resolution allocates
increases for health and transportation over the next five
years that are $20 billion and $30 billion higher,
respectively, than the levels approved in last year's budget
agreement. This increase will put further pressure on funding
levels for education and other domestic programs.
Finally, the FY 1999 Budget Resolution also rejects
creating new revenue streams for education such as tax
incentives to encourage school construction and mandatory
spending for new initiatives proposed by President Clinton.
When looked at as a totality, the FY 1999 Budget Resolution
will result in cuts below the current level of services for
education at a time when America's educational system is
facing new challenges at the start of the 21st century.
Education is America's best investment. Education will
continue to fuel a growing economy that is able to compete in
world markets; provide the job-ready labor force that will
contribute to the stability of the Social Security system;
give all Americans the opportunity to achieve a higher
standard of living for themselves and their families; and
allow the United States to maintain its strong leadership
role in the world. Last year, Congress and the Administration
worked together to provides a substantial increase in the
investment in higher education. This year, several important
investments for elementary and secondary education have been
targeted, and it is vitally important for our nation's
schoolchildren that we make a commitment to fund them. Our
nation's schools face unprecedented challenges: exploding
enrollments; dramatic increases in students with special
needs; overcrowded, inadequate, and unsafe school buildings;
high demands for costly, new technology; and the commitment
to reach high standards for all students. To meet the current
challenges for elementary and secondary education, the
federal government needs to expand its financial commitment
to education funding, state and local funding cannot meet the
expanded demands and expectations for our schools.
We hope to work with you to ensure a significant federal
funding of the American public's top priority--education. We
hope the year will not begin with a debate about cutting the
federal investment in elementary and secondary education.
If you have any further questions about this issue, please
call Laurie A. Westley, assistant executive director, at 703-
838-6703.
Sincerely,
William B. Ingram,
President.
Anne L. Bryant,
Executive Director.
____

Committee for Education Funding

March 23, 1998.
Re: Oppose FY99 Budget Resolution That Falls Short of
America's Education Investment Needs
Dear Senator, The Committee for Education Funding, a
nonpartisan coalition of over 90 education organizations
reflecting the broad spectrum of the education community,
urges you to oppose the FY99 Budget Resolution reported out
by the Senate Budget Committee on March 18, 1998 because of
its inadequate funding levels for education.
The Senate Budget Committee's Resolution is over $1 billion
below current services levels for discretionary spending in
Function 500, which includes education and related programs,
and is $1.6 billion below the President's request. While
recommending a billion dollars more for special education and
the Title VI innovative education strategies programs, the
resolution provides only $600 million more for all education
and related programs. Programs like Head Start, Title I, Pell
grants, or other education and related programs would have to
be cut or frozen to make up the difference.
In contrast, the resolution allocates increases for health
and transportation over the next five years that are $20
billion and $30 billion higher, respectively, than the levels
approved in last year's budget agreement. These increases,
while much needed, will put further pressure on funding
levels for other domestic programs like education.
The budget resolution also rejects creating critical new
revenue streams for education such as mandatory spending to
reduce class size and tax incentives to encourage school
construction as proposed in the President's budget.
Taken all together, this budget resolution is likely to
result in cuts below current service levels for education at
a time when America's educational system is facing new
challenges at the start of the 21st century. These include
rising enrollments at all levels; more students with special
needs; growing teacher shortages and professional development
needs; unsafe, overcrowded and outdated school facilities;
access to rapidly advancing educational technology; and
continuing access to postsecondary education for low income
students.
Recent polls ranked increased federal funding for education
ahead of health care, reducing national debt, tax cuts, crime
and defense (Greenberg-Guinlan and the Tarrance Group,
January 1998). We urge you to support a bipartisan budget
resolution that makes increased investment in education the
top budget priority to meet the growing needs of America's
students and secure America's future. We also urge you to
support amendments to the budget resolution that would
increase funding for education.
Sincerely,
Kenneth G. McInerney,
President.
Edward R. Kealy,
Executive Director.
____

National PTA,

March 16, 1998.
Hon. Patty Murray,
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: The National PTA urges you to include
education as a top funding priority in the FY 1999 budget
resolution you are about to consider. There are thousands of
excellent public schools in this country, but too many others
lack the resources they need to provide a quality education
for all children. These schools face formidable challenges,
which include record-high student enrollments, an increase in
the number of children with disabilities, a growing need for
new and qualified teachers, extensive and expensive
technology needs, and school facilities in desperate need of
expansion and renovation. An increased federal financial
investment is needed to address these national concerns.
For the past two years, Congress has increased federal
funding for education, and National PTA supports this
leadership. National PTA now urges lawmakers to continue this
positive trend to assure that the benefits of this investment
are long-lasting. Even with the recent spending growth, none
of the major elementary and secondary education programs
designed to expand educational opportunity or improve
achievement is funded near the level needed to serve all who
are eligible.
As you develop the FY 1999 Senate Budget Resolution,
National PTA asks that you include an increase for
discretionary education and children's programs sufficient to
allow funding for new initiatives and increases in vital
existing programs like Title I, IDEA, and Impact Aid. We also
urge you to include in the budget an accommodation for new
sources of funding for education, such as an infrastructure
tax credit or mandatory education programs to reform schools
and increase student learning.
Now is an excellent time to strengthen the federal
investment in successful and cost-effective education
programs. The nation's economic health is robust. The
president's budget request is balanced and projects growing
surpluses for at least the next ten years. Many vital
interests will compete for discretionary funds this year, but
investing in education is one of the best ways to assure that
the national economy continues to prosper, and the stability
of the Social Security system is strengthened.
We look forward to working with Congress to secure much-
needed resources to improve the quality of public schools and
to invest now for America's future.
Sincerely,
Shirley Igo,
Vice President for Legislation.
____

Mr. President, I request the yeas and the nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I didn't want to interrupt, but some of
us are having a little difficulty hearing even when there is quiet.
Maybe Senators could make sure they are talking into the mike.
I didn't hear much of what Senator Murray said. But, Mr. President,
let me say what I understand this amendment does. It asks for a $2.5
billion increase in education for special ed. It doesn't say where the
money comes from, but it comes from somewhere in the budget.
The Republican budget before us asks $2.5 billion more for special ed
than the President of the United States asked for. As a matter of fact,
the President, after committing to dramatically increase special ed,
increased it $38 million while we increase it $2.5 billion. We said
where we took the money so that it is doable. This one does not even
indicate what programs in the Government would be cut to pay for this.
I don't believe this is the way we ought to do business here, and if
the time has been yielded back, I yield mine. I move to table the
Murray amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S3088]]

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. 2216. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), would vote
``yea.''
Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

YEAS--55

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--43

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2216) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is
amendment No. 2220 by Senator Biden.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 2220

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, recognizing reality and the hour, I am
going to tell you what my amendment was going to be, and then I will
withdraw it. This amendment was to see to it that the moneys from the
tobacco settlement, if any, could have been used for VA health care, as
well as Medicare. But looking at that lineup, I understand the outcome,
and so I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2220) was withdrawn.
Mr. DOMENICI. The next amendment is the Feingold amendment.

Amendment No. 2224

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to establish a
narrowly focused, deficit-neutral reserve fund to help people with
disabilities become employed and remain independent. While it does not
specify a specific proposal, I want it to be clear that we have crafted
this reserve fund with a very specific measure in mind, and that is the
bipartisan Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1998, S. 1858, which was
developed under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont, Mr.
Jeffords.
We truly offer people with disabilities a chance to leave the
disability rolls and become self-sufficient taxpayers. If just 1
percent of the 7.5 million Americans with disabilities become
successfully employed, it is estimated it will save, in cash assistance
alone, over $3.5 billion. So I urge the body to support this narrowly
targeted, capped, deficit-neutral reserve fund.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Feingold
in his amendment to create a disability reserve fund to allow people
with disabilities to become employed and remain independent. The
amendment would ensure that the budget resolution incorporates the
flexibility to allow offsets for the bipartisan Work Incentive
Improvement Act of 1998. This bill allows people with disabilities to
become employed and remain independent, by providing more affordable
and accessible health care.
Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is
enjoying today, persons with disabilities continue to struggle to live
independently and become fully contributing members of their
communities. Of the 54 million disabled people in this country, many
have the capacity to work and want to become productive citizens, but
they are unable to do so because they are afraid of losing their health
care.
Today, 7.5 million disabled Americans depend on public assistance.
The cost to the taxpayer is $73 billion annually and will continue to
increase at 6% a year. If we can support just one percent of the these
7.5 million individuals to become successfully employed, savings in
cash assistance would total $3.5 billion over the work lives of these
individuals.
Senator Feingold's amendment creates a narrowly targeted reserve
fund, which allows savings or revenues from various sources to be used
to offset the costs associated with this proposal. The reserve fund is
limited in the total spending it permits for this specific purpose, and
is permissive--it allows the Senate leadership to use savings from
unrelated areas to be dedicated to support disabled people to become
employed. Work is a central part of the American dream, and it is time
for this Congress to support our disabled citizens in achieving that
dream.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, the amendment violates the
Budget Act. This sets up a new reserve fund to create a new entitlement
for disabled people. It permits the raising of taxes in order to pay
for it, and in every respect it violates the Budget Act. I do not think
I have to say much more.
We have denied any new reserve fund where specific revenues or
resources have not been allocated. That is the case here. We think we
have adequately taken care of the disabled under our budget. In many
cases, we have done more than what the President has done. So with
that, I make a point of order that the amendment is not in order under
the Budget Act.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act as to the
pending amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? 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 waive the
Budget Act as to the amendment No. 2224. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms), would vote ``no.''
Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

(Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.)

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--51

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe

[[Page S3089]]

Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 47, and the nays are
51. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.

Amendment No. 2234

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have just two amendments that require
votes, but we have finally agreed on the Boxer amendment and there will
not be a second-degree amendment. I ask that amendment No. 2234 be
called up. This will be voice voted. It is already understood if the
Republicans say ``no'' loud enough, you will win.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his many
courtesies throughout the evening. I would have appreciated one more
courtesy, which would have been accepting the amendment. I want to say
to my colleagues that I urge a strong voice vote on this side. There
isn't one penny of tobacco money in the budget resolution going for NIH
research, and nothing for cancer research. So I hope you will give me a
strong aye voice vote, even though I think the result is predetermined
because I think with all the people getting cancer caused from
cigarettes, it makes sense to use the reserve fund from the tobacco
settlement for NIH funding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2234) was rejected.

amendment No. 2230

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator John
Kerry's amendment No. 2230.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my amendment is subject to a budget point
of order. Since that is the same 60 votes that it will require to
accomplish this later, I am not going to ask my colleagues to make that
vote tonight. What I would ask is that my colleagues, during the break,
think about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of where we are
currently allocating tobacco funds.
The entire purpose of the tobacco legislation is directed at stopping
kids from smoking. Yet, that is going to require funding for various
things, such as research and compliance. We need to assist the tobacco
farmers. There are clearly a set of priorities for where tobacco money
should go. I hope when we come back and take up the Commerce Committee
bill, we will find it in ourselves to adopt those appropriate
priorities.
I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we thank the Senator for doing that.
Senator Robb is the last amendment that I think we have to have a
vote on.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator mind me asking to put
a couple things in the Record.
Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

Amendment No. 2232

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2232.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2232 is now the pending
business.
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I regret very much that I am not in a
position to do as my two previous colleagues have done because we have
a bit of a dilemma for tobacco farmers. Everyone who has proposed
legislation to include the legislation reported out of the Commerce
Committee yesterday by a vote of 19-1 makes provisions for tobacco
farmers in terms of transition.
The tobacco reserve fund, however, has been wisely fenced off by the
chairman of the Budget Committee so that it might not be raided by
those of us who might have other spending plans. But the only source of
payment for any of the plans that have been proposed or considered is
going to be the money that comes into that particular fund.
This amendment would simply make available that particular funding,
along with Medicare, to fund any of the tobacco provisions that might
otherwise bring down tobacco legislation for the tobacco farmers.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Everybody should recall that the Republican budget says
unless and until the Congress of the United States produces legislation
with 60 votes that does otherwise, we allocate whatever Federal moneys
we receive from any cigarette settlement to the Medicare fund, which is
the fund most entitled to it because it's the fund that is most abused
by smoking--$25 billion a year.
So what we have now is an attempt to say, no, let's change it just a
little bit, let's add another use to that fund. I don't believe we
should do that.
I make a point of order that this amendment violates the Budget Act
because it is not germane.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order, 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 the motion to waive the
Budget Act.
The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 67, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

YEAS--31

Akaka
Baucus
Breaux
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Coverdell
Daschle
Faircloth
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone

NAYS--67

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Mack
McCain
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Torricelli
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The amendment (No. 2232) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 31, the nays are 67.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just say there are no more
amendments that we have to have rollcall votes on before final passage.
I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask we agree to vote--to have a voice
vote en bloc on the amendments that are on the list that I sent to the
desk. I send that to the desk now. It is the list that we submitted
which starts with No. 2271 and ends with No. 2252. I ask unanimous
consent that those amendments

[[Page S3090]]

be voted en bloc, and that they be voice voted. There is an expectation
that the ayes will prevail here. I call that to the attention of the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Vote On Amendments Nos. 2271, 2238, 2180, 2243, 2265, 2272 and 2252, En
Bloc

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendments
2271, 2238, 2180, 2243, 2265, 2272, and 2252.
The amendments (Nos. 2271, 2238, 2180, 2243, 2265, 2272, and 2252)
were agreed to.

