[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4782-S4849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will report the budget 
resolution.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 27) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 297

 (Purpose: To provide affordable health coverage for low- and moderate-
 income children and for additional deficit reduction, financed by an 
increase in the tobacco tax; in addition to the amounts included in the 
   bipartisan budget agreement for one or both of the following: (1) 
Medicaid, including outreach activities to identify and enroll eligible 
  children and providing 12-month continuous eligibility; and also to 
 restore Medicaid for current disabled children losing SSI because of 
  the new, more strict definition of childhood eligibility; and (2) a 
    program of capped mandatory grants to States to finance health 
               insurance coverage for uninsured children)

  Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, and Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 297.

  Mr. HATCH. 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 3, line 3, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by 4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by 4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by 2,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by 1,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by 1,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by 8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by 9,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by 10,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 8, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 9, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by 3,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 22, increase the amount by 4,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by 4,000,000,000.
       On page 24, line 5, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 24, line 6, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 24, line 13, increase the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 39, line 22, increase the amount by 500,000,000.
       On page 39, line 23, increase the amount by 2,000,000,000.
       On page 40, line 16, increase the amount by 4,500,000,000.
       On page 40, line 17, increase the amount by 18,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, increase the amount by 6,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 8, increase the amount by 30,000,000,000.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
this amendment be allocated to me as the prime sponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. On the Senator's time.
  Mr. FORD. I don't have any time.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. I want to know if this amendment is similar to 525 and 526 
that you had as health care for children and a tax bill that is now 
combined? They are basically the same?
  Mr. HATCH. It is basically geared to get us to that point. Yes.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one 
observation on my time?
  Mr. HATCH. I will.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to make sure that the Senator, 
the prime sponsor, understands that in the unanimous-consent request 
following disposition of the Kennedy amendment, which I assume----
  Mr. HATCH. This is not the Kennedy amendment. This is the Hatch-
Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That language does not preclude a second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator understands that.
  Mr. HATCH. I understand that.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I sent this amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Kennedy. This is well known as the Hatch-Kennedy 
amendment. I think everyone in the Senate ought to know that. It is an 
amendment that we have worked out over a 6-month period, or longer, and 
one that I think deserves consideration in every sense of that term.
  The amendment that Senator Kennedy and I offer today addresses what I 
consider to be a top priority of this Congress: making sure America's 
kids are healthy.
  The Hatch-Kennedy amendment calls for an increase in the tobacco 
excise tax to fund additional spending for children's health insurance.
  We have made enactment of a bipartisan children's health insurance 
bill a top priority this Congress, and plan to press forward at every 
opportunity if the Senate does not act in a responsible manner.
  This amendment is the right thing to do, and I urge its adoption.
  Specifically, our amendment would raise $30 billion in revenues 
through a 43-cent tobacco excise tax increase.
  Twenty billion dollars will be used for services to uninsured kids, 
and $10 billion for deficit reduction.

[[Page S4783]]

  We intend that the money be used for the same purposes as those 
outlined in the bipartisan budget agreement; that is, for Medicaid and 
for a mandatory capped State grant program to finance health insurance 
for uninsured children.
  Under our amendment, $18 billion in program funding will go to the 
Labor Committee, and $2 billion to the Finance Committee, to be added 
to the $16 billion already in the budget resolution. That means each 
committee will get $18 billion to work on complementary programs to 
help the poor and near poor.
  To pass this amendment--and this is an uphill battle we face--we need 
to have the will to do two things.
  First, we must recognize that we need to help children from America's 
working families, as well as the poorest of the poor.
  About 88 percent of uninsured children come from families where at 
least one parent is employed.
  Don't forget that. Eighty-eight percent of these kids live in a 
family where one parent works, at least.
  The majority of these kids will not be addressed by any Medicaid 
bill.
  Second, in order to help these forgotten children, we need to have 
the courage to take on some very powerful special interests.
  When we started this fight I knew that Big Tobacco would not just 
roll over and play dead. And they have not disappointed me.
  If we demonstrate one thing by this vote today let it be this: we are 
sending a message today that Senator Kennedy and I and the other 
supporters of this bill will stand up for children and against Big 
Tobacco.
  Senators, who do you stand with? Joe Camel, or Joey? That is what it 
comes down to.
  What the Senate must do today is decide whether we are going to 
protect Joe Camel, or whether we are going to protect Joey.
  Let our votes today be the answer.
  Now I am certain that those speaking in opposition to our amendment 
will offer a lot of complicated reasons why our amendment is deficient.
  But as they talk, ask yourself who should be protected: Joey or Joe 
Camel?
  Sometimes the logic of something is just so simple that no amount of 
obfuscation, legal mumbo-jumbo, technical economic jargon, and 
procedural objections can fool the American public.
  I expect that some will come to the floor today and say that this 
budget resolution is the wrong time and place for this legislation.
  One of their objections will be that the bill includes $10 billion in 
deficit reduction. Some will argue that this is not needed in a 
balanced budget document.
  Those who make that argument simply do not take into account the fact 
that the interest payments on the accumulated annual deficits--the $6 
trillion national debt--now consume 15% of annual Federal spending. 
This is as much as we spend for our national defense.
  Having managed the floor debate for the balanced budget amendment 
that fell 1 vote short of the 67 necessary votes, I have a special 
place in my heart for the ``LD'' part of the CHILD bill: lowering the 
deficit.
  Once again, think of Joe Camel and Joey.
  Frankly, as a conservative Republican I am proud to have convinced so 
many Democrats to cosponsor legislation that provides $1 for deficit 
reduction for every $2 devoted to program costs. If this model is 
adopted in other areas, not only will we more quickly reach the goal of 
a balanced budget, but we will also be better able to face the 
formidable challenges of entitlement reform and financing the national 
debt.
  Our amendment has two very basic and extremely important goals.
  The Hatch-Kennedy healthy kids amendment benefits American families, 
working families so that they can get health care. The healthy kids 
amendment helps reduce the deficit and reduce our debt service 
requirements.
  Our amendment will help millions of kids get a healthy start in life. 
As it stands now, we know that too many American children do not get 
the benefits of health insurance.
  The General Accounting Office recently made a number of important 
observations about this problem. In House testimony, the GAO said:

       In summary, we have found that while most children have 
     health insurance, almost 10 million children lack insurance. 
     Between 1989 and 1995, the percentage of children with 
     private coverage declined significantly--part of an overall 
     decline in coverage of dependents through family health 
     insurance policies.

  The GAO concluded:

       Had this decrease not occurred, nearly 5 million more 
     children would have had private health insurance.

  From these observations of GAO, I think it is fair to say that there 
is a big problem in the area of children's health insurance, and unless 
we do something about it, it is bound to get bigger.
  Who are these 10 million children? These uninsured kids come from 
working families. At least 88 percent of those kids come from families 
where at least one parent is working. Many live in families whose 
income is just above the Medicaid limit, but they do not make enough 
money to provide health insurance for their kids.
  Who are the Hatch-Kennedy kids? I will tell you who they are. They 
are, in large part, the children of good, hard-working families who 
make too much for Medicaid and not enough to buy their own health 
insurance.
  This chart shows you that there is a pronounced spike in the number 
of uninsured Americans who live in that $20,000 to $30,000 working-
class income bracket. This is the family income range of many of these 
families who stand to benefit from the Hatch-Kennedy amendment.
  It is clear to this Senator that there is a problem to be solved. 
These are uninsured Americans.
  Some are saying we do not need this amendment. The budget negotiators 
did a good job, in my opinion, in including a significant amount of new 
spending for children's health--$16 billion in this budget resolution. 
That is a good start, and I praised them for it. No question about it. 
But the fact is there are about 10 million kids in the United States 
without health insurance, and I believe that the budget resolution 
probably will not cover even half of them.
  I think it is important that my colleagues understand the 
Congressional Budget Office is coming in with very conservative 
estimates on the number of children who will be served under various 
congressional proposals. For example, the CBO, Congressional Budget 
Office, has estimated that the Medicaid 12-month, continuous 
eligibility proposal would cost $14 billion alone if implemented by 
every State. That alone is almost all of the money in this budget 
resolution. Or, if you look at it another way, the Federal share of 
Medicaid costs for a child is about $860 on average this year. 
According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, there are 4.7 
million uninsured children whose parents make less than 125 percent of 
the Federal poverty level. That is $19,500 for a family of four.
  How can they afford insurance? By simple calculation, to cover those 
kids under Medicaid would cost $4.2 billion, about $1 billion more a 
year than is included in this budget resolution, and that is just the 
Medicaid kids. There are 7 million here who are not. And this would 
leave the vast majority of children of working parents under 125 
percent of poverty level uncovered.
  While I admit $16 billion is a substantial start and I commend my 
colleagues on the Budget Committee, it is just not enough to do the 
whole job.
  Many of us are also cosponsors of
the Chafee-Rockefeller-Jeffords-Breaux CHIPS bill, which is estimated 
to cost at least $15 billion, perhaps even more. This Medicaid bill is 
targeted to help 5 million kids, including the 3 million or so 
Medicaid-eligible children who are not enrolled because they do not 
know enough to get enrolled.
  We see these two bills as compatible. The CHIPS bill improves basic 
Medicaid, and our bill would be added on top of that to take care of 
these uninsured kids who do not qualify. There obviously is a close 
connection between the two. That is why in our amendment we decided to 
divide the money equally between each of the two committees, Labor and 
Finance, and to work out an integrated approach.
  Let me also take a few minutes to explain my views about using a 
tobacco

[[Page S4784]]

tax as the revenue source for our amendment. There can be no doubt that 
smoking and tobacco use are major public health problems. By any 
measure they are costly.
  Smoking is our Nation's No. 1 preventable health cause of death. 
There are about 48 million Americans who smoke. About 2 million 
Americans use other tobacco products like chewing tobacco. There are 3 
million kids who smoke.

  Consider these smoking facts. Smoking causes cancer and is addictive. 
One out of five cancers is caused by smoking; four out of five lung 
cancers are caused by smoking; 3,000 kids are starting to smoke every 
day; 50 percent of all smokers begin before age 15, 90 percent before 
the age 18; 419,000 American smokers die annually. Just think about it. 
Of those 3,000 young Americans who start smoking every day, at least 
half of them are going to become nicotine addicts.
  Tobacco accounts for more deaths than homicide, car and airplane 
accidents, alcohol, heroin, crack and AIDS combined. In fact, 
cigarettes are a major cause of fire fatalities in the United States. 
In 1990, cigarettes were responsible for about one-quarter of all 
deaths associated with residential fires. This represented over 1,000 
deaths in our society.
  Every day nearly 3,000 young Americans become regular smokers. 
Eventually, 1,000 will die early from tobacco-related diseases. 
Unfortunately, cigarette smoking is on the rise among the young. About 
8 in 10 smokers begin to use tobacco before age 18 and about one-half 
of all smokers started at age 14 or earlier.
  According to a 1994 CDC report, tobacco costs our society $100 
billion annually--$50 billion in direct medical costs. Of 24 billion 
cigarette packs sold in 1993, $2.06 per pack in medical care costs. Of 
this, 89 cents was paid by public sources; $10 billion Medicare, $5 
billion Medicaid, $4.75 billion other Federal, and $16.75 billion 
higher insurance premiums. Just think about that.
  The price of cigarettes devoted toward taxes has slipped over the 
last three decades and, even with the increase we propose today, will 
actually be lower proportionately once this bill is enacted than it was 
in 1964 when Surgeon General Luther Terry reported for the first time 
that smoking causes cancer.
  As a conservative, I am generally opposed to tax increases. I firmly 
believe that the Federal Government should spend less and that the 
American people should keep more of their money that they earn in our 
economy. Yet the statistics about tobacco use and costs that I cited 
above, I believe, make the case that tobacco products are imposing 
external costs onto society that are not adequately reflected in the 
price of these inherently dangerous products. Simply stated, the 
producers and consumers of tobacco products are not paying for the full 
costs of this product.
  When I balance the opportunity that we have in terms of helping to 
provide health insurance and services for children, coupled with the 
significant deficit reduction component against my natural aversion to 
raising taxes, I come down in favor of this financing mechanism with 
the tobacco tax or, as I call it, a user fee because only those who 
smoke are going to pay this tax. And 50 percent of them, according to 
the recent polls, are for this tax realizing that smoking causes a lot 
of detriment to society.
  If we are going to commit ourselves to addressing the problem of 
adequate health care for children, then it is essential that we 
identify how this program is going to be funded.
  I knew I was going to take the heat on this one, but I strongly 
believed that it was the fiscally responsible thing to do, and I still 
think this is the case.
  Accordingly, let me pose to my colleagues this question. What do you 
believe is a better offset? From what program do you suggest we take 
the money? Now, I am willing to listen and discuss this issue but, 
quite frankly, I have not heard from anybody concerning a viable 
alternative financing source.
  Let us get to the real issue here. Smoking is dangerous for our 
public health, and it is dangerous for our economy. It hurts the kids 
we are trying to help. That is the crux of our amendment here today.
  Many of the critics of our proposal have seized on this amendment 
today to express concerns which were raised earlier about the Child 
Health Insurance and Lower Deficit Act. A lot of those charges against 
the bill are in error, as I am prepared to debate here today. But the 
fundamental question today is not should we pass the Hatch-Kennedy 
child bill. Rather, the more pertinent question before the body is 
should we do more for children's health?
  The answer, totally clear to this Senator, is ``most definitely.'' I 
consider children's health to be a top priority issue for this 
Congress. I think the American people expect that of us.
  My colleagues may be interested in a Wall Street Journal-NBC News 
poll taken between April 26 and 28 of this year. The question was posed 
as follows:

       Two Senators, a Republican and a Democrat, have proposed 
     increasing cigarette taxes by 43 cents a pack and giving much 
     of the money raised to help States provide health insurance 
     for uninsured children. Based on this description, do you 
     favor or oppose this plan?

  The response was astounding. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, April 26-28, 1997

       Question: Two Senators, a Republican and a Democrat, have 
     proposed increasing cigarette taxes by 43 cents a pack, and 
     giving much of the money raised to help states provide health 
     insurance for uninsured children. Based on this description, 
     do you favor or oppose this plan?

                              [In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Not
                                               Favor    Oppose     sure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All adults..................................       72        24        4
Men.........................................       67        30        3
Women.......................................       76        20        4
Northeast...................................       73        20        7
Midwest.....................................       73        26        1
South.......................................       69        28        3
West........................................       74        23        3
Whites......................................       70        26        4
Blacks......................................       80        16        4
Age 18 to 34................................       73        25        2
Age 35 to 49................................       74        23        3
Age 50 to 64................................       66        30        4
Age 65 and over.............................       72        21        7
Under $20,000 income........................       74        23        3
$20,000 to $30,000..........................       76        21        3
$30,000 to 50,000...........................       70        28        2
Over $50,000................................       70        26        4
Urban.......................................       76        21        3
Suburb/towns................................       70        26        4
Rural.......................................       70        28        2
Registered voters...........................       73        23        4
Non-Registered adults.......................       65        32        3
Democrats...................................       79        18        3
Republicans.................................       67        29        4
Independents................................       69        27        4
Clinton voters..............................       80        17        3
Dole voters.................................       64        31        5
Liberals....................................       79        19        2
Moderates...................................       79        19        2
Conservatives...............................       64        31        5
Professionals/Managers......................       76        21        3
White collar workers........................       77        20        3
Blue collar workers.........................       62        35        3
High School or less.........................       66        30        4
Some College................................       75        22        3
College graduates...........................       75        21        4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 72 percent of all adults responded that 
they favor this proposal and only 24 percent were opposed; 67 percent 
of all men approved of this proposal and 76 percent of all women were 
in favor. The results were remarkably consistent throughout each 
geographic region in the United States, across age groups and, indeed, 
income groups.
  The point is simple. This is an idea whose time has come. So to those 
who believe there is a better way to go, I earnestly solicit your 
views. Indeed, I will make an offer to every Member in this body. I 
want to work with each of you and with our leadership to address this 
issue in a responsible way. If changes need to be made, if we need to 
move toward a middle ground in order to get a proposal enacted, I will 
be an advocate for these changes. It is for this reason that Senator 
Kennedy and I initiated our discussions on this issue several months 
ago.
  The fact is that Senator Kennedy and I approach issues like these 
from vastly different ends of the political spectrum. That perhaps is 
what strengthens the product of our discussions on those issues, the 
fact that we can find common ground. I believe we desperately need to 
find that bipartisan common ground on an issue like child health 
insurance, an issue which matters to so many of all of our 
constituents.
  I think one of the lessons we have learned in the last 18 months is 
that the American public believes Congress is unnecessarily 
politicizing issues and sandbagging legislation in areas which beg for 
action. Children's health is an obvious example. I caution my 
colleagues not to be ashamed to work in a

[[Page S4785]]

bipartisan manner. Working across the aisle and knitting together 
political coalitions in order to get things done is an element of 
leadership, and I think it is what the public expects of all of us. I 
think that our approach is a true bipartisan partnership. Public health 
leaders back this approach.
  Six former Cabinet Secretaries of HHS or its predecessor, HEW, 
representing all Presidential administrations back to the Nixon 
administration support our amendment. I thank Secretaries Elliot 
Richardson, David Mathews, Joseph Califano, Richard Schweiker, Otis 
Bowen, and Louis Sullivan for their support and leadership in moving 
this legislation.
  I also want my colleagues to know that former Surgeons General C. 
Everett Koop, Julius Richmond, Paul Erlich, and Jesse Steinfield are 
backing this effort.
  Today is the time for we politicians to take the advice of these 
leaders in public health and vote to increase the tax on tobacco users 
in order to help children. Indeed, the budget compromise and the child 
bill plus the public's heightened sense of concern about the perils of 
tobacco are coming together to present a rare and historic opportunity 
for our society to help children get health insurance, further 
discourage tobacco use, especially among our young people, and target a 
sizable $10 billion for deficit reduction.
  This is a unique time, and we should make the most of it. I believe 
that we can and should strengthen Medicaid and create a new program for 
those children from working families who are not Medicaid eligible. 
That is what our amendment is intended to do.
  I will not use up all our time. Let us just keep this simple. Vote 
for Joey, not for Joe Camel. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lauren Ewers be given 
privileges of the Senate floor during the pending debate on the budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my friend and 
colleague, Senator Hatch, for explaining the thrust of this legislation 
and the range of support that we have for it and the importance of it 
for working families. Let me just continue in the presentation.
  Mr. President, I join Senator Hatch in offering this amendment to 
guarantee a healthy start in life for every American child. Our 
amendment to the budget poses a clear choice for every Senator. Whose 
interests do you care about--the interests of America's children--or 
the interests of the big tobacco companies? Are you for Joe Camel and 
the Marlboro Man, or millions of children who lack adequate health 
care?
  Our amendment will make the Hatch-Kennedy children's health insurance 
plan part of the budget. Our goal is to make health insurance 
accessible and affordable for every child. The plan is financed by an 
increase of 43 cents a pack in the cigarette tax. That increase has the 
additional important benefit of reducing smoking by children.
  Our plan has broad bipartisan support--because health care for 
children is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is a human 
issue. Six former Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human 
Services and four former Surgeon Generals have endorsed the plan. These 
leaders served under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush. 
They all understand the importance of health insurance for children and 
decisive action to reduce smoking. They all understand that health care 
for children is an issue that should transcend political party and 
ideology.
  We all know the crisis we are facing in children's health. Ten and a 
half million children in this country--1 child in every 7--have no 
health insurance. Over a 2 year period, 23 million children--1 child in 
every 3--are without health insurance for substantial periods of time.
  Ninety percent of uninsured children are members of working families. 
Their families work hard--40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year--but all 
their hard work can't buy their children the health care they need, 
because they don't qualify for Medicaid and they can't afford to buy 
insurance on their own.
  Too many children are left out and left behind because they are 
uninsured. Too many parents face a cruel choice between putting food on 
the table, paying the rent, and giving their children the health care 
they need.
  For millions of children the only family doctor is the hospital 
emergency room. Each year 600,000 sick children do not receive any 
medical care, because they are uninsured. Each year, 400,000 children 
go without the medicine their doctors have prescribed because they have 
no insurance. Each year, 1\1/2\ million children go without the dental 
care they need, because they have no insurance. Each year, 600,000 
uninsured children suffer from asthma and less than half see a 
physician even once.
  Each month, 1 million uninsured children suffer from sore throats 
with high fever. If they have strep throats, it can lead to heart 
disease and kidney disease if it's not treated. Each year, 300,000 
uninsured children have chronic, untreated ear infections. Uninsured 
children are 50 percent more likely to die in the hospital than other 
children because their parents couldn't afford the health insurance 
they needed.
  We all know our country's shameful record on infant mortality--we 
rank behind 17 other industrialized countries.
  The lack of health care for children plagues the education system 
too. Children who are sick can't study well in school. Children who 
cannot see the blackboard because they have no eyeglasses can't succeed 
in the classroom. Children who cannot hear the teacher are unlikely to 
learn. Children who do not get a healthy start in life are unlikely to 
have a healthy future. And without healthy children, our country won't 
have a healthy future either--because children are the country's 
future.
  Passage of this amendment, combined with the money already included 
in the budget agreement, can end this crisis and make this the Congress 
in which we guarantee every child the opportunity for the healthy start 
in life that should be the birthright of every child.
  A budget is about setting priorities. There is no more important 
priority than health care for our children.
  The amendment provides the additional funds necessary to achieve our 
goal. It includes in the instructions to the Finance Committee the 
necessary adjustments to provide for a 43-cent-a-pack increase in the 
cigarette tax to finance the coverage. And it includes in the 
instructions to the Finance and Labor and Human Resources Committee the 
spending to implement this program.
  The Hatch-Kennedy legislation includes provisions that were common to 
bills introduced two Congresses ago by Republicans and Democrats alike. 
It will make health insurance coverage more affordable for every 
working family with uninsured children. It does so without creating any 
new Government mandates--on the States, on the insurance industry, or 
on individuals. The program is purely voluntary.
  Our legislation creates no new entitlement. Instead, it encourages 
family responsibility, by offering parents the help they need to 
purchase affordable health insurance for their children.
  The bill does not create any new bureaucracies--either Federal or 
State. The Federal Government already collects tobacco taxes, and all 
States have agencies that run their Medicaid, public health, and 
children's health insurance programs.
  Our legislation builds on what the States are already doing. Fourteen 
States have their own public programs on which our proposal is modeled. 
Another 17 States have private programs to subsidize the cost of child-
only coverage for low-income families.
  Finally, our proposal builds on the private insurance industry. 
States choosing to participate will contract with private insurers to 
provide child-only private coverage. Subsidies will be available to 
help families purchase the coverage for their children, or to 
participate in employment-based health plans.

[[Page S4786]]

  Even families not eligible for the financial assistance will be 
helped by this plan, since children's health insurance policies will be 
widely available in all States as a result of this proposal.
  Under our plan, $20 billion over the next 5 years will be available 
to expand health insurance for children, and an additional $10 billion 
will be available for deficit reduction beyond what is provided in the 
budget agreement.
  Paying for this program by an increase in the cigarette tax is both 
logical and practical. The link between smoking and children's health 
is obvious. If we do nothing, 5 million of today's children will die 
from smoking-related illnesses.
  For years, tobacco companies have cynically targeted the Nation's 
children. It is appropriate now to ask those companies and smokers to 
make a contribution to the cost of health insurance for children. By 
providing a specific financing source to cover the cost of the program 
we are doing the fiscally responsible thing.
  Some will oppose this legislation on the grounds that the $16 billion 
already included in the budget over the next 5 years is enough. But the 
fact is, the $16 billion is barely enough to cover the 3 million 
uninsured children already eligible for Medicaid but not participating. 
In total, it will cover only 3.7 million children of the 10\1/2\ 
million who are uninsured. Let me repeat that: It will cover only 3.7 
million children of the 10 million uninsured.
  The budget agreement is an important step forward. But that 
improvement is not enough to help the seven million other children in 
hard-working families whose parents will still make too much to qualify 
for Medicaid but not enough to buy the health care their children need. 
The Hatch-Kennedy plan fills that large gap.
  Some will oppose this legislation on the grounds that the budget 
agreement was designed to cut taxes, not increase them. But a cigarette 
tax increase is a user fee and affirmative step to improve health care. 
It is not like other taxes. If you don't smoke, you don't pay the tax. 
We all know the heavy costs that tobacco companies and smokers inflict 
on all taxpayers. The average pack of cigarettes sells for $1.80 
today--and it costs the Nation $3.90 in smoking-related costs. This 
proposal helps in a modest way to offset those costs.
  Every poll shows that, unlike other tax increases, raising the 
cigarette tax has overwhelming public support. The only people who 
don't like this increase are the tobacco companies and their lobbyists.
  Some will claim that this program will displace existing private 
insurance coverage. But our bill has strong safeguards to prevent this 
from happening. In fact, it has not occurred in the States that have 
already acted to implement similar programs.
  Some will argue that this program creates new mandates on States or 
new entitlements. But anyone who reads the bill will see that it does 
not. Participation is voluntary for States. The requirements for 
participation are no greater than for other, typical Federal grants to 
States for health care. The bill states clearly that it creates no new 
individual entitlement.
  Obviously, we are not voting today on the specific provisions of our 
legislation. There will be plenty of time for adjustment and 
improvement as it moves through Congress. But this vote on the budget 
resolution is the key vote that determines whether the overall budget 
will contain room for this program, financed by a tobacco tax increase, 
that will guarantee every family affordable coverage for their 
children.
  Big tobacco opposes this legislation. They are powerful and well-
funded, but they do not deserve to succeed in their effort to block our 
amendment. A vote for this amendment is a vote for children's health 
care and a vote against the insidious and shameful poisoning of 
generations of children by the tobacco industry. Enough is enough is 
enough.
  An extraordinary 72 percent of the American people support this 
program. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, low-
income families and high-income families, North, South, East, and 
West--support is overwhelming. The question is whether democracy still 
works. The American people understand the choice we are making today--
and Congress should listen to their views. How can any Senator say no?
  I would like to close by telling my colleagues the story of the 
children in two families.
  Sylvia Pierce of Everett, MA, didn't think twice about taking one of 
her four children to the doctor, when her husband was alive. The family 
medical bills were covered under her husband's health insurance that he 
got through his job. When one of the children needed a shot, Pierce 
took the child to the doctor; if the baby had an earache, Pierce got a 
prescription. ``People don't realize what a luxury health insurance 
is,'' Pierce said. ``I know I didn't. I took it for granted. I never 
thought about it; I never worried about it.'' That all changed October 
6, 1993, when her husband was murdered. In an instant, Pierce's life 
was changed forever. Gone was the father of her children, the family's 
main breadwinner--and its health insurance, leaving her four children, 
13-year-old Leonard, 8-year-old Brian, 6-year-old Alyssa, and the baby, 
Jillian, unprotected. ``It was the middle of the winter, the worst time 
of year as far as kids and sickness are concerned,'' Pierce said. ``The 
kids were always catching something at school, and the baby had 
earaches and needed to have her immunizations. I kept postponing her 
shots because I didn't have the money. It was a very anxious time.''
  ``I didn't choose to be in this situation * * * We've got to take 
care of our children. They can't speak for themselves so we have to 
speak for them.''
  Maria lives in California. Shortly after Maria entered a new school 
as a third grader, her progress reports indicated that she seemed to be 
performing far below her potential. A health examination arranged by 
her school revealed that Maria had suffered multiple ear infections--
probably over a period of several years. Maria's father ran a small 
yard maintenance business, but was not able to afford health insurance 
for her. As a result, her parents were unable to obtain treatment for 
her ear infections. Without timely and thorough medical attention, scar 
tissue had built up, causing her to become deaf in one ear and have 
hearing loss in the other. Maria's inability to access affordable 
medical care affects not only her physical health but her educational 
development as well.
  Every day we delay means more children like Maria and like Leonard 
and Brian and Alyssa and Jillian suffer. It is time to say, ``enough.'' 
We have failed our children long enough.
  Children are the country's future. When we fail children, we also 
fail the country and its future. We all know what's at stake. For 
children, this vote is the most important vote we will cast in this 
entire Congress.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might just, first, ask that every 
Senator who is interested in this amendment and what it does, that they 
get a copy of the amendment. Look through it. Turn one sheet after 
another. See if you find mentioned in this document cigarette taxes. 
See if you see it in here.
  There is no mention of cigarette taxes in this. The reason is, you 
cannot, in a budget resolution, carry out a mandate that a cigarette 
tax be imposed. Let me repeat. If this amendment is adopted, there is 
no assurance that a cigarette tax will be imposed because you cannot do 
that in a budget resolution. So let us look at it, page by page. There 
is no mention of a cigarette tax. I repeat to Senator Hatch, my very 
good friend, that there is absolutely no assurance and no way, in a 
budget resolution, that you can instruct the Finance Committee of the 
Senate of the United States to levy any kind of tax specifically.
  You can change the total amount of taxation and say, ``We sure hope, 
when you change that, that you will pass a cigarette tax.'' I tell you 
that because the budget resolution is not the place to argue about what 
a tax package is going to look like specifically, especially with 
reference to imposing a new one.
  Second, for those who are interested in cutting taxes--I assume there 
are a whole bunch of people on our side who want to cut taxes, and I 
think there are

[[Page S4787]]

some on this side who want to cut taxes--if this amendment is adopted, 
while it does not mandate a cigarette tax, believe it or not, it cuts 
the taxes that you can cut by $30 billion. So that will be a wonderful 
accomplishment, especially by conservative Senators on this side of the 
aisle, that essentially the only thing you are assured they accomplish 
is that there will be a tax cut for the American people that will be 
less than we expected when we got this budget resolution passed. That 
is just the arithmetic of an instruction to the committee--just plain 
arithmetic. Having said that, there should be no bones about it, 
because of what I have just said with reference to a tax cut and with 
reference to adding more money to programs, this is in violation of the 
bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. President and fellow Senators, I do not know who is going to 
lobby this in behalf of the agreement. I do not know who is going to 
lobby from the White House or from the office of the minority leader. I 
do know Senator Lott and I intend to defeat this. So we are not only 
going to be lobbying, we are going to be working to see that this 
agreement that we entered into is kept and not violated by this 
amendment or any other amendment. For, make no bones about it, if you 
adopt this amendment, this agreement is wide open, if you believe 
anybody on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle who wants 
to live under this is going to sit by for a major change like this. 
Essentially, the principal change is to reduce the amount of money you 
can cut taxes by $30 billion.
  Let me also say, fellow Senators, and anyone listening here today, 
whatever the wonderful discussions by well-meaning Senators--and they 
are all well-meaning, I say that to my friend, Senator Hatch, looking 
right at him, wonderfully intentioned--the issue of covering children 
in America who are not covered by insurance, listen up, Americans: They 
are all covered in this agreement. The President claims victory in this 
agreement. And guess what he says, Senator Kennedy, when he said this 
is a great agreement--5 million Americans, and he put up his hand with 
his 5 fingers like that--5 million Americans, young children, are going 
to be covered by health insurance because I made a deal to make sure 
that occurs.
  So let us make sure that the speeches about covering children, 
trying, in this debate, to tie that to raising a cigarette tax--and 
another day, another place, another way, perhaps many Senators would 
vote for a cigarette tax increase. Perhaps.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator just yield on that point?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just want to finish this thought.
  Mr. President, this cigarette tax is not needed. We need not break 
this agreement to cover children who are uncovered, in terms of health 
insurance, because they are covered. Let me tell you how much they are 
covered by. There is $16 billion--one-six--$16 billion in new money in 
this agreement that is there specifically and singularly to cover 
children who do not have insurance. All 5 million are covered by the 
$16 billion.
  Let me suggest that the White House in these negotiations put before 
us a plan to cover the 5 million young people, 5 million young children 
in America. They put forth a plan and they said it is going to be very 
difficult to find out how to cover these young children because we do 
not have any experience in it. We do not have any insurance policies 
out there to cover them. But $16 billion ought to do the job.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on my time for 1 minute?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to make it clear, in the budget is 
some $16 billion. The Medicaid costs are $860 per person. If you work 
that out, that covers 3.7 million.
  I think the President said ``up to 5 million.'' So, there is a major 
part of that group, particularly the working poor, who are not covered 
in that.
  I strongly support the point that the Senator has made in that we are 
going to see progress, and it is important progress. I think we ought 
to at least have an understanding. We have $16 billion and it costs 
$860 to cover each child. If you do the math, it is 3.7 million. The 
President, I think, said up to 5 million. I think, frankly, if you do 
the math, it is a little closer to 3.7 million.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, the truth of the matter 
is that nobody knows, nobody knows today how to cover these children 
who are uncovered in America. Nobody has a plan. Nobody knows which 
plan to use. Obviously, a very large number ought to be put under 
Medicaid. But they will not all fit under Medicaid, so another plan has 
to be developed for the rest of them. Frankly, this Senator is 
convinced that we can devise a plan in the Finance Committee of the 
U.S. Senate that will cover them all and will not even use the $16 
billion.

  That is just as honest a statement as my friend from Massachusetts 
makes when he plucks a number, because we do not know what it is going 
to cost. Mr. President, do my fellow Senators know that if you went out 
6 months ago across America and you said, ``Let's buy health insurance 
for some uninsured kids; let's just go around to the insurance agencies 
and say, `How about giving us an insurance bid,' '' there was no policy 
until about 2 months ago when a company decided to issue a policy. 
Nobody even knows, since it is the only one, whether its price is going 
to remain when they all start issuing them, for it is, indeed, not 
expensive to cover children; everybody knows that. One of the reasons 
given to cover them is it is not very expensive to cover them.
  All I am suggesting is that the President of the United States, in 
this bipartisan agreement, made great, great emphasis to the American 
people that it was a good agreement for many reasons, and one of them 
was that we had covered the young people who are not covered with $16 
billion in new money.
  I want to close on this point, and I will have a lot more to say, but 
essentially, this amendment in no way will cause a cigarette tax to be 
imposed if that is the wish of the sponsors, because you cannot do it 
in a budget resolution and you cannot find the words ``cigarette tax'' 
in the boundaries of their amendment, because there is no way to do 
that. They just have numbers plugged in and they wish the Finance 
Committee will use the numbers the way they are giving their speeches 
on the floor. They are hoping that they will do that, but the Finance 
Committee does not have to.
  So what we are doing is, we are tying in kids' coverage, which is 
already in the agreement, to a national issue on smoking cigarettes. 
And it is a national issue. It is a terribly tough issue, but, 
essentially, they are unrelated in terms of the budget resolution. So 
what we are doing is asking for more money for a program that is 
already covered, with no assurance that it will be spent for that 
program, and we are calling for a tax increase, with no assurance that 
it will be a cigarette tax, but a real assurance that you will have cut 
the $85 billion that we are providing for net new taxes by $30 billion, 
just the mathematical effect of the amendment.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Domenici is absolutely correct. If 
the Senator from Massachusetts wants to render nugatory the work of all 
the Senators who labored so long to produce a budget, his amendment is 
the way to do it.
  At stake, Mr. President, are the livelihoods of this country's 
tobacco farm families as Senators Kennedy and Hatch attempt to extract 
an additional $30 billion tax increase from the American taxpayers by 
upping the existing 24-cent excise tax to 67 cents.
  The impact of this proposal, if enacted, would not only devastate the 
Southeastern economy; it will harm the entire country. It will be 
harmful to the lives of thousands of farm families, to the 
manufacturing workers who stand to lose their jobs, to the retail-store 
owner and his employees, to the truck driver who delivers the product 
to market, to the farm implement dealer who supplies the tobacco 
farmer, to the schools financed by taxes levied on tobacco farmers, and 
on and on.
  Mr. President, this tax increase will cost thousands of fine North 
Carolinians their jobs; it will effectively destroy the livelihoods of 
thousands of small family tobacco farmers.
  According to American Economics Group, Inc., nearly 662,402 citizens 
are employed in the production, manufacturing, and marketing of 
tobacco. If

[[Page S4788]]

enacted, the 43-cent excise tax on tobacco products would abolish 
43,000 jobs nationwide, and North Carolina alone would lose 17,849 
jobs.
  Furthermore, any increase in the cigarette excise tax will fall 
disproportionally on lower- and middle-income consumers--the citizens 
least able to pay it. Those earning less than $30,000 annually already 
pay 5 times more in excise taxes than those earning $60,000 or more. 
Those families earning less than $30,000 pay a staggering 47 percent of 
all tobacco excise taxes, yet these families earn only 16 percent of 
national family income.
  Make no mistake about it--the tobacco tax is not a user fee as so 
often claimed by the proponents of this amendment--it is a tax 
increase. We all know that when excise taxes are increased on any 
product, sales of that product decrease. If tobacco revenues fall short 
of projections--which will certainly be the case because there will be 
a substantially smaller tax base--how will the shortfall be made up? 
More taxes? What other group will be singled out to shoulder this 
financial burden?
  Tobacco has been targeted for enormous tax increases because it is an 
easy way for this Government to take even more money out of the 
taxpayers' pockets. Smokers, tobacco farmers, and those who work in the 
tobacco industry should not be singled out to shoulder the burden of 
paying for the health care of uninsured children.
  The anti smoking zealots have made clear that they are willing to do 
almost anything in order to tax tobacco right out of existence. They do 
not care about the 18,000 people in North Carolina alone who stand to 
lose their jobs. The proponents of this amendment talk about all the 
children they are trying to insure with the revenues from this tax. 
Well, I can guarantee that they'll be able to add more uninsured 
children to that list if this tax is enacted. There will be a number of 
folks without work, and a number of children who will suffer because of 
it.
  Once we head down this road of using the taxing power of Government 
to discourage Americans from undertaking activities Congress and the 
White House find objectionable, or politically incorrect, where will it 
stop?
  This tax discriminates against an entire region, an entire industry, 
and all people who use tobacco products.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield me 10 minutes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Ford.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I am quite proud of the record I have established over 
the years in support of programs that help children. No one in this 
Chamber is going to suggest that this Senator, this grandfather of 
five, takes second place to anyone when it comes to priorities 
affecting children. I have supported expanding educational 
opportunities ever since I came to the Senate. Nothing is more 
important for our children than education. I have supported full 
funding for Head Start and the WIC Program and expanding Medicaid 
coverage to poor children. I have supported child care programs. I have 
supported the expansion of the earned income tax credit. I have 
supported a child tax credit that will become, hopefully, a part of 
this budget. I have supported drug abuse funding to help children. I 
have supported reasonable environmental initiatives that improve the 
lives of our children. But this is not a debate about whether or not to 
provide funds for child health care.
  The budget agreement already includes $16 billion in additional funds 
for child health care. A vote for this budget agreement, as is, is a 
vote for this country's children. I support the budget agreement that 
was negotiated earlier because it strikes an important balance. It 
provides much-needed programs for children from education to health 
care. It provides much-needed tax relief for middle-income families, 
and it balances the budget by 2002. An enormous amount of what we spend 
in the Federal budget is about children, and I believe that is right 
because our children are the most important resource this country has.
  We have to balance a lot of competing priorities. There is virtually 
no end to what we could spend on educating our children, for instance, 
if money were no object, but money is an object, because we have to 
balance the size--and I underscore size--of Government with the 
appetite of our constituents to pay taxes. I thought the budget 
arrangement announced earlier struck a pretty fair balance. It 
protected a number of national priorities while balancing the budget. 
As I have always said, it includes $16 billion for children's health 
care over 5 years, an amount that we are told will cover approximately 
5 million children.
  The budget deal assumes that there will be $135 billion in gross tax 
cuts offset by $50 billion in new revenues already. Now we look at the 
Kennedy-Hatch proposal. No matter how you look at it, this proposal 
undercuts the budget deal by changing the balance reached in that 
agreement. It requires the Federal Government to be $30 billion bigger 
in tax revenues and at least $20 billion bigger in spending programs. 
Tax-and-spend.
  So, with this amendment, there will only be $55 billion in net tax 
cuts. That is not the agreement I agreed to, the White House signed off 
on last week, and it is not the agreement that the American public has 
been led to believe they are getting.
  There are plenty of other problems with the substance of the Kennedy-
Hatch amendment. I do not think the budget deal was about raising 
taxes. If this amendment is adopted, this budget deal will become more 
and more about raising taxes. Put another way, this amendment reduces 
the net tax cut in this bill by 35 percent, more than a third. It 
requires a 60-percent increase in revenue raisers in this bill over the 
next 5 years. Tax increase, revenue raisers.
  Let's quit talking about taxes a moment, and let's talk about the 
Kennedy-Hatch amendment. While it is true that States have the option 
of denying the new block grant under this amendment, once they decide 
to accept the money, several conditions and mandates--I underscore 
mandates--to the States apply.
  The Kennedy-Hatch proposal contains 27 separate provisions which 
state that a State ``shall'' or a State ``must'' or a State ``may not'' 
do something. States have restrictions on how to write their plan to 
cover children. Who must approve the plan before they receive the 
funds? HHS. Which children are eligible for health insurance subsidies? 
What must be covered under the health insurance policy? You have told 
the insurance companies what they have to write, who they can contract 
with--think about that now, who a State can contract with for 
policies and how--how much they must pay out of State funds to receive 
this money; what percentage of administrative costs they must cover--
mandates on the States.

  Having been there and done that, I understand what a Governor has to 
do, but, if faced with a choice of stretching dollars, a Governor might 
prefer to provide a very basic policy but to cover more children. Under 
the Kennedy-Hatch amendment, the benefits that must be covered are 
specified in the bill.
  What is the cost to the States? The Kennedy-Hatch amendment will cost 
the States up to $5 billion in additional matching funds, requiring 
them to raise their money or their taxes. The Kennedy-Hatch amendment 
will cause cigarette consumption to decline by a minimum of 10 percent. 
This means that States could lose between $4 and $7 billion in excise 
taxes if they do not participate in the bill, meaning that even more 
money must be made up somewhere else.
  For weeks and weeks and months and months, there has been a bill 
filed to get rid of Joe Camel, to get rid of Marlboro Man, to do away 
with advertising, to do all those things that FDA has regulated, and 
then just ask FDA to get out of adult choice. But people who will not 
help prevent youth from smoking are here with an issue, not solving the 
problem, they are here with an issue, because if they wanted to solve 
the problem, they had an opportunity months ago to get on a piece of 
legislation that would do exactly what FDA is now saying will be in 
regulations.
  So, Mr. President, don't let anyone say that they want to solve the 
problem. They, by their own words, have let thousands upon thousands 
upon thousands of kids die because months and months and months ago, 
they would not get on a bill to help stop youth smoking. Now they have 
an issue: They

[[Page S4789]]

want to raise taxes in order to stop youth from smoking.
  Well, it tells me something that they want the issue and not a 
solving of the problem.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the benefit of the membership, 
this legislation is drafted in the historical, traditional way of 
amending the Budget Act. There should be no question as to exactly what 
this legislation is about. It is about providing health insurance for 
working families who cannot afford it. This is spelled out in the 
purpose of the amendment, which also states that it will be * * * 
``financed by an increase in the tobacco tax.'' What we are voting on 
ought to be very clear.
  Second, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a joint tax review that states that even with the decline in 
potential tobacco use, there still will be $30 billion generated over 
the period of the next 5 years. This also takes into consideration the 
arguments of the Senator from Kentucky.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: This is a revenue estimate of your 
     bill, S. 526, introduced with Senator Hatch.
       Under present law, the excise tax rates on tobacco products 
     are as follows: small cigarettes, $12.00 per thousand; large 
     cigarettes, $25.20 per thousand; small cigars, $1.125 per 
     thousand; large cigars, 12.75 percent of wholesale price (but 
     not more than $30.00 per thousand); snuff, $0.36 per pound; 
     chewing tobacco, $0.12 per pound; pipe tobacco, $0.675 per 
     pound; cigarette papers, $0.0075 per book containing more 
     than 25 papers (with no tax on books containing less than 25 
     papers); and cigarette tubes, $0.015 per 50 tubes. Under 
     present law, there is no tax on fine cut (roll-your-own) 
     tobacco.
       Under the bill, the tax on small cigarettes would be 
     increased by $0.43 per pack to $0.67 per pack. The excise 
     taxes on other tobacco products are to be increased by the 
     same percentage increase as the increase (179 percent) on 
     small cigarettes except for the tax on snuff, which would be 
     increased by 569 percent to $2.41 per pound and chewing 
     tobacco which would be increased by 4,975 percent to $6.09 
     per pound. In addition, an excise tax is to be imposed on 
     fine-cut tobacco equal to the tax on pipe tobacco.
       The proposed tax increases for small cigarettes and other 
     tobacco products would become effective on October 1, 1997, 
     with floor stocks taxes levied on that date. However, a 
     credit to be applied against the floor stocks tax liability 
     equal to $500 would be allowed every vendor responsible for 
     the payment of floor stocks taxes. We estimate that the floor 
     stocks tax credit would reduce fiscal year 1998 receipts by 
     $400 million from what they otherwise would be.
       We estimate that this proposal would increase Federal 
     fiscal year budget receipts are as follows:

                                                        [By fiscal years; in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Item                    1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007    1998-2002    1998-2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase small cigarette tax by         5,273    5,633    5,673    5,714    5,753    5,791    5,827    5,864    5,904    5,944       28,046       57,376
 $0.43 per pack.....................
Increase other tobacco excise taxes
 by 179%:
    Large cigarettes................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)        (\2\)        (\2\)
    Small cigars....................        3        3        3        3        3        3        3        3        3        3           13           30
    Large cigars....................       58       61       61       59       58       57       56       55       54       53          297          573
    Pipe............................       10       10        9        8        8        8        8        8        8        8           45           85
    Fine cut........................        4        4        4        5        5        5        5        5        5        5           22           47
    Papers..........................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)            1        (\2\)
    Tubes...........................        1        1        1        1        1        1        1        1        1        1            5           10
Increase tobacco excise taxes on           93       94       92       90       89       88       87       86       85       84          458          888
 chewing tobacco by 4,975%..........
Snuff by 569%.......................      239      258      270      281      293      306      319      332      346      361        1,341        3,005
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals........................    5,681    6,064    6,113    6,161    6,210    6,260    6,309    6,357    6,409    6,462       30,228       62,026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gain of less than $500,000.
(2) Gain of less than $5 million.
 
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

       I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of 
     further assistance in this matter, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kenneth J. Kies.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, third, using the figures of the Senator 
from Kentucky, a reduction of about 10 percent is 4.5 million 
Americans. By and large, the greatest reductions will be among 
children, because they become addicted at the earliest age.
  Finally, I want to address the issue as to whether this is consistent 
with the budget resolution. The budget resolution reduces the deficit. 
This program adds $10 billion in terms of deficit reduction. It 
strengthens the agreement itself.
  Second, it does not change spending with regard to potential capital 
gains, the estate taxes, the IRA's, the education programs--none of 
those will be altered or changed.
  This is effectively a user fee for those who smoke, and it will 
provide comprehensive coverage for the millions of children who are not 
covered.
  I pay tribute to my friend and colleague from Kentucky because he has 
been a champion of children the entire time he has been in the Senate, 
and no one in this Senate ought to doubt his strong commitment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I want to make a point again in a little different way. I am talking 
now to the U.S. Senate, but, obviously, there are people who pay 
attention who are not in the Senate.
  So I would like to make sure that everybody that was part of this 
agreement--this agreement--the President of the United States signed 
it. I would like to make sure he somehow or other hears this next 
couple minutes.
  Mr. President, fellow Senators, there can be no more frontal attack 
and violation of this agreement than this amendment. Now let me make it 
clear. It says that the tax cut to the American people is reduced by 
$30 billion. And it says we will spend $20 billion of that. So we are 
going to reduce the tax cut and spend more money. And we already cover 
the children in this agreement.
  Mr. President, why would we work for 2 or 3 months--and in this 
instance I say, Mr. President, Mr. President Bill Clinton--why would we 
work for 3 months to shape an agreement that provides some items that 
Republicans want and some items that Democrats want, including the 
President, and then come to the floor and have the President of the 
United States not fully aware that this throws the agreement away? 
Perhaps he is unaware of it this morning. But he ought to be aware of 
it soon.
  I mean, the agreement is as much as a nullity if you are going to 
violate it to that extent with this amendment, which will not 
necessarily accomplish the purposes of its sponsors.
  I repeat, look at the amendment. Read it line for line. And there is 
no mention, I say to Senator Gorton, of a cigarette tax in this 
because, as you know, you cannot do that in budget resolutions. They 
are just numbers. So there is no cigarette tax in here, and no 
cigarette tax assured under this.
  So I hope everybody understands the significance of it. We can debate 
for quite some time. I was of the opinion we had an agreement. And I 
was of the opinion that it was Democrat, Republican, Presidential. And 
I think those who are proposing this amendment better think loud and 
clear and think carefully, do they want the agreement to disappear 
because of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

[[Page S4790]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand well the procedural objections 
of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico to this amendment. He 
argues that there is no way to be absolutely certain that the Finance 
Committee will levy a tobacco tax. In a narrow legal sense that is 
certainly true. Well, to that assertion I simply respond that this is 
not some hinky-dinky little technical amendment. Everybody here knows 
what is involved here.
  We are having one of the most important debates in this Congress. It 
may be the most important debate that occurs during this session of 
Congress. We are debating in public. We all know what the stakes are. 
It is our children versus Joe Camel, nobody doubts that, nobody has any 
problem with that. In fact, even in the purpose clause of the 
amendment, it says financed by an increase in the tobacco tax. So it is 
there. Make no mistake about it, the question is clear today. History 
can be made today if our amendment is agreed to.
  The Finance Committee would have no practical other choice but to 
pass the cigarette tax to finance this. Of course, there is no legal 
requirement to bind their actions but sometimes political and moral 
forces cannot be resisted by mere legal technicalities.
  If we prevail today, there is no political way to turn back. That is 
why so many people are so nervous today. This vote may be the most 
important vote we cast this year for the future of our children. Let us 
face it. The people out there are watching. And they are going to hold 
us accountable, especially those 72 percent of the public, according to 
the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll who support our bipartisan approach. 
It is Joey versus Joe Camel, and no procedural nicety can obscure this 
reality. And everybody here knows it. So that is what it is coming down 
to.
  There are $135 billion in total tax cuts, gross tax cuts in this 
budget agreement. And the fact is, that this is a public health vote 
much more than a tax vote. Tobacco is the No. 1 cause of premature 
death in this country. And that is costing our country literally tens 
of billions of dollars annually by our own Government estimates.
  GAO is the one who has given us the figure of 10 million children 
here who do not have adequate health insurance, 3 million of whom do 
not even know they qualify for Medicaid. This money in this bill will 
help those 3 million children, perhaps. But I have to say, in order to 
get to $16 billion they had to cut the DISH. That is going to be a loss 
to children. So we are talking about taking care of the other 7 million 
children that are involved according to the GAO.
  My amendment does direct the Finance Committee to come up with $30 
billion more in revenues. We want this to be done with the tobacco tax 
increase; and it is the only way it will be done. That is the only way 
you can adjust the budget to accommodate a tobacco tax increase. If the 
Finance Committee refuses to back the tax, then it will be they, not 
us, who have thwarted the will of 72 percent of the American people who 
support this amendment.