The text of the amendments is printed in a previous edition of the
Record.

amendment no. 2238

Tax Complexity

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am so pleased that the Senate has
agreed to accept my amendment on tax complexity. Mr. President, two
weeks from now is April 15, a day known as Tax Day. On that day,
approximately 120 million Americans will file some type of tax return
to the Internal Revenue Service. Of these taxpayers, more than 40
percent will file the short tax forms known as the 1040EZ, or the 1040
long form.
These two forms--only one page long--are designed to be simple and
easy to complete, but Americans will pay millions of dollars to tax
preparers to fill out these forms in their stead in order to avoid
making a mistake and facing the wrath of the Internal Revenue Service.
The perception is that the tax code is too complicated, and frankly,
these Americans have good reasons to be concerned. The Balanced Budget
Act of 1997, passed by Congress last year and hailed as providing
significant tax relief to every American, added over 1 million words
and 315 pages to the Internal Revenue Code. The capital gains
computation form alone grew from 19 lines to 54. Consequently the
average taxpayer will spend 9 hours and 54 minutes preparing Form 1040
for the 1997 tax year. The total burden on all taxpayers of maintaining
records, and preparing and filing tax returns is estimated to be in
excess of 1,600,000 hours this year.
Tax relief is not just about financial relief, it is also about
paperwork relief. This amendment states that it is the Sense of the
Senate that this chamber give priority to tax proposals that simplify
the tax code and reject proposals that add greater complexity to the
code and increased compliance costs to the taxpayer. I think we have
sent a sound message to the American people that we are committed to
reducing complexity in this already onerous tax system.

amendment no. 2243

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the Sense of
the Senate that Congress should fulfill the intent of the Amtrak Reform
and Accountability Act of 1997 and appropriate sufficient funds in each
of the next five years to enable Amtrak to implement its Strategic
Business Plan.
In the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress
declared that ``intercity rail passenger service is an essential
component of a national intermodal passenger transportation system.''
With the passage of this Act, Congress and the President effectively
agreed to provide adequate appropriations over the next five years for
Amtrak to implement its Strategic Business Plan so that it may achieve
the goal of operating self-sufficiency.
I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Lott for his
cooperation on this amendment and for his commitment to providing the
funding necessary for Amtrak to implement its Strategic Business Plan.
I would also like to thank Senator McCain for his cooperation and
assistance in working out the language of this amendment.
Finally, I would like to thank Senators Roth, Biden and all of the
cosponsors of this amendment for their continuing support of Amtrak.
I believe that for the first time in memory, we have a general
commitment among members of Congress to provide Amtrak with the funding
necessary for it to turn its financial situation around. We will
accomplish this by providing Amtrak with the capital funds necessary to
modernize its equipment and facilities. For too long, Congress
underfunded Amtrak, leaving it with an aging and inefficient capital
stock. By providing sufficient capital funding, we will allow Amtrak to
increase the efficiency of its operations and attract new passengers by
providing better, more reliable service.
Last year's $2.2 billion capital fund and the passage of the Amtrak
Reform legislation brought the dawn of a new day for our national
passenger railroad.
We need Amtrak to reduce congestion on our highways and in our skies.
Congress and the President have demonstrated clear support for Amtrak
as a national system and for continued federal appropriations. Too
often in the past, we under-funded this important system. Today, Amtrak
is operating under substantial challenges to meet strict business
goals.
I believe Amtrak is up to the task and I hope and expect that we will
provide them the funds we have promised and give Amtrak a fighting
chance to succeed.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend,
the distinguished Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Frank
Lautenberg, in introducing this amendment. We are in excellent company,
joined by the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Bill
Roth, the distinguished Majority Leader, and other supporters of
Amtrak.
As I testified just last week before Senator Shelby's Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, Amtrak is currently under the gun--both
the Amtrak Reform Act we passed last year, and our current budget plans
assume that Amtrak will be without operating subsidies beginning in
2002.
Personally, I am not convinced that this is a wise course of action.
Virtually all passenger rail systems in the world are supported by
public funds, because their benefits--reduced congestion on highways
and at airports, less air pollution--are enjoyed by those who may never
ride a train. Public support does not automatically signify
inefficiency, Mr. President; in the case of passenger rail, it is a
recognition that the public benefits are not fully paid for by
individual ticket purchases.
But it is even clearer, Mr. President, that passenger rail deserves
support for its major capital needs. Just as the federal government
provides funds for highways, airports, ship channels, and ports, it has
a proper role--justified by the strictest notions of economic
efficiency--in providing support for the basic infrastructure of our
national transportation system.
Despite the heavy burdens placed on Amtrak by years of under funding,
Amtrak has responded with increased efficiency--and has undertaken a
business plan that aims at operating self-sufficiency by the year 2002.
This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that we should live
up to our end of the deal we entered into when we passed the Amtrak
Reform Act last year--we should, at an absolute minimum, provide Amtrak
with the funds necessary for them to reach 2002 with the equipment,
routes, and ridership that will make that self-sufficiency possible.
That means providing Amtrak with the funds--both long-term high-return
capital from its capital funds, as well as operating support--that they
anticipate in that business plan.
And I must add, Mr. President, that following the recommendation of
last year's Presidential Emergency Board, Amtrak has agreed to provide
pay raises for its long-suffering workers. To make good on that
commitment, and to provide similarly for all of the workers that have
gone for years without a pay raise--or even a contact--Amtrak will
require the funding level we commit to with his amendment.
I am gratified that we have the support of so many of my colleagues
for this amendment. Today, we will put the Senate on record in support
of funds for Amtrak that will allow them to achieve the goals that we
have set for them. That, Mr. President, is the least we can do.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of concern over
whether the budget resolution actually provides adequate funding to
allow the Labor-HHS subcommittee to provide increased funding for the
National Institutes of Health as assumed in the budget.
After extensive conversations with the Chairman of the Budget
Committee

[[Page S3091]]

Chairman and his staff, I am confident that the recommendations
contained in the budget resolution would in fact allow for increased
funding of the National Institutes of Health.
In fact, the Chairman of the Budget Committee has agreed to enter
into a colloquy with me which explicitly states that the budget assumes
a substantial increase over the Labor-HHS subcommittee's 1998
appropriated levels. The chairman has assured me that this funding
level assumes increases to cover shortfall created by forward funding
in last years Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Additionally, the budget
assumes further increases to fund a number of Congressional priorities,
including increased funding for the National Institutes of Health.
The full content of the colloquy is contained in a written statement
which I will now send to the desk and ask that it be entered into the
Record in its entirety.
Mr. President, as my colleagues will recall, during consideration of
the 1998 Budget Resolution, I offered an amendment to express the sense
of the Senate that funding for the National Institutes of Health should
be increased by 100 percent over the next five years. It passed by a
vote of 98-0.
The amendment I am offering today will help to ensure that the Senate
continues to move forward toward achieving this goal. The 1999 Senate
Budget Resolution assumes an increase of $1.5 billion for the National
Institutes of Health for FY 1999, an 11% increase over the FY 1998
funding level.
I know the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has
worked very hard in a tight budget year to include this increase in the
Budget Resolution. I want to express my sincere thanks to Chairman
Domenici and commend him for his leadership on this initiative. He,
too, has been a true friend to NIH and I know he shares our commitment
to increased funding for biomedical research.
I am aware of concerns raised by patient organizations and public
health advocacy organizations with respect to future increases for NIH.
Based upon discussions I have had with both Chairman Domenici and
with Chairman Stevens today, I am convinced the budget resolution will,
in fact, lead to the increases necessary to achieve the goal of
doubling funding for NIH.
I have submitted into the Record a colloquy with Senator Domenici
which addresses these concerns, and I encourage all interested parties
to review this colloquy.
It is also important to remember that the Congress is at the
beginning of the budget process. The House of Representatives has not
acted on the Budget Resolution. There still must be a conference with
the House.
At this time, I am convinced the Budget Committee has done its' best
to provide the framework to increase funding for NIH by at least $1.5
billion in FY 1999. And, I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committee
will do its best to support these recommendations.
For purposes of this Budget Resolution, I do believe it is important
for the Senate to be on record with respect to our bipartisan
commitment to NIH.
To that end, the amendment I offer today will express the Sense of
the Senate in three areas.
First, it would reaffirm our commitment to double funding for NIH
over the next five years.
Second, it would express the Sense of the Senate that appropriations
for NIH should be increased by $2 billion in FY 1999.
Finally, it would express the Sense of the Senate that, at a minimum,
appropriations for NIH should match the levels specified in the Budget
Resolution.
Funding for NIH has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the
Senate. Today should be no exception. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.

Addition of Cosponsors--Amendment No. 2243

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be added to the Amtrak sense-of-the-Senate amendment
No. 2243: Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, Chafee, Kerry, Moseley-Braun,
Lieberman, Durbin, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Dodd, Baucus, Leahy and
Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2219

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have one last thing, amendment No.
2219, by Senator Dorgan. Would you call that up? Here we are going to
voice vote it. Let me make sure everybody understands, this amendment
is supposed to fail. And there has been concurrence on that point as we
deliberated on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2219 is before the Senate. If
there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 2219) was rejected.

Amendments Withdrawn

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all other
pending amendments be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment Nos. 2186, 2194, 2215, 2223, 2227, 2231, 2241, 2242, 2245,
2247, 2179, 2181, 2249, 2255, 2256, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2267, 2268, 2273,
and 2274 were withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2204

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my amendment to the Budget Resolution I hope
will be only the first step this Congress will take to prevent abuse
and mistreatment of elderly and disabled patients in long-term care.
Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43% of Americans over
the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of
people needing long-term care service, both in nursing homes and home
health care, is sharply increasing, and it will continue to do so as
the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of long-term care
facilities do an excellent job in caring for their patients, but it
only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should
be a healing environment.
A disturbing number of cases have been reported where long-term care
workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct
patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. Most
recently, The Wall Street Journal published a troubling article
describing the extent of this problem and the difficulties we face in
tracking known abusers. I ask that this article be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See
exhibit 1.)
Mr. KOHL. This article is only the tip of the iceberg. A recent
report from the Nation's long-term care Ombudsmen indicates that in 29
states surveyed, 7,043 cases of abuse, gross neglect, or exploitation
occurred in nursing homes and board and care facilities. Similar
stories have appeared nationwide and abuse is not limited to nursing
homes. It is far too easy for a health care worker with a criminal or
abusive background to gain employment and prey on the most vulnerable
patients.
Why is this the case? Because current state and national safeguards
are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required
to maintain nurse aide registries which include information about
abusive workers. But these registries are not comprehensive or
complete. First, many facilities do not report abuse complaints and
instead, simply fire the worker. Second, these registries usually do
not include abuse information about home health or hospice aides.
Finally, and most important, there is no national system in place to
track abusers, little information sharing between States, and no
Federal requirement that a criminal background check be done on
potential employees. A known abuser or someone with a violent criminal
background in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and
continuing to work with patients there.
I have introduced and continue to work on legislation that would
create a national registry of abusive long-term care workers and
require criminal background checks for prospective employees who
participate in Medicare and Medicaid. Although this will not prevent
all cases of abuse, I believe it will go a long way toward making sure
that those who have a history of preying on the vulnerable are not paid
to do so by Medicare and Medicaid.
This Budget Resolution includes a lot of different priorities and
funding recommendations--some of which I agree with, and others that I
believe deserve

[[Page S3092]]

more attention. But as we consider this Budget Resolution, we must not
forget to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens--the elderly
and the disabled.
This amendment expresses our desire to establish a viable, efficient,
and cost-effective national system that will screen out abusive workers
and prevent them from working with patients. We should adopt this
amendment to devote resources toward developing such a system. We
should adopt this amendment to send a clear signal to potential abusers
that we will not tolerate the mistreatment of our patients. And we
should adopt this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to protecting
the elderly and the disabled from known abusers and criminals. When a
patient checks into a nursing home facility or receives home health
services, they should not have to give up their right to be free of
abuse, neglect, or mistreatment.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal]

Many Elders Receive Care at Criminals' Hands

(By Michael Moss)

When Carletos Bell applied to work at the San Antonio
Convalescent Center, he didn't try to hide his violent
criminal past. He disclosed his record of aggravated assault
right on his application for nurse-assistant.
He got the job anyway, in June 1996. Six months later, Mr.
Bell was charged with sexually assaulting a 71-year-old
resident of the nursing home. He pleaded not-guilty and is
now in jail awaiting trial.
The case illustrates a growing problem for nursing-home
patients and owners alike: People with serious rap sheets are
landing jobs as care givers for the elderly.
On Monday, a local trial judge in Denver gave a green light
to the first-ever class-action lawsuit alleging nursing-home
negligence. A pivotal claim is that many nurse-assistants had
arrest records. A local attorney for the facility's former
owner, GranCare Inc., denies the allegation of negligence.
Even before that ruling, crime against residents of nursing
homes has been a growing concern among patient advocates.
Efforts to draw attention to the problem have been stymied
partly by the lack of good data. Advocates say there is
severe underreporting of crimes--especially of rapes--because
residents often fear retribution for leveling complaints.
Still, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services'
Office of Inspector General took disciplinary actions mostly
related to nursing-home abuse in 382 cases in 1997, more than
double a year earlier. The office received 1,613 reports of
abuse allegations in that year, up 14% over a three-year
period.
Lesser crimes abound as well. Four percent of nursing-home
workers acknowledged they stole money, jewelry and other
items from residents, in questionnaires completed as part of
a soon-to-be-published study by Diana Harris, a sociologist
at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Ten percent of
workers said they saw other staff steal.
Nursing-home owners, in turn, are finding themselves at
greater risk in lawsuits brought by injured residents. In
some facilities, plaintiffs' attorneys are discovering that a
large portion of the staff has a criminal past. At another
San Antonio nursing home, the Crestway Care Center, where in
1995 two female residents said they were raped, half of the
69 male workers had arrest records and nearly one-quarter had
felony convictions, according to pretrial fact-finding in a
negligence lawsuit the women brought against the nursing
home. The facility's owner at the time couldn't be reached.
His attorney declined to comment. The suit was settled last
year.
The plaintiffs' criminologist, Patricia Harris, noted in
court papers, ``A setting which contains infirmed females who
are unable to defend themselves creates an enhanced
opportunity for sexual assaults.''
When trouble strikes, the involvement of a single employee
with a felony record can send jury awards soaring. Last year,
the owner of the nursing home where Mr. Bell worked, Living
Centers of America, quickly settled a lawsuit brought by the
resident whom Mr. Bell allegedly assaulted. Since then,
investor group Apollo Management LP, headed by financier Leon
Black, has acquired control of Living Centers and merged it
with GranCare to form Paragon Health Networks Inc., of
Atlanta.
``Until there is some public awareness, the problem of
nursing homes employing criminal and sexual deviants is going
to escalate,'' says the resident's attorney, Marynell
Maloney, who also brought the other San Antonio case.
Living Centers' local attorney, Charles Deacon, says the
job interviewer at the facility made a mistake in hiring Mr.
Bell. Given Mr. Bell's record, says Mr. Deacon, ``there is no
way the company would ever have wanted him.''
Employees with criminal records pose an industry-wide
problem, says Mr. Deacon, who represents other nursing-home
owners. ``They end up costing these companies a lot of
money.''
A Boston jury last month sent a message to a home health-
care provider by awarding $26.5 million to the estate of John
Ward, who was beaten and stabbed to death in 1991, along with
his grandmother. The perpetrator was a six-time convicted
felon who was hired by an agency to care for Mr. Ward, age
32, at their home.
Rachel Schneider, acting co-president of the Visiting Nurse
Association of Greater Boston, which settled the lawsuit
after the jury's verdict, says the killings were ``one of
those very unfortunate lessons.'' The agency began checking
its workers for criminal records starting in 1994, she said.
Nursing-home owners, patient advocates and labor unions
agree that an important step in combating nursing-home crime
is to keep criminals from getting the jobs. Bills introduced
in both houses of Congress would require Federal Bureau of
Investigation background checks of would-be nurses' aides and
other care givers.
A group of nursing-home owners, the American Health Care
Association, says it supports the concept and favors imposing
background-checks on care givers at hospitals and other
providers, too. Patient advocates say there's no reason to
limit the checks to nurses' aides. ``We think everybody--
doctors, nurses, everyone--should be checked,'' says Elma
Holder, founding director of the National Citizens' Coalition
for Nursing Home Reform.
A growing number of states already have legislation
mandating background checks, with mixed results. Illinois's
two-year-old program for screening nurses' aides has turned
up disqualifying criminal backgrounds on about 5% of the
people who were checked. Their crimes ranged from theft to
homicide. But nearly 90% of those who asked that the law be
waived were permitted to take or keep jobs anyway.
``The law is a farce,'' says Violette King of Nursing Home
Monitors, a local patient-advocacy group based in Godfrey,
Ill. The state Department of Public Health responds by saying
it weighs each waiver request carefully.
Spokesman Thomas Schafer cites the case of a man who
murdered his girlfriend 24 years ago. He had been working in
a nursing home without problems for 15 years when the new
background-check program turned up his record. The state
decided he wouldn't be a risk to the residents.
One thorny question is whether mere arrests should carry as
much weight as convictions. In Colorado, it has become a
point of contention in the Denver class-action suit. Of the
176 aides hired by Cedars Health Care Center in 1995 and
1996, 74 of them, or 42%, had arrest records, the plaintiffs'
attorney has alleged.
``Most of these records reflect serious, and sometimes
habitual, criminal behavior,'' alleges the complaint filed by
Denver attorney Lynn Feiger, an employment-law specialist, on
behalf of five current and former Cedars residents. More than
200 can join the suit, thanks to this week's ruling.
The nursing-home owner's attorney, Jerome Reinan, who is
weighing an appeal of the class-action decision, argues that
the threshold should be convictions. ``We're not aware at
this point of any convictions that would made an employee
ineligible for hiring,'' says Mr. Reinan.
State officials in Colorado say they are considering a
number of ways to strengthen rules for screening nursing-home
employees, including extending checks to probation reports
and arrest records.
``An arrest record is certainly indicative of a pattern,''
says state Department of Public Health spokeswoman Jackie
Starr-Bocian. ``We have had a concern here in Colorado for
many years about issues of employment in nursing homes. Now
it's a very grave concern because our unemployment rates are
so low it's hard to find qualified applicants.''