  I would like to point out nothing in the bill binds any committee to 
adopt any policy. Many committees may consider changes we have not 
anticipated here today. We have to do the best by providing clear 
direction on the floor. And if that guidance is not followed we will 
have to deal with that with subsequent reconciliation and tax bills.
  So this charge ignores the real issue. The proponents of our 
amendment, the Hatch-Kennedy amendment, are making a public choice to 
help kids at the expense of the tobacco industry. You can try to gild 
the lily any way you want, but that is the situation here. Big tobacco 
is fighting back. Who are we going to be with? Are we going to be with 
the kids or are we going to be with tobacco? That is strictly the 
issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time does the Senator want, 10 minutes?
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts off of the 
budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  I am proud to rise to join Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy as a 
cosponsor of this, and to thank them for their leadership on it. Let me 
say first of all, that it is absolutely disingenuous to suggest to the 
U.S. Senate that this amendment ought to be voted against or is subject 
to criticism because it reduces the tax cut by $30 billion.
  Every U.S. Senator knows, by virtue of our experience here and the 
practice on the budget, that we are not allowed to specify the specific 
source of revenue. But every Senator also knows what the source of 
revenue would be if we decided to pass this legislation. There is no 
question about it.
  There is no other place that the Finance Committee would go as a 
consequence of an overwhelming vote of the Senate to say that we should 
provide this care with the understanding of the sponsors and of all of 
those proposing that there is one source that we are directing our 
attention to for the revenue. So that is an entire smokescreen. No 
Senator can hide their vote behind that kind of smokescreen today.
  Second, it is absolutely false to suggest that the $16 billion in the 
agreement is going to provide health care to even the 5 million 
children that it claims to, let alone the 10 million children we know 
do not have coverage today. The math is ascertainable. And the math 
will tell you that you are only going to cover about 3.7 million 
children with the amount of money allocated.
  The fact is, that last year when Senator Kennedy and I and Senator 
Rockefeller and others introduced legislation to provide health care 
for children, we thought we had an approach. And Senator Hatch and 
others could not find agreement with it. And there have been some 
changes since then. But let me tell you, Mr. President, what else has 
happened since then.
  There are 750,000 additional children who have lost their private 
health insurance in this country in that year that we have not seen fit 
to do what Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch are asking us to do 
today--750,000 additional kids.
  One kid every 35 seconds has lost their health insurance in this 
country. And the fact is, that most of those 10 million kids are the 
sons and daughters of parents who are working. Ninety percent of them 
are working. And the vast majority, about 68 or 69 percent, both 
parents are working and are working full time.
  So why is this necessary, Mr. President? Let me just share with you a 
real-life story from Massachusetts. Jim and Sylvia Pierce were married 
in 1980. They lived in Everett, MA. Jim was a plumber. They had three 
children: Leonard, Brianna, and Alyssa.
  In October 1993, Sylvia was pregnant with her fourth child when Jim 
was murdered on his way home from the store. In that one horrible 
moment, her life changed forever. She not only lost her husband, but, 
pregnant and alone, she lost her health insurance as well. Her 
survivor's benefits made her income too high to be able to qualify for 
long-term Medicaid but it was too low to be able to pay the $400 a 
month premium that would have extended her husband's health plan so 
that it would have covered her children. Result--she lost her health 
insurance, pregnant, and with three children.
  And she said, ``I've always taken good care of my children. I feed 
them well; I take them to the doctors immediately when they need it. 
All of a sudden I couldn't do that anymore.''
  That is what this debate is about, Mr. President. It is about 
families like that that are trying to provide for their children. It is 
about teachers who will tell us again and again that children in a 
school who are disruptive in a class are often the children who have 
not even been diagnosed for an earache or for an eye problem. We are 
the only industrial country on this planet that does not provide health 
care to our children.

  That is unacceptable in 1997. It is unacceptable when we are looking 
at 134 billion dollars' worth of gross tax cuts.
  Mr. President, every person involved with children will tell us the 
value of

[[Page S4791]]

providing health care to those kids so that you can provide the long-
term preventive care and diagnosis necessary to provide them with full 
participation in our society.
  The Journal of the American Medical Association found that children 
with coverage gaps are more likely to lack a continuing and regular 
source of health care, so that if you just have a gap in your coverage, 
the greater likelihood is you are not going to be able to make it up 
and have any kind of long-term preventative care; and that even when 
factors, such as family income, chronic illness, and family mobility 
are factored out, numerous studies by university researchers and by 
Government agencies show that the uninsured are less likely to receive 
preventative care, such as immunizations, more likely to go to 
emergency rooms for their care, more likely to be hospitalized for 
conditions that could have been avoided with proper preventive care, 
and more likely to have longer hospital stays than individuals with 
health insurance.
  So, in other words, the fact that we nickel and dime this and we 
refuse to give them coverage actually winds up costing us a lot more in 
the long run.
  Mr. President, when you really consider the savings in this, this 
ought to be a no-brainer for Members of the Senate. And the fact is, 
the reason we are turning to cigarettes is because cigarettes are the 
greatest saver of all. You can leave aside the fact that the Wall 
Street Journal did a poll that suggested that 72 percent of Americans 
favor this 43-cent tax, but just think about it on the merits.
  The fact is, the public supports this bill because they want children 
to have health insurance and they also understand the rationale for 
increasing the cigarette tax. The cigarette tax is a user fee. For 
three-quarters of Americans they are not going to pay anything 
additional. But for the one-quarter of Americans who do smoke, they 
wind up costing Americans an additional $50 billion in direct costs, 
health care costs as a consequence of that smoking.
  Mr. President, the tobacco taxes in the United States today are the 
lowest in the industrial world. And even if we passed this 43-cent tax 
in order to fund health care for children, we would still be far below 
the tax charged in most of those other countries today.
  There is a rationale for doing this, a rationale that is 
overwhelming.
  In the next 24 hours, 3,000 children are going to start smoking.
  Every 30 seconds a child in the United States starts smoking. And the 
problem is getting worse because smoking among students in grades 9 to 
12 increased by more than 26 percent from 1991 to 1995.
  And although 419,000 smokers die each year of smoker-related 
diseases, the fact is that 89 percent of those who start to smoke by 
the age of 18 are going to be replaced today or the fact is those 
419,000 are going to be replaced by about 1 million new smokers, which 
means that you are going to have about 89 percent of those who are 18 
will have started smoking before that.
  Mr. President, the tobacco tax is known to weed out that early 
smoking. The tobacco tax, according to the American Cancer Institute, 
suggests that 835,000 children's lives would be saved. So that is 
really the choice we face in this vote today. We know that if you raise 
the taxes on cigarettes, the people with the least amount of disposable 
income, which are kids, are less accessible to cigarettes. The fact is, 
if 835,000 lives could be saved and we refuse to take the step today to 
do that, then ask yourself what the complicity is in those additional 
835,000 smokers and deaths that would occur as a consequence.
  Mr. President, this makes sense. This is important in terms of our 
rising to the standards of the rest of the countries in the world, 
industrial countries. It makes sense to save countless tax dollars that 
are spent for those people who die, the 419,000 each year, as a result 
of smoking-related disease. It makes sense because it provides children 
with the opportunity to have the diagnosis of preventive care that 
provides them with a full opportunity to participate in our society.
  I think Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy are absolutely correct when 
they say this is one of the most important votes we will cast. This 
does not blow apart any agreement. Do not let any smokescreen to that 
effect cloud a vote here. This agreement can hold together because this 
amendment provides for revenue and it provides for making up the 
difference of what is taken away. In the end, this agreement could go 
forward, and America's children would benefit as a consequence of that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend, the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. President, we are indeed here for a budget resolution designed to 
ultimately lead to a tax decrease for Americans. Advocating the 
Kennedy-Hatch proposal is a $30 billion tax increase for the American 
people.
  Mr. President, that is not exactly what I thought a Republican 
Congress had in mind in negotiating with the President of the United 
States to reach a balanced budget agreement. All of a sudden we throw 
that out right here in the second day of debate and suggest that we 
raise taxes $30 billion on the American people.
  Now, which people are we suggesting the taxes ought to be raised 
upon, Mr. President? This is a regressive tax against low-income 
Americans. All of my colleagues on the left of the political spectrum 
here are advocating a low-income tax increase of substantial 
significance all across America. It seems to me the worst way, even if 
the Kennedy-Hatch proposal were otherwise something that ought to be 
supported, the worst possible way to finance it by putting a tax on 
low-income Americans. So not only is this a new tax in a budget 
resolution designed to give us an opportunity to lower taxes on the 
American people, it is a tax directed at low-income Americans.
  In addition to that, Mr. President, this is a tax that is targeted at 
a region of the country. It is no secret that tobacco production is 
largely confined to the southeastern part of the United States of 
America. No one, as far as I know, is suggesting that cigarette smoking 
or the production of tobacco be made illegal. Controversial though it 
may be, no one is suggesting it be made illegal.
  So we have in my State over 60,000 tobacco producers engaged in the 
raising of a legal crop for American citizens. The average tobacco 
grower, Mr. President, used to have in Kentucky about three-quarters of 
an acre. It is a little bit higher than that now. The typical tobacco 
producer in my State is a part-time farmer. He probably has a job in a 
factory. His wife probably works in an apparel or cut-and-sew plant, as 
we call them. They raise this tobacco on their own. They cut it and 
strip it on their own. They sell it at auction in November and 
December, and it provides Christmas money, or, for many families, a lot 
more than Christmas. It may be the opportunity to send their kids to 
college. Frequently, these kids going to college are the first in the 
families to have that opportunity.
  Mr. President, 60,000 tobacco producers all across Kentucky are being 
singled out as they raise a legal crop, being singled out to pay for a 
children's health insurance proposal in this budget resolution, and I 
am told by the chairman of the Budget Committee, we have already taken 
care of that. There is $16 billion for children's health insurance in 
this budget proposal already. So what is going on here is, you will 
have a whopping new tax increase on low-income Americans that whacks 
the Southeastern part of the United States the hardest in order to get 
after cigarette smoking.
  Mr. President, I do not smoke. I do not advocate it. I think we need 
to do a better job of keeping cigarettes out of the hands of people who 
are underage. But why in the world should we, in this budget 
resolution, designed, among other things, to give tax relief to the 
American people, whack low-income Americans with a $30 billion tax 
increase is simply beyond my understanding.

  Now, looking at it from a job-loss point of view, Mr. President, from 
a Kentucky jobs point of view, estimates are that there are 78,000 
Kentucky residents who have jobs in sectors linked to the production, 
distribution, and retailing of tobacco products. By increasing the 
Federal excise tax on cigarettes

[[Page S4792]]

by 43 cents per pack, we estimate we would lose 43,000 of those jobs 
and 2,000 of them would be the Kentucky farmers. The total payroll loss 
would be $70 million in my State. Due to declining cigarette sales, 
total State cigarette tax revenues would also drop by just under $7 
million.
  So not only does this proposal advocate a huge tax increase on low-
income Americans, it is also going to lose a significant number of jobs 
in my State and a number of other States across the Southeast all, 
allegedly, to go after a habit that many Americans have, which is not a 
healthy habit, a habit that I do not participate in, but a habit that 
adults are entitled to engage in if they so choose.
  Now, Mr. President, this is a very, very serious proposal before the 
Senate. It will do great harm to my State and other States across the 
Southeast. We do not need to enact this proposal to provide additional 
health insurance for children. That is already provided in the budget 
agreement before the Senate.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate not to adopt this 
amendment. It is a huge tax increase. It is a tax increase against low-
income people. It is a tax increase targeted at a region of the 
country. It will have devastating effects on the economy of my State. I 
strongly urge the Senate not to approve this proposal.
  To reiterate, Mr. President, I support this budget's constructive 
advancement of child health care, but I strongly object to the proposed 
amendment's destructive impact on child welfare in my home State of 
Kentucky.
  This budget makes an up-front commitment to address the needs of 
child health because it is the right thing to do. But it does not place 
the welfare of children at risk in order to score political points 
against Joe Camel. I believe that my colleagues believe that no child 
should be discriminated against in order to benefit another. But the 
Hatch-Kennedy amendment takes this course openly. This amendment makes 
it acceptable to reduce a farm family to abject poverty in order to 
provide a limited health care benefit. This choice is not necessary. 
This budget supports the health care of children without destroying the 
foundation of their family and community.
  As I have mentioned on this floor before, leading tobacco States like 
Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia are not the only States whose 
economies benefit from tobacco. Tobacco is grown on over 124,000 farms 
in 22 States and in Puerto Rico. Tobacco provides jobs to countless 
Americans. The hundreds of thousands of people involved in the tobacco 
industry buy cars built in Michigan, refrigerators built in Iowa, 
computers from California, and insurance from New York companies.
  The smokeless tobacco industry includes thousands of small farmers in 
States like Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 
In many cases, tobacco provides the cash margin that sustains a 
diversified family farm operation. Smokeless tobacco companies employ 
workers in States like Kentucky, Connecticut, Wisconsin, New Jersey, 
West Virginia, Tennessee, and Illinois. Many tobacco product 
distributors are in States like Texas and Georgia. With the inevitable 
loss of those jobs, the economic harm will be far-reaching throughout 
the larger farm and rural communities associated with tobacco.
  The billions of tax dollars supplied by the many facets of the 
tobacco industry support schools, pay for roads--help build America. 
Where will these funds come from now? Whose taxes are you going to 
raise next?
  This amendment will raise excise taxes on all tobacco products 
including cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and snuff. This represents a 
179-percent increase from the current 24 cents per pack Federal tax on 
cigarettes; a 569-percent increase on chewing tobacco from 36 cents to 
$2.41 per pound; and a 4,975-percent increase on snuff from 12 cents to 
$6.09 per pound. I am unaware of any other product that has been 
subjected to such outrageous tax increases. The economic repercussions 
of these taxes are far-reaching in terms of the severe economic 
disruption they will cause.
  Excise taxes are regressive and discriminatory. Regressive, because 
the burden of paying them falls heaviest on low-income Americans. In 
1987, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] called consumer excise 
taxes the most regressive type of tax. CBO singles out tobacco excise 
taxes as the most regressive of all estimating that lower income 
persons pay 15 times more in tobacco taxes as a percentage of income 
than upper income individuals. A 1993 study by the Council of State 
Governments calls tobacco a worn-out tax source.
  The tax on these products will be devastating to those Americans 
whose household income is less than $30,000.
  Thousands of American jobs will be affected with such increased taxes 
in the form of lost wages and reduced spending, for example, local 
banks, farm equipment dealers, seed and feed stores, gas stations, 
grocery stores, and clothing stores.
  A 43-cent-per-pack increase in the Federal excise tax increases the 
total Federal excise tax to 67 cents per pack and boosts the total 
Federal, State, and local excise tax to around $1 per pack. A 50-cent-
per-pack increase for cigarettes would cause cigarette consumption to 
decline by about 11 percent. A decline of this magnitude would reduce 
total burley consumption in the United States by about 40 million 
pounds. Kentucky produced about 420 million pounds last year. Last year 
the average price per pound was about $1.90 per pound, this would 
result in a loss of $76 million in farm income.
  The American Economics Group, Inc. [AEG] estimates that 78,280 
Kentucky residents have jobs in sectors linked to the production, 
distribution, and retailing of tobacco products. By increasing the 
Federal excise tax on cigarettes by 43 cents per pack approximately 
4,310 of these jobs would be lost, 2,019 would be farmers. Total 
payroll loss would be $70 million. Due to declining cigarette sales, 
total State cigarette tax revenues will drop by $6.7 million.
  Tens of thousands of Kentuckians earn a living from the growing, 
harvesting, manufacturing, and marketing of tobacco products. 
Additionally, nearly $130 million of Kentucky's tax revenue relates to 
tobacco production, and local governments receive approximately $5.5 
million in property taxes from the value of the quota system alone. 
Where will this tax revenue come from when Kentucky farmers are taxed 
out of existence?
  Mr. President, if this tax increase is passed, who is going to pay 
their bills, provide them with job opportunities, and pay their health 
care? Who? If this tax increase is passed, you will see a ripple effect 
that will be devastating to rural communities in Kentucky.
  Supporters of the Hatch-Kennedy amendment have spoken often of the 
health care needs of America's children. For Kentucky families, the 
health of their children is not limited to an insurance benefit. The 
health of our communities and our families is directly related to the 
health of our children. For Kentucky's rural towns and counties, 
tobacco is their lifeblood.
  This amendment will dramatically impact the ability of Kentucky 
farmers to provide a living for their families. The tremendous loss of 
income will affect whole communities. Most tobacco farmers operate on 
borrowed money from the local bank. Where farmers have been in a 
position to diversify, they have done so but they have borrowed the 
money and use tobacco income to pay back the loans. Land values will 
decline. Bankers are going to be less likely to make loans. Rural 
communities will be decimated.
  Mr. President, the farmers in my State of Kentucky and across the 
country are real people, people with feelings, and people who are hard 
working. The income they generate does not go toward a lavish 
lifestyle. The money is used to put food on the table, pay the 
mortgage, keep the car running, support the church, educate their 
children, and makes Santa Claus real at Christmas.
  For over 200 years, tobacco has played an integral role in Kentucky's 
history and economy. More burley tobacco is grown in Kentucky than 
anywhere in the world. The average farmer grows less than three acres 
of tobacco, and there is no other crop which provides the income 
tobacco does on such small acreage. The economics of this intensively 
managed crop do not transfer to planting soybeans, peanuts, or corn. 
There have been attempts to replace tobacco production with other 
crops; however, almost none are economically sustaining.

[[Page S4793]]

  In eastern Kentucky the impact will be particularly devastating. 
These are proud, and hardworking families with few alternatives. Their 
farms are small and tobacco is their only form of income.
  Tobacco is one of the most economically productive crops for the type 
of soil we have in Kentucky, and researchers have yet been unable to 
find a viable alternative.
  Tobacco is a traditional crop for my home State, but Kentuckians do 
not grow it simply to keep a tradition alive. Tobacco is a hard, labor 
intensive crop. Imagine the strength and sweat it takes to cut and 
spear a pound plant in the heat and humidity of a southern August day. 
Now imagine repeating that effort until--pounds of tobacco are cut, 
hauled, and hung in the barn for curing. Kentuckians grow tobacco 
because no other crop provides the same level of economic return.

  Forcing farmers to leave tobacco for an unsuitable crop is 
irresponsible and will cause irreparable damage to thousands of 
Kentuckians.
  We have too many big-picture economists and self-appointed experts 
who say farmers can find something else to grow, few have ever been to 
a tobacco farm to even know what it looks like. If they would go with 
me to Morgan, Owsley, or Wolfe Counties, where over three-fourths of 
their farm income comes from tobacco, it becomes very clear why I say 
there are not many alternatives. Twenty-three counties, all in eastern 
Kentucky, rely on tobacco for more than one-half of their farm income.
  Owsley County--88 percent of farm income is from tobacco.
  Wolfe County--80 percent of farm income is from tobacco.
  Morgan County--75 percent of farm income is from tobacco.
  If they could diversify they would. In western Kentucky, where the 
land is flat, they are growing tomatoes and peppers. In central 
Kentucky, they have beef and dairy cattle. But in eastern Kentucky, the 
choices are coal, tobacco, or welfare. The options simply are not 
there, no matter what the experts say.
  Beyond the farm gate, tobacco farming is immensely important to 
hundreds of small rural communities. Without the tobacco program the 
value of farmland would fall dramatically, local tax bases would be 
wiped out, and the loss of income from leasing the tobacco quota or 
growing the crop would reduce the standard of living dramatically 
across my State.
  The real travesty of an excise tax increase would be the impact on 
family farmers who have been helping to stabilize and revitalize our 
rural communities. In Bath County nearly 50 percent of all personal 
income comes from tobacco sales. That means it keeps a steady flow of 
money going into the community.
  If this tax goes through, how are tobacco farmers going to pay the 
local truck dealership, church, the farm equipment store, the seed and 
fertilizer store, the local independent bank, and all the other 
important elements in the community.
  There is just no disputing the fact that Kentucky burley brings in 
far more money than any other crop raised in the State.
  The average Kentucky tobacco farmer gets about $3,500 in revenue from 
an acre of tobacco, but that same acre generates nearly $37,500 in 
excise taxes for Federal, State, and local governments.
  Other sectors will be impacted by this outrageous tax increase such 
as convenience stores. The convenience store industry is concerned that 
the large tax increase on tobacco products will invite substantial tax 
evasion, and concurrently, expand the underground market for tobacco 
products. They are also very concerned about the increase of security 
risks for convenience stores and other tobacco retailers.
  In many retail formats, including convenience stores the value of 
tobacco inventory will dramatically increase. Cigarettes are already 
being locked up in grocery stores because of the shrinkage and theft 
risk that they pose.
  In fact, the convenience store industry has already seen many cases 
in which, because the amount of money in the cash register is kept low, 
an armed robber has opted to rob cigarettes. With such increased excise 
taxes, a carton of cigarettes will be the most expensive item in any 
convenience store. This poses serious security concerns.
  Mr. President, and colleagues, I do not use tobacco products. 
However, the proposed increased excise tax on tobacco products will 
impact me and every nonsmoker across the country. The excise taxes on 
tobacco products, as proposed will have a dramatic impact: jobs will be 
lost, sales and income tax revenues to the local, State, and Federal 
governments will be lost, unemployment will increase, businesses will 
shut down, and family farmers will go bankrupt. The men and women who 
grow tobacco, who rely on the money from tobacco, cannot bear this 
unfair tax.
  I do not believe it is fair or equitable to single out one industry 
or region to finance such a proposal.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I yield a minute off the 
bill and 4 minutes from our time to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. A couple of 
quick points that ought to be made. This amendment, the amendment of 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch, reduces the budget deficit. I hope 
that point has been made. It does reduce it by $10 billion. That is 
specifically the amount. It does not change a single spending cut or 
tax cut that has been proposed in the budget agreement. It does none of 
that whatever, and it is consistent with what is already in the budget 
agreement. It would help children that do not have health insurance. It 
is very complementary to the budget resolution.
  Let me say this. When I went to West Virginia 33 years ago, I went as 
something called a VISTA volunteer, sort of an untrained social worker 
trying to do good in West Virginia. I worked in a small coal mining 
community, and my life at that point was involved entirely with 
children who did not have any health insurance, or any education, for 
that matter, because the schoolbus would not come to pick them up.
  Something that has stayed with me forever, since I was a VISTA 
volunteer, which I have acted on in terms of moral angst and fervor 
since then, has been the condition of children, particularly regarding 
health care. I have to report that the children of the children with 
whom I was a VISTA volunteer do not have health insurance. In fact, 12 
percent of our children in West Virginia do not have any health 
insurance.
  We talk about the most industrialized nation in the world, and that 
is true, but when you think of certain situations on a case-by-case 
basis, how can it be that, as a society that has our resources and our 
capacity, that takes 10 million children, and says they cannot have 
health insurance even though the majority of their parents are working, 
it is not fair. America and democracy are based like the progressive 
income tax, on a concept of fairness. To take 10 million children, most 
of whom have a parent or parents working, playing by the rules, paying 
taxes, and saying you cannot have health insurance because the person 
for whom your parent works does not provide health insurance and you, 
on your own, cannot afford it, and therefore you--this particular 
child--are not going to have health insurance, is fundamentally morally 
repugnant. I think every Senator, in fact, would agree with that.
  So here we have a marvelous opportunity to help them, and not only to 
help them in this amendment, but to help them in the budget agreement.
  Mr. President, if your heart does not persuade you to this position, 
your head ought to. That point has been made. That is, we are talking 
about preventive medicine for the budget in the future, as well as 
preventive medicine for children in our immediate time. How can we 
expect these children to excel at school; how can we expect them to 
perform at school and learn the skills they need if they do not have 
basic health insurance?
  Between 1987 and 1995 the percentage of children with job-based 
insurance actually declined from 67 to 50 percent. Every minute that 
goes by, another child loses his or her private insurance.
  This is the year that can make history for Republicans and Democrats 
alike. It can be the year remembered as the one we prove that we can do 
something, together, about a problem we all

[[Page S4794]]

acknowledge, we all know doesn't make sense, and we all say needs a 
response.
  I want to congratulate the Hatch-Kennedy amendment because it takes 
the next step. Senators Hatch and Kennedy once again have paved the way 
for true bipartisan, common sense action in an area where Americans are 
very clear. Children count. Even better news is that this partnership 
of two Senators reflects broadening support and momentum that now must 
build into real results. The budget resolution before us includes $16 
billion to expand health care. Money that can fund the Medicaid-based 
bill that Senator Chafee and I have proposed to expand coverage for 
children, with the bipartisan support of many of our colleagues.

  This amendment should pass. The Hatch-Kennedy amendment takes the 
next step, with the money to make it possible to get most or all 
uninsured children the health care they need.
  I am in the leadership on the Democratic side over here, and I am 
voting against virtually all amendments to protect the integrity of the 
budget agreement. But this amendment, as Senator Hatch said, is a big 
daddy. It is a big, big daddy. We are discussing health care, again, on 
the Senate floor, and we are discussing it for children, which is the 
place where we ought to be beginning.
  I have spent too many years in a State that I love, in a country that 
I love, as president of the National Commission on Children, going 
around this country, going around my State, seeing children who do not 
have health insurance, seeing what happens to them, to not be extremely 
supportive of an opportunity to pass an amendment and to cure that 
problem.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to yield to Senator Faircloth 
such time as he needs. I yield up to 10 minutes.
  Parliamentary inquiry, how much time does each side have on the 
amendment itself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the amendment, the Senator from New Mexico 
has 28 minutes and 52 seconds, and the Senator from Utah has 20 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We do intend on our side to use time off the bill in 
further debate so Senators should not be concerned on our side about 
the 28 minutes. I will yield off the bill.
  We should be debating back and forth, and when it is our turn again, 
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Judd Gregg be recognized to speak 
next and he be given up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to voice strong opposition to 
this amendment because it simply is another tax on the American family. 
It is a tax increase, Mr. President, nothing more.
  This is a $30 billion solution to a far less expensive problem. The 
budget agreement already sets aside $16 billion over 5 years for 
children's health insurance. That will extend coverage to 5 million 
uninsured children.
  Further, there are 3 million children that are now covered under 
Medicaid who, quite simply, have not yet been signed up. There are 
estimates of 2 million more uninsured children, and, of course, they 
can be covered for far less than $30 billion. Consequently, Mr. 
President, this $30 billion tax package is nothing more than an old-
fashioned tax increase.
  We sit here and we hear it is a great opportunity. However, Mr. 
President, has there ever been a tax increase that was not an 
opportunity to further gouge the working people of this country? Sure, 
it is always good politics to give a speech about tobacco, and the 
cameras love it. But this vote is not about tobacco, Mr. President, it 
is about a tax increase. It is not about children, Mr. President, it is 
about another tax increase on the American people.

  I remember sitting in the House Chamber at President Clinton's State 
of the Union Address in 1995. He said that ``the era of big Government 
is over.'' The President campaigned for a middle-class tax cut in 1992 
and 1996.
  I recall that we insisted that Government live within its means. I 
remember that the people wanted less Government, not more. That is what 
the election was about. We told them we would balance the budget and 
cut taxes.
  Mr. President, nobody campaigned on a $30 billion tax increase, but 
we did campaign to cut taxes. The President did, too. This tax increase 
would reduce the net tax cut to $55 billion. That is not the tax cut 
that we promised the American people. We promised to do better, and we 
can do better. The American people deserve better than a watered down 
tax cut. We give with one hand and we take with the other.
  This $30 billion tax increase is not the sole cost to the American 
people of this bill. No, Mr. President, the costs go farther. Tobacco 
is used in the calculation of the Consumer Price Index. Since the tax 
will increase the cost of tobacco, the Consumer Price Index will rise, 
too. A portion of the Federal budget is based upon the Consumer Price 
Index. This will have an impact of $4 billion over 5 years. This is 
$1.4 billion over 5 years in lost Federal tax revenue, lost revenue, 
and another $2.6 billion over 5 years in increased expenditures due to 
the CPI rise.
  This is a plan that attaches a $30 billion tax increase to an 
unfunded mandate no less. It will force additional costs upon the 
States. Not only will it cost the States more money, it is going to dry 
up one of their major sources of revenue, tobacco tax revenues. This 
$30 billion tax increase will reduce sales, and that drop will reduce 
the tax revenues to the States by $6.5 billion.
  The first bill we passed in 1995 was the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. 
It passed the Senate with 86 votes. But this is simply an unfunded 
mandate coming around the backside disguised as something else.
  It is like all of these new programs that come out of Washington. At 
first the Federal Government picks up a major portion of it. However, 
when the costs of the new program rise, the States will be responsible 
for the ever-growing difference between the Federal Government share 
and the program costs.
  The entire proposal is just another unfunded mandate, a new law 
thrust upon the States, and one not paid for in Washington.
  This amendment places more than 30 new mandates on participating 
States. Thirty new mandates. It requires all State plans to be approved 
by the Department of Health and Human Services. This means more big 
Government, more bureaucracy. If States fund abortions through their 
Medicaid Program, for example, this will force them to pay for 
abortions for teenagers that come in under this new program. The States 
cannot set up two different sets of benefits.
  Like every other Federal program, the costs will go through the roof, 
and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag to pay the bill.
  Why? So we can run back home and tell people we stood up against 
tobacco. We will not go back and tell them that we levied a $30 billion 
new tax on them and drove some farmers from the land. We were strong. 
We stood up against tobacco.
  But this is the type of unfunded mandate that we were supposed to 
stop with S. 1 in 1995. But just 2 years after we passed it, here we go 
around the back to pass another mandate on the States. And that is 
simply what this is.
  Mr. President, I also hear some grumbling about the small tax cuts in 
this budget package. I think the tax cuts are too small for working 
families, of course, but some of the grumbling comes from Senators who 
are concerned about the ``distribution'' of the tax cut. Mr. President, 
the cigarette tax is the most regressive tax on the Federal books.
  Families making under $30,000 per year earn 16 percent of the 
national family income. They pay slightly over 1 percent of the Federal 
income taxes. But they pay 47 percent of the tobacco excise tax. This 
bill increase taxes on families making less than $30,000. We are going 
to increase their taxes by $230 a year.
  If we were thinking about putting a tax increase on families making 
less than $30,000 a year from any other source than tobacco, the Senate 
would rise up in righteous revolution. Yet, under the guise of getting 
the tobacco farmers, so many of them acquiesced.
  These taxes are so regressive that high- and low-income families pay 
almost exactly the same amount of tax rather than the same rate of tax.
  This is the most regressive tax on the books. I find it odd that some 
of the

[[Page S4795]]

biggest supporters are the same people preaching equity in the tax 
relief package. If ever there was an inequitable tax, this is it, but I 
don't hear their complaints.
  Mr. President, we have a plan that raises taxes by $30 billion, and 
changes the Consumer Price Index to result in $1.4 billion in lost 
Federal revenues, and $2.6 billion in increased Federal spending. It 
reduces State tax revenues by $6.5 billion, and it wipes out 30,000 
jobs, which means hardship and pain for families across the South.
  So, in an attempt to insure 2 million children, we are looking at a 
$40 billion package.
  I support efforts to bring coverage to these children, but this is 
not the right approach, and the taxpayers deserve a seat at the table 
here.
  I ran for the Senate and promised the people of my State that I would 
not vote for any tax increase under any circumstances at any time for 
anything. I intend to live by my commitment and to oppose this massive 
tax increase and assault on North Carolina farm families with all the 
strength within me.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Washington off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the pending 
amendment. I am pleased to join with the Senators from Utah and 
Massachusetts in supporting this bipartisan effort to launch one of the 
most important health initiatives since the creation of Medicare in 
1965.
  At the start of the 105th Congress both the Democratic and Republican 
leadership included comprehensive children's health insurance 
legislation on their agendas for action. I applauded this decision and 
believe that the amendment before us today moves us closer to enacting 
universal children's health care legislation.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee I have been 
actively involved in the negotiations and difficult decision, that 
resulted in this bipartisan balanced budget agreement which will 
control spending, encourage economic development and balance the budget 
in 2002. And I have been an adamant proponent of Medicaid and the need 
to maintain the health safety net for millions of children, pregnant 
women, the disabled, and senior citizens. Because of my role in the 
development of this agreement I recognize the fact that there is little 
room in the current confines of the budget to significantly expand 
Medicaid or other health discretionary programs to serve the 10\1/2\ 
million children who today lack any health care coverage. We cannot 
simply turn our backs on these children and their working parents. If 
children are truly our priority, we must be more creative in finding 
appropriate solutions.
  The amendment before us will do just that. It will allow for an 
increase in the cigarette tax to fund a program that helps working 
parents purchase health insurance for their children or offset the cost 
of premiums, copayments or deductible for employer provided health 
insurance. It does not create a new Federal entitlement program--it 
relies on the private insurance market as opposed to a Government run 
plan. In many ways it is very similar to the structure of the Medicare 
Program which we all know is one of the most successful public/private 
programs currently administered by the Federal Government.
  This amendment will not hinder the enactment of a balanced budget 
plan. It does not add one dime to the deficit, as it is entirely funded 
through the cigarette tax. It is fiscally responsible and does not 
violate any part of the bipartisan balanced budget agreement.
  Some are arguing that we do not need to enact this act as the 
agreement will provide an additional coverage for 5 million children. 
While this is an important first step, who wants to tell those other 
5\1/2\ million children that they will lose in this agreement? These 
are real children who are in our classrooms, in our homes, in our 
streets, and in our communities.
  Today, we have the chance to provide real security for working 
families and to make a positive step forward for all children in our 
country. I believe we have a moral obligation as adults to address the 
growing health care crisis facing these 10\1/2\ million children, 
children who have no direct access to quality comprehensive health 
care, children whose only exposure to health care is the emergency 
room. In town hall meetings and community meetings across my State, the 
people I represent have told me that children and their future must be 
our priority.
  Mr. President, I think it is important for us to realize that, if 
enacted, this proposal would actually have a more positive impact on 
the deficit than will ever be scored by CBO. A sick child cannot 
succeed in the classroom and becomes an unhealthy adult with few 
economic opportunities. As we learned a long time ago from the WIC 
Program, a little prevention goes a long way. Providing affordable 
comprehensive health insurance coverage for millions of children will 
pay huge dividends in the future. It does little good to help 
communities develop the classroom of the 21st century when children are 
suffering from diseases and illnesses of the 19th century.
  I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment so that we 
can move one step closer to ensuring that no child goes without 
necessary medical treatment and that every parent who works hard can 
provide health security for their children.
  Today, let us make the same commitment to our children that we have 
made to senior citizens by protecting the solvency of the Medicare 
system. I urge adoption of this important amendment.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 20 minutes; the 
Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield myself such time as I may consume off the 
underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the proposal that 
has been brought forward by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I oppose it on a variety of different levels, and let me 
talk about them.
  First off, let us go back to where we stand here. We have before us a 
budget agreement, a bipartisan budget agreement that was worked out in 
negotiations, extensive negotiations, between the White House, the 
Republican leadership of the House and Senate, and the Democratic 
leadership of the House and Senate, at least relative to the Budget 
Committee, and that agreement included in it language to address the 
issue of uncovered children who are of a low income. Let us define the 
size of this issue for a second because there has been a lot of 
misrepresentation on this so far on this floor.
  There are about 9.8 million kids who it is believed do not have 
insurance, or about 13.8 percent of the child population of the 
country. Of that group, 3.7 million are qualified to be covered by 
Medicaid. In other words, under the law that we presently have, they 
really do have insurance; they just have not been brought in under 
Medicaid. So we do not need a new law to cover those kids. And of that 
number, that 9.8, we have reduced it now by 3.7 and you are down to 
6.1. Of that 6.1 that is left, about 2.9 million are over 200 percent 
of poverty--over 200 percent of poverty--which means that the family 
has an income of some ability and for some reason they are not using 
that income to cover those children.
  So the number of kids that are under 200 percent of poverty who are 
uncovered by Medicaid is really 3.2 million. So that is the population 
we are talking about.
  Now, in this bill, the bipartisan agreement that was reached, 
approximately $16 billion was set aside to cover children of low income 
who are not covered. That is a very significant commitment and 
certainly more than enough money to pick up 2.9 million children--to 
pick up the 3.2 million children who are uncovered today and to also 
make sure that in the Medicaid accounts we can pick up those children

[[Page S4796]]

who are covered today under Medicaid but have not been brought in under 
Medicaid.
  So this bill as it is proposed, as it was brought forward, the 
bipartisan agreement as it was brought forward already had in it a very 
substantial commitment to children who do not have health insurance who 
are in low-income families.

  What else would you expect? Essentially, one of the great insults of 
this amendment, one of the great insults of this amendment is it is 
saying that the President of the United States, who reached this 
agreement on this budget, does not care about children, does not care 
about uninsured children. Essentially, that is what one of the 
underlying tones of this amendment is. Or I suspect some of the authors 
of this amendment feel this way anyway, that the Republicans do not 
care about uncovered children, which I would argue is totally 
inaccurate and inappropriate but maybe from a partisan standpoint is a 
point made.
  It is ironic that one of the elements of this proposal is a 
representation that the bipartisan budget package, which has in it $16 
billion specifically directed at children who are not presently 
receiving health care insurance and who are in low-income families, is 
not enough, that the President did not know what he was doing; that he 
does not care; therefore, we have to have this brand new layer placed 
on top of the package.
  It really is a position which is hard to defend just on its face. But 
on the face of its indefensibility let us go into the substance of it 
because the substance of this proposal is totally indefensible.
  There has been a representation made that this is a discretionary 
program. If this is a discretionary program, my golf game is the same 
as Tiger Woods'. They are about as closely related. The fact is that 
this is not a discretionary program or anywhere near in the ballpark of 
discretionary programs. This is a mandatory unfunded mandate on the 
States. It is a mandatory program on the Federal Government. It is a 
program which is grossly underestimated in its cost because of the 
impact it will have on the marketplace in taking kids who are already 
in the private-sector insurance realm and moving them onto the public-
sector realm.
  It is a classic big Government solution to a problem which ironically 
the bipartisan budget agreement has addressed not only with dollars but 
with initiatives to try to give the States the creativity to take this 
issue on and which the States are today actually taking on and 
resolving. And I will get into that in a second.
  But let us go back to this complete red herring, that this is some 
sort of discretionary program. Now, the proposal as it comes to us is 
in vague terms so we have to go back to the bill that was introduced by 
the Senators who are the authors of this agreement in order to find the 
underlying language which defines the program. That bill is not 
included but it is obviously assumed, and if you go back to section 
2802 of that bill, this sets up the new entitlement. In the bill in 
this section a State must--it does not say ``may.'' ``May'' is a 
discretionary word. ``Shall'' is not a discretionary word.
  It says, ``The States shall guarantee issuance of Medicaid level 
benefits to all eligible children.'' And not only do they say 
``shall,'' they cover that ``shall'' with all sorts of restrictions; 39 
times in this bill the States are told what to do. They shall do this, 
they shall do that, they shall do this. Every time it says that, every 
time it says that in the bill, it is a mandate, and every time it says 
it in the bill it is a major cost. Section 2803 is where the shalls 
begin.
  Now, not only are the folks who drafted this bill not satisfied with 
creating a mandate on the States--and I will get into the unfunded 
aspect in a second--not only are they unsatisfied with creating a 
mandate on the States, they decided let's create a new mandate. Let's 
do it the old-fashioned way. Let's not only mandate what the States 
have to do. Let's mandate the private sector at the same time.
  This bill includes a private-sector mandate that says essentially, 
depending on how a State defines its Medicaid eligibility rules, every 
private employer in the State must supply health care benefits at the 
same level as Medicaid to children.
  Wow. This is a big-time, old-fashioned Government proposal. This is 
right out of the old 1960's school of Lyndon Johnson, how you make 
Government gigantic and how you make Government not work, I would point 
out, because one of the things we found out is that when we create one 
of these massive new entitlements that absorbs a whole area of activity 
under Federal control--and this entitlement does exactly that, 
basically giving unbelievable authority to HHS, eliminating waivers for 
Medicaid, grandfathering the HHS regulatory structure. When you do 
that, what happens is that you create major Federal programs which 
fail.
  Why do they fail? Because all the knowledge does not happen to come 
out of Washington. And what is happening in the States today is that 
you are seeing a tremendous amount of creative initiative to try to 
cover these kids who need to be covered.
  There is no argument about coverage here. The bipartisan budget 
agreement states there will be coverage. The argument is about whether 
or not you are going to do it with a massive new federally dominated, 
directed, controlled and managed program or whether you are going to do 
it by allowing the States the flexibility of initiating programs and 
addressing the issue of the concerns of these kids.

  This bill creates a brandnew, major Federal entitlement. It is not 
only a Federal entitlement in the classic sense of an entitlement on 
the States; as I mentioned, it is an entitlement that forces the 
private employer to take action, and that is a mandate, an unfunded 
mandate.
  Of course, the first action which this Congress took when the 
Republicans took control of it was to say that we were not going to 
create unfunded mandates anymore. At least, if we were, we were going 
to require a supermajority. So this bill should be subject to a 
supermajority if it ever came up for a vote. But whether it is or not, 
it undermines the intent, which was to stop putting mandates on the 
States that are unfunded.
  Now, why is this unfunded? Because, of course, there is this dollar 
figure that is attached to this. It is an additional $20 billion which 
is paid for by the cigarette tax--which is not the issue I am 
addressing, the cigarette tax. It is unfunded because of the way it is 
structured. It guarantees that the cost of this health care package 
will exceed the amount of money that is in the proposal--guarantees it. 
All we need to do is look at history. All we need to do is look at the 
CBO estimations of what would happen if you applied Medicaid coverage 
to a full group, to this targeted population. We know that the 
practical effect of that will be to exceed $20 billion by who knows how 
much, but it will be a heck of a lot.
  So what you have created is an unfunded mandate. You have created a 
cap that says, all right, States, the Federal Government will require 
you to pay this money. We know it is not enough money, but we are going 
to require you to pay it. Then when we go over the amount of money that 
we are going to put into the package, well, you have to pay it 
yourself. You have to pay the difference. Unfunded mandate. And some 
will say, well, that cannot be.
  Why would that be any different? If that is the case, doesn't the 
present budget agreement understate the amount of money that is 
necessary to cover these children? Well, the difference here is in the 
insidiousness of this agreement, of this proposal in its ability to 
draw people into a Federal program. Because the way this proposal is 
drafted, it absolutely guarantees for all intents and purposes that 
people will be moving out of private-sector coverage and into the 
public-sector coverage, that a lot of children who are today being 
covered by their employers, by their parents' employers are going to 
end up moving over to be covered by the Government.
  Why is that? Because it is requiring a one-size-fits-all health care 
package be applied to all children, all children who fall in this 
income category, but, even more importantly, under the way this bill is 
drafted and interpreted, applying that same package could be required 
upon all employers within a State. So you are going to have a dramatic, 
what

[[Page S4797]]

is known as woodwork effect, where people move from the private sector 
coverage into the public sector coverage. It is just going to be 
overwhelming.

  What employer in their right mind is going to say, ``OK, I am going 
to continue covering this parent's children,'' when the employer is 
already paying a huge tax burden and the Government is being told that 
they must cover this child if this child is not covered by the 
employer. Very few will be so altruistic. For all intents and purposes, 
what we are doing is federalizing the health care system--nationalizing 
the health care system, not federalizing; this is no Federal program, 
this is a national program--nationalizing the health care system for 
all children, for all intents and purposes, who fall into this 
category, the majority of whom, today--the majority of whom, today, are 
covered by private-sector insurance. So, the open-ended cost of this 
program is absolutely staggering--staggering. And the concept that the 
costs will be controlled to $20 billion is absurd on its face, equal in 
absurdity only to the claim that this is some sort of discretionary 
program.
  How does our bipartisan budget agreement, which the President has 
signed on to and which tries to address these children's concerns, 
approach this issue? Essentially, what it does is acknowledge the fact 
that in the States there are some things going on that are working. 
Take my State of New Hampshire, for example. There are 33 States, I 
believe, that are pursuing this type of approach. Recognizing we have a 
targeted uncovered population that needs to be covered, we have set up 
this program called Healthy Kids. This is a partnership between the 
private-sector insurers and the State. In fact, at the present time it 
is hardly costing the State anything because it has gotten the private-
sector insurers to come in and cover these children.
  In the targeted area where they are doing the demonstration program, 
50 percent of the kids who would fall into the uninsured categories 
which this bill alleges it is trying to cover are being covered at 
essentially no additional cost to the taxpayer--50 percent. It is a 
darned successful program. It would not be able to continue under this 
bill. All 33 States that have initiated creative programs to address 
children's health insurance would have their programs wiped out because 
we in Washington have decided to take over the issue, to nationalize 
the issue with this proposal put forward by our colleagues. So, a 
program which is insuring 50 percent of these kids at no cost to the 
taxpayers will be replaced by a program that will draw a whole new 
group of kids out of the private sector into the public sector to be 
covered and will, in the process, drive up costs dramatically and 
increase the taxpayers' costs dramatically, and, I would point out, for 
that 50 percent of the kids who presently have coverage under the 
Healthy Kids Program, will have almost no impact on their quality of 
health care.
  So, what our bipartisan budget proposal puts forward--not ours, the 
one put forward by the President and the leadership of the Senate and 
the House--is to allow these types of initiatives to proceed; not with 
as much flexibility as I like, and I may offer an amendment to give 
these States more flexibility, but with a heck of a lot more 
flexibility than is proposed by this straitjacket of mandated unfunded 
mandates in this bill that is the underlying essence of this proposal.
  So, why not let the States try to do it? Why not say to the States: 
All right, there is a population out there that is not covered. See 
what sort of programs you can come up with to cover them and meet these 
limited criteria, criteria that they have to be covered under a certain 
health care structure. It is working, working in 33 States, but it will 
not work after this bill is passed.
  Let me read part of a letter I received from the deputy commissioner 
of health and human services in New Hampshire, who is a professional. 
She is not a political appointee. She is a professional. She was 
looking at this question of how we address these kids who are in need, 
and thinking of the Healthy Kids programs that we have in New Hampshire 
and evaluating the various programs. Here is what she stated was the 
core of the need, in the way the Congress should approach this issue. 
She says:

       Consideration must be given to balancing the financial 
     incentives provided in the States to implement health care 
     expansion while retaining sufficient flexibility for 
     innovation. There are multiple [multiple, a word which 
     appears to have escaped the concept of this bill] multiple 
     strategies to extend health care coverage to the uninsured, 
     including preventive, catastrophic coverage options. Please 
     recognize the efforts that are currently underway in many 
     States across this Nation and their value in promoting our 
     common goal, extending health care to those that currently 
     have none.

  Basically, what she is saying is what I suspect every administrator 
of health care at every State agency of health and human services would 
say if you asked them. It is their goal to cover the kids who are not 
covered. What the bipartisan budget agreement does is fund that 
ability. What the proposal before us does is deny that ability, 
relative to flexibility at the State level, and to take out of the 
hands of the States the ability to manage this issue in any way, shape 
or manner, and to nationalize the health care delivery of--essentially 
all children who fall within this income category, but potentially even 
a dramatically larger group of people, if the bill is applied to 
private employers, as I happen to believe it will end up being under 
its present language.