amendment no. 2240

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I believe that the Senate has taken a step in the
right direction today by accepting my amendment that ensures that the
Senate will not reduce the value of Social Security. Mr. President,
Social Security is perhaps the most successful and important government
program ever enacted in the United States. It has allowed millions of
Americans to retire with dignity and has played a key role in bringing
poverty among the elderly to the lowest level since the government
began keeping poverty statistics.
But if you ask young adults--the twenty-something and thirty-
something Americans--whether they believe Social Security will be there
for them, they will tell you that they are more likely to see a UFO
than receive Social Security benefits when they are old.
That's regrettable, Mr. President, not just because these young
Americans are financing the benefits that my generation will receive
from Social Security, but also because they have every right to benefit
from Social Security when they reach their twilight years. Social
Security was created not just for the current generation, or for our
generation, but for all the generations that will follow.
The Senate, I think, has a responsibility to restore the faith of
young Americans in their Social Security. In a recent poll, fewer than
one-third of Americans age 55 and older expressed a

[[Page S3093]]

lack of confidence in the ability of the Social Security system to meet
its long-term commitments. For those under age 55, however, nearly two-
thirds expressed that view.
Frankly, young Americans have good reason to be worried. Americans
are living longer and retiring earlier. As a result, retirees will
collect Social Security benefits for a far longer time than was
anticipated when the system was developed. That means that younger
Americans may be paying into a system that will no longer provide
benefits when it is time for them to retire.
The impact of these trends will be greatly magnified when the Baby
Boom generation retires. Once the Boomers have retired, there will only
be about tow working Americans contributing to Social Security for
every retiree receiving benefits, down from over five just a generation
ago.
Social Security is too important to the retirement security of too
many people for us to retreat from that accomplishment. More than one-
half of the elderly do not receive private pensions and more than one-
third have no income from assets. For 60 percent of all senior
citizens, Social Security benefits provide almost 80 percent of their
retirement income. For 80 percent of all senior citizens, Social
Security benefits provide over 50 percent of their retirement income.
It is our responsibility to act to ensure that the Social Security
system provides the same value to new generations of Americans as it
did to past recipients. It is my hope that in having passed this
amendment, we will have demonstrated to younger Americans that we are
committed to safeguarding the integrity of the Social Security system
no only for their generation, but for all the ones that will follow.
I also want to say how pleased I am that the amendment I proposed
that would express the Senate's sentiment that the Administration
should include in its yearly budget a generational impact study will
also be included in the budget resolution. I believe that this type of
information will be useful in our decision making process and will lead
us in a direction that is proactive, rather than reactive.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their support.

amendment no. 2263

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to begin by acknowledging
Senator Santorum's efforts on this amendment. I look forward to working
with him in the future to preserve our nation's most vulnerable
farmland.
We have heard a lot during the last decade about the dissolution and
destruction of the American Family Farm. Indeed, the family farm is
under serious threat of extinction. Today, there are 1,925,300 farms in
the United States, the lowest number of farms in our nation since
before the Civil War. The U.S. is losing two acres of our best farmland
to development every minute of every day. In my state, New Jersey, we
have lost 6,000 farms, or 40% of our total, since 1959. This reduction
has serious implications for the environment, the economy and our food
supply.
The threat comes partially from an anachronistic and unfair
inheritance tax that threatens the generational continuity of the
family farm, and partially from the fact that much of America's
farmland is near major cities. As our cities sprawl into neighboring
rural areas, our farms are in danger of becoming subdivisions or
shopping malls.
Last year I strongly supported a significant reduction in the estate
tax to keep farms in the family, preserve open space and ensure
fairness in our tax code. This was an important victory for farmers
across the nation. However, we also need programs like the Farmland
Protection Program to reinforce this effort. That is why I am
supporting Senator Santorum's amendment which will express the Sense of
the Senate that Congress should reauthorize funds for the Farmland
Protection Program. This critical program is designed to protect soil
by encouraging landowners to limit conversion of their farmland to
nonagricultural uses.
The Farmland Protection Program was authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill
and provided $35 million over a six year period. However, the last of
the funding was dispersed in FY1998 and there is no money in the budget
for the program this year. This amendment will send a strong message
that we remain committed to protecting our family farms and preserving
our open spaces. I am proud to support Senator Santorum's amendment,
and look forward to its acceptance by my colleagues.

AMENDMENT NO. 2266

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, of all the priorities included in the
Budget Resolution now before the Senate, I believe that none is more
important than continuing our fight against violent crime and violence
against women.
To a great extent, this Budget Resolution meets this test--but, in at
least one area of this crime front, I believe the Budget Resolution
must be clarified.
The amendment does exactly that--by clarifying that it is the sense
of the Senate that the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund will continue
through fiscal year 2002.
First, let me point out that it is Senator Byrd who, more than
anyone, deserves credit for the crime law trust fund. Senator Byrd
worked to develop an idea that was simple as it was profound--as he
called on us to use the savings from the reductions in the federal
workforce of 272,000 employees to fund one of the nation's most urgent
priorities: fighting the scourge of violent crime.
Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to
``put our money where our mouth was.'' Too often, this Senate has voted
to send significant aid to state and local law enforcement--but, when
it came time to ``write the check,'' we did not fund nearly the dollars
we promised.
Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm,
Senator Domenici and other Senators passed the Violent Crime Control
Trust Fund in the Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden
Crime Law.
Since then, the dollars from the Crime Law Trust Fund have: Helped
add nearly 70,000 community police officers to our streets; helped
shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children; focussed
law enforcement, prosecutors and victims service providers on providing
immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends to ``love''
them; forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing and
treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain free
on probation with no supervision and no accountability; constructed
thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and brought
unprecedented resources to defending our southwest border--putting us
on the path to literally double the number of federal border agents
over just a 5 year period.
The results of this effort are already taking hold--according to the
FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is down and down
significantly--leaving our nation with its lowest murder rate since
1971. And the lowest murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at
the hands of their ``intimates'' to an 18-year low.
In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by
being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our ``money where our
mouths'' are--we have actually cut violent crime.
Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant
against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Gramm amendment before the
Senate offers one modest step towards meeting that challenge--By
confirming the Senate's commitment to fighting crime and violence
against women will continue to at least 2002. By confirming the
Senate's commitment that the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund will
continue--in its current form which provides additional federal
assistance without adding 1 cent to the deficit--to at least 2002.
The Biden-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: Stand up
for cops--or don't; stand up for the fight against violence against
women --or don't; stand up for fighting the scourge of youth violence--
or don't; stand up for building new prisons--or don't; stand up for
increased border enforcement--or don't.
Every member of this Senate is against violent crime. Now, I urge all
my colleagues to back up with words with the only thing that we can
actually do for the cop walking the beat, the battered woman, the
victim of crime--provide the dollars that help give them the tools to
fight violent criminals and help restore at least some small piece of
the dignity taken from them by a violent criminal.

[[Page S3094]]

Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not
continue the Trust Fund, we will not be able to continue such proven,
valuable efforts as the Violence Against Women law. Nothing we can do
today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence
Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000.
But, mark my words, if the Trust Fund ends, the efforts to provide
shelter, help victims and get tough on the abusers and batterers will
wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a
clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with
it, the historic effort undertaken by the violence against women act
that says by word, deed and dollar that the Federal Government stands
with women and against the misguided notion that ``domestic'' violence
is a man's ``right'' and ``not really a crime.''

statement on the market access program

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Market
Access Program. This program continues to be a vital and important part
of U.S. trade policy aimed at maintaining and expanding U.S.
agricultural exports, countering subsidized foreign competition,
strengthening farm income and protecting American jobs.
The Market Access Program has been a tremendous success by any
measure. Since the program was established, U.S. agricultural exports
have doubled. In Fiscal Year 1997, U.S. agricultural exports amounted
to $57.3 billion, resulting in a positive agricultural trade surplus of
approximately $22 billion and contributing billions of dollars more in
increased economic activity and additional tax revenues.
For example, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture received
$125,000 of Market Access Program funds during the past year. These
funds were used to promote Idaho and Western United States agricultural
products in the international markets of China, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico,
Guatemala, and Costa Rica. One particular activity, the promotion of
western U.S. onions in Central America, required $15,000 of MAP funds
and generated inquiries for onions valued at $150,000.
Demand for U.S. agricultural products is growing 4 times greater in
international markets than domestic markets. MAP has been an enormously
successful program by any measure in supporting this growth. Since the
program began in 1985, U.S. agricultural exports have more than
doubled--reaching a record of nearly $60 billion in 1996; contributing
to a record agricultural trade surplus of $30 million; and providing
jobs to over 1 million Americans.
MAP is a key element in the 1996 Farm Bill, which gradually reduces
direct income support over 7 years. Accordingly, farm income is now
more dependent than ever on exports and maintaining access to foreign
markets.
Two years ago, European Union (EU) export subsidies amounted to
approximately $10 billion in US dollars. The EU and other foreign
competitors also spent nearly $500 million on market promotion. The EU
spends more on wine promotion than the US spends for all its
commodities combined.
Mr. President, the Market Access Program should be fully maintained
as authorized and aggressively utilized by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to encourage U.S. agricultural exports, strengthen farm
income, counter subsidized foreign competition and protect American
jobs.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of amendment No. 2268 to
S. Con. Res. 86 introduced by Senator kempthorne, expressing the Sense
of the Senate that funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) should
be fully maintained as authorized and aggressively utilized by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to encourage U.S. agricultural exports,
strengthen farm income, counter subsidized foreign competition, and
protect American jobs.
The MAP is an important trade promoting program that truly benefits
the diverse agriculture of Washington state and the nation. The MAP is
a partnership with private agriculture to promote U.S. agricultural
goods around the world. It helps to level the playing field for our
growers in a global marketplace made increasingly competitive by
subsidies foreign governments provide to their growers.
This Sense of the Senate resolution corrects the misguided direction
of the Budget Committee to cut the MAP. This proposed cut was one among
many reasons that I voted against this Budget Resolution when it was
passed out of the Budget Committee.
Since moving towards market-based agricultural programs under the
1996 FAIR Act, research and trade have become the new safety net for
our growers. Without continuous and vigorous trade promotion, our
growers will see market share decline and farmgate prices drop. Our
growers are already suffering under depressed prices, they need us to
maintain the MAP and other agricultural trade initiatives to remain
competitive. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support the Market Access
Program. I urge my colleagues to support the sense of the Senate
amendment, offered by my colleague Senator Kempthorne, to assure
funding for this very important and effective agricultural export
program. I would like to point out to the Senate why this Market Access
Program (MAP) is so important for agriculture in my State of
California, and many other states as well.
Using the MAPs $90 million annual funding level as a fractional
offset for the now $214 billion transportation package, has an enormous
negative impact on American agricultural export efforts at the very
time when our farmers are contending with constricted markets in Asia
and increased EU help for competing agricultural exporters seeking to
displace American products in the marketplace.
My objection is not against transportation needs but the termination
of an important agricultural export tool.
The purpose of the MAP is to increase U.S. agricultural project
exports. This increase in such exports helps to create and protect U.S.
jobs, combat unfair trade practices, improve the U.S. trade balance,
and improve farm income.
The MAP is an important tool in expanding markets for U.S.
agricultural products. Continued funding for this program is an
important step in redirecting farm spending away from price supports
and toward expanding markets.
The MAP program has been significantly reformed over the last several
years to meet congressional expectations--now only small business,
farmer cooperatives and associations and state departments of
agriculture can participate in the program. The funding level has been
substantially reduced to a third of its former cost. It is a cost share
program, requiring participants to provide matching funds to qualify
for federal funding help.
And MAP works. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that each
dollar of MAP money results in an increase in agricultural product
exports of between $2 and $7. The program has provided much needed
assistance to commodity groups comprised of small farmers who would be
unable to break into these markets on their own.
Mr. President, the Market Access Program has been an unqualified
success for California farmers. For many California crops, the MAP has
provided the crucial boost to help them overcome unfair foreign
subsidies. I would like to share two of the successes of this program
in California.
California produces about 85% of the U.S. avocado crop on over 6,000
farms that average less than 8 acres per farm. Between 1985 and 1993,
California avocado growers utilized $2.5 million of their own money,
combined with $3.4 million of MAP funds to achieve over $58 million in
avocado sales in Europe and the Pacific Rim. This is better than a 17
to 1 return on our MAP investment that means jobs for Californians.
The growth of California walnuts exports also illustrates the success
of this program. Since 1985, the year before the MAP began helping
walnuts, 90% of the growth in California walnut sales has come from
exports. And 90% of this export growth has been to markets where
California walnuts have had MAP support. The total value of these
exports in 1985 totaled $36 million. The total export value has now
grown to $119 million.
We should not unilaterally disarm our export promotion program for
agriculture when we are only months away from the commencement of WTO
agricultural trade negotiations scheduled to commence in 1999.

[[Page S3095]]

Mr. President, the MAP is a wise investment in American agriculture
and I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kempthorne's amendment to
support needed funding to USDA's Market Access Program in the Budget
Resolution.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator
from Idaho, Mr. Kempthorne, expressing the Sense of the Senate that
funding for the Market Access Program should be fully maintained.
The Senate has on several occasions debated funding for the Market
Access Program. Most recently, on July 23, 1997, the Senate voted 59-40
in favor of tabling an amendment to reduce the Market Access Program
from $90 million to $70 million. The Senate, recognizing the importance
of this program, firmly rejected the suggestion to reduce it by even
$20 million. I hope the Senate will, by an even greater margin, express
its support that the budget should not assume the reduction of this
program.
The Market Access Program is one of the few tools that the Department
of Agriculture has to combat the unfair trading practices of other
countries. Since its inception in 1985, the Market Access Program and
its predecessors, the Targeted Export Assistance Program and the Market
Promotion Program, have assisted nearly 800 U.S. cooperatives, trade
associations and corporations in promoting their products overseas.
Our agricultural exports have more than doubled--from $26.3 billion
in 1985 to a forecast level of $58.5 billion in 1998. In large measure
this moderate increase, even in the face of the Asian currency crisis,
signifies the results of efforts we have made since the mid-1980's to
enhance our export competitiveness and develop new markets overseas.
In fact, it is remarkable that the value of U.S. exports will
increase slightly over last year and are only slightly below record
1996 levels even with the dire situation in Asian markets. U.S. farmers
are particularly vulnerable to the instability of key Asian markets
which account for 40 percent of our exports. The Market Access Program
and other export programs are crucial to our farmer's ability to
compete in a global marketplace.