  So, this bill--which is brought forward to us as some sort of 
proposal that is a discretionary program just meant to help kids who do 
not have coverage--will, in my opinion, have the practical effect of 
not only not accomplishing its goal, because it is certainly not 
discretionary--and I do not think it is going to help any more kids 
than would be helped under the bipartisan budget agreement structure as 
is proposed--but it would create a massive new entitlement, a massive 
new unfunded mandate, a massive new federally directed regulatory 
structure, and would essentially emasculate the private sector's 
efforts to respond to this area, and private insurance as it presently 
covers these children.
  I can't think of any program which would be more counterproductive 
and, put in the context of the history of other nationalization 
efforts, will be less successful than that. I mean, essentially we have 
been down this road. We have been down this road and we found this type 
of approach to solving national problems does not work. Having the 
Federal Government come in and take things over does not work. This 
budget agreement attempts to address this issue constructively. It 
funds, at the level of $16 billion, children who do not have health 
insurance coverage, yet it leaves some modicum of flexibility with the 
States to address the issue. So, I find this proposal to be not only 
not compelling, but to be extraordinarily counterproductive to its 
underlying goal, which is to obtain fiscal responsibility and to cover 
children who do not have health insurance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see Senator Mikulski and Senator Reed, 
who have been very patient and want to address the Senate on this 
issue. But I see my friend and colleague and principal sponsor, Senator 
Hatch, on the floor. I would like to take maybe 2 minutes in response 
to the Senator from New Hampshire, but I will be glad to yield to the 
Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, 
and also the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.
  I was very interested listening to the Senator from New Hampshire, 
his journey from 10.5 million unfunded children, down to the 3.2 
million he says are truly uninsured. First off, the Senator says that 
3.7 million are Medicaid eligible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Utah speaking on his time?
  Mr. HATCH. I am speaking on Senator Kennedy's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. First of all he says he's down to 3.2 million that he says 
they are truly uninsured. First off, the Senator says the 3.7 million 
are Medicaid

[[Page S4798]]

eligible. That's what he said. But here is what the CBO said: 10.5 
million uninsured kids, 3 million Medicaid--let me just read it right 
out of there. Here is what the CBO says:

       According to widely quoted estimates, about 10.5 million 
     children through the age of 18, or 14 percent, are uninsured. 
     At least 3 million of them are thought to be eligible for 
     Medicaid.

  That is the CBO. That is what we rely upon around here. So my friend 
from New Hampshire is using numbers somewhat different from the CBO. I 
still do not understand how anyone can seriously believe that $16 
billion is adequate to take care of 10.5 million uninsured kids. I will 
go into that for just a minute, but let me just say this.
  First of all, the amendment we filed is not a bill, it is strictly 
numbers. A bill will have to be formed from it. The question is whether 
we should fund beyond the $16 billion provided for in this bill--which 
I praise, but which is totally inadequate to do what many of us in this 
body would like to do, including many on this side. Over time, I think 
that will be the case.
  Let me just make this case. By the way, talking about mandates, that 
is not part of our amendment. It was not part of our bill either. I 
might add, it is pretty tough to call a block grant to the States with 
the States setting eligibility standards a great big bunch of new 
Federal bureaucratic Lyndon Johnson type things. We fought very hard to 
get to a block grant status.
  I remember the same type of arguments I went through on child care a 
number of years ago, until it passed unanimously on the floor here. The 
reason it did is because it was right and it did what was right. And 
our goals here are right. And they do what is right. And it is time for 
people to wake up and pay attention and do something about these 
problems.
  Let me just talk about the Medicaid cuts in the budget. It makes 
sense that the $16 billion children's health initiative in the budget 
will be put back into the lowest income children. I commend the Budget 
Committee for that, particularly those eligible for Medicaid, since the 
budget agreement cuts $14 billion out of Medicaid.

  Much of the $14 billion is expected to come from cuts to the 
disproportionate share of hospital payments, or DISH, which are funds 
to States to reimburse those hospitals which serve a disproportionate 
share of Medicaid and other low-income patients.
  So the loss to children, where they have taken from DISH to get $16 
billion, is somewhere between $7 billion to $10 billion. So it is not a 
full $16 billion. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That may be 
justified. I still commend the Budget Committee for trying to do 
something here, but it certainly does not cover the problems that some 
are saying it covers.
  These cuts are taking away money that the States currently have to 
ensure that children, the elderly and the disabled are cared for in the 
hospitals. Reducing these funds, as I have mentioned, will likely hurt 
children if additional funding is not put back into the Medicaid 
Program to care for these children.
  Without the additional funding in the Medicaid Program, States will 
be forced, or may be forced, to cut back on services to children, and I 
estimate that to be $7 billion to $10 billion. It may be more.
  The Budget Committee made a good start by allotting $3.2 billion a 
year over the next 5 years to the Finance Committee to cover children's 
health, to cover those eligible for Medicaid and to strengthen 
Medicaid. Let's be realistic what the $3.2 billion a year can and 
cannot do.
  I think it is important my colleagues understand the Congressional 
Budget Office is coming in with very conservative estimates on the 
number of children who will be served under various congressional 
proposals. For example, CBO estimated the Medicaid 12-month, continuous 
eligibility proposal will cost $14 billion if implemented by every 
State. That alone is almost all of the money in the budget resolution. 
CBO has also told us they estimate the cost for a child-only insurance 
policy to be somewhere between $1,000 and $1,200 a year. If true, the 
average $3.2 billion a year in the budget would only cover about 3 
million kids, far short of the 5 million targeted in the resolution and 
still 5 million short of those who need to be taken care of.
  Or, if you look at it another way, the Federal share of Medicaid 
costs for a child is about $860 on average this year. According to the 
Employee Benefit Research Institute, there are 4.7 million uninsured 
children whose parents make less than 125 percent of the Federal 
poverty level. That is $19,500 for a family of four. We, who make 
$134,000, continually complain about how hard it is to maintain two 
homes here and there and pay for all the things we pay for. Can you 
imagine what a family making less than $20,000 can do?
  By simple calculation, to cover those kids under Medicaid would cost 
$4.2 billion, about $1 billion more a year than is included in the 
budget resolution, and that is just some of the kids. This still would 
leave the vast majority of children of working parents above the 125 
percent of poverty level uncovered.
  While $16 billion is a substantial start, and I commend my 
colleagues, as I have just shown, it is just not enough to do the whole 
job.
  Some will point out our original bill called for $20 billion in 
spending. They will ask, why is more than an additional $4 billion 
needed? Are you saying that this is a $36 billion problem, and, if that 
is so, why didn't you ask for that originally?
  These are fair questions. Let me answer them.
  The short answer to this concern is that we need these resources to 
help the next generation of Americans to be healthy adults. The fact is 
that the $16 billion in the budget resolution is not enough. When 
Senator Kennedy and I originally introduced the CHILD bill, we set a 
spending limit of $20 billion for services and $10 billion for deficit 
reduction. We hoped to target up to 5 million families not on 
Medicaid--I said not on Medicaid--and that is important.
  We are also cosponsors of the Chafee-Rockefeller-Jeffords CHIPS bill, 
which is estimated to cost at least $15 billion, perhaps even more. 
This Medicaid bill is targeted to help 5 million kids, although there 
are already about 3 million of Medicaid-eligible children who are not 
enrolled. So we see these two bills as compatible--the CHIPS bill 
improves basic Medicaid, and our bill would be added on top of that.
  There is, obviously, a close connection between the two. That is why, 
in our amendment, we decided to divide the money equally between each 
of the two committees, Labor and Finance, to work out an integrated 
approach. So to make wild comments that this bill is going to mandate 
this, mandate that, take away the powers of the States, when the 
original Hatch-Kennedy bill does not do that, is irrelevant to this 
debate, because if we adopt the Hatch-Kennedy amendment, we will have 
enough money to make a real dent in these problems.
  The fact is that $16 billion is a good start, but let's not kid 
ourselves, it is not enough, especially combined with the Medicaid cuts 
in the resolution, and that is why our amendment should be adopted.

  I understand that the Senator from New Hampshire and others are 
opposed to my CHILD bill. Most of his reasoning is wrong, though, but 
we will debate that at a more appropriate time when we actually get to 
fleshing out a CHILD bill.
  This is not a vote on the CHILD bill. Our amendment intends that the 
money be used for the same purposes as those outlined in the bipartisan 
budget agreement. That is, for one or both of the following: Medicaid, 
including outreach activities providing continuous 12-month 
eligibility, restoring eligibility for disabled children losing SSI 
under the welfare bill, and, this is also part of the budget 
resolution, a mandatory capped State grant program to finance health 
insurance for uninsured children. That grant program will be designed 
by the Labor and Finance Committees. We hope it will be like the CHILD 
bill, but it may not be. But we are going to work to try and make it 
what we said we would do.
  Under our amendment, $18 billion in program funding will go to the 
Labor Committee. Will the Senator yield me 1 more minute?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to yield to two other Senators and make a brief 
comment myself. I do not know where we are on time. I want to take 1 
minute to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire and then yield to 
my colleagues.

[[Page S4799]]

  Mr. HATCH. May I have 1 more minute to finish my remarks?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes more to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield another 2 minutes, and I will take the last 3 
minutes and yield to my colleagues.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, under our amendment, $18 billion in program 
funding will go to the Labor Committee and $2 billion to the Finance 
Committee to be added to the $16 billion already in the budget 
resolution. That means that each committee will get $18 billion to work 
on complementary programs to help the poor and the near poor. We will 
have to work out the legislative language. I hope it will be like the 
CHILD bill that we have worked so long and hard to make a possibility. 
But what we are voting on today, if and when we do, is the right to 
have enough funding moneys to take care of these kids who are the 
poorest of the poor families not on Medicaid who cannot do it 
otherwise.
  Of all the criticisms of our bill, I am perhaps most dismayed by the 
charge that this bill creates an entitlement. In sharp contrast to last 
year's Kennedy-Kerry bill which was an entitlement, I succeeded in 
persuading my cosponsor Ted Kennedy, one of the most liberal Members of 
the Senate, to agree to the following provision:

       Nonentitlement.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     as providing an individual with an entitlement to assistance 
     under this title.

  Don't words mean anything anymore?
  Moreover, not only does this bill make clear it is not an individual 
entitlement program, participation is clearly voluntary on the part of 
the States. In fact, even if an individual is eligible under the 
State's own eligibility criteria, section 2822(d) of the bill ensures 
that there is not a requirement for any subsidy to the individual 
should there be insufficient program funds available. This can be 
contrasted with programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, which guarantee 
we will pay for the services of every eligible beneficiary. In fact, 
the bill states specifically that.
  Some have interpreted the language that states:

       Shall ensure that children's policies are available to all 
     eligible children in the State and that each eligible child 
     has the opportunity to enroll for coverage under such 
     policies.

as an entitlement.
  It is true that a State that chooses to participate by negotiating a 
contract with one or more insurers must make sure that children in the 
State can get that policy. What good is health insurance 
availability if those who need it don't have at least the opportunity 
to get it? However, there is no requirement that the State subsidize 
that policy in any way unless the State chooses to do so by the 
eligibility criteria it sets. And there is no requirement that the 
insurance policy be available to nonsubsidized children at the price 
negotiated by the State for the subsidy program.

  To be fair, some may object to this provision, but it is in no way an 
entitlement. Again, the State chooses whether or not to participate, as 
does any individual insurer.
  Finally, the point has been made that the bill would increase Federal 
mandatory spending by $20 billion over the next 5 years. That is true. 
This provision was inserted to made certain that the revenues generated 
by the companion legislation (S. 526) which increases the tobacco 
excise tax would be used to fund the CHILD bill and not for some other 
program. If there is a better way to write that language to make clear 
it is not an entitlement, I am open to suggestions.
  I find it curious that many of my colleagues have been arguing 
against the fact that my bill calls for mandatory spending, calling the 
mandatory nature of that spending the equivalent of an entitlement.
  Yet, the budget resolution we debate today includes funding for a 
mandatory capped grant program to States.
  If ``mandatory'' equals ``entitlement''--which I believe it does 
not--then the bipartisan budget agreement establishes a new 
entitlement.
  But we all know that is not the case.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is my friend and my colleague. 
However, as is sometimes seen around here, someone misstates what is in 
the bill and then differs with it. That is what has happened here.
  When I was listening to the Senator from New Hampshire describe the 
bill, I did not recognize it, because this is not an entitlement. No 
individual will ever be able to receive any kind of benefit on the 
basis of an entitlement. Participation is voluntary for the States and 
it is authorized for just 5 years. It is completely funded, and it 
provides the kind of flexibility to the States that will allow them to 
build on what thy are currently doing.
  Let us not lose sight of what the issue is before the Senate this 
afternoon: Will we support the Hatch-Kennedy bill that will provide the 
resources to ensure the sons and daughters of working families in this 
country? That is the issue. You can talk about other kinds of issues 
all you want, but every American understands this one. When you come 
right down to it, this is the issue.
  We are providing the opportunity. We are saying, ``Let us stand up 
for the children of working families and pay for it with a tobacco tax, 
which is basically a user fee.'' That is the way to address this issue, 
by building upon the agreement that has been spelled out here. Covering 
the Medicaid children will make a difference, but let's build on that 
and cover the children of working families.
  I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. I see that he wants to 
speak about this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is our turn.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I stand corrected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Hagel has been waiting for a while.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No problem. The understanding is Senator Domenici has 
the time next.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can I inquire, how much time is left on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 20 minutes 
remaining; the Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. HAGEL. Five minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, 
and I want to take that off the resolution, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 27. I want to begin by applauding the 
dedication of the Budget chairman and all those who have worked so 
diligently over the last few months to craft a budget that makes some 
sense and for bringing this balanced budget to the floor.
  I want to speak in more global terms about this budget issue. I have 
not been around here very long. It seems to me that if we continue this 
``what if'' theory and ``one more amendment'' theory to budgeting, we 
will never get there.
  The fact is, at least in this humble freshman Senator's opinion, that 
the real challenge to this country over the next few years, well into 
the next century, is like this: It is the prioritization of our 
resources. If we are going to do that, then we are going to have to 
have some framework that makes some sense, that disciplines this 
Congress, disciplines this body. We have been an undisciplined Congress 
for 30 years, and what Chairman Domenici and the President and the 
leadership on the Democratic and Republican sides in the House and the 
Senate, and all those who have been part of this process have brought 
to this floor is something that makes sense.

  This is a historic budget. We have not been able to craft this kind 
of a budget for more than 30 years. We should not forget this point as 
we debate this budget.
  Is this a perfect budget? No. I think it is a good budget. Over the 
years, Mr. President, like many of my colleagues and most Americans, I 
was running my

[[Page S4800]]

own business and paying taxes. Like most Americans, I was doubting 
whether this Congress had the will and the discipline to ever balance 
the budget. Now we have an opportunity to do what many thought would 
never happen, and that is to pass a balanced budget.
  What also makes this budget significant is it cuts taxes. I, like 
many of my colleagues, know how difficult it was to craft such a 
budget. I also know, like in my campaign last year and the campaigns of 
others, that people said you can't cut taxes, you can't cut spending 
and balance the budget. Well, we can. That is what this is about.
  Mr. President, there is a reason that more Americans believe in Santa 
Claus than believe we can actually balance the budget. We are at a 
crossroads in governance. We are at a crossroads in leadership. If we 
allow the further erosion of confidence of the American public in this 
body, this Congress, trust and confidence to do the right thing, to 
balance the budget, then it may be some time in getting it back.
  I don't doubt the sincerity of my colleagues, Senators Hatch, 
Kennedy, and others. I applaud what they are doing. But if we continue 
to proceed with amendment after amendment after amendment, I don't know 
what we would do at the end of the day. These are issues that should be 
debated in the appropriate forums. If we are not careful, we will undo 
a very delicate balance in coming to this budget agreement.
  I will support this budget, but I will not support any of the 
amendments that are being offered. This budget is too important to our 
Nation and the future of our children to place it at risk with various 
amendments, regardless of how well-intentioned.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendments offered today and to 
support this balanced budget that so many people have worked so hard to 
craft and make work. This does include tax relief, spending cuts, and 
balancing the budget, putting this country on a responsible fiscal 
plane over the next few years. Until we bring some stability to our 
financial responsibilities and our fiscal responsibilities starting 
right here, then we will pay consequences for that.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 27.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey for yielding me time.
  I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch for their 
leadership on this critical issue. I rise in support of their 
amendment.
  Let us be very clear. What we are talking about today is providing 
health care for the children of the working families of this country. 
And despite the budget agreement's impressive commitment of resources 
to Medicaid, particularly for children's health care, it is not 
sufficient to cover all the children in this country. The Senator from 
Utah was very eloquent and accurate in describing the vast gap that is 
still left despite the resources being made available to Medicaid.
  And why is it important that we provide health care for all of our 
children? Because every day we learn from medical science the 
critical--the critical--role of good health care in the development of 
children. Prenatal care, early infant care from zero to 3, and 
continuous health care for children are critical factors in providing 
for the intellectual and social development of children.
  If children do not have that health care, if we do not allow these 
young people access to high quality health care, we are incurring a 
huge cost to society and a huge limitation on their potential and their 
ability to contribute to society.
  Just last week, we celebrated the passage of the IDEA, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part of it was a further 
commitment of significant Federal resources for special education. I 
wonder how much we could save in that account if we had a fully funded 
comprehensive health care program for all the children in this country. 
I think it would be significant.
  There is something else that is also very clear, and it is why this 
bill is so compelling in its logic. It is very clear that smoking is 
the No. 1 public health threat to this country.
  One out of five deaths in this society are attributed to smoking. 
And, sadly, 3,000 teenagers a day are turning to that habit. This 
legislation, the proposed amendment, recognizes the need for good 
health care for all of our children, and the way to fund that health 
care is through an increase in the tax on cigarettes.
  It is sound fiscal policy. It represents a pay-as-you-go strategy. 
Also, it represents a further deficit reduction because part of these 
funds will be applied to reducing the deficit. In effect, it is 
consistent with the very, very core of what we are about here today--
providing access to good health care, sound policies for public health, 
and being fiscally responsible by reducing the deficit.
  And there is something else worth pointing out today. Many of the 
opponents of this legislation will point to the dire consequences of 
increasing the tax on cigarettes to the tobacco industry and certain 
regions of the country. But let me share with you what the cigarette 
companies themselves are contemplating.
  Weeks ago, when there was discussion of a possible settlement for 
some of the liability claims, most financial analysts conceded that the 
companies would routinely raise the price of cigarettes by 50 cents a 
pack, causing a slight decline in their number of customers--which some 
would consider a sound business decision. And I do not think there can 
be anyone on the floor of this body claiming an increase in the price 
of cigarettes by the companies as an unfortunate tax on low-income 
Americans. In effect, this tax is not only sound policy for funding 
this particular program, but also would not lead to the horrendous 
consequences which are being conjured up on this floor.

  One of the opponents said that it is a regressive tax, because the 
richest smoker in America would pay the same as the poorest smoker in 
America. I can guarantee you, the richest smoker in America has a 
health insurance policy. I cannot make that same guarantee for the 
children of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is sound public 
health policy. It recognizes that we must make an investment in our 
children for our own productivity as a Nation and for their own ability 
to seize all the opportunities of this country. The amendment also is 
sound fiscal policy because the cigarette tax pays for the program and 
reduces the deficit. I do not think we can ask for more in this budget.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I share the deep concern of my colleagues 
for the approximately 10 million children in our country who are 
currently lacking health insurance coverage. It is distressing that 
such a large number of our children lack access to primary and 
preventative care. I find it even more disconcerting that recent 
reports indicate that about 3 million of these children are Medicaid 
eligible, but are not enrolled in this program.
  However, after spending a considerable amount of time reviewing the 
proposal by my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Kennedy, I sincerely 
believe that it is not the best solution.
  There are several fundamental reasons why I can not support this 
proposal. First, I can not support a measure which would impose new 
unfunded mandates on the States and will place unfair burdens and 
excessive costs on our State governments. Second, I can not endorse a 
proposal which is creating another highly bureaucratic federal 
entitlement program.
  Also while I do have some concerns about provisions contained in the 
balanced budget agreement and I am continuing to review this plan, I 
believe that if enacted, many portions are worthwhile and will be 
beneficial to the American people, particular in providing tax relief 
and imposing spending controls. However, I believe the Hatch-Kennedy 
proposal would jeopardize some of the most valuable parts of this 
piece.
  The Republican leadership has worked hard to ensure that this 
agreement contains an appropriate amount

[[Page S4801]]

of tax relief for America's working families. The Kennedy-Hatch 
proposal shatters this agreement by lowering the net tax cut in the 
budget agreement from $85 billion to $55 billion over the next 5 years.
  This proposal also fails to recognize that the budget agreement 
provides $16 billion for expanding health care insurance for low-income 
insured children. These additional funds will allow us to provide 
grants to the States to finance health care services to approximately 5 
million children who currently lack coverage. Thus, about 5 million of 
the approximately 10 million children who are currently lacking 
coverage will now have access to health care under the bipartisan 
balanced budget proposal.
  Now, my colleagues may argue this still leaves approximately 5 
million children without coverage. However, we must remember that about 
3 million of these children already qualify for Medicaid services but 
are not enrolled in this program. Therefore, I believe that we should 
first focus our efforts toward a bipartisan solution for developing 
innovative outreach programs to reach these 3 million children and 
their families, educate them about the Medicaid program, and get these 
children access to health care. This is an achievable goal for the 
near-term which we all agree should and can be achieved in the near 
future.
  I have written the General Accounting Office and requested that they 
conduct a thorough analysis of the 3 million Medicaid eligible children 
who are not enrolled in this program. This analysis should provide 
Congress with a thorough profile of who these kids are, where they are 
located geographically and what their family environment is like. This 
detailed study will enable Congress with the necessary tools to develop 
the appropriate community outreach strategies and national education 
programs which will address this problem and assist in getting these 
children enrolled in the program and finally having access to very 
important health care services.
  Providing access to health care for uninsured children has been a 
priority for me since coming to the Senate. In fact, I offered 
legislation in the 103d Congress which attempted to address this 
problem and provide access to health care for many of our Nation's 
uninsured children. This issue still remains a high priority for me in 
the 105th Congress. Currently, I am developing legislation which will 
concentrate on developing new innovative, strategic outreach programs 
to educate qualifying families about the current Medicaid program. In 
addition, it will incorporate creative solutions for creating an 
environment which provides low and moderate income families with access 
to health care for their children.
  I sincerely believe that we must continue to work together to develop 
a bipartisan solution to this problem and find a way to provide access 
to health care for our Nation's uninsured children. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in developing an affordable and equitable 
solution to this problem. However, I simply can not support this 
extremely expensive plan, which unravels the tax cut agreement between 
the administration and Congress, and creates another highly 
bureaucratic Federal entitlement program.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Hatch-Kennedy 
amendment. It is paid for by a 43-cent-per-pack increase in the Federal 
excise tax on cigarettes. We must do everything we can to discourage 
smoking and to advance good health policy. In my view, this does both.
  However, in doing so, I want to be very clear about my order of 
priorities in terms of addressing the children's health crisis in this 
country. If the Hatch-Kennedy amendment fails, and we do not get any 
additional spending for children's health initiatives above and beyond 
the $16.8 billion already included in this budget resolution, I intend 
to place all of my energies behind strengthening the very cornerstone 
of our Federal efforts to provide health insurance to poor children--
the Medicaid Program.
  My first priority will be to work in the Finance Committee to enact 
the Chafee-Rockefeller-Jeffords-Breaux bill which provide incentives--
not mandates--to encourage States to expand their Medicaid programs to 
cover all children aged 18 and under, up to 150 percent of poverty. 
Through this voluntary Medicaid expansion, which now has the support of 
a majority of the members of the Senate Finance Committee, we can 
strengthen the system already in place across the country to reach up 
to 5 million more children. This is the most cost-effective way to 
proceed, does not create any new entitlement programs, and is a known 
quantity in every State.
  What am I saying here? Let us strengthen the foundation before we 
build the building. In an environment of scarce resources, we must 
first work to reach the very neediest children through the Medicaid 
Program before we create other programs with potentially overlapping 
objectives. I would have a very different view if we had unlimited 
resources, but we do not.
  I would now like to recognize Senators Rockefeller and Jeffords to 
get an indication of their priorities.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Hatch-Kennedy 
bill, I am extremely hopeful that this amendment will pass. If 
this amendment passes it will enable us to come very close to achieving 
universal coverage for all of America's children.