National Parks and Environmental Improvement Act Fund

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reaffirm a commitment made
by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, to
establish a National Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund in the
FY'99 Budget Resolution. My colleague, Senator Stevens, and I reached
an agreement last year with the Budget Committee Chairman to designate
this fund from the interest derived from an $800 million land
settlement for the protection and enhancement of our national parks.
The fund will become a reality upon enactment of this year's budget
resolution. I believe the reasons for creation of this fund could not
be more compelling when directed toward the protection of our most
coveted natural areas. The General Accounting Office found that while
the park system and park visitation are growing, the financial
resources available to protect and maintain our parks continue to fall
short of the need. The estimated unmet capital needs has reached nearly
$8 billion. In times of budgetary constraint, the interest from the
fund, which could reach $50 million annually, will allow the Federal
government to pay for much needed capital improvements within our
National Parks and begin to address the multi-billion dollar backlog in
repairs and maintenance. Beginning in FY'99, the interest targeted to
the fund will allocate 40 percent to national parks, 40 percent for
state grants and 20 percent for marine research.
Mr. President, our National Park System is our natural and historical
heritage, set aside for the benefit of present and future generations.
The National Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund will help us to
fulfill our stewardship responsibilities and protect the integrity of
our natural environment.
I applaud the leadership of my distinguished colleague, Senator
Domenici, for including the fund as part of this year's budget
resolution.
Mr. MACK. Senator Domenici, I understand that an assumption in this
Budget Resolution considers that receipts from the sale of the surplus
public lands could be used to fund recovery efforts on private land for
endangered species. I would like to clarify that this would in no way
alter the current arrangement with the Everglades Recovery Program
which is also funded by land sales.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct, the surplus public land sales assumed
in the resolution are restricted to excess Bureau of Land Management
lands, and would not in any way slow progress with recovery of the
Everglades. The lands proposed in the resolution would be lands that
have not been designated for another purpose.
Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator for that clarification.

federal expenditures to increase u.s. energy independence

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the committee report accompanying the
budget resolution includes a brief discussion of the Administration's
so-called Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) request for
fiscal year 1999 and subsequent fiscal years. Specifically, the
committee report states on page 22 that, ``[s]ince the President has
not submitted a treaty or plan to implement the reductions called for
in the agreement [Kyoto Protocol], providing additional funding for
these technology programs in the 1999 budget is premature.'' The
committee report goes on to state that, ``[a]s a result, the resolution
assumes last year's levels of $730 million for these technology
programs and does not provide the increases requested by the
President.''
I am trying to understand the implication here. Setting aside the
merit of the Administration's CCTI request, voluntary domestic
activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including tax incentives
and research funding for energy efficient technology and renewables,
are consistent with the existing 1992 Rio Climate Treaty that the
United States has already ratified. While some use economic arguments
to oppose any form of government subsidy, prudent investment along
these lines does not constitute regulation and is in no way a form of
Kyoto Protocol implementation.
Therefore, I ask my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator
Domenici, if he and other members of the Budget Committee are arguing
in the committee report that we cannot take steps to try to increase
energy efficiency and advance renewables unless and until the Senate
provides its consent to the Kyoto Protocol?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not making such an argument. If I
and other members of the Budget Committee believed that, we would have
eliminated all current funding for energy efficiency and renewables
technology programs in this budget resolution. I do have some concerns
about the efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol, but the report language that
you cited is intended to convey that additional funding for these
programs is very difficult under existing budget limitations.
Mr. LUGAR. I welcome the Chairman's remarks. Promotion of energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs can increase our energy
security, address a variety of air pollution problems and lead to a
stronger economy. I am pleased to learn that the Budget Resolution
accommodates federal initiatives to enhance energy security and
renewable energy provided that these initiatives can be funded within
overall budget constraints.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget
Committee for clarifying the report language. I yield the floor.

funding for the national institutes of health (NIH).

Mr. MACK. Mr. President one of my top priorities since coming to
Congress has been support of programs to eradicate the effects of
cancer and other diseases that affect the people of the United States.
I know many here in the Senate share my concerns who have joined me in
seeking to increase funding substantially for the National Institutes
of Health (NIH). Indeed, the goal of this group as stated last year is
to double funding for NIH over 5 years.
I am pleased that the Budget Resolution takes a substantial step
toward meeting this goal and thank the Chairman of the Committee,
Senator Domenici, for recommending a funding increase of $1.5 billion
in FY1999 and $15.5 billion through 2003.

[[Page S3096]]

However, I would mention to the Chair that there has been much
concern expressed by many public health advocacy groups that the Budget
Resolution levels for the Appropriations' Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education will not support this increase.
Accordingly, I would ask the floor manager to alleviate these concerns
by answering a few simple questions for me.
Has the Budget Committee assumed sufficient funds in their budget
recommendation to allow the Labor-HHS subcommittee to match its 302(b)
allocation from last year?
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I would like to state for the record that 302(b)
allocations for the Committee on Appropriations are solely within the
purview of that committee. The Budget Resolution is an expression of
the Senate's priorities, and as such, makes recommendations to
committees. However, the Budget Resolution assumptions do not bind the
Appropriations Committee to any particular course of action, other than
meeting the discretionary caps.
That being understood, the Budget Resolution assumes a substantial
increase over the Freeze Baseline for the Labor-HHS subcommittee. The
Freeze Baseline levels are based on FY 1998 appropriations action.
Mr. MACK. Does this assumed funding level also provide additional
increases for shortfalls created due to forward funding in last year's
Labor-HHS bill?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Freeze Baseline already includes spending
previously approved by the subcommittee, including forward funding and
advance appropriations.
Mr. MACK. Finally, does the assumed level also provide increases to
match the Budget Committee's recommendation for increased NIH funding?
Mr. DOMENICI. The assumed increase exceeds the $1.5 billion increase
for NIH in FY 1999 and is intended to fund other initiatives as well,
such as IDEA.
Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee. I believe he
has been more than generous to the Labor, HHS Subcommittee and I hope
that the Appropriations Committee will treat the subcommittee equally
well.
To help that process, I sent to the desk a Sense of the Senate
amendment, which provides that the Senate should provide such funds to
match the recommendations for increased NIH funding as set forth in the
Budget Resolution.

market access program

Mr. GORTON. I am concerned about one program which has been slated as
an offset for transportation increases--the Market Access Program. The
Market Access Program is a USDA cost-share program which provides
assistance to U.S. agriculture when competing against subsidized
nations overseas.
In the State of Washington we have seen a dramatic increase in apple
exports from 4.5 million boxes to over 25.1 million--an increase of
over 500 percent. Export sales now total well over $300 million. This
success is due, in part, to the Market Access Program. MAP is
absolutely essential if U.S. agriculture is to remain viable and
competitive in the international marketplace.
Mr. DOMENICI. I fully understand your concern, and the agriculture
community's concern, about the current position of MAP in the Budget
Resolution. During the Conference on the Budget Resolution we will have
an opportunity to take another look at this issue. In that event, I
will commit to working with you to find alternatives. I want to assure
you, the Committee went to great lengths to identify offsets for
highway spending. As you know, we included MAP because it is one of
several export programs through USDA.
Mr. GORTON. Thank you for your commitment to this effort. I look
forward to working with you during the Conference Committee to see that
this issue is resolved in a favorable manner.

sec fees

Mr. GREGG. I rise today to discuss efforts that were made to insert
assumptions into the Budget Resolution that would hurt the Commerce,
Justice, State, and Judiciary (CJS) Subcommittee. Those assumptions
sought to amend the securities legislation that we negotiated with the
Senate Banking Committee and House Commerce Committee in 1996.
Specifically, they assume reductions in NASDAQ transaction fees. The
result being that the Appropriations Committee pick up the cost of $73
million.
Prior to 1996, the 6(b) fees were paid by corporations to register
securities. Some interests felt that the 6(b) fees had grown too large.
During negotiations with the White House and the authorizing committees
it was agreed that over the next ten years 6(b) fees would be reduced.
The creation of the NASDAQ transaction fees was a concession made to
the CJS subcommittee as part of a larger compromise that led to a
phasing out of the Section 6(b) registration fees. The intent was to
minimize the impact on the Appropriations process.
Since 1934, Section 31 transaction fees had been imposed on exchange
listed securities but not on those sold in the Over the Counter (OTC)
market. As part of the agreement in 1996, extending the section 31 fee
to the OTC market allowed the 6(b) registration fees to be reduced
while retaining adequate fee collections to support and offset the
SEC's appropriation.
In arriving at the compromise that resulted in the ten year funding
mechanism, it was acknowledged that surpluses over the SEC's funding
would likely exist until the end of the ten year schedule. After that
time the SEC was to be fully funded by direct appropriations.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from New Hampshire should know that we do
not have any assumptions in the Budget Resolution, before the Senate,
that in any way changes or reduces the fees collected by the SEC.
Mr. GREGG. I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his effort
on this important issue. We must preserve our ability to fund the SEC
in the future, when we may not be so fortunate to have such a good
economy.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, earlier today I supported an amendment
offered by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator
Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller's amendment to the Budget Resolution
would have restored $10.5 billion to the Veterans' Affairs Subommittee,
offsetting that restoration by reducing funds allocated to the
Transportation Subcommittee.
As we all know, the Senate ISTEA bill, now awaiting conference
deliberations with the House, authorized approximately $217 billion for
transportation over 6 years--about $171 billion for highways, about $41
billion for transit and about $2 billion for safety. These levels
represent a 38 percent increase for transportation over the previous
ISTEA bill. Under the Budget Resolution considered today, a significant
portion of this increase is financed by a $10.5 billion reduction in
funds set aside to pay for smoking related illnesses among veterans.
Mr. President, I believe we need to do more for infrastructure
development--our investment in roads, bridges and transit must increase
if we hope to maintain our quality of life while keeping up with the
demands of the economy and the changing nature of our cities and towns.
That said, veterans should not have to pay for that investment. It's
not right, and perhaps more importantly, it's not necessary.
The ISTEA bill vastly increased transportation funds and took some
big steps to improve the longstanding equity problem between those
states that contribute more in gas tax revenues than they receive and
those states that receive more than they contribute. However, while
improving the donor state problem to some extent, the bill also
provided generous increases in funding to many donee states. I would
argue that we were too generous to those states. It was unacceptable to
me that despite a 38 percent increase in the amount of funds made
available for transportation, the ISTEA bill continued to have donor
states give significantly more than they get back, and donee states get
significantly more than they give. We could've done better. And if we
had provided less of an increase to donee states, we could have avoided
the need for controversial offsets, such as the reduction in veterans
benefits that Senator Rockefeller sought to restore. We all know that
sometimes fairness is painful to swallow, and it seemed to me that in
the highway bill, we simply gave everyone more in order not to inflict
pain on some. Today we voted on whether veterans should feel that pain.
But why

[[Page S3097]]

should we limit programs for our veterans in order to be even more
generous to those who are already in an advantageous position under
transportation formulas? Simply put, we should not. A more responsible
course of action would have been to distribute highway dollars more
fairly, limiting the increase overall by limiting the increase to
states that were already getting more than their fair share.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to be on the floor today as we
discuss a budget that is balanced and does have a planned surplus for
as far as the eye can see. It was only a few short years ago when we
were here on the floor debating budgets that anticipated deficits well
into the future. While I support the fiscal responsibility assumed in
this budget, I have to rise in opposition. This budget does little to
prepare for the next century and it allows the federal government to
turn its back on our children. This budget is a failure for our
children and our economic future.
During Committee consideration and floor debate, I attempted to amend
this Resolution in an effort to ensure that children remain a top
priority of the federal budget. Unfortunately, the Republicans chose to
ignore the education and early development needs of our children. The
Republican budget strategy is to spend for today and do little to plan
for tomorrow.
As a new Member of the Senate Budget Committee in 1993, I was
committed to reducing the deficits and restoring fiscal order to
federal spending. I knew that it would be a tough challenge and a
difficult task, but I also knew we owed our children this much. We had
to end deficit spending and stop borrowing from their future.
I stood on this floor during the summer of 1993 when we debated the
Deficit Reduction plan, which many of my Colleagues on the other side
predicted would drive our economy into recession and do little to
reduce the deficit. As we debate the fiscal year 1999 Budget
Resolution, I am pleased to report that the discussion has gone from
how to reduce the deficit to how to invest the surplus. The economy is
strong and all indications show that economic growth will continue.
Unemployment is at an all time low and interest rates are not raging
out of control.
I am proud to have worked to get our fiscal house in order without
jeopardizing our economic prosperity. I also welcome the new challenges
of how to invest the surplus and maintain our investments in our
future.
I am pleased that the Republican budget does do the right thing on
Social Security. As called for by the President, the Resolution
currently before us today does dedicate any budget surplus to saving
Social Security. This is the kind of bipartisan work that I am pleased
to be part of. Saving Social Security is important for current workers
and future retirees.
Social Security is the most important anti-poverty program ever
implemented by the federal government. As a result of the enactment of
Social Security, far fewer seniors live in poverty when they retire.
For many, having Social Security gave them the ability to
retire. Without Social Security, old age would mean economic insecurity
and instability. The program has been an unqualified success and we
must continue this proud legacy.