  However, like Senator Chafee, if the Hatch-Kennedy amendment fails, 
then we simply must target our efforts in the Finance Committee at 
strengthening the Medicaid Program to achieve health care coverage for 
the children who should be our most urgent priority. The Medicaid 
Program has a proven track record in providing cost effective care and 
it has served as a vital safety net for millions of working families. 
Because of past bipartisan legislation that delinked the Medicaid 
Program from the welfare program, the vast majority of children on 
Medicaid have at least one working parent. In other words, these are 
children in families who are struggling to avoid welfare, play by the 
rule, pay taxes--but they are the ones who don't get health insurance 
for their children through their jobs and cannot afford it on incomes 
where ends barely meet.
  So I look forward to working with Senator Chafee, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Breaux, and the majority of my colleagues on the Finance 
Committee who have already signed on to our bill, to expand coverage 
for millions of children in the most cost-effective, targeted way 
possible through the Medicaid Program.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the children of America need our help. 
Nearly 10 million children have no health insurance. Many of these 
children live in families with working parents who simply do not make 
enough money to afford health insurance.
  In order to help address this national problem, I have cosponsored 
both the Hatch-Kennedy CHILD Act and the Children's Health Insurance 
Provides Security [CHIPS] Act. The CHILD Act would establish a State 
health insurance grant program and the CHIPS Act encourages States to 
provide uniform Medicaid coverage up to 150 percent of poverty for 
children of all ages. The combination of these two bills provides an 
integrated approach to ensuring that our Nation's uninsured children 
have health care coverage and does so in a way that is completely 
consistent with the policy language in the budget agreement.
  I have serious concerns, however, that $16 billion is an insufficient 
amount to meet the health insurance needs of the 10 million uninsured 
children. I, therefore, will support raising an additional $20 billion 
through a cigarette tax. I believe using an increased cigarette tax as 
the revenue source is especially appropriate since it will have the 
added health benefit of helping to deter children from starting to 
smoke in the first place.
  If the Hatch-Kennedy amendment does not pass, I will continue to work 
with my colleagues to develop a multifaceted approach that has as its 
first priority the strengthening of the existing Medicaid Program.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, of the 71 million children in our country 
some 86 percent have health coverage provided by private insurance or 
Medicaid. This is an impressive statistic. But it masks a problem. 
There are some 3.2 million children in families whose incomes are too 
high to qualify for Medicaid and too low to afford private insurance.
  This is a problem that ought to be fixed. No child should be without

[[Page S4802]]

health care because his family can't afford to purchase coverage.
  The basic task we face in fixing this problem is to provide health 
insurance to these currently uninsured children without jeopardizing 
the private insurance system that provides care to the rest of our 
children. The Finance Committee has the responsibility of deciding how 
to do this. As chairman of that committee I intend to report 
legislation that will address this problem.
  The issue before us is how much money to dedicate to this activity. 
The budget agreement allocates some $16 billion to solve this problem. 
President Clinton supports this amount. The House of Representatives 
supports this amount. I believe this is the right place to start.
  This budget agreement before us is a delicate compromise of many 
competing interests. I think it would be unwise for us to jeopardize 
this agreement by asking for more.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support the Hatch-Kennedy Child Health 
Insurance bill, but I reluctantly must oppose their budget amendment.
  I am pleased that the President has secured over $16 billion to 
address the serious problem of children who lack health insurance 
coverage in this Nation. I believe that the funding allotted under the 
budget resolution for child health can and should be applied for the 
Hatch-Kennedy child health bill.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Senate centrist budget group, I 
realize how difficult it can be to work across party lines to craft a 
budget plan. I was pleased to be a member of the Chafee-Breaux centrist 
group that crafted a fair and balanced budget plan. The budget plan 
that the centrists put together again this year is very similar to the 
bipartisan budget resolution we are considering today. I support this 
budget resolution and am concerned that the Hatch-Kennedy amendment 
would put the entire budget plan in doubt.
  Although I will vote against this amendment, I believe we must enact 
legislation this Congress that expands health insurance coverage for 
children. The Hatch-Kennedy Child Health Insurance and Lower Deficit 
Act is at the forefront of the proposals that Congress should pursue.
  The growing problem of children who lack health coverage is extremely 
troubling. A recent study drawn from U.S. Census Bureau data show that 
during 1995-96, there were 23 million children who did not have health 
insurance for all or part of the period. Surprisingly, 9 out 10 of 
these children lived in households where one or both parents worked. 
Although Wisconsin has the second best rate of insurance for our 
children, 23 percent, or over 330,000 kids were uninsured for at least 
1 month over the 2-year period. This situation is unacceptable.
  Helping families obtain health insurance coverage for their children 
is the next logical step to build on the success of the recent Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. It is an effort that is 
long overdue. The Hatch-Kennedy bill should serve as the model for the 
plan crafted during the remaining budget process and I will support 
Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy in their efforts.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides on the 
amendment itself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the present time, there are 20 minutes 
remaining in regard to the Senator from Utah; and the Senator from New 
Mexico has 17 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I know there are some others who would like 
to speak on our side. But I really think everybody knows what is 
involved here. I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time if 
the other side is and go to a vote, let this thing be resolved at this 
particular juncture any way Senators decide to do it.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, both Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Wellstone are on the floor and want to address this issue. But I want 
to join in the observation of the Senator from Utah that I would hope 
that after they had a chance to speak on this that we might move ahead.
  This is an important issue. We want the Senate to be able to express 
itself. We would like to move ahead if we have that opportunity. But we 
will not do that, I guess, at this time.
  Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think we are going to do it at this point.
  It is our turn for a speaker. We get a chance to speak on our side 
now. That is correct, is it not, I say to Senator Lautenberg?
  How much time would the Senator like?
  I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, less than 24 hours 
ago, in introducing this resolution, the distinguished minority manager 
of the bill, the Senator from New Jersey, had behind him a long and 
detailed chart from which he read all of the initiatives of his party, 
all of the spending programs of his party, that were a part of this 
budget resolution and were the justification for Members of his party 
who favored those spending programs to vote for and to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. President, some of those proposals were also Republican proposals 
with which a number of us on this side of the aisle agree. Many of them 
however were not. Many of them represent Government spending with which 
we disagree, which we think is wasteful, money that we think ought to 
be returned to the people of the United States. Nevertheless, we 
support the budget resolution and those spending programs because this 
resolution also provides tax relief for the American people and does 
overall reduce the rate of growth in Government spending.
  As a consequence, Mr. President, this is not a Republican budget 
resolution here today. This is a resolution the outlines of which were 
agreed to by the Republican leadership in both Houses, by the 
Democratic leadership in this body and the President of the United 
States. We have before us an amendment, however, that totally and 
completely breaches that set of agreements. It adds $30 billion in 
taxes on the backs of the American people. It adds $20 billion in 
spending programs on to the backs of the American people, in spite of 
the fact that the resolution itself includes $16 billion for health 
care for young people in our society.
  I have a copy of the amendment, Mr. President. Nothing in the 
amendment talks about tobacco taxes or child health care. It simply is 
three pages of increased spending and increased taxes --nothing more 
and nothing less.
  It is a total breach of the agreement made by the Democratic 
leadership, a total breach of the agreement made by the President of 
the United States. And bluntly, Mr. President, those of us on this side 
of the aisle, who felt constrained to agree to this budget agreement 
because it was bipartisan, expect the support for the resolution in its 
original form without increased taxes and without increased spending to 
be supported as eloquently and as strongly on the other side of the 
aisle as it is on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe the Senator from New Jersey was prepared to 
yield me 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I wish to rise to express my strong support for the Kennedy-Hatch 
amendment on children's health. I cannot think of any more important 
issue that faces our country. The health of our children must be a 
national priority. This amendment will make sure that that happens. It 
will expand health insurance to cover America's uninsured children. Our 
country has failed to meet the health care needs of these children. And 
we all know the statistics. More than 10 million children do not have 
health insurance; that is one out of every seven children.

[[Page S4803]]

  In my own home State of Maryland, I am deeply concerned about what 
the situation is. One in five children is uninsured. Almost 200,000 
children in Maryland alone lack health insurance.
  Most of the uninsured children are from families with parents who get 
up and work every day. These are families who are doing the right thing 
to be able to support their family and yet they also want to be able to 
ensure that their children have health care, where parents are working 
40 hours a week, often at what I call the varicose-vein jobs. They get 
up, they stand on their feet, they are the checkout woman at a grocery 
store, clerk, or they are some man out there working as a part-time 
landscaper assistant, sweating, breaking his back, and in very 
difficult circumstances, to put food on the table, a roof over their 
heads. But they live in fear every time one of their children has the 
sniffles, that those sniffles could lead to pneumonia and they do not 
have health care.
  I have had grown men who were veterans, who were so upset that they 
had health care and their children did not. They support veterans' 
health care, and so do I. But those very same dads would say, ``Let me 
be a dad. And let me be able to support my own children.''
  I am reminded of a case in southern Maryland where the dad is a self-
employed carpenter. His youngest child has a heart disease. He is 
making $40,000 a year. But in order to get health insurance, it will 
cost $9,000 a year. That is almost one-fourth of their family income. 
The wife stays at home to care for this child, to be the backup, to 
make sure that that health condition does not deteriorate into a 
permanent cardiac disability. Should they go without health insurance? 
Should the mom go back to work? They should not have these melancholy 
choices to make.
  That is why we support health insurance for our children, and not 
only for the children who are acutely ill but we want to have health 
insurance for children so they can be immunized by the time they are 
two, have early detection and screening as they get ready to go into 
kindergarten or elementary school to make sure they are learning ready, 
that they know whether they need eyeglasses or they need hearing aids 
or whether they have undetected juvenile diabetes, all these kinds of 
things.
  I can think of no more important health investment than to have a 
healthy start for children. And I want to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues, at the fantastic, bipartisan President's summit on 
voluntarism, one of the goals established by Colin Powell, one of the 
five goals to get our kids ready for the future is to make sure they 
have a healthy start.
  I say to my colleagues, this amendment would be a very important step 
in being able to do that.
  I thank the Senate for its attention.
  I yield back such time as I might not have consumed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. NICKLES. Eight minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, let me compliment my colleague 
from New Mexico for his leadership in putting this budget together. And 
I will make a speech a little later about the entire budget package. 
But I have a strong feeling, if this amendment should pass, we are not 
going to have a budget package. Maybe I will not have to give that 
speech.
  I was going to compliment my colleagues from New Mexico and from New 
Jersey and the majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of 
the Senate, because they worked for hours, for weeks, they worked for a 
long time with the administration to put together a budget package.
  I will tell you I do not think everything in this budget package is 
perfect, but I am absolutely certain if we pass an amendment that 
increases taxes $30 billion and increases spending $20 billion over 
what is already in this package, we do not have a deal. We just killed 
the budget. There will not be a budget agreement. I believe that very 
strongly. I will be involved with several people trying to make sure 
that we do not do it.
  This deal is not very good from many people's perspective because it 
does not cut taxes very much. A net tax cut of $85 billion when we have 
total taxes in that period of time of over $9 trillion is not much. I 
argue it is better than nothing, but $85 billion of almost $10 trillion 
is not much. You reduce that to $55 billion, and I will say it is not 
worth it.
  I am a little bit bothered by my colleagues when I hear there is 
bipartisan agreement. Yesterday, we had an amendment on the floor to 
increase spending and taxes by $15 billion, again, breaking the budget 
deal. We had eight Democrats vote for that or vote to sustain the 
budget package. Everybody else said, ``No we want another $15 billion 
more in spending and $15 billion in more taxes.''
  Now it looks like almost all the Democrats are going to jump on and 
say we want more money for this program. Senator Hatch and Senator 
Kennedy put together a good program. We do not care that the Budget 
Committee and the negotiators put in $16 billion; we are going to 
double it. We want $20 billion on top of it. It does not matter what 
you already did; we want more. It is like whatever that program is, 
hey, we are for more. The original bill that Senator Hatch and Senator 
Kennedy had only had $20 billion. The committee put in $16 billion. I 
do not know why they did not high five each other and say, ``Hey, we 
won,'' and I would probably be on the sideline saying, ``Yes, they did. 
They got 80 percent of what they are looking for.'' I will say I lost 
because I do not think we should have a new mandate.
  This is mandatory. It is mandatory under the Hatch-Kennedy bill, too. 
I heard people say it is not. I will be happy to read the language, and 
I know we are not adopting the Hatch-Kennedy bill, but we are debating 
it. We already have $16 billion, and now we are coming along with an 
amendment that says put another $20 billion on top, adding to it so now 
we will have $36 billion for this program. No one in their wildest 
dream would have said we should have $36 billion to try to solve this 
problem, which I will be happy to debate.
  Do we want to make sure that kids have insurance? Make sure they have 
access to health care? You bet. I have four kids. I want to make sure 
my kids have health care. I want to make sure your kids have health 
care. Is the solution a Federal mandate? I want to make sure kids have 
plenty to eat. Are we going to mandate a Federal program for that? I 
want to make sure kids have a warm home. Are we going to mandate 
everything? Government is big enough to give you everything you want. 
It is big enough to take everything you have. We are approaching that.
  A young child born today is already inheriting a debt of about 
$20,000. If we do not change the way we are doing our business now, a 
young person born today will spend 84 percent of their lifetime 
earnings paying taxes and paying for entitlements, working for 
Government--84 percent, if we do not start living within our means and 
start balancing the budget.
  So, first thing right out of the hopper--we have a budget bill that 
purportedly is to balance the budget within a few years; it has some 
fiscal discipline--the first thing we do, we had an amendment yesterday 
to increase spending another $15 billion and increase taxes $15 
billion. Almost all the Democrats voted for it despite the so-called 
bipartisan budget, and now we have an amendment that says increase 
taxes $30 billion, increase taxes $20 billion, and I understand we are 
only going to get maybe a few Democrats who will vote against that 
amendment. Just break the deal. What deal?
  I absolutely tell you, Mr. President, if this amendment passes, there 
are going to be other amendments that say, ``Hey, if taxes are on the 
table, maybe this $85 billion is not sacrosanct. I do not think that is 
enough.''
  Last Congress we had $245 billion that we passed and we balanced the 
budget. I thought that was a lot better tax package. We had real things 
in there for American families and it helped the economy. I would like 
it to be bigger than $85 billion. I will not be satisfied with $55 
billion. My guess is there will not be a majority in this body 
satisfied with $55 billion, so if people want to kill this budget 
package

[[Page S4804]]

in the name of saying, ``Hey, no matter what you did, Budget Committee, 
in putting $16 billion in, we will double it because we are for kids 
and against tobacco.'' I do not care that much about tobacco. Somebody 
wants a different tax, a different time, do it on the Finance Committee 
when we have the reconciliation bill before us, and they can say, ``I 
do not like this, raise the tobacco tax.'' They can have that 
amendment. It can be in order, and then you are playing with real 
bullets, then you are talking about something that is real.

  All this is, this budget resolution, if one turns to the budget 
resolution, all that says is we want to spend $2 billion more in the 
Finance Committee, $18 billion more in the Labor Committee, and we want 
to raise taxes $30 billion. That is all it says, and it directly 
violates the so-called budget deal.
  So we will find out before too long, are we for a budget package? Do 
we want to balance the budget? Or do we want to play games, and say, 
``I do not care, I am more for kids than you, so I want to increase 
it.''
  How much is needed? We have heard the statistics. There are 10 
million kids uninsured. How long are they uninsured? A study was done 
that found that the majority of kids had insurance within 4 months. 
Well, we just eliminated half of the problem. Most of the kids have 
insurance within 4 months. People change jobs, people move, people have 
different reasons, but for whatever reason, a lot of those kids will 
have insurance within a short period of time. Of that 9.8 million 
group, about a third, over 3 million, already are eligible for 
insurance, they just have not signed up. Does that mean they will not 
get health care? No, my guess is, if they have an accident, they might 
go to Children's Hospital or something, they will be covered, and they 
already have vaccinations and so on, but for whatever reason, there is 
a program and now we come up with a bigger program, but they are 
already eligible.
  What about the group above 200 percent of poverty? For that group, a 
family of four that makes over $32,000 a year, they make enough money 
to provide kid care, health care for their children, they are just not 
doing it. We will make them do it? We will come up with big subsidies? 
What about the 3 million people that maybe are between the 100 percent 
of poverty and 200 percent of poverty? About 3.5 million kids fall in 
that category. Half of them will have insurance within 4 months. But 
you still have maybe 2 million children that are chronically uninsured. 
Mr. President, $16 billion is more than adequate to cover that 
chronically uninsured child, more than adequate.
  Yet we are saying $16 billion is not enough, make it $36 billion. We 
will match you and double it, so now we have $36 billion. If you look 
at the cost of kid care, in many cases it is $600, $700, $800, up to 
$1,000. A population of children between 100 percent of poverty and 200 
percent of poverty, 3.5 million, most have insurance within 4 months, 
so you are only talking a couple million. You can do that for a couple 
billion a year. We have more than that in the $16 billion. Yet, no, we 
are coming up now with $36 billion. No, I do not think so. I do not 
think that is a solution. It may be good politics.
  Looking a little bit at the substance, we do not have the legislative 
language of the Hatch-Kennedy bill, but the Hatch-Kennedy bill, if 
someone reads it, one, they will find out it is a mandate. It mandates 
the Federal Government shall give money to the States. That is not 
optional. It is a mandate. Then looking at the subsidy, the subsidy for 
the group of nearly poor, not the Medicaid poor, the subsidy for this 
group is much more generous from the Federal Government standpoint than 
it is for Medicaid. Now, if we revamp and improve this program, we have 
Medicaid--Medicaid is a Federal-State program. It is supposed to be 50-
50 cost shared, but in some cases the Federal Government is up to 70 
percent or more. Under the Hatch-Kennedy bill, the Federal contribution 
is only 40 percent of whatever the State was putting in. If the State 
put in 50 percent, the State's share would be 25 percent. In many 
States the Federal share would be 90 percent. You have a lot of States 
right now that are only paying like 22 percent of Medicaid costs. The 
Federal Government is picking up 75 percent. Under the Hatch-Kennedy 
bill in a lot of States the Federal Government would be paying 90 
percent. So we will have greater subsidies for the income eligibility 
between 100 percent and 200 and 300 percent, a greater share of Federal 
for the lowest income. That absolutely makes no sense, absolutely makes 
no sense whatever.
  Then to say you can do this in the Finance Committee, and then we 
will come up and double the program in the Labor Committee absolutely 
makes no sense. It is like, wait, we do not work together so we will 
have the Finance Committee solve this problem and then we will come 
over here and have the Labor Committee solve this problem and give both 
committees enough money to solve it. That makes no sense.
  Mr. President, I hope we will have colleagues on both sides who will 
be fiscally responsible and say let's work to balance the budget and 
work for America's kids. We are not solving America's children's 
problems by saddling them with another great big, open-ended, expensive 
entitlement program that can only explode in the future, wreck the 
budget deal, and totally destroy the budget package. I do not think 
that is good for kids. I think it is a disaster for children. I think 
if this amendment should pass, we will not have a budget deal and 
the real losers will be America's children.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think it is clear what some of the 
opponents of the Kennedy-Hatch legislation are trying to offer the 
Senate. They are saying that the Kennedy-Hatch bill, a health insurance 
program for vulnerable kids that pays for itself, is a bad idea. I 
submit that even Joe Camel would have a tough time selling that 
proposition. The fact of the matter is this is a program that pays for 
itself, that is fiscally disciplined.
  In my State, close to 100,000 kids without health insurance are going 
to be in a position to get help as a result of this tobacco tax. I 
think it is important that the record be set clear on this.
  Now, this morning, Mr. President, the New York Times carried an 
article that said that the States are going to lose revenue as a result 
of the Kennedy-Hatch legislation and that this should be opposed on the 
grounds that the States need this revenue. The fact of the matter is 
that attorneys general across this country are rushing to file lawsuits 
on behalf of their States in order to recoup some of the costs to State 
coffers for health care costs. That is the reality. The fact of the 
matter is States are losing vast sums right now as a result of our 
current policies.
  Without the Hatch-Kennedy legislation, I am of the view we are going 
to have children grow up sicker, they will be sicker adults, they are 
going to die sooner, and health costs in America are going to increase. 
This is an important piece of bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. President, I close by paying a special compliment to my colleague 
from Oregon, Senator Smith. He has been subjected to very intense 
criticism at home by the tobacco lobby. I know a bit about what it is 
like to be attacked by them. They sued me personally when I was a 
Member of the House subcommittee that investigated their practices.

  I want to make sure that people know that Senator Smith has hung in 
there on behalf of better health care for America's youngsters.
  This proposal is right. It is fiscally responsible. It is compatible 
with a balanced budget approach.
  I hope my colleagues will reject the arguments that have been 
advanced against this legislation.
  As I said earlier, I think even Joe Camel might have some difficulty 
selling the argument that a fully funded proposal that will help our 
kids is a bad idea.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for yielding.
  Mr. President, I join what I hope is a majority of the Senators on 
this floor in opposing Hatch-Kennedy. I am not going to argue the 
merits of it one way

[[Page S4805]]

or the other. I don't think that is the issue this morning. The issue 
is that a budget deal gets broken--a budget deal that has been woven 
together in a bipartisan format that gives both sides some recognized 
need and that produces a budget that is good for the American people.
  All of us are concerned about child health care, or there wouldn't be 
$16 billion in this budget agreement for children without health care. 
Therein lies the issue.
  I think it is important to note that, while my colleague from Oregon 
just talked about an analysis that said States would lose money, it is 
very likely they would lose money, and that is, in fact, one of the 
analyses. It could cost them up to $6.5 billion over 5 years.
  Again, it is against the very direction that we want to head in; that 
is, empowering the States to take care of their own needs instead of 
handing them a new Federal mandate and a new program from the top down, 
telling them what to do and how to do it. We do that, in essence, by 
stealing away from them the very revenue base that they have been using 
for these purposes.
  This would directly hurt the health and educational programs in 16 
States that earmarked part of their tobacco tax for this purpose.
  This doesn't include the cost of the mandate included in the 
amendment that will be added on. According to the whip's office, there 
are 30 State mandates in the proposal.
  Therein is a substantial basis for the objection.
  This Congress has in a bipartisan manner expressed its desire and 
concern about the health needs of the uninsured young people of this 
country. That is what the debate ought to be about.
  My guess is that this Congress will work its will as the courts will 
work their will when it comes to the question of tobacco, when it comes 
to the question of: Should it be limited, and in what form ought it be 
limited? But let us not break a budget deal. For this is exactly what 
will happen with this issue.
  So I hope that we will resolve it in staying with our agreement. We 
think it is a good one and that this one simply disrupts what is an 
extremely valuable part of the total program.
  If we are moving toward empowering the States and the individuals to 
care for their own and their citizens, then Hatch-Kennedy goes directly 
against that thrust and prescribes again another very large, federally 
controlled, mandated program that is cross-grain or cross-directional 
to what we have been attempting to do all along.
  So when you look at all of the aspects that are incorporated in this 
legislation, it is not precedent setting. It is returning to the past. 
It is stepping backwards into a large, federally controlled bureaucracy 
that in the end probably doesn't produce the kind of health care that 
our citizens would want or that our citizens would expect of their way 
of life or their system of government.