We have made a commitment to today's workers that must be honored.
When they retire or become disabled, Social Security will protect them
and their families from economic disaster. We must do everything
possible to maintain the success of Social Security.
But I am concerned that there are some who want to use the surplus to
provide tax shelters to the most affluent. Make no mistake about it,
simply allowing tax cuts to encourage workers to set up individual
retirement accounts will not have Social Security. It will give those
with more income a greater ability to shelter this income, but it does
little to help Social Security. Keep in mind, Social Security is a
social insurance plan, not a retirement plan. Insurance works best when
the risk is spread across the population. Allowing the rich to shelter
more of their income to save for retirement will not save Social
Security.
Please do not hide behind saving Social Security to provide tax cuts
to the most affluent. The American worker deserves a more honest and
responsible approach. We can reform Social Security without dismantling
the program. We need to work in a bipartisan manner to enact real
reforms, not tax cuts in disguise.
I also urge my Colleagues on the other side not to fool themselves
into thinking that dedicated all federal tobacco revenues to Medicare
will save the program. Medicare's problems go well beyond just a cash
reserve. Unlike Social Security, Medicare has always been a pay-as-you-
go program. Simply throwing money at the program will do little to
improve the long term condition of the Medicare program. We all know
that structural changes are the real answer. We have to improve the
health of senior citizens before we can hope to improve the financial
health of Medicare.
I am pleased that my amendment regarding prevention benefits for
Medicare beneficiaries was adopted by the Senate. If my Colleagues on
the other side are serious about saving Medicare, we must increase the
prevention focus within Medicare. It is simply beyond understanding why
Medicare will not reimburse for prescription drugs to reduce
cholesterol, but will pay for inpatient, acute care for by-pass
surgery.
A greater focus on prevention will prove that we are serious about
saving Medicare. Prevention benefits are the kind of reforms needed to
really save Medicare. It seems almost insincere to target new federal
tobacco revenues to Medicare and not put these benefits to use in
improving the health status of senior citizens.
I think the greatest failure of this budget is the complete disregard
for enacting real tobacco control legislation. The debate is not just
about how to spend tobacco revenues, but enacting a national anti-
smoking bill that could potentially wipe out smoking in less than one
generation. We have an historic opportunity to end the plague of
tobacco. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass.
The Republican budget resolution creates huge roadblocks for enacting
tobacco control legislation. I am concerned that the Resolution will
block any new revenues for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate
nicotine as a drug. Without new revenues, FDA cannot enforce youth
access laws that prevent children from buying cigarettes. Without
tobacco revenues, FDA cannot regulate an industry known for hiding the
facts and lying to Congress. How can FDA challenge an industry that has
creatively targeted our children?
There can be no anti-smoking national policy without a strong and
well-financed FDA. Any attempt to pass anti tobacco legislation without
a strong FDA will only fail. We will never end the tobacco companies
attack on our children.
This Budget Resolution fails our children in many ways. Not just
about tobacco, but in preparing them for the challenges they will face
tomorrow. We have all seen study after study that proves we need to
place education as a top priority at both the federal and state level.
Our children do not have the resources and are not being given the
opportunity to meet their potential.
I am disappointed in the lack of any effort in the Republican Budget
Resolution to deal with overcrowded classrooms and decaying schools.
How can we hope for high test scores when children have no heat in the
classroom or windows covered with cardboard? How can we hope to prepare
our children when there are 45 children in each classroom? How does a
child receive the individual attention so important to cultivating
their skills and their self esteem when there are 45 students for every
teacher? Our classrooms boarder on chaos every day because of these
deplorable conditions. Yet the Republican response was to simply ignore
these problems.
These are not local problems as some may argue. A well educated and
skilled work force is a national security issue. We cannot remain a
global economic power without a well educated and skilled work force.
If we do not dedicate the resources necessary to ensure that every
child can learn and can learn in an environment that is geared toward
more than just survival, we jeopardize our own economic stability.
Education is not just a local concern or a concern of parents. Ask any
business

[[Page S3098]]

owner about the need to have an adequate supply of skilled labor. I can
assure you that this is not a local issue, but is becoming a national
disgrace.
Ignoring investments in education is simply irresponsible and
selfish. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and address the
pressing needs of today's classrooms. We can do better.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague Senator
Domenici, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, for bringing a
truly remarkable budget resolution to the Floor of the Senate. I truly
never thought that I would be standing here during my lifetime
preparing to vote on a resolution that will bring our federal budget
into balance, even producing a surplus. This is going to be one of
those rare occasions when the Congress will actually be following its
own advice. We will advance beyond the rhetoric of talking about
balancing the budget and actually balance the budget. And we are doing
it 4 years ahead of time. This is a truly remarkable achievement.
If we continue on this course, something even more remarkable may
begin to happen. The public may start to lose some of the skepticism
about the Congress which has built up over the years.
Last year we were faced with many hard choices as we worked on the
bi-partisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It was a difficult time. The
decisions which we made then were as tough as any decisions which we as
legislators have ever had to make. But we joined hands, and for the
good of the country we made them. Those difficult, sometimes bitter
decisions are now bearing the sweet fruit of a balanced budget along
with a possible surplus.
We should be hearing the blue bird of happiness here in the Senate
Chamber, and continue to be careful with the taxpayers money. But that
doesn't seem to be the case. Instead we are hearing the gremlin of
spend, spend, spend. It seems that the lessons we have learned about
tightening our belts and living within our means was fleeting at best.
To make matters worse, we are talking about spending money that we do
not have yet.
Another way that we are talking about spending money that we don't
have in the various votes about spending the tobacco settlement money.
This is not the appropriate time for this debate.
In addition, we are putting the cart before the horse. We are
debating how to spend the money from a tobacco settlement before we
have made the hard choices required to enact this settlement. What
about liability limitations, advertising restrictions, billion dollar
attorneys fees, tax deductibility questions, new federal regulations,
and antitrust limits? These are just a few issues that must be
carefully considered before Congress passes any tobacco legislation.
When we pass tobacco legislation, our goal--our priority--must be to
eliminate youth smoking. When I can, I discourage people, both old and
young, from smoking. I recently took my grandson Patrick to a town
meeting, where Al Gore was speaking, that was organized to alert young
people to the dangers of smoking. Let's make that clear, there is no
one in this room who favors youth smoking. Any efforts to characterize
anyone otherwise are disingenuous and frankly, unhelpful to this
debate.
I believe that we must pass tobacco legislation this session. And we
need to keep our priorities straight when we do this. Our priority must
be to stop youth smoking, not to coddle the tobacco industry. This
Budget Resolution protects the chances of passing solid tobacco
settlement legislation this year. It takes the proceeds from this
theoretical legislation and puts them in a reserve fund for Medicare--
which pays the health-related costs that the state lawsuits were
designed to address. It funds the issues won in the settlement--smoking
cessation programs, health research, and such--from existing funds. We
believe that these are important enough to fund them without waiting
for new legislation. This allows us to stop arguing over how to spend
the money long enough to consider the issues that must be solved for us
to get this money. This gives us the strongest hand to enact
legislation that creates a real, effective and lasting regime for
reducing youth smoking.
Now is also not the time to talk about new entitlement programs. Now
is the time to keep entitlements and spending in line with last year's
bipartisan budget agreement. It is time to make sure the entitlements
we have already can meet their commitments to the millions of Americans
who depend on them.
Again, this is a good budget. This budget paves the way for real
increases in spending for health research, child care, and other
important programs. And we do it within the agreed upon budget caps.
I greatly admire the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the
skill and expertise which he has shown in crafting this budget
resolution. This is a good resolution. This resolution keeps the faith
with the American people as we continue to work to get a balanced
budget and to keep it.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Majority Leader
Lott, Chairman Domenici and the members of the Budget Committee for
putting together a balanced fiscal blueprint for the Federal
Government. The federal budget consists of more than 1,060 spending
accounts that fund an estimated 113,000 programs, projects, and
activities. The federal budget and a Congressional budget collapse
these accounts into twenty budget functions. It was not too long ago
that we talked about the ever-increasing deficit and the need to for
fiscal restraint of these functions. Under this resolution, the budget
would be balanced three years earlier than the Fiscal Year 2002
deadline set out in the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997.
The budget we will be voting on provides for the first surplus in a
generation. After reaching a peak of $290 billion in 1992, the unified
budget deficit has declined to where the Congressional Budget Office
projects a surplus in the current fiscal year of nearly $8 billion.
Current laws and policies left unchanged, and real economic growth
averaging 2.2 percent annually, the unified budget surplus is projected
to grow to $67 billion by 2002. The budget achieves this surplus while
also increasing spending by 3.6 percent over last year.
Even though the budget calls for increased spending, it maintains the
principles of the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. This budget we
have before us today embraces a bipartisan approach of protecting
federal programs while preserving the principles of fiscal discipline.
Mr. President, Chairman Domenici has increased funding in some of the
programs that are important to me as Chairman of the Labor and Human
Resources Committee. The budget provides an additional $15 billion for
the National Institute of Health, $5 billion for the IDEA educational
programs, and $5 billion for Child Care Block Grants.
The budget provides funding for the $214 billion Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act that the Senate passed on March 12, 1998.
The State of Vermont would average $118 million a year in highway money
and $2.5 million for mass transit projects through 2003. Vermont will
be able to use funds to reconstruct aging rail lines, repair bridges,
and improve major roads throughout the state. Mass transit funding will
go to small-town bus systems and minibuses for disabled and handicapped
people in rural areas.
Mr. President, even though this budget provides additional funding on
programs that are very important to me, we still have many challenges
ahead. The Federal Government still has a $5.5 trillion debt. In Fiscal
Year 1998, the Federal Government will spend about $250 billion on
interest on the national debt. One out of every seven dollars in taxes
goes simply to pay off the bondholders. This money gets diverted from
important programs that the Federal Government provides. The Clinton
Administration said that without enactment of any budget agreement,
debt would have approached $7 trillion by 2002.
Mr. President, there is $14 trillion in unfunded obligations for the
retirement and health care benefits of the Baby-boomer generation. That
generation is now just ten years away from starting to impose its
unprecedented burdens on its children and grandchildren. We as a nation
need to begin to agree on a way to ensure the health care and
retirement security of the Baby-boomer generation retirees.

[[Page S3099]]

The economy of the United States is booming and inflation has all but
vanished. Unemployment is low and federal budget will be balanced for
the first time in 30 years. This budget provides the building blocks to
meet the challenges that lie ahead. I call upon my colleagues to build
upon the work over the last decade at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue
and support this budget resolution.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in firm opposition to S. Con.
Res. 86, the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 1999. I do so with great
disappointment.
Mr. President, last year the Congress produced an historic budget
agreement. We produced a plan to finish the job we started in 1993 of
eliminating the budget deficit. We worked together--across party
lines--to balance the budget, to protect our seniors by ensuring the
solvency of Medicare, and to provide for key investments in education
and health care. We also provided real tax relief for working families.
I had hoped we would be able to continue to build off the framework
of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act and Taxpayer Relief Act. Unfortunately,
this budget resolution ignores the priorities that were at the core of
those agreements.
I will oppose this resolution because it does not reflect the
principles and priorities that I believe must be part of the budget. I
want a budget that preserves the safety net for seniors, gets behind
our kids, provides for safe streets and a safer world, and provides for
investments in science and technology. I believe this budget is
defective in each of these areas.
The Democratic budget alternative that was offered during our debate
was strong where this resolution is deficient. It would have allowed
for enactment of a comprehensive child care initiative to improve and
expand the availability of quality, affordable child care and after
school programs for school age children. No working parent should have
to worry about finding suitable care for their child--a safe place with
well-trained staff. The lack of adequate safe and affordable child care
is a major concern of America's families. Our alternative would have
gone a long way to meet that critical need.
The Democratic alternative was strong on education. It would have
enabled us to improve the education of our children through initiatives
to reduce classroom size, hire 100,000 more teachers, and to ensure
that children attend school in safe and well-maintained facilities.
Our Democratic alternative was strong on Social Security. It made
clear that before we spend one penny of any projected budget surplus,
we should save Social Security first. Social Security is a sacred
compact with America's seniors. We owe it to every senior citizen to
ensure that Social Security is there for them, and that it will be
there for today's workers when they retire.
Our Democratic alternative was strong on health care. It would have
provided for vital new investments in health care research. It would
have ensured that the funds generated by a comprehensive tobacco bill--
a priority for the American people--could be used to fight teen
smoking, to conduct tobacco-related health research, to provide
programs for people who want to quit smoking, and to help tobacco
farmers move to new crops.
I believe we produced a budget that should have had the support of a
bipartisan majority. It was a common sense budget--that kept our
commitment to a balanced budget, while providing for the sorts of
investments in key priorities that are critical for getting our country
ready for the next century.
I am deeply disappointed that our alternative was rejected. The
Budget Resolution before us now does not meet America's needs. I cannot
support it.

focus on teacher quality

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my
Sense of the Senate Resolution which I have introduced.
In believe there is a crisis in teacher education in the United
States. To me, that means we have to look to new ideas. If we are
serious about restoring America as an academic power, I believe that we
have to act immediately to find solutions. In the past, education
reform has not been bold enough--and our children are suffering very
serious consequences.
Some alarming statistics really brought this home for me:
36% of those now teaching core subjects--like English, math, science,
social studies, and foreign languages--neither majored nor minored in
those subjects.
A study conducted by the National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future revealed that

More than one-quarter of newly hired public school teachers
in 1991 lacked the qualifications for their jobs, and nearly
one-fourth of all secondary teachers did not even have a
minor in their main teaching field.

The Commission also found that

56% percent of high school students taking physical science
were being taught by out-of-field teachers, as were 27% of
those taking mathematics and 21% of those taking English.

This is bad enough--but there's also evidence that the least
qualified teachers were most likely to be found in high-poverty and
predominantly minority schools, and in lower-track classes. In fact, in
schools with the highest minority enrollments, students had less than a
50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who held a
license and a degree in the field he or she taught.
This is a prescription for disaster on a truly national scale. With
this failure of investment in properly trained teachers, we should not
be surprised that students are doing so poorly on standardized tests.
After all, if the teacher does not understand the subject he or she is
teaching, then certainly the students will not learn what they need to
know.
It is inexcusable that a country that leads the world in so many ways
does not give its children the best academic resources available. The
truth is, the United States will not remain a world leader unless we
make a commitment to invest more in teacher quality--and soon.
I am encouraged that we have bipartisan interest in reforming the
education system. However, we must address the problem of quality
teachers before we merely reduce class size and hire 100,000 new
teachers.
The answer, in my view, is to only certify quality teachers--and
furthermore, to get the quality teachers to teach our neediest kids.
All children, from K to 12th grade, deserve the chance to have well-
educated, qualified teachers who will help them reach the limits of
their academic potential.
I have introduced legislation that would provide assistance for the
creation of teacher training facilities across the United States that
will help train teachers who are either already in the classroom, or
about to enter the teaching profession. While it is important to stem
the tide of unqualified teachers reaching the classroom, we must also
focus on helping teachers that are already in the classroom and need
assistance in becoming the best teachers that they can be.
The Teacher Quality Act is common-sense legislation that will assist
school districts in their struggle to maintain the highest possible
academic standards for their children. The idea for this legislation
developed out of my admiration for the Mayerson Academy in Cincinnati,
Ohio. The Mayerson Academy was established in 1992 as a partnership
between the Cincinnati business community and its schools. Its mission
is to provide the highest quality training and professional development
opportunities to the men and women responsible for educating the
children of Cincinnati.
We also need to tap into the expertise of people who have a lot to
offer our children, but who haven't trained specifically to be
teachers. I have introduced legislation that will expand and improve
the supply of well-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers,
by helping States develop and implement programs for alternative
certification or licensure of teachers.
The Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act will give
people who would like to teach a chance to do so. These are people who
can serve as mentors and role models--real-life examples of how a good
education can make a huge positive difference in a student's future.
We need to bring the best possible people into America's classrooms--
people who can inspire kids with their knowledge and experience. That's
what this bill would accomplish.
When it comes to education, our national task is clear: We have to
develop