  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. President, in 4 minutes it is difficult to really make a major 
argument on the floor of the Senate. Let me just try to pick up on a 
couple of comments that I heard made in the last 15 minutes of the 
debate.
  One of my colleagues has argued that we have to think about the 
future and we have to think about reducing the debt to our children in 
the future. I think all of us agree with that.
  Then another colleague talked about the budget agreement--the budget 
agreement that ``is a deal, is a deal, is a deal.'' The debate seems a 
little bit too abstract for me as a Senator from Minnesota.
  I would like to ask colleagues to confront the fierce urgency of now. 
The fierce urgency of now for too many children in our country is as 
follows: A child with poor vision, with no health care coverage and not 
able to get any assistance cannot see the blackboard and, in all 
likelihood, will not be able to do well in school and have a chance.
  The fierce urgency of now is that a child who is suffering from 
asthma and spending too much time in the emergency room--I have met 
children like this in Minnesota--though we have done a good job of 
covering many children with our own separate health care plan, a child 
who suffers from asthma with extreme attacks, unable to be able to see 
a physician, winding up in the emergency room too often, misses too 
much time from school, and he or she will not have the same chance to 
do well as all of our children.
  In the fierce urgency of now, I think that we ought to look at, as 
opposed to all of these abstractions, a child who has an abscessed 
tooth coming to school because her family can't afford dental care. I 
have met children like this. That child who is in so much pain and 
discomfort cannot do well in school. She doesn't have the same chance 
as our children.
  This budget agreement has been much lauded, and Senators have worked 
hard on it. But the fact of the matter is, using a conservative 
estimate, we are only covering half the children who are without health 
care coverage.
  This amendment is the right thing to do.
  I will not talk about the tobacco industry. I will not talk about why 
the tax makes good public-policy sense to me. But I want to say the 
fierce urgency of now is that this is compelling, and, if it is so 
compelling that our children should have the coverage, and, if it is so 
compelling that all the children in our country should have good health 
care coverage, it seems to me then that it doesn't make a lot of sense 
to applaud and celebrate a budget agreement that only covers half those 
children.
  This bipartisan effort of Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy is so 
important. This speaks to the goodness of our country. There is nothing 
that we could do that would be more important than to support this 
amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want to compliment my 
good friends and colleagues, Senators Hatch and Kennedy, for producing 
what I think is a very good solution to an increasing, growing problem. 
I confess that I intended to offer legislation similar to this in the 
early part of the year, but I like this better than the idea for my own 
bill.
  We can debate and make all kinds of sophisticated arguments about why 
this is wrong and the impact on the budget and so on. I remind my 
colleagues that Winston Churchill once said that you can tell more 
about a nation by the way they treat their elderly and the conditions 
of their prisons than any other two things. He should have added 
children to that.
  I went to the dedication of a new $51 million Federal prison in my 
State this past Monday. All I could think about was the $16 million 
annual cost of that which would, indeed, produce a lot of jobs. But I 
also thought about how early intervention would have saved every one of 
those youngsters in that prison. Our priorities are so skewed. If we 
had that $51 million, or if we had that $16 million a year we spend on 
every inmate, if we had it spent on children at the ages of zero to 3, 
or zero to 50, whatever age you take, you can send people to Harvard 
for what we pay to keep people in prison. It is because of our neglect. 
If you ask the ordinary citizen on the street, ``What do you think is 
most important for your children?'' the first thing is education and 
the second thing is their health care. Anybody who doesn't understand 
that in this body is out of touch with America.
  I remember as a poor country lawyer in a town of 1,200 people--this 
is a personal story--my daughter had a condition that was very rare and 
could have

[[Page S4806]]

been fatal--would have been fatal. We just happened to have a 
pediatrician who knew the greatest pediatric neurosurgeon in the world 
at Boston General Hospital. I had just made a $22,000 fee. So Betty and 
I were able to go. She had complications. We spent 6 weeks in Boston 
and used up my $22,000. But during the course of that, having her in 
the hands of the best pediatric neurosurgeon in the world, Betty asked 
me one day, ``What do poor people do?'' I said, ``I will tell you what 
they do. They watch their children die.''
  Here is an opportunity for the Senate to do itself proud, for the 
Congress to do itself proud. You can make all the arguments you want to 
against this because this ``t'' is not crossed and the ``i'' isn't 
dotted. If we picked out some little flaw in every bill we voted on, we 
would never pass anything.
  There are a couple of things in this bill that are not terribly 
pleasing to me. But providing health care for 10 million children in 
this country who do not have it, you can't find a more noble 
undertaking by a political body.
  Mr. President, children without health care was, is, and will remain 
the shame of this great Nation until we deal with it.
  So I plead with my colleagues in the Senate to please America and do 
something that is really noble and laudable and worthwhile and will pay 
the richest dividends we have ever received.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I noted--since we have all been engaged 
in such a serious conversation--a little article from ``The Hill'' 
about polling and budgets. It might interest Senators. If I shared it 
with them, they might be reassured. For those who believe in politics, 
however, this fact may be very interesting. Seventy-four percent of the 
people polled think that news about the budget deal is more interesting 
than news of Donald Trump's marital failures. Only 10 percent responded 
that they were more interested in Donald Trump's marriage failures.
  So we have a winner here.
  Mr. President, I would like very much to ask my friend, Senator 
Lautenberg, if he is prepared to yield back time on the amendment. I 
will then be prepared to yield and offer a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are prepared to yield any time that remains on the 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. I understand that we still have 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah now has 18 minutes 
remaining on his time.
  Mr. HATCH. Could we make a few closing remarks?
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is going to be plenty of time for remarks. But if 
the Senator would like to do that, fine.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the views of the chairman of 
the Budget Committee. He obviously has available to him other kinds of 
measures that he intends to pursue. What I would like to do is take a 
final 3 minutes, and then I would welcome the possibility of yielding 
remaining time, if that is agreeable.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much does the Senator from Utah want?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If we have the 20 minutes, I would like to speak very 
briefly. We have the 20 minutes. Then I will speak then we will yield 
the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair observes that the Senator from Utah 
has 18 minutes.
  Does the Senator from Utah yield time to the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we find that we have had a good 
discussion and a debate about this measure.
  Those of us who favor this measure have been trying to convince the 
Members of the Senate what the great majority of the American people 
already understand. This is a proposal that will cover the sons and 
daughters of working families that are on the lower two or three rungs 
of the economic ladder. This is something that the American people 
overwhelmingly support, and we pay for it with a modest increase in the 
tobacco tax of 43 cents per pack of cigarettes. This is supported 
across the country--North, South, East, West, Republicans, Democrats, 
independents. A majority of smokers all across the country favor this 
proposal. Rarely have we seen an issue that has such support. We have 
given life to that proposal with this amendment to the Budget Act.
  There have been comments about how this is drafted. This is drafted 
as other amendments have been drafted over the history of budget acts. 
It is consistent with our objective.
  We have placed in the Record the Joint Tax Committee report that 
justifies our proposal in recognizing that more than $30 billion will 
be raised. We have allocated $20 billion to go to the States, 
effectively as a block grant, to provide for those children whose 
parents are working and who need this kind of coverage because they are 
making $18,000, $19,000, $20,000, or $25,000 and they are unable to 
afford coverage for their children. We commend the fact that the budget 
agreement adds some $16 billion for children. But we also recognize 
that Medicaid has been cut $14 billion. Half of all those who are in 
Medicaid are children. We are not prepared to say that half of those 
cuts, dollar for dollar will necessarily affect children, but that $16 
billion that is supposed to go for children is going to be diminished 
significantly given these cuts. We believe there will be more than 3 
million children who currently have no health care who will be covered 
by the $16 billion, but we are still not reaching the core group of 
children who are the sons and daughters of working families.
  This is the issue before us. We know there are parliamentary measures 
that will be taken, and parliamentary issues raised to prevent us from 
having a straight up-and-down vote on the proposal.
  Every Member of the Senate understands this proposal. The American 
Academy of Pediatrics understands this proposal. ``America's 
pediatricians strongly urge support for the Hatch-Kennedy budget 
amendment to increase tobacco taxes to help finance children's health 
care.''
  The American Association of Retired Persons understands this 
proposal. They care about their grandchildren: ``AARP believes that the 
Hatch-Kennedy proposal is an important step in improving access to 
health care for children.''
  The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 
comprised of the 33 national member communions of the National Council 
of Churches support it. They write, ``We in the religious community 
will continue to hold Congress to a high standard as to what is 
required for the common good. Providing for the health care of children 
is simply basic social morality.''
  The list goes on; 150 organizations including the Parent-Teachers 
Association, and many others support this measure.
  Mr. President, this is ultimately a choice and a decision about 
whether we are going to support covering children who are uninsured or 
whether we are going to be for big tobacco. That is the issue. We have 
chosen the tobacco tax for health reasons, Mr. President. If you 
increase that kind of tax, you are going to discourage children from 
smoking and you are going to close a gateway to drug use and other 
kinds of substance abuse.
  Second, we want to make sure that that industry and the users of 
tobacco are going to pay their fair share of the health care costs; $68 
billion a year, according to OTA, is paid by the common taxpayers 
because of smoking.
  We are saying that the tobacco industry ought to bear its fair share 
in covering poor children. That is the issue.
  Finally, Mr. President, we heard a great deal yesterday about the 
American Medical Association. Here is the letter from the American 
Medical Association that says:

       On behalf of 300,000 physician and medical students members 
     of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express 
     our support of your and Senator Orrin Hatch's efforts, as 
     well as those of other Congressional leaders, to improve the 
     health of American children. We also commend you for 
     financing your legislation by a 43-cent increase in the 
     Federal cigarette tax. The AMA is committed to eradicating 
     the public health crisis caused by smoking and our House of 
     Delegates policy strongly supports increasing the

[[Page S4807]]

     Federal tobacco excise tax for health care needs.

  Mr. President, from a medical standpoint, this is right. It is right 
in terms of fairness and equity. There is not a parent in this country, 
not a single parent in this country, who does not believe that all 
children ought to have a healthy start. That is what our amendment 
does, and I hope it will be accepted.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have not felt really great about taking 
on some of my colleagues and irritating people on my side of the aisle. 
I always try to support the leadership in everything. And, I think I 
have a very good reputation for doing that.
  But there occurs in all of our lives--at times--issues that transcend 
the everyday important issues we face in the Senate on a daily basis, 
and this is one of them. Regardless of what happens here today, this 
issue is not going to go away. I think it is time for people to wake up 
and say, hey, look, this is an idea whose time has come.
  We must take care of these kids who cannot take care of themselves. 
The problem in this body, and the problem with the Federal Government, 
is that oftentimes we provide programs for all kinds of people who can 
take care of themselves, but will not. Yet, we do not take care of 
people who truly cannot take care of themselves, but would if they 
could.
  Children's health care should not be a political issue. This is not a 
Democrat issue. It is not a Republican issue. I admit that when I first 
read the Kennedy-Kerry bill, I could not support that bill as drafted. 
The bill provided a new Federal bureaucracy along with $50 billion in 
new entitlement spending.
  That bill provided extensive Federal mandates along with extensive 
Federal accountability and review provisions imposed on the States. It 
was simply unacceptable and provided far too much Federal intervention.
  I do not mean to find fault with my colleague, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, because he too has taken a stand on this issue and has 
been willing to come to the center in a bipartisan way to work with me 
to resolve these problems. But that bill was totally unacceptable to me 
and I know it would have not garnished nearly the support my bill has 
received.
  My bill is substantially different than the Kennedy-Kerry bill. My 
bill provides a block grant funding mechanism to the States which are 
given maximum flexibility to administer the program. The States set 
their own eligibility standards. And, the program is strictly 
voluntary. No new massive Federal or for that matter State bureaucracy 
is necessary since my bill builds on existing State programs or private 
sector initiatives.
  There is no funding mechanism because we already have a system in 
place to collect the excise tax on tobacco products. We would make 
those tax revenues available to the States much like we make matching 
funds available to the States through the Medicaid program. States 
would not have to hire massive new numbers of bureaucrats. The States 
basically operate the program in a manner consistent with existing 
children's programs or in ways that best meet the needs of the 
citizens.
  States will have the flexibility to contract with health insurance 
companies to develop new and innovative insurance products for 
children. In spite of some of the comments that have been made by those 
who oppose my bill, States can contract with private health insurers 
and/or health care providers such as community health centers to carry 
out the mission of this program.

  I want to give States even more flexibility in implementing the CHILD 
bill. I am open to further suggestions and refinements in the bill. In 
that respect, I have challenged my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle alone with the Nation's Governors to help me in that effort. If 
there is a better way of doing this, then I am willing to discuss other 
proposals and make construction changes to the bill.
  My willingness to improve my bill extends to the funding mechanism as 
well. I ask my colleagues to show me a better way of funding this 
program. I cannot think of a more just way of funding the program than 
with an increase of 43 cents on the tobacco tax. In 1955, a pack of 
cigarettes cost 23 cents. The excise tax was 8 cents or 34 percent. 
Today a pack of cigarettes costs $1.80 to $2.30. The excise tax today 
is 24 cents, under 10 percent.
  Does it not seem fair and reasonable to ask the tobacco industry to 
help finance this program particularly in view of the health 
implications of tobacco use? The fact of the matter is that tobacco use 
is the single largest preventable cause of death. It is the largest 
preventable cause of illness in our society.
  Four out of five lung cancer victims in our country get cancer due to 
smoking. There are 51 million smokers in our country, 3 million of whom 
are teenagers. And, everyday 3,000 more teenagers begin to smoke, half 
of whom will become nicotine addicts by the time they are 18 years of 
age.
  As my colleagues know, currently the so-called global settlement 
negotiations are on-going between the tobacco companies and the States 
regarding the litigation against tobacco manufacturers. I have had the 
opportunity to review the arguments on both sides of the issue and I 
note that arguments have been made against any increases in tobacco 
prices on the belief that States will lose revenues.
  It seems to be that we should be spending more time worrying about 
the health of our citizens than the tobacco revenues going into State 
treasuries particularly when these revenues are marginal in comparison 
to health care costs States assume from smoking related illnesses.
  Now, look, we can put this issue off and we can play procedural 
games, but this issue is not going to go away. I think virtually 
everybody in the Senate has strong feelings about this issue although 
there are legitimate differences of viewpoint.
  Of all the arguments made against my bill, I think the one that is 
particularly false is that my bill creates a new entitlement. I am 
perhaps more dismayed by that charge because my bill specifically 
states that no new entitlement is establish by this legislation.
  I succeeded in persuading my cosponsor, Senator Kennedy, to agree to 
the nonentitlement provision in this bill which clearly states that: 
Nothing in this title shall be construed as providing an individual 
with an entitlement to assistance under this title. Moreover, State 
participation is totally voluntary.
  There is nothing in the bill that would establish an entitlement to 
the CHILD Program, but yet that has been one of the principal arguments 
against the measure. I guess any bill that has real winning power could 
be called an entitlement program. Any good program that actually works 
I guess should be called an entitlement even though these programs have 
to face the authorization and appropriations process which the CHILD 
bill is also subject to face.
  It is unbelievable this these kinds of arguments have been made. This 
is a voluntary program designed to be attractive to States. Does that 
make it an entitlement program? Does that somehow convert it into an 
entitlement program? It seems to me there are legal and programmatic 
distinctions between entitlement programs such as Medicare and the 
child development block grant program.
  I remember when the Child Development Block Grant Program came before 
the Senate. Many Senators including those in my party were opposed to 
it. Ironically, that bill passed the Senate unanimously and almost 
everybody claims credit for it because it has been a successful block 
grant program for the States. The States set their own standards which 
is precisely what my bill provides. I think we ought to wake up and do 
what is right here.

  Look, it is a fair characterization to say that this is a choice 
between Joe Camel and Joey. I am not just saying that because it is 
cute and gimmicky. I say that because it is true.
  I think the industry that causes much of the illnesses has an 
obligation to be of some help here. This is not a broad-based tax. The 
only people who pay this tax are those who smoke cigarettes and use 
tobacco products.
  In all candor, I trust my colleagues will keep this in mind. This 
issue is not going to go away. I understand that the leadership is 
going to file an amendment to my amendment. Fine. We will

[[Page S4808]]

look at their amendment and see what it is. I hope it is a constructive 
amendment that will get us to what we are trying to do.
  However, these arguments that $16 billion is all that is needed are 
simply inaccurate. My bill is something we ought to do. These are the 
children who come from families of the working poor. It is very 
difficult for them to help themselves. I think of the billions of 
dollars we spend on people who can help themselves but will not. If we 
cannot do this, then what can we do?
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have a Senator who wants to speak.
  Mr. FORD. I just need 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of points if I 
may.
  Under the previous bills, not in this bill but I understand are 
included in this, they sunset the program at the end of 5 years. Now, 
in the budget program 5 years is fine which when you get in 
reconciliation is 10, and under the 5-year program the reason they 
sunset it is because they run out of money. The cost is greater than 
the income. So this is a budget buster in more ways than one. The cost 
goes well beyond the income. So it is a budget buster.
  You talk about whether this is an entitlement or not. All you have to 
do is read what the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire was trying 
to explain here this morning. It is section 2802. If the State accepts, 
they shall, they shall, they shall, they shall. And every child in the 
State shall have. You shall contract with an insurer that says certain 
things. So I hope States understand it is in the cover of children. I 
hope my record is as good as the next one.

  I hope we can work this out--I understand what is coming next--but, 
after today, at least we can keep a budget together that we agreed on. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield off the bill as much time as the 
majority leader desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for yielding this time and for the outstanding work he has 
been doing.
  We have before us a budget resolution that has been in the making for 
4 months. A lot of hard work went into it, a lot of give-and-take. It 
is truly a bipartisan agreement. It is not a Democratic package, and it 
is certainly not a Republican package. It is one that we came to 
agreement on. There are provisions in it that I don't agree with. There 
are changes that I wanted to make until the very end, and some I would 
like to make at this very moment. But we entered into an agreement, 
House and Senate, Republican and Democratic leadership, working with 
the Budget Committee leaders and the administration, specifically the 
President of the United States. We came to a budget agreement. We shook 
hands. Now we have this budget resolution to implement that agreement.
  The House spent a very long day yesterday and they stuck with their 
commitment. They kept the faith. They passed the budget resolution that 
will carry out the budget agreement. It took them until 3:30 this 
morning. One amendment that was offered, which was very attractive, was 
one that I would like to vote for, to put more money in transportation. 
I think we should take more money out of the highway trust fund and put 
it in the roads and bridges of America, and so do many of the leaders 
in the House on the Republican side. But, no, they fought off a very 
powerful, very important chairman by a vote of 216 to 214. The 
amendment was defeated. They kept their word. The leadership worked all 
night to keep their word, to stick with the agreement. And they did it 
and they passed a budget resolution.
  Just yesterday, here in the Senate, I worked with Senator Daschle, 
Senator Domenici worked with Senator Lautenberg, and we resisted 
amendments that would break us out of the agreement. Senator Dodd from 
Connecticut had an amendment he felt compelled to offer and was very 
serious about. But with some nine Democrats and most Republicans, we 
defeated that amendment.
  Senator Allard, the Senator from Colorado, had an amendment. I voted 
against his amendment. I didn't want to. I am proud of this new, fine 
Senator from Colorado, and I agreed with what he was trying to do. But, 
no, I kept my word. I kept the faith.
  Now, my colleagues, this is a show-stopper. This takes us outside the 
budget agreement. Remember, in the agreement is $16 billion for child 
health care. I thought that was excessive, but we came to an agreement. 
We do need to make sure that, for some children who are not covered in 
America, there is a way for them to be covered. We said: Finance 
Committee, here is $16 billion to address this problem, and we believe 
there are ways that can be found to get that done.
  I care about children in America. I am a parent. I am from a State 
where there are children who are not covered and should be. But we have 
a program here that we have agreed to, $16 billion, and the committee 
will work with that, and I hope and think they will come up with many 
innovative ideas of how we can make sure these children are covered.

  That is why we are here now. We have an agreement we are committed 
to, that addresses this problem. Now we have an amendment that will 
take us, clearly, outside the parameters of the agreement. We must 
defeat this amendment. We must have bipartisan support against this 
amendment, or how am I going to be able to stand up here and vote 
against some of the amendments that will be offered from my side of the 
aisle that will take some of the spending out of our agreement and put 
it in more tax cuts? I would like to do that. I want to do that. The 
American people are overtaxed and overworked, for what they get back, 
in terms of being able to keep their own money. But I am prepared to 
say no, we have to stick with this agreement.
  Paragraph 3 of the bipartisan agreement between the President and the 
leadership of the Congress reads:

       Agreed upon budget levels are shown in the tables included 
     in this agreement, including deficit reduction levels, major 
     category levels of discretionary, mandatory, and tax receipt 
     levels.

  This amendment would change those agreed-to budget levels. Like 
yesterday's amendment by Senator Dodd of Connecticut, the pending 
amendment would break our bipartisan agreement with the President by 
increasing spending and taxes beyond the levels in this agreement.
  By the way, I thought the original Kennedy-Hatch bill just provided 
for $20 billion. We have $16 billion in this package. If you add $20 
billion on top of that, now it is $36 billion. The Kennedy-Hatch 
amendment would create $20 billion of new entitlement spending above 
and beyond what is already in this resolution.

  The sponsors of the amendment claim the amendment would increase the 
tobacco tax. That is not true. It is false. The budget resolution 
cannot tell the Finance Committee which taxes to raise and which to 
cut. The practical effect of this amendment on taxes is not to raise a 
specific tax. It is, instead, to reduce the size of the net tax cut by 
$30 billion, to only $55 billion over 5 years. That is not enough to do 
what we have committed to do--some tax credits for families with 
children, some capital gains tax rate cuts for Americans who are 
entitled to it and deserve that opportunity, some modification of the 
estate taxes. And it puts an additional squeeze on the President's 
education program. We cannot do what we have committed to do with this 
change.
  I am a party to the bipartisan agreement with the President that we 
entered into and we outlined in paragraph 2 of the agreement. I am 
going to keep the faith on this amendment and other amendments. We are 
going to stick with our budget resolution agreement. I have talked to 
the President, because the President is in on this. He has made it 
clear he supports the concept of Kennedy-Hatch. But he is also 
committed to me that he is going to

[[Page S4809]]

work to try to get Democrat votes for our second-degree amendment and 
against making this change in the budget resolution. That is what I 
have been told by the President of the United States. If anybody doubts 
that here on the floor or in the news media, call the White House and 
check it.
  I signed in on the deal and I have taken criticism for it. The 
President signed in on the deal, and he is going to take some criticism 
for it. He already has. But this is clearly a deal-buster. If this 
amendment should be adopted right at the gate, the wheels will come off 
of this thing. They will come off. And I only have two options: One, 
offer second-degree amendments, and if we have to, we may go through a 
series of them, and let me assure you, each one will get hairier and 
more difficult for Senators to vote against, more uncomfortable.