[[Page S3100]]

an education system that will draw the best and brightest students into
the teaching profession. The States need to be encouraged to provide
incentives for people to become teachers, and restore a sense of pride
to this profession.
Without strong teachers, our children will continue to struggle. But
if we start attracting the best possible people into the classroom,
there's really no limit to what our young people can achieve.
Please join me in voting for this Resolution so that we can begin a
concerted focus on teacher quality in this country.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today our economy is remarkably
strong, and this year our budget will balance for the first time since
1969. In 1993, many of my colleagues and I passed a historic budget
plan that set the stage for this strong economy. Today, I am proud to
report that the Congressional Budget Office estimates a surplus of $8
billion this year.
In these past 4 years, we've achieved the lowest tax burden for
working families in 20 years. Unemployment was 7.5 percent in 1992.
Last month it fell to 4.7 percent, its lowest in 24 years. And since
President Clinton took office, more than 13 million new jobs have been
created. We have strengthened the economy while at the same time
reducing the size of government.
For the past several days, we have been considering the Budget
resolution for 1999. This resolution could have provided us the
opportunity to take the next vital step in creating even a stronger
economy and addressing some of our nation's most urgent needs. While
this resolution has several provisions which I do believe will lead us
in that direction, I also believe that it fails to seize the
opportunity to address some of our nation's most immediate needs, and
for that reason, I will not support this budget resolution.
First, let me say that I am pleased that the drafters of this
resolution have made provisions for the Senate increases and offsets
for reauthorization of ISTEA, assuming an additional $2.7 billion over
five years for mass transit programs, $25.9 billion above last year's
agreed to levels. In addition, I am pleased to see that an additional
$5 billion in discretionary budget authority has been provided for the
Child Care Block Grant, and I am additionally pleased to see provisions
for the extension of the R&E tax credit, IRS reform, technical
corrections to 1997 tax bill, and child care tax relief.
Over the course of this week, however, several good amendments have
been offered that could have strengthened this budget resolution and
made it an even clearer expression of our values. Unfortunately, most
of those efforts failed here on the Senate floor. The majority--who did
nothing to help erase the red ink our Administration inherited from
them--continues to cling to failed economic policies.
For instance, this budget resolution fails to do anything in the way
of addressing the $112 billion that the GAO reports is needed to bring
America's crumbling schools up to code, or to address the need to
strengthen our public school system. There is no greater challenge or
threat to our nation's future prospects in this technological age and
global economy than quality education for every American child. Failure
to respond to that challenge is not only irresponsible, but
destructive.
Equally distressing is that fact that this resolution does not do
enough to address the current status of our Medicare and Social
Security systems. This opportunity should have been used, I believe, to
provide retirement security for our seniors. Social Security and
Medicare have worked well together, bringing poverty among the elderly
to its lowest level since we have been keeping statistics. Furthermore,
these programs have helped to increase life expectancy among men and
women. Millions of senior citizens deserve to have a decent retirement,
and this budget fails to address their needs.
Do we need to operate these programs the same way? Of course not--but
we do need to secure the guarantees they provide for Americans. The
time for reform of both of these vital programs is now, and we do
ourselves a disservice by not seizing this opportunity.
As with education, the issue is whether we are preparing our nation
for the challenges of the next century.
We can fix these institutions and remain fiscally responsible. We
have proven, in passing last year's budget agreement, that it is
possible to address the needs of our nation and promote economic growth
and a fair tax system at the same time.
It is unfortunate that politics prevented us from fashioning a budget
resolution that could have served the needs of all the American people,
and not just a few. I cannot in good conscience support this budget
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the FY 1999 budget resolution is the first
resolution that has been crafted since the historic balanced budget
agreement was reached and enacted just 10 short months ago.
I would first like to congratulate the Chairman of the Budget
Committee, Pete Domenici, for bringing us to the point where a balanced
budget is no longer just a projection at end of some indeterminate
period of time--but may actually be a reality by the end of the current
fiscal year. His years of dedication to balanced budgets and his
ongoing commitment to being a responsible steward of the taxpayer's
dollar may soon be rewarded--and I am pleased to have had the
opportunity to serve with him on the Budget Committee during this
historic time.
Furthermore, I believe that the resolution that Chairman has crafted
deserves the support of no less than each of the 76 members who voted
for last year's bipartisan agreement. This resolution is not only
consistent with that agreement, but also adds critical funding for a
multitude of programs that are priorities for many in the Senate: child
care, health research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
smoking cessation programs, and federal funding for the Individuals
with Disability Education Act (IDEA), to name just a few. Any member
who heralded last year's budget agreement--or who voted in favor the
provisions and spending targets it contained--would be hard-pressed to
explain why this resolution does not deserve their support this year.
Mr. President, as I stated during the recent markup of this
resolution in the Budget Committee, I believe it is important that we
establish several guiding principles in crafting the FY 1999 budget
resolution. I am proud to say that the resolution we crafted--and which
is now being considered by the full Senate--achieves all of these
goals.
First, based on the 29-year losing streak we have had in balancing
the federal budget, we have an obligation to craft a resolution that
puts us on a credible and prudent path that will keep the budget
balanced for many years to come.
Second, we must craft a budget resolution that is based on the
balanced budget agreement that was enacted 10 short months ago.
Third, with an eye to the future, we must preserve the Social
Security program before utilizing any portion of forthcoming surpluses
for spending increases or tax cuts.
And, fourth, we must ensure that any monies generated by tobacco
revenues in the months ahead be utilized to preserve and protect
Medicare.
Although it would seem that these principles will be easy to attain,
Congress' unproven track record of keeping the budget in balance, the
tenuous nature of our economic assumptions, and the overwhelming desire
of some individuals to ``spend'' money we don't even have, will make
this difficult.
As I said, Congress has been on a 29-year losing streak when it comes
to balancing the budget--we have no track record of getting the budget
in balance or keeping it in balance. Therefore, much as I am pleased
that CBO now projects an $8 billion surplus this year and total
surpluses of $151 billion over the next five years, I believe we have
an obligation to prove to the American people that we will ensure these
projections become a reality not only for the next five years, but
year-after-year in the future.
Achieving this goal will be harder than it looks. The simple fact is
that the current outlook and surplus estimates are based on extremely
tenuous projections. Therefore, to modify a well known saying, ``we
shouldn't count our surpluses before they're hatched.''
First, our estimated surpluses are based on the assumption that we
will

[[Page S3101]]

have no recessions or economic downturns in the coming 10 years. Based
on the fact that we are now in the midst of one of the longest
stretches of sustained economic growth in our nation's history, this
seems to be a fragile estimate at best.
Specifically, as the chart behind me indicates, the current period of
sustained economic growth first started in March 1991. If it continues
until December 1998, it will match the duration of the longest
peacetime expansion in U.S. history--the ``Reagan expansion''--which
lasted 92 straight months (i.e. November 1982 to July
1990). Furthermore, if this expansion continues until early 2000, it
will be longest period of expansion ever--peacetime or wartime--which
was set in the 1960's (106 straight months, from February 1961--
December 1969).

Therefore, If CBO's projection come true and growth is sustained
through 2008, we will double the all-time record of 106 straight months
set in 1969. Needless to say, with 61% of the economists surveyed by
Blue Chip believing a recession is likely to occur before March 2000,
these estimates of prolonged economic growth leading to substantial
surpluses should be viewed with a health dose of skepticism.
Furthermore, our estimates for growth in even the current year are
predicated on shaky estimates. Specifically, although the impact of the
Asian economic crisis has seemed only slight up until now, we still do
not know how severe the overall impact will be--and we certainly won't
know until later in the year when it's too late to alter the budget.
Already, just two weeks ago, we learned that the U.S. trade deficit
for the month of January soared to a new all-time record of $12
billion, as exports to Asia dropped precipitously. According to a
recent Washington Post article, many economists expect that because of
problems in Asia, the trade deficit will widen substantially this year
from the $114 billion deficit posted in 1997--which was already the
largest trade deficit our nation had posted in nine years. Needless to
say, if this situation persists and worsens, there will be a drag on
the U.S. economy.
In light of these risks, we would be wise to heed the caution of CBO
when it comes to touting the budget outlook. As CBO outlined in their
own January report, the economy is ``highly unlikely to develop
precisely as the forecast predicts''--and even a moderate recession,
such as the one experienced in the early 1990's, could lead to the
budget outlook deteriorating by ``more than $100 billion'' for a year
or more. In fact, if projected growth is even 0.5% lower than CBO
projects over the next 10 years, the budget outcome will be $150
billion worse than projected in 2008.
It is because of CBO's own cautions that I am especially concerned
with the economic and budget estimates of OMB. Although the CBO and OMB
estimates are very close together, the simple fact is that OMB still
provides a more favorable economic outlook in coming years.
Specifically, as a result of more favorable growth estimates and lower
inflation estimates, OMB's estimated surpluses are $66 billion--or 30
percent--higher than CBO. Therefore, prudence dictates that OMB's
estimates be viewed with even greater skepticism than the already
optimistic projections of CBO.

Clearly, if we are to establish a track record of balanced budgets,
we must chart a prudent course in the budget resolution. And for this
reason, we must adopt a resolution that not only follows CBO's more
modest economic estimates, but that also adheres strictly to last
year's balanced budget agreement. This body should do nothing to
jeopardize that agreement, which put in place strict spending limits
that will improve the chances of projected surpluses becoming actual
surpluses.
Regrettably, the President does not seem to share this view. Rather,
he views the recent favorable estimates as an opportunity to spend
money, create new programs, and violate the terms and spirit of the
budget agreement we reached just 10 short months ago!
By proposing to increase taxes by $105 billion and to increase
spending by $118 billion, the President's budget would revert to the
tax-and-spend policies that the American people believed we abandoned
three years ago.
Furthermore, although President Clinton has urged that Congress not
spend the surplus until Social Security is fixed, CBO now tells us that
the President's own budget would not only spend the surplus, but also
cause a deficit in three years! Specifically, as CBO stated in their
March 4 preliminary analysis of the President's budget: ``CBO estimates
that the President's policies will reduce projected baseline surpluses
by $43 billion between 1999 and 2003--and will temporarily dip the
budget back into red ink by a small amount in 2000.''
Needless to say, these aren't the kind of policies that Congress
agreed to when we crafted the bipartisan balanced budget agreement last
year--and that's not what the American people were led to believe would
happen when President Clinton unveiled his budget proposal in February.
While some may argue that the President is not bound by last year's
budget agreement because the budget may be balanced sooner than
expected, I have only one thing to say: I don't remember any clause in
the agreement that read: ``If a balanced budget is achieved prior to
2002, the terms and spending limits of this agreement are automatically
waived.''
Fortunately, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Pete Domenici,
understands the need for prudence, and crafted this resolution
accordingly.
As the budget before us demonstrates, the Chairman believes that we
have an obligation to treat this favorable budget news as a chance to
prepare for the future and address the long-term demands that retiring
Baby Boomers will place on our budget in 10 short years.
Specifically, this resolution adheres to the budget agreement we
struck 10 months ago. Also, he leaves every dime of every future
surplus to the Social Security Trust Fund--which is just as the
President urged us to do, though his own budget does not. And, finally,
he ensures that Congress does not forget or ignore the plight of
Medicare--a critical program that will be insolvent in 2008, which is
long before Social Security will be insolvent, and sooner than many
would like to remember.
To achieve this final goal, the Chairman has wisely walled-off any
monies we receive from tobacco legislation and dedicated it to
Medicare. In comparison, the President would like to target these
monies to a host of new programs that he believes will have popular
appeal. Perhaps targeting windfall revenues to a program that our
elderly rely on for their medical needs isn't as appealing as handing
out new ``goodies'' in an election year, but I certainly believe it
would be more responsible and prudent.
In addition, when considering the cost of smoking-related illnesses
on the Medicare program each and every year, linking any forthcoming
tobacco revenue to the Medicare program is imminently appropriate. As
the chart behind me indicates, Columbia University found that smoking-
related illnesses cost the Medicare program $25.5 billion in 1995
alone. In fact, of the various forms of substance abuse that affect the
Medicare program, tobacco-related illnesses accounted for 80% of the
approximately $32 billion total costs in 1995.
Therefore, even assuming that these costs have not risen since 1995--
which is doubtful--then the President's budget, which assumes tobacco
revenues of approximately $13 billion in each of the coming five years,
will not even come close to covering the costs of tobacco on the
Medicare program. In fact, the President's assumption would cover only
slightly more than half of these annual costs. Needless to say, the
budget resolution's assumption that these monies be used to shore-up
the Medicare program is more than justified when considering these
facts.
Now, some members have expressed concern that walling-off tobacco
revenues in this manner will harm our efforts to pass comprehensive
tobacco legislation later this year. As a member of the Senate Commerce
Committee--the Committee that will soon be marking-up this
legislation--I cannot emphasize enough that this concern is unfounded.
The tobacco reserve fund does not imperil comprehensive tobacco
legislation, as some members on the other side of the aisle will
contend. Rather, just the opposite is true: It will protect future
tobacco legislation.

[[Page S3102]]

The simple fact, Mr. President, is that the more uses we identify for
possible tobacco revenues in the budget resolution, the more the urge
to spend money will become the driving force for tobacco legislation.
If that happens, the only winners will be the tobacco companies,
because Congress will have lost sight of the true goal of that
legislation: reducing--if not eliminating--teen smoking.

Tobacco companies would like nothing more than for those of us who
are committed to passing comprehensive tobacco legislation to argue
about how money will be spent. The simple fact is that if we divvy-up
the pot of potential tobacco money in this resolution, we will face
enormous pressure to simply pass a tobacco bill at all costs,
regardless of its merits. Such a bill could well-contain many weak
provisions that favor tobacco companies--but the pressure to ``spend
the money'' will drive members to overlook the inherent flaws of such a
bill.
As the Washington Post stated in a February 3 editorial: ``Mr.
Clinton would pay for a fair amount of his program with a tobacco bill
that he has thus far not submitted. He is relying on Congress to write
it. He says that as a deterrent to smoking, it should raise the price
of smoking $1.50 a pack in real terms over 10 years, and he proposes a
division of the revenue. The problem with that will be if the money
becomes more important than the rest of the bill, and the tobacco
companies are able, as is their intent, to buy weaker legislation than
might otherwise be passed.''
That's not an outcome that I want for tobacco legislation--and that's
not the outcome that I believe the American people want either.
Unfortunately, those who would attempt to push for an advance-
divvying of the tobacco ``piggy-bank'' drive us toward that outcome.
The fact of the matter is that the Chairman's mark will ensure that
tobacco legislation to reduce teen smoking is able to move forward
based on sound policy--not politics. Limiting the use of the federal
share of future tobacco monies to Medicare is not an impediment to
tobacco legislation--it is an enabler.
Mr. President, if I understand the argument of the minority
accurately, they believe that limiting the use of the federal share of
tobacco monies to Medicare will impose an additional hurdle to tobacco
legislation. They are saying that it will prevent tobacco monies from
being used for important tobacco-related purposes, such as smoking
cessation programs and health research.
As the Chairman has outlined, his budget resolution does more for
these programs today than any theoretical tobacco bill is able to do.
This resolution provides $800 million for tobacco cessation and
prevention programs, and $15 billion for research at the NIH. That's
real money--not the illusory money that we simply hope tobacco
legislation will generate in the future.
Now, some may argue that this budget simply does not provide enough
for these or other smoking-related programs, and that any forthcoming
tobacco legislation should provide additional monies for these
purposes. That's a legitimate argument.
But the simple fact is that this budget will not prevent additional
monies from being provided for such purposes if a tobacco bill is
passed. In fact, the budget resolution will not even prevent tobacco
monies from being diverted to programs that have nothing to do with
tobacco.
The bottom line is that if tobacco legislation is brought up on the
floor of the Senate and members wish to divert monies for any number of
purposes--either related to smoking or not related to smoking--they can
do that. It will simply take 60 votes to waive the point of order that
this resolution would create against such spending--which is the same
margin of votes that will be required to end debate on that same
tobacco bill (achieve cloture).
Therefore, in light of the fact that it will take at least 60 votes
to end debate on a tobacco bill and--ultimately--to pass a tobacco
bill, this point of order is not onerous. It simply ensures that we
keep our priorities straight from the start (Medicare), and ensures
that the various ways we spend tobacco monies will have the same level
of support as the tobacco bill itself.
The bottom line is that if Congress believes that more money is
needed from the tobacco bill to pay for smoking cessation and other
tobacco-related programs, garnering 60 votes to waive the point of
order will not even be an issue. Therefore, arguing that this
requirement--which is no more onerous than the 60-vote margin that will
be required to end debate and pass the tobacco bill--endangers tobacco
legislation, is completely inaccurate.
The bottom line is that this resolution seeks to protect tobacco
legislation from being weakened or undermined by a ``rush for the
money.'' So I hope that those who are concerned about tobacco
legislation will join us in this effort to keep the focus of tobacco
legislation on reducing teen smoking--not on spending money.
I want a strong, effective tobacco bill--I don't want it undermined
and weakened because the ``politics of spending'' got in the way of
good policy.
Mr. President, these and other principled decisions that are embodied
in this resolution will undoubtedly be challenged by those who would
like to open the fiscal floodgates and start spending at will or pass
another round of tax cuts. However, I believe that as we move from a
period of deficit politics to surplus politics, we should exercise
discipline and prudence to ensure expectations are met--not re-open the
federal credit card account that got us into so much trouble in the
first place.

At the same time, maintaining fiscal discipline and adhering to last
year's balanced budget agreement does not mean that we must ignore
important issues confronting our nation today. Specifically, within
existing budget constraints, we can and should address the educational
needs of our children and tackle the child care crisis that is
affecting countless families nationwide.
But funding these and other priorities doesn't require that we
violate last year's spending caps--rather, they require that we
prioritize our spending and have the will to target our spending
accordingly.
In particular, I would like to highlight the manner in which the
Chairman properly accommodated one such priority--child care--in this
resolution. As the leaders of both parties an the Administration have
demonstrated through a variety of proposals, improving child care
should be a priority during the current Congress. And in light of the
ever-expanding need for child care assistance, such a decision is not
surprising.
In 1995, 62 percent of women with children younger than 6 years of
age--which means 12 million children--were cared for by someone other
than a parent during working hours, and the numbers have not improved.
Yet the supply of child care does not meet demand, and existing child
care is often unaffordable. In fact, on average, child care costs range
from $3,000 to $8,000 per year, and can be even higher for infant care.
Safety is also a factor that looms heavily on parents' minds--in
fact, a U.S. News and World Report article last August found that 76
children died in day care in 1996. This is tragic and should not be the
case. Placing children in child care should be an act of confidence,
not a leap of faith.
Finally, many families who wish to care for a young child at home--
even for a short period of time--cannot afford to forgo the second
income, while other families undertake great scarifies to do so. But
what many American families share is that terrible feeling that they
have no option. And it should not be this way.
That is why the assumptions of this budget resolution are so
critical. Not only would this budget double funding for the Child Care
Development Block Grant (CCDBG)--going from $5 billion to $10 billion--
over the coming five years, but it would also ensure that any tax
package subsequently passed by the Finance Committee provide tax relief
to families struggling with child care. I believe that these are
policies that both Democrats and Republicans alike can and should
embrace.
In January, I introduced a comprehensive bill--the Caring for
Children Act--with Senators Chafee, Hatch, Roberts, and Specter, that
is designed to increase the availability of a safe and affordable child
care. That legislation would expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit, and
for the first

[[Page S3103]]

time make this credit available to families where a parent stays at
home to care for a child. It also encourages public-private
partnerships, provides increased funding for quality, and doubles
funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant.
Although the budget resolution does not advocate any particular child
care bill, I am pleased that the assumptions included in this budget
would comport with our bill, and I hope that policies along these lines
will be enacted in the coming months.
I know that other child care bills have been introduced in the
Senate--including a bill introduced by Senator Dodd, along with
Senators Murray and Conrad. I truly believe that we are not that far
apart in terms of policy, and I look forward to a time when we can work
together to bridge these differences.
At the same time, I also know that there are those who will be
adamant that the increased funding provided in the budget resolution
for the Child Care Development Block Grant be mandatory in nature.
However, I believe that the large increase in discretionary funding
provided in the resolution is the most fiscally responsible approach to
this nation's child care needs--and is quite an accomplishment when
considering the fiscal constraints imposed in last year's bipartisan
balanced budget agreement.
To those who will say that the Appropriations Committee will not be
able to locate additional funds within the discretionary caps for child
care, say, If child care is truly a priority, then it is simply a
matter of having the will--and casting the votes--to ensure that an
additional $1 billion per year is identified during the appropriations
process for child care as we weigh our spending priorities. And
considering that the President has proposed more than $47 billion in
non-defense discretionary cuts over the coming five years, this is
hardly a practical impossibility--it is only a matter of will.
Mr. President, this decision to dramatically increase funding for
child care is but one of many decisions contained in this resolution
that will address shared priorities. While some may argue that the
recent favorable budget outlook gives us leeway to fund these
priorities out of surplus monies or hoped-for tobacco revenues, the
bottom line is that Republicans and Democrats alike fought hard for,
and agreed to, this bipartisan agreement only ten months ago.
We should not take steps now to violate not only that agreement, but
our trust with the American people. We have a responsibility to abide
by this agreement, and the Chairman provided very generous funding
within these constraints to ensure that child care and other priorities
are properly addressed.
The bottom line is that this resolution abides by last year's
balanced budget agreement; provides increased funding for critically
needed priorities; preserves every penny of every surplus over the
coming five years to protect Social Security; and ensures that any
windfall revenues from tobacco legislation will be used to buttress the
Medicare program.
The fact that this budget resolution abides by last year's agreement
should be reason enough for each of the 76 members who voted for last
year's agreement--including 36 Democrats--to vote for this budget plan.
And the fact that it contains these other strong provisions should lead
to even stronger bipartisan support. Therefore, I urge that my
colleagues support this soundly-crafted resolution.
Mr. President, there is a saying: ``Money's only something you need
if you're around tomorrow.'' While this may be true for an individual,
it doesn't make for good federal policy. Therefore, I congratulate the
Chairman of the Budget Committee for recognizing that being a good
steward of the federal budget requires that we ensure there is money
around tomorrow--even if we are not.
Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to make decisions
today that will ensure they are not left with a mountain of unpaid
bills and a host of unresolved problems on the horizon. The budget that
you have crafted--and that is now before this body--would protect them
from both of these dangers, and I congratulate you for your continued
foresight. Thank you, Mr. President, and I look forward to voting in
favor of this resolution.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will approve a budget
which will go beyond a balanced budget and create a surplus for the
first time in more than a generation. This has been a key objective for
me since I came to the Senate in 1985. So there is reason for some
satisfaction and relief tonight. However, as we balance the budget, the
picture is not entirely appealing. Unfortunately, we have failed to
provide adequate support for the critical needs of our nation's
children.
The Federal government has run a deficit continuously for more than
30 years. It soared to dangerous levels in the 1980s during the Reagan
and Bush Administrations. As a result of these deficits, our national
debt has multiplied several times, exacting a toll on our economy,
increasing interest rates, squeezing federal spending and making debt
service one of the largest expenditures in the Federal budget.
In 1993, following President Clinton's election, we began the long
journey back from crushing deficits and toward fiscal responsibility by
passing an enormously successful economic plan. The power of our
economy was unleashed and our nation has benefitted greatly:
unemployment is at record low; interest rates are subdued; the stock
market is surpassing all expectations; and economic growth continues to
be robust. This path culminated in last year's agreement to balance the
budget and provide substantial broad-based tax relief for working
American families and small businesses. The 1999 Budget Resolution is
another step on the path to fiscal responsibility. I commend the
leaders with key roles in bringing us to this point: President Clinton
and his advisers, The Senate Republican and Democratic leadership, and
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee.
I strongly support the fact that the budget resolution produces a
surplus which we can use to begin to restore the financial credibility
of the Social Security system or pay off our federal debt. But that is
far from the only measure that should be applied to a budget. Deficit
elimination is a vital objective, but it is neither an economic policy
nor a statement of priorities for our nation or its government.
How we balance the budget is just as important as whether we do so.
This budget unfortunately will leave some critical American needs
unmet. It misses a unique opportunity in America's history to assist
children and families and resolve many of our most pressing problems in
education, child care, health care and environment.
Our children face real problems, and although there are a number of
areas where we could improve this resolution, I want to focus my
remarks on its effect on our nation's children. The out-of-wedlock
birth rate is too high. While the Gross National Product has doubled
over the last two decades, the child poverty rate has increased 50
percent. An American child drops out of school every eight seconds, is
reported neglected or abused every 10 seconds; and is killed by guns
every hour and a half. As a society, we are creating these problems for
our children. Yet we know that scientific evidence conclusively
demonstrates that enhancing children's physical, social, emotional, and
intellectual development will result in tremendous benefits for
children, families and our nation.
America's children especially need support during the formative,
preschool years in order to thrive and grow to become contributing
adults. However, adequate child care is not affordable or even
available for too many families. That is why I believe we must provide
more help to working families to pay for critically needed, quality
child care, an early learning fund to assist local communities in
developing better child care programs, and sufficient funding to double
the number of infants and toddlers in Early Head Start. President
Clinton shares this view and included in his 1999 budget proposal my
recommendations on this issue. However, the Republican leadership
rejected this approach and included no additional mandatory funding for
either child care subsidies or early childhood education. Further, the
resolution goes out of its way to exclude child care from the tobacco
reserve fund. Instead, the budget tentatively promises a $5 billion
increase

[[Page S3104]]

only if Congress is willing to cut other worthy programs to do so. That
is unacceptable to the working families in this country. I joined
Senator Dodd in offering an important amendment to rectify this
situation and increase funding for these crucial programs. While this
amendment secured a majority vote, under Senate rules that was
insufficient so the amendment did not become part of the resolution.
Mr. President, we must develop an educational system which prepares
our children and young people for adulthood. Today, we are failing too
many of our children. Crumbling schools. Overcrowded classrooms.
Inadequately prepared teachers. The federal government provides a small
amount of the total funding for public elementary and secondary
education--less than seven percent of total public spending on K-12
education comes from the federal government, down from just under 10
percent in 1980. We must back up our grand rhetoric with appropriate
funding for these worthy programs.
With my enthusiastic support, Democrats offered a number of
amendments to this resolution to increase the effectiveness of our
educational system. Among them were amendments to reduce class size
from a nationwide average of 22 in grades 1-3 to an average of 18, to
provide funds to help local school districts hire an additional 100,000
teachers, and to develop federal tax credits to pay interest on nearly
$22 billion in bonds to build and renovate our public schools, many of
which are in disrepair with emphasis on the 100 to 120 school districts
with the largest number of low-income children. Finally, Democrats
proposed a $2.2 billion increase for after school programs, education
opportunity zones, and the High Hopes Initiative.
I am deeply disappointed that the Republican budget resolution does
not include any of these proposals and that Republicans again and again
rejected these initiatives. The consequences of the Republican budget
are clear. Half a million disadvantaged children will not receive the
extra help they need to succeed in school. Approximately 450,000
students will be denied safe after-school care in 1999. Some 30,000 new
children will be denied access to the Head Start program. Some 6,500
public schools will not have drug and violence prevention coordinators.
3.9 million attending or wanting to attend college will be denied an
increase in their Pell Grants. If we are going to talk about education
being a national priority, then we ought to match our grand rhetoric
with real money. The budget resolution we are considering today does
not meet this challenge.
Access to health care in our nation is also inadequate. President
Clinton proposed three initiatives to provide Americans aged 55 to 65
new ways to gain access to health insurance by allowing those aged 62
to 65 to buy into Medicare, paying a fair premium for the coverage. It
also would allow displaced workers over 55 access to similar Medicare
coverage. The third initiative would allow Americans over 55 who have
lost their retiree benefits access to their former employers' health
insurance until age 65. These proposals would give many Americans who
are too old for conventional health insurance yet not old enough to be
eligible for Medicare access to basic health insurance coverage.
However, the Republican budget proposal rejects all those proposals
even though they pay for themselves with changes to the existing
Medicare program.
Over the next five years, this Republican budget will spend $4
billion over five years less than President Clinton proposed for the
Ryan White AIDS CARE program, drug abuse prevention and treatment, and
Center for Disease Control prevention activities.
Last year, I traveled to Kyoto, Japan to attend the Climate Change
Conference. The vast majority of the scientific community and policy
makers the world over who have carefully examined the issue of global
warming have concluded the science is compelling and that it is time to
take additional steps to address this issue in a more systematic way.
The Republican budget proposal, however, refuses to fund President
Clinton's initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions early in the
next century. This is a shortsighted approach which could pose a
serious threat to our environment--indeed, to the survival of our
planet--in future years. We cannot afford to continue avoiding the
consequences of our own actions, or condemning future generations to a
despoiled planet.
I am a strong supporter of President Clinton's Clean Water
Initiative, an action plan to focus on remaining challenges to restore
and protect our nation's waterways, protect public health, prevent
polluted runoff and ensure community-based watershed management. But
the Republican budget plan ignores this proposal.
I am pleased and relieved the budget is balanced, but the Senate
nonetheless has failed to address glaring, fundamental needs of our
nation and its people. The budget could have been and should have been
much, much better. For these reasons, with disappointment and regret, I
will vote no on this resolution, and join others in committing to try
to alter the misplaced priorities to better reflect and meet our
nation's real needs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on the
budget resolution. I commend the Budget Committee on the job it has
done. Chairman Domenici and Senator Lautenberg should be praised for
their efforts to bring a bill to the floor that balances the budget for
the first time in 30 years. And yet, this resolution fails to
adequately address some of our nation's most pressing priorities,
including child care, education, and health care.
First, however, I would like to take a moment to discuss how we
reached this historic moment when, for the first time since 1969, we
present the American people with a budget that is in balance. The
balanced budget we have today is a result of the hard work and progress
we have made over the past few years to reduce the deficit. The effort
dates back to 1990 when President Bush--despite strong opposition from
his own party--boldly endorsed a plan that lowered the deficit by $500
billion and started us down the road to fiscal responsibility.
This effort was then continued by President Clinton in 1993 when he
proposed a far-reaching economic plan, which is more appropriately
called the Balanced Budget Plan of 1993. This balanced budget plan,
which I supported, was enacted into law without a single Republican
vote and has helped to reduce the deficit from $290 billion at the
beginning of 1993 to an anticipated surplus this year. Despite the
claims by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that President
Clinton's plan would doom our economy, this economic plan has put us on
a road to solid recovery. It has reduced deficits by more than $1
trillion, led us to the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, created
15 million new jobs, and resulted in the greatest number of Americans
owning homes ever.
Most recently, Mr. President, we finished the job of balancing the
budget when we enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, which I supported, not only reduced spending, but
also cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, providing much-needed
tax relief for working families. I was very pleased to support the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because it protected our priorities such as
fiscal discipline, child care, education, health care, and the
environment.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the resolution before us today fails to
protect these priorities and turns its back on America's families and
children. It fails to recognize many initiatives important to our
children and families including quality child care, reducing class
sizes, renovating and modernizing our children's schools, and promoting
after-school learning.
The resolution provides no mandatory funding for either child care or
early childhood education. Moreover, it explicitly excludes President
Clinton's proposals to use any revenues from comprehensive tobacco
legislation to pay for initiatives for children, including child care,
anti-smoking education, children's health care, and improvements in
education.
Clearly, the resolution before us shortchanges children, and that is
why I offered an amendment to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund.
The resolution also reduces funding for the Administration's
education priorities by $2 billion, and as a result, about 450,000
students could be denied safe after-school care in 1999, some 30,000
new children could be denied access to the Head Start program, and

[[Page S3105]]

6,500 middle schools would not have drug and violence prevention
coordinators. And yet, while Republican budget increases funding above
the President's request for Impact Aid, Special Education, and the
title VI block grant, these increases come at the expense of many other
priorities that also strengthen our commitment to children and
education.
Mr. President, this budget as a whole ill-serves children and
families, and that is why I was pleased to support the Democratic
alternative budget offered by Senator Lautenberg. The Democratic
alternative would strengthen our commitment to our priorities by
providing funding for key initiatives such as hiring an additional
100,000 teachers, creating more after-school programs, and doubling the
number of children who receive child care assistance. Further, the
Democratic alternative moves us toward our goal of one million children
in Head Start by 2002, doubles the number of children in early Head
Start, and places up to 500,000 children in after school learning
centers.
In addition, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative maintains our
commitment to other Democratic priorities such as cleaning up the
environment and investing in our transportation infrastructure.
Moreover, it would expand Medicare coverage to Americans ages 55-65.
And not least, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative strengthens
Social Security by reserving the entire unified budget surplus, while
maintaining strict fiscal discipline by meeting the discretionary caps
in all years.
I regret, Mr. President, that the Democratic alternative was
defeated. And I regret that the resolution before us today is not one
that I, in good conscience, can support. In my view, the Republican
budget shortchanges America's working families. I am, however, hopeful
that as we move forward in the budget process, we will craft
legislation that focuses on priorities like child care, education,
health care, and the environment. Finally, Mr. President, in our
efforts to craft a budget that targets the needs of working families,
it is imperative that we remain vigilant in our efforts to maintain
fiscal responsibility.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Budget
Resolution. And while I will not vote for the final product, I want to
compliment both sides of the aisle this year's unique debate over our
budget blueprint.
For the first time since I arrived in the Senate, the issue of
balancing the budget was not an issue. The President started the debate
this year by proposing a budget that balances this fiscal year--a full
two years before the proposed Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment
would have demanded it. The Republican members of the Budget Committee
countered with the balanced budget before us today, and Democrats
offered up their substitute, also in balance.
This year, partisan attempts to play ``pin the blame for the
deficit'' were replaced by a serious discussion of the government's
priorities. Hot air gave way to an honest airing of our policy
differences. We debated the questions that must be answered in the
budget that will guide our legislative actions for the rest of the
year--questions about how government should spend its time and energy
in the coming fiscal year.
And it is because of the budget answers those questions that I must
oppose this budget. Though the numbers add up, the policies do not.
In short, on too many issues of importance to the families of
America, this budget is more than silent--it stifles discussion.
For example, the budget forbids consideration of a comprehensive
child care program for the United States--a plan like that proposed by
the President, by Senator Dodd, or by Senator Chafee. Senator Dodd
offered an amendment to fix this, and it was defeated.
How can we support a budget that does not at least allow Congress to
consider the child care needs of our youngest children and our hardest
working families?
At a time when 60 percent of our preschool age children are regularly
cared for by someone other than their parents, can we accept a budget
that will not allow us to debate any proposals to increase the
accessibility of decent child care?
At a time when we are learning more each day about the importance of
brain development in the earliest years of life, can we accept a budget
that will not allow us to discuss creating more quality early education
opportunities?
At a time when the business world is waking up to the link between
good child care and employee productivity, can we accept a budget that
will not let Congress also explore how to help working parents work
well?
This budget also precludes consideration of any of the various
proposals to implement the tobacco settlement. Under the budget, the
Hatch plan, the emerging McCain bill, the Chafee-Harkin bipartisan
plan, the Conrad bill, or even the initial tobacco settlement between
the State Attorneys General and the tobacco companies would be out of
order on the Senate floor.
This budget silences Congress on two of the most pressing issues that
face our nation today: How can we give our youngest children the best
start to their educations and their lives? And how can we free our
children from the deadly pressure to start smoking?
Despite these serious objections, I would like to thank the managers
of the bill, and the whole Senate, for unanimously accepting my
amendment to the Resolution expressing the Senate's intention to
protect our nation's elderly and disabled patients from abuse, neglect
and mistreatment in long-term care facilities.
And I would like to compliment the drafters of this budget for one
section. The $30 billion tax cut envisioned in this budget does include
$9 billion for child care tax credits.
As many of you know, I have worked hard to establish a tax credit to
provide an incentive to private sector businesses willing to take
actions that increase the supply of quality child care.
My credit will give incentives to large companies--like Wisconsin's
Johnson Wax or Quad Graphics--that set up state of the art child care
centers on-site. And it will provide an incentive for smaller
companies--like the 80 companies in the New Berlin, Wisconsin
Industrial Park that joined together to build a child care center open
to the children of all of their employees.
In addition, my credit is not just for the costs of construction--but
also for the other substantial costs of providing suitable quality
child care: the costs of accrediting a center, of setting up a merit-
based pay system for the woefully underpaid child care workers, for
reserving slots in an existing child care facility, or for hiring a
resource and referral firm to design the best child care option for a
given company.
This proposal has the support of the President, child care advocates,
the business community, and the 72 Senators who voted for it as part of
last year's tax package. I am glad to see that the budget before us
also would support it.
However, as much as I would like to see us move forward on my child
care tax credit this year, it is only one part of the solution to the
shortage of quality, educational child care in this country.
For years, the Federal budget stole from the future to fund programs
and pork in the present. The enormous deficits of those years were a
national shame.
Today, the budget is in balance and moving toward surplus. We have
reason to be relieved, but not reason yet to be proud. We have stopped
stealing from our grandchildren, true. But this budget does not let us
even consider in a comprehensive way their earliest, and most
important, educational needs.
We have an obligation to at least discuss how best to nurture our
youngest children--and I cannot support a budget that will not allow
that.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this budget.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate will soon voice its opinion on
the FY1999 Budget Resolution. The debate on this year's resolution
offered the American people an excellent opportunity to observe each
party's fiscal priorities. A budget resolution is essentially a fiscal
roadmap to the future. Within the confines of scarce resources, a
budget resolution forces real choices upon the Democratic and
Republican parties.
Earlier in the debate, Senate Democrats offered their vision for
America's

[[Page S3106]]

future. Our plan put Social Security first, lived within the spending
ceilings established in last year's budget agreement, and contained key
domestic investments and targeted tax cuts for working families. Our
budget did all of these things plus one more. According to the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office, it maintained balance in 1999 and
produced a unified budget surplus for as long as CBO is willing to
project.
Before taking a look forward and describing our budget priorities for
the future, I would like to take a brief look back. Just over 5 years
ago when President Clinton took office, the budget deficit stood at a
whopping $290 billion--the highest level in this nation's history.
What's worse, the deficit was projected to grow to over $500 billion by
the end of the decade if nothing was done to attack this insidious
problem. Fortunately, the President and the Democratic Congress,
without the assistance of a single Republican vote, took action.
Together we passed legislation in 1993 that began to both stem the flow
of red ink and target investments and tax cuts toward working Americans
and their families.
Our political opponents harshly criticized our approach. Although I
will not name the names of those who went on record predicting failure
for our economic policies, it is not an exaggeration to say that many
were predicting a disaster of near biblical proportions. It can also be
said that many who publicly predicted economic ruin in 1993 are still
here today, and many who bravely cast their vote for this package in
the face of this cascade of criticism are not.
And today the results are clear to all. The economic plan Democrats
passed 5 years ago produced the largest amount of deficit reduction in
our history. The 1993 plan put us in position for what we accomplished
this year--the first unified balanced budget in 30 years. Our plan also
provided the foundation for what most economists are calling the
strongest economy in a generation. About 15 million new jobs have been
created since its enactment. The unemployment rate is 4.6 percent--a
25-year low. The core inflation rate is 2.2 percent--the lowest level
since 1965. And real average hourly earnings have increased by 2.3
percent in 1997 alone--the fastest annual growth rate since 1976. These
positive indicators moved Goldman Sachs, a distinguished Wall Street
investment firm, to conclude in their March 1998 report on the U.S.
economy: ``the current U.S. economic environment is the best ever--
steady growth without inflation. As the expansion turns seven years old
this month, there is still no recession in sight . . . On the policy
side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working
in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation.''
The Democratic record on deficit reduction and economic growth is
clear. Our prescriptions for both have produced unprecedented success.
And today we come before the Senate with our plan for the future. This
plan builds on our past success and is based on four key principles.
First, we will keep the unified budget in balance in 1999 and as far
into the future as the Congressional Budget Office is willing to
project. Second, our plan generates unified budget surpluses of $143
billion over the period 1999 to 2003 and sets the full amount aside to
shore up Social Security. Third, the Democratic plan gets the CBO seal
of approval. According to CBO, it complies fully with the spending caps
established in last year's budget agreement. Fourth, in stark contrast
to the Republican budget we have been considering on the Senate floor
this week, our plan provides funding for key domestic investments and
targeted tax relief for working families and businesses.
Unfortunately, Senate Republicans defeated this proposal earlier this
evening. I would like to take a moment now to discuss briefly the
Republican fiscal prescription and how it differs from the plan we
offered earlier. These differences are most visible and most important
in the area of education. The Democratic budget proposes providing
funds to help local school districts hire an additional 100,000 well-
prepared teachers. This initiative would reduce class size in grades 1
through 3 from an average of 22 to 18. The Republican budget rejects
this proposal.
The Democratic budget proposes federal tax credits for local school
districts that build and renovate public schools. The Republican budget
does not even mention school construction.
The Democratic budget proposes increasing discretionary funding for
key education and training programs, including a $2.2 billion increase
in 1999 alone. This funding increase supports the High Hopes
initiative, after-school learning programs, and educational opportunity
zones. The Republican budget freezes spending on most important
education programs. As a result, about 450,000 kids will be denied
access to safe after-school learning centers. About 30,000 kids will be
denied access to Head Start. And about 6,500 middle schools will not
have drug and violence prevention coordinators.
The story is similar on child care and basic research. Within the
overall context of a balanced budget, Democrats are proposing important
initiatives in each of these areas. And the Republicans? Well, they
just say no. No to education. No to child care. And no to basic
research.
The final, but important, difference between the Democratic and
Republican budgets is each side's approach to ending tobacco's hideous
hold on young people in this country. The Democratic budget contains a
comprehensive proposal to end Joe Camel's reign over America's
teenagers. Our budget fully funds anti-youth smoking initiatives,
tobacco-related medical research, smoking cessation programs, and
public service advertising to counter the tobacco's targeting of our
kids. The Republican budget does none of these.
It would be bad enough if the Republican budget stopped there.
Unfortunately for this generation of teenagers and those that follow,
it does not. The Republican budget goes even farther. It establishes a
supermajority requirement for any future legislation that attempts to
tackle teen smoking in a comprehensive manner. If this Republican
budget as currently constructed is adopted, a minority of this body
will be able to dictate whether and how the Congress should reduce the
power of tobacco companies and weaken the industry's hold on our kids.
In other words, the Republican budget stacks the deck against
meaningful tobacco reform.
In closing, Mr. President, the Democratic approach to tackling this
nation's fiscal and economic problems has delivered results unmatched
in recent history. Record deficit reduction and economic growth. Our
budget plan for the future would continue this progress. It would
maintain fiscal discipline while investing in key domestic initiatives
such as education, child care and basic research. And the Democratic
budget is the only plan that allows Congress to construct a
comprehensive approach to reducing teen smoking and provides the
resources to do so. At the same time, the Republican budget before us
rejects many of these principles.
Therefore Mr. President, it is for all of these reasons that I ask my
colleagues to just say no to this Republican budget.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank everyone for their patience and in particular
staff on the Republican side and the Democrat side for the marvelous
work they have done. Let me say we are going to vote on this shortly. I
feel rather proud. What we are going to do is move in a strong
direction toward saving Medicare, saving Social Security, a significant
tax cut, increases in education, and increases in criminal justice, the
National Institutes of Health and programs of that sort. Yet we have
not broken the caps and we will have balanced budgets for quite some
time if we follow this format as we implement it during the year.
Once again I thank everyone in that regard.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I am informed by
staff that, assuming the passage of this resolution, it will be the
earliest the Senate has ever passed a budget resolution and probably
the first time that the manager has not lost a single amendment in
which he was interested.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wanted to make the Members aware of that
also,

[[Page S3107]]

and also congratulate Senators Domenici and Lautenberg for the way they
have worked together and the way they moved us through this very long
process. It has been completed in record time, and I think we all owe
them a debt of gratitude and appreciation.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. LOTT. Before I yield the floor, so Members will know this before
we go to the vote, we will be in session tomorrow, but only for wrapup.
We do have some Executive Calendar nominations I think we can clear. We
have gotten agreement on the Shipping Act, so we will have debate on
the bill and on one amendment, but the vote will not occur on that bill
until we return. We will return on April 20, but the first recorded
vote will be the morning of Tuesday, April 21. So after this recorded
vote, that is the final vote for the night and for the week and the
next will be April 21. Thank you all for your cooperation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will there be opportunity tomorrow to speak as in
morning business?
Mr. LOTT. Absolutely.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to also congratulate the
distinguished chair and ranking member for the great job they did and
commend everyone for their cooperation. We were able to finish tonight
almost on time, in large measure because of the cooperation. I
appreciate that. We come to a different conclusion about the final
result, but there is no doubt about the cooperation and effort and
leadership demonstrated by the chair and the ranking member.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might add a word also, to say
that working with our colleagues on the Republican side, particularly
the chairman of the Budget Committee with whom I work closely and I
consider a friend, we try to handle disagreements in a positive
fashion. Sometimes it gets a little edgy, but rarely.
I also want to say I thought, and I was discussing it with a couple
of Senators here, that there was a degree of comity in this
deliberation that is an improvement, I think, over what we have seen in
past years. It is a much better way to work. I thank our leader for his
support and also to say to the majority leader that his steady hand
helped move things along. It has been an excellent experience. I wish
we had won more than we did, but we go away knowing that we had a fair
chance at the deliberation. That is what counts.
I particularly want to say to Phil Gramm and to Senator Nickles, I
thank them for their gesture--with the encouragement of the majority
leader--in kind of righting what we took to be a wrong. I want to
acknowledge it publicly.
With that, I thank my friend from New Mexico and hope we will have
lots of occasions to do these budget resolutions--with me in the
majority seat. I hope we will be able to do this many times.
Mr. President, I thank the Democratic staff of the Budget Committee
for a job well done. They are Amy Abraham, Phil Karsting, Dan Katz, Jim
Klumpner, Lisa Konwinski, Diana Meredith, Marty Morris, Sue Nelson, Jon
Rosenwasser, Paul Seltman, Scott Slesinger, Mitch Warren, and, with
particular thanks, Bruce King.
Also, I extend my thanks to the Democratic floor staff and the
Secretary for the Minority for a job exceptionally well done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to S. Con.
Res. 86, as amended.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
Mr. FOX. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--41

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Inouye

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 86), as amended, was agreed
to.
(The text of the concurrent resolution will be printed in a future
edition of the Record.)
Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

____________________