  Or the other one is to say, look, we had a deal. Is the deal off? We 
can pull this down. We have a little work we can do. We can go back to 
the comptime-flextime bill, to give the working men and women of 
America an opportunity to make some decisions, taking time to be with 
their children. We can go onto the chemical weapons implementing 
legislation. Maybe we can go to other bills, like product liability. 
That is pending. We could take that up. Or national missile defense. We 
have other things we could be doing.
  But we should, instead, vote for the second-degree amendment. It is a 
very responsible and reasonable amendment. I urge Senators on both 
sides, vote for the second-degree amendment we are going to offer. Let 
us move on and complete our work on this today, on this whole 
resolution, so we can get to conference, meet tomorrow, and pass this 
budget resolution on Thursday or Friday.
  The amendment we will offer as a second-degree amendment will allow 
us to adhere to our bipartisan budget agreement with respect to health 
care for our children. This amendment accomplishes this by wiping out 
the increases and decreases in the dollar amounts which have been 
proposed by our colleagues in the Kennedy-Hatch amendment. It allows us 
to stick with the balanced budget plan now before us and to provide 
health care for kids.
  I think that is the responsible thing to do. I would prefer to even 
give some direction, maybe even have a vote like they did in the 
committee, saying what we should do is having 100 percent deductibility 
of the self-employed. That would be a major help. There are all sorts 
of things we can do. But we should not break out of the agreement here. 
We should not mandate a new program at this point, on the budget 
resolution. We should not raise taxes when there are other options that 
are as good or better.
  So, my friends, I just want to sum up by saying I think we have come 
a long way. A lot of time has been invested in this, a lot of effort. 
We need to be able to get this budget resolution done so we can go on 
to the reconciliation bill and the appropriations bills. If we do not 
defeat this amendment and if we do not pass this budget resolution 
today or tomorrow, in our effort to get a balanced budget, with 
spending restraint and some tax relief for working Americans, and some 
reform in Medicare that will save the program on out well after the 
turn of the century, we will have made a terrible mistake today.
  So I urge my colleagues, when we get to the vote, that we vote for 
the second-degree amendment and we move on to other issues in this 
area.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield? Can I ask the majority leader a 
brief question?
  Mr. LOTT. Surely.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I just ask the majority leader whether he will permit us 
to have an opportunity to vote on the children's insurance program? Is 
it the position of the majority leader that we will not be able to have 
a vote on the children's insurance program? Is that the thought?
  Mr. LOTT. It is my intention that this amendment not be added to the 
budget resolution. Now, there are a lot of different ways we can do 
that. We can have second-degree amendments adopted, or we can defeat 
the Senator's amendment on a straight up-or-down vote. But I would have 
to have assurances from your leadership and from the White House, from 
the President, that in fact it is going to be defeated. If that does 
not occur, then our only other option would be to pull down this budget 
resolution and move on to other issues.
  You know, the Senator has made his case here today.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Right.
  Mr. LOTT. I knew he would take the opportunity, the first opportunity 
that came along, to do that. That is fine. But I think he has to 
understand this is a very carefully crafted budget agreement which we 
really spent 4\1/2\ months putting together. We cannot allow this 
amendment in this form to be added to the budget resolution. So we will 
find a way, hopefully, to accomplish that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I just had two just quick questions. It is going to be 
an interesting meeting here, because I listened to the Senator, our 
majority leader, speak about how the President is supporting his 
position when the Vice President is on his way up here to vote for our 
position. So, sometime they might get together.
  Mr. LOTT. Maybe they will get together someday; and this would be a 
good day for them to be together.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to say this. When the amendment is offered 
by the majority leader, we are going to urge everyone on our side to 
support it. Because we, as right from the beginning, have supported the 
$16 billion to take care of those needy children on Medicaid. So I 
would certainly urge all of our supporters to support it. Then I hope 
we will have an opportunity to come back on and have a vote on what we 
have offered here, to build on that. So that makes it--if the Senator 
wants to have a reaffirmation for that which has been agreed on, I hope 
we could get to an early vote on it, because we would have every 
intention, then, to come back in and have a vote on our particular 
measure.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can reclaim our time, I would certainly 
like to have a reaffirmation of our support of what was in the budget 
agreement, that we worked through very carefully. I agreed to what was 
in there reluctantly.
  If we then come along and vote for the Senator's amendment, we have 
undercut, we have broken out of the agreement, and we will reverse the 
affirmation we just voted on. That does not make any sense.
  So, I yield the floor at this time so the second-degree amendment can 
be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to address the concerns that have 
been raised today on the floor. This is not the first time we have had 
differences of interpretation on this agreement, and it will not be the 
last.
  This has not been an easy process for anybody on either side of the 
aisle. I know that the majority leader and I have attempted to work 
through disagreements dispassionately, to keep our cool, and to 
recognize there are going to be honest differences of opinion on how we 
should proceed. I just hope we have learned some lessons from the way 
this budget agreement was handled, and Republicans and Democrats will 
make a commitment to not repeat this kind of process so we can avoid 
the pitfalls we are now experiencing.
  The fact is, when this agreement was negotiated, we had a handful of 
Senators in a room making decisions for the rest of us. While I agree 
with the end product, I have no qualms about disagreeing with the way 
we got there.
  Now we have to make decisions with regard to whether or not 
amendments are consistent with this budget agreement. The terms of the 
agreement call for the leaders to seek to produce support for the 
agreement by a majority of Democrats and Republicans and to pursue 
remedial action against provisions deemed to be inconsistent. The 
agreement says, in other words, that we are going to support this 
agreement and try to encourage a majority of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support it and to oppose amendments that are 
inconsistent with it.
  Yesterday, on a couple of occasions, I joined with the majority 
leader to oppose what I considered to be inconsistent amendments. I am 
told we have over 25 Democratic amendments. As I review those 
Democratic amendments,

[[Page S4810]]

almost all of them, in my view, are inconsistent. But that issue is, 
obviously, going to be subject to debate and disagreement for as long 
as this resolution is on the floor.
  I believe that this amendment is consistent with the budget agreement 
for three reasons. First, it deals with an issue that is already 
addressed in the budget. Expanded health coverage for children is in 
this resolution. The budget negotiators acknowledged on policy grounds 
the value of extending child coverage and this budget includes funding 
to cover 5 million uninsured children. How is it inconsistent to say we 
are going to add additional children to the ranks of children to whom 
we have already committed in this budget agreement?
  Second, the Kennedy-Hatch amendment would alter the revenue numbers 
by raising a fee on tobacco, but it would not remove one single tax 
proposal agreed to by the negotiators and memorialized in the letter 
from the majority leadership.
  Those elements of the budget agreement are untouched: the higher 
education deduction; the HOPE scholarship credit; the capital gains tax 
reduction; estate tax reform; the $500-per-child tax credit--every one 
of those initiatives are still in the budget. This amendment doesn't 
affect any of those measures.
  It should be noted that the details of the tax provisions were kept 
intentionally vague, oftentimes at Republican insistence. They didn't 
want to specify the details of the proposals. As vague as those 
provisions are, they are not affected at all by this amendment.
  Third, the Kennedy-Hatch amendment does not worsen the deficit. In 
fact, it helps to reduce it.
  So, Mr. President, based on deficit reduction, based upon how this 
amendment affects the tax package, based upon the fact that this policy 
is already incorporated in the budget, I find it very difficult to 
understand how this amendment is inconsistent with the budget 
agreement. It happens to be entirely consistent with 1 of the 10 
leadership bills that I proposed on the very first day of Congress. It 
happens to be a piece of legislation that the entire caucus feels very, 
very strongly about.
  I hope we can find a way to work through this disagreement, but I 
will tell you this: If it means bringing down the budget resolution, as 
some of our colleagues have threatened, then so be it--so be it. That 
isn't my first choice. I would like to find a way not to avoid these 
kinds of confrontations. I would like to find a way to resolve this 
dispute. But if it means dropping this agreement, then let's do it, 
let's go back to the drawing board, or let's figure out another way to 
do this. But I have to tell you, again, this debate highlights the 
point I have been trying to make about the problems with the process 
that produced this budget agreement.

  I hope we can find a way, in spite of our differences on this 
amendment, to keep the budget agreement intact and to resolve to find a 
better way to get these kind of agreements in the future. Whatever we 
do, let us remember how important this matter is, not just to 
Democrats, not just to some Republicans, but to a lot of children who 
are counting on this legislation passing sometime this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has time been yielded back on their side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Both sides have time remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Both sides have time remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 15 minutes, 14 
seconds.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to use 3 minutes and then yield back the 
remainder of my time, if that is satisfactory.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 2 minutes, 46 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am prepared to yield back my time. Is the Senator 
prepared to yield back his time? I am prepared to yield back mine, but 
I won't yield back mine until he yields his and I have the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield back my time. I might add, I am 
prepared to accept the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to accept the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that; I heard that statement made by our 
colleague.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield back the remainder of my time.


                 Amendment No. 307 to Amendment No. 297

     (Purpose: The Bipartisan Budget Agreement of May 15, 1997, as 
implemented in this resolution, would spend $16 billion over five years 
 (to provide up to 5 million additional children with health insurance 
  coverage by 2002). The funding could be used for one or both of the 
   following, and for other possibilities if mutually agreeable: (1) 
Medicaid, including outreach activities to identify and enroll eligible 
  children and providing 12-month continuous eligibility; and also to 
restore Medicaid for current disabled children losing SSI because of a 
new, more strict definition of childhood eligibility; and (2) A program 
   of capped mandatory grants to States to finance health insurance 
coverage for uninsured children. The resources will be used in the most 
cost-effective manner possible to expand coverage and services for low-
income and uninsured children with a goal of up to 5 million currently 
                    uninsured children being served)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 307 to amendment No. 297.

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

       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 5, line 1, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 5, line 2, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 5, line 3, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 5, line 4, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 5, line 5, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 23, line 8, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 23, line 9, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 23, line 22, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 24, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 24, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 24, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 39, line 22, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 39, line 23, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 40, line 16, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 40, line 17, reduce the amount by 0.

[[Page S4811]]

       On page 41, line 7, reduce the amount by 0.
       On page 41, line 8, reduce the amount by 0.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, parliamentary inquiry. Under the 
rules prevailing for this bill, each side has a half hour on this 
amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, let me just read this amendment:

       The Bipartisan Budget Agreement of May 15, 1997, as 
     implemented in the resolution, would spend $16 billion over 
     five years (to provide up to 5 million additional children 
     with health insurance coverage by 2002). The funding could be 
     used for one or both of the following, and for other 
     possibilities if mutually agreeable: (1) Medicaid, including 
     outreach activities to identify and enroll eligible children 
     and providing 12-month continuous eligibility; and also to 
     restore Medicaid for current disabled children losing SSI 
     because of a new, more strict definition of childhood 
     eligibility; (2) A program of capped mandatory grants to 
     States to finance health insurance coverage for uninsured 
     children. The resources will be used in the most cost-
     effective manner possible to expand coverage and services for 
     low-income and uninsured children with a goal of up to 5 
     million currently uninsured children being served.

  The remainder of the amendment strikes the additions and subtractions 
from the resolution that are included in the Hatch-Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. President, let me just speak for a couple of minutes. First, I 
listened attentively, I say to my fellow Senators, to the explanation 
of the minority leader of the Kennedy-Hatch amendment. Frankly, I 
normally I have great, great esteem for the leader, and I respect him 
almost every time he speaks on the floor. But let me suggest, I would 
be willing to submit to arbitration by any three intelligent people 
that you want to pick, and ask them if this amendment, the amendment 
that I have just tried to modify, the Hatch-Kennedy amendment, does not 
violate the agreement.
  The parties to the agreement agreed that they would fight against 
amendments that are inconsistent with the agreement. Mind you, what do 
you think we argued for 3 months over? We argued one thing: What is the 
level of net new tax cuts that are going to be available? We 
compromised and the President compromised. The distinguished minority 
leader now comes along and tells the Senate, ``It's not inconsistent to 
take $30 billion of that $85 billion.'' Now, I am not good enough with 
percentages, but could somebody figure that out----
  Mr. GORTON. More than a third.
  Mr. DOMENICI. More than a third, and just whack it out of there and 
say, ``That's not inconsistent''? I cannot believe there could be 
anything more inconsistent with the agreement than that.
  If that is not enough, let's take the next one. We agreed in this 
agreement that many of the things the President wanted he would not get 
and many of the things he wanted he would get, and the one thing he 
wanted, and most Republicans wanted, was to cover children that are not 
covered. So we agreed, I say to my fellow Senators, on $16 billion, and 
I just read to you, not the budget resolution because it can't do that, 
but the agreement between the President of the United States and the 
leaders and what it said about covering children, and $16 billion that 
was not in any program was put in the budget in compromise with the 
President of the United States.
  I do not think it matters much whether something is so patently 
inconsistent as that. It is not going to change any votes, but I do not 
want the record of this Senate to go by with even such a distinguished 
Senator as the minority leader suggesting that this amendment is not 
inconsistent with the budget agreement. It is impossible that anybody 
could get any dictionary and look up the word ``inconsistent'' and 
apply it to these two sets of facts and not conclude that this is 
inconsistent.
  There is nothing precluding these two distinguished Senators and 
their cosponsors from offering inconsistent amendments, and when I am 
finished they are probably going to stand up and say they didn't agree 
not to submit inconsistent amendments, unless they want to try to 
continue on with some illogical idea that it is not inconsistent.
  But the point of it is not what their rights and privileges are, the 
point of it is what we agreed to after all those months. I suggest, 
Senator Kennedy has already told us--I yield 5 additional minutes--that 
perhaps the Vice President is standing by to come up here and vote. I 
hope not, I say to the leader. I hope not. I have no idea whether he is 
or is not. But, frankly, had I the slightest suspicion that the Vice 
President himself would come here and vote inconsistent with the 
agreement that the President signed, I would have asked that the Vice 
President sign the agreement. That is what we should have done, for he 
feels not bound by it, I assume.
  He can come up here and vote absolutely inconsistent with it and 
break a tie, if that occurs, and I doubt that that is going to occur. 
He can feel comfortable and the President can say--I don't know what. 
Maybe he will say, ``I don't control the Vice President.'' Do you think 
he might say that, I say to the leader? Maybe that is what he will say. 
Or maybe he will say, ``I'm sorry, Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy 
have more sway over me than you do, Mr. President, for you're telling 
us that you support our position.'' What is the Vice President saying? 
You support the President? The President signed this agreement. This is 
not just some little piece of paper floating around.
  Anybody that knows about this Senator, I have been through so many 
budgets, so many that I am hoping this is the last one, I say to the 
leader, because it might be balanced. But I tell you, never have we 
worked harder to get something bipartisan that is supported by the 
President of the United States.
  Let me tell you, this language that the distinguished minority leader 
read from that is included in this agreement--there are 10 covenants. I 
say to my good friend, Senator Gorton, at one point there were 20. So 
it is not as if they were just all of a sudden agreed to. There were 
20.
  We said, ``You know, that's too many agreements. It's too hard to 
enforce an agreement with so many covenants.'' We spent 3 days arguing 
about those. In fact, one time the majority leader said, ``Why don't 
you go and solve that and don't bother me.'' We did. So we left, and in 
a couple days we came back and got it boiled down to 10 covenants as 
part of this agreement. It clearly says things inconsistent with this, 
the President and the Democratic leadership will use everything within 
their power to see that those kinds of amendments are defeated.
  I am going to take another 3 or 4 minutes beyond the time I have just 
reserved and talk about a couple of other things.
  My good friend, Senator Hatch, I say to the Senator, if you desire to 
raise taxes on cigarettes--what is the amount you would like to do it 
in your bill?
  Mr. HATCH. Forty-three cents.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If you would like do raise it----
  Mr. HATCH. Plus the equivalent for others.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thirty, forty, sixty cents, you go to the Finance 
Committee. You are a distinguished member. You sit very, very high up 
in seniority on that Finance Committee. There is nothing in this budget 
agreement--nothing--that says you cannot try to raise cigarette taxes 
in that committee. You just propose it. You can raise cigarette taxes 
right there in that committee. You do not need very many votes. There 
is nothing that precludes you from it.
  Let me tell you, the irony of it all is that if the Kennedy-Hatch 
amendment passes, you will have the exact same difficulty getting the 
cigarette tax through as if you did not have this thing, because there 
is nothing in this amendment that you propose here today that says the 
Finance Committee of the United States is bound to vote in a cigarette 
tax--nothing.
  I said once--I will say it again--cigarette taxes are not mentioned 
in the amendment. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts got up 
and said, we have drawn it like amendments have been drawn forever. You 
are right. And the interpretation and the efficacy is as it has exactly 
been forever. That foreverness has meant it is not binding, it is not 
binding on anyone. To the extent that you want to put a statement with 
this, it is hortatory. It is giving your

[[Page S4812]]

views and talking to the American people about what you would like to 
see happen. But it is not binding, never has been binding. We have 
never had this kind of situation where you could make it binding.
  Now, having said that, I do not believe anybody in this country 
should believe that the President of the United States, the Democrats 
who were at the table with him, his three negotiators, Senator 
Domenici, Frank Lautenberg, John Kasich, and John Spratt--Members of 
the House, the last two--I do not think anybody should believe that we 
ignored a need in our society, to wit: to cover young children who are 
not covered. We did not. I can say with as much certainty and integrity 
and sincerity as Senator Hatch has said, we intend to cover them. We 
intend to cover those who are in need. We said it in disagreement; and 
there is $16 billion in there.
  Incidentally, for Members who might be interested how this money gets 
spent--and I draw no inferences from it--but the distinguished Senator, 
Senator Kennedy, does not sit on the Finance Committee. All the $16 
billion that is in this agreement goes to the Finance Committee because 
they have Medicaid, which is one of the major programs. It is 
interesting, with the amendment, the committee that the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts sits on will get $18 billion to spend. So 
now we will split the responsibility, $18 billion to his committee, to 
the committee he serves on, and $18 billion for the Finance Committee. 
And, again, it seems to me there is little need for that.

  So I close by saying I have offered an amendment that clearly says 
and unequivocally says we have provided for the children who do not 
have insurance in this country, and how we provided it is contained in 
the budget resolution.
  I believe any Senator voting for that ought to be held to saying, 
``We voted for it. That's what we are getting. That's what the 
agreement says. And we are not going to vote to turn right around and 
destroy the very agreement that created that right.''
  I want to assure everyone, if this budget agreement falls apart, and 
I know on this one--I think I know what I am talking about--there is 
little assurance that this body is going to approve $16 billion for 
child health care, little assurance, because clearly there are all 
kinds of ideas on how we ought to do it, and it will take a few years 
for those to pan out. We said, ``OK, Mr. President, even though you 
don't know how you're going to do it, we'll put it in there for you.'' 
That is the very truth about the $16 billion.
  Mr. President, I want everyone to know--and I want to state for the 
other side--at the expiration of the time on this amendment, I will 
claim the floor back as the floor manager, and unless you intend to let 
us vote on the Domenici substitute, I will perfect the tree with 
another amendment, so we will get a vote on it, and we will get a vote 
on it before anything else happens here in the Senate in terms of this 
budget resolution.
  I yield the floor at this point.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the distinguished minority manager yield me time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield such time as the Senator from Utah needs to 
make his presentation.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
  I think that the Democratic leader has made a very compelling case. 
The amendment we are offering does not break the budget agreement.
  He summarized three points basically.
  No. 1, our amendment, just like the Domenici amendment, embodies no 
new health care program but builds on the existing monies in the budget 
resolution.
  No. 2, although our amendment alters the revenue numbers by raising 
the tax on tobacco there is no excise tax in the body of the text. It 
is my understanding that such language would not be in order. I think 
it would also raise serious constitutional questions about a tax 
originating in the Senate. I think my colleagues understand that point.
  No. 3, as I am pleased to recognize, as Senator Daschle has noted, 
our amendment does not worsen the deficit. In fact, it lowers the 
deficit.
  You would think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would 
be interested in doing supporting this language, especially on a 
balanced budget resolution. Keep in mind, although this budget 
resolution claims to balance the budget, the U.S. Government will still 
have a $6 trillion national debt. The Hatch-Kennedy amendment would 
reduce that debt by $10 billion more over the next 5 years.
  Frankly, for these reasons I believe that our amendment is fully 
consistent with the budget resolution as described by the distinguished 
Budget Committee chairman.
  Let us not use as an excuse to avoid an important vote on a major 
public health problem that we are somehow trying to break the agreement 
on the budget resolution. My amendment helps the budget. And, in the 
end, we will be helping 10 million uninsured children who otherwise 
will not have the help we can provide them today.

  Let me also be very candid here with respect to the strategy. We all 
know that if we do pass this amendment, it will probably have to be 
included in the reconciliation bill. If we do not pass the Hatch-
Kennedy amendment today, I understand--and I believe it is probably 
accurate--that it will take 60 votes to do it on a reconciliation bill. 
I am not saying we cannot get the 60 votes, but naturally we would like 
to be able to have it in the budget resolution so that we do not have 
to have that hurdle.
  If I have some advice for my colleagues on my side of the aisle, I 
would suggest you acknowledge that $16 billion is not enough, 
especially when you, in a sense, rob Peter to pay Paul. We will end-up 
taking DSH moneys that were to be used for the poor and using many of 
them for a new program of children's health.
  At that, the $16 billion will not take care of more than what the 
Chafee-Rockefeller-Jeffords-Breaux bill provides. It will take care of 
maybe 3 million kids who are eligible for Medicaid but are not 
enrolled, but it does not take care of the 7 million kids who are not 
eligible for Medicaid but can't afford health insurance.
  So those who believe that they are doing the right thing by upholding 
this so-called budget agreement when, in fact, my amendment does not 
break the agreement, may be making it even more difficult to pass 
legislation that would help poor children in working families.
  One of my colleagues said, you have won Senator Hatch because you got 
$16 billion in the budget resolution. I admit that I am very pleased 
with this result and that it is a step in the right direction. And, in 
fact, that money would probably not be there in the budget resolution 
had it not been for the efforts of those Senators who support the CHILD 
legislation as well as other proposals.
  I commend my colleagues on the Budget Committee for doing providing 
the $16 billion. Unfortunately, that amount will not provide the 
necessary financial commitment needed to ensure those children most in 
need.
  Senator Domenici's substitute amendment to my amendment essentially 
strikes out all the moneys raised in my bill for children. In effect, 
the substitute amendment is what is already contained in the budget 
resolution for children's health--and nothing more.
  Frankly, if you look at that amendment, basically it says on page 3, 
line 3, where we had increased the amount by $16 billion, it strikes 
out $16 billion; page 3, line 4, it strikes out the money; there on 
page 3, line 5, it strikes out the money; there on page 3, line 6, it 
strikes out the money there, right on down through the whole amendment.
  So all they are saying is they are going to limit new spending for 
children's health to $16 billion, whether that is adequate or not. I 
think we have made better than a good case that it is inadequate. I 
think we made a case that every Senator in this Chamber ought to be 
able to support.
  It is time to resolve this problem. We are going to have to resolve 
it. You know, the odds have been very heavily against us from the start 
on this thing in the budget context. But I hope that those who are 
supporters of the Hatch-

[[Page S4813]]

Kennedy bill will stand up, and I hope that there are others who may be 
supporters who will think this through and realize that it is a good 
amendment to support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with all due respect, I think 
the position of the chairman of the Budget Committee is to deny us an 
opportunity to get a vote on our particular measure.

  I listened with great interest to what he said. He said that, ``I 
think three mature adults would be able to look at this amendment and 
make a judgment that it's inconsistent with the budget agreement.'' We 
have more than that number here that are prepared to vote on that 
issue. We think that at least 100 adults ought to be able to vote on 
that issue and make a judgment. We have tried to address the concerns 
that were raised concerning the consistency of our amendment with the 
overall budget agreement, and we did address them earlier.
  I want to point out that the budget resolution is the right vehicle 
for this measure and I am sure that the Members are aware of this. I 
listened and watched how the Senator from New Mexico was looking over 
at the Senator from Utah saying with great fanfare, ``You can raise 
these issues at any time. You're a member of the Finance Committee.'' 
Of course, as the Senator from New Mexico knows, measures dealing with 
raising a tax must begin in the House of Representatives, not in the 
Senate Finance Committee.
  So to raise the tobacco tax, we need to amend the revenue bill. The 
Constitution requires tax bills to originate in the House, the 
reconciliation bill created by the budget resolution will probably be 
the only revenue measure considered this year.
  We ought to understand substance of this debate. This is not a case 
where we will be able to address this tomorrow, next week or 2 months 
from now--this is it. For the parents of children that need health 
insurance, this is the opportunity. Now is the moment. Today is the day 
in the U.S. Senate. Unless we provide for the tax in the budget 
resolution, we will not have an opportunity to offer the amendment 
later. This budget is not only the right place for this amendment, it 
is the only place for this amendment. That is why this debate is so 
important.
  We were prepared to vote a few moments ago, and we are prepared to 
move now to reach some conclusion.
  Given the reasons I outlined, I urge that we support the Domenici 
amendment. What that will do is restate what is in the budget 
agreement, which is the $16 billion in the restoration in terms of 
Medicaid. We agree with that. We would not council our Members not to 
vote for that. We agree with that. We hope we will have an opportunity 
after that amendment is completed to vote on our amendment.
  As I understand, the Senator from New Mexico will ask for recognition 
and he will put in another amendment. He can do that. That amendment 
will be accepted and we will be right back to a point where we can 
offer our amendment again. We can do that again and again and again and 
again and again. The question then becomes, why can we not have the 
vote on this particular measure? Why can we not go ahead and have the 
vote on this measure? We believe very sincerely that it is not 
inconsistent with the budget resolution.
  The Senator from New Mexico has not told us about how this would 
reduce the possibility of a capital gains tax. He has not stated that 
our amendment will eliminate the possibility of increasing the estate 
tax exemption. He has not said it will compromise our opportunity to do 
something about IRA's or the education tax. He has not said this will 
cut back on the issue of spending cuts, because, as he knows, the final 
amount as mentioned in the reported $138 billion, will be included in 
the first downpayment and installation. None of this is altered or 
changed by our amendment.
  Mr. President, we have to come back to the issue here. The issue is 
whether the Senate of the United States will go on record this 
afternoon in saying we will provide a very modest increase in the cost 
of cigarettes, 43 cents a pack, that will convey direct health benefits 
to millions and millions of children discouraging them from smoking and 
providing $20 billion over the next 5 years to help States pay for 
children's health coverage. States can then make the decision as to 
whether or not they want to participate. It will also provide a $10 
billion deficit reduction.
  That does not do violence to the budget agreement. This is not an 
amendment that says we want this coverage, now you find the revenues. 
We are not taking the revenue out of any particular area. This 
amendment is self-funded. It is probably one of the few, or only, self 
funded initiatives that will be offered this session. Maybe others will 
come down.
  That is the issue. I hope the leadership would not deny us the 
opportunity for the Senate to express its will. It is 10 minutes to 
2:00. We were scheduled to debate from 9:30 to 11:30. We had speakers 
ready to speak and we were ready to vote at 11:30, and now at 10 
minutes to 2 o'clock we are told we will have one underlying vote and 
maybe another. I think the message that will come out of this debate is 
that the Republican leadership refuses to let the Senate of the United 
States vote on a children's health care issue. I think that would be 
very unfortunate--unfortunate to the children and unfortunate to the 
parents.
  I do not see why we should be denied the opportunity to let the 
Senate work its will. We are completely within our rights in offering 
it. We are within our rights to expect we would have a resolution. This 
is a matter of enormous importance and it has overwhelming support of 
the American people.

  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. I have been listening to the Senator and I think anybody 
who understands the parliamentary situation knows we can get a vote. It 
may take a few days, but we can get a vote. I do not want to have that 
kind of a confrontation, but if that is the way it is, then that is the 
way it is. I am prepared to accept the Domenici amendment and probably 
some of the future amendments, and I am prepared to vote.
  That still does not resolve the problem that the distinguished 
Senator and I have been trying to solve, am I right?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. We have made our 
case. We have strong support on both sides of the aisle. All we want to 
do is get the Senate to work its will on an issue involving the 
coverage of health care for children which will be paid for with a 
cigarette tax.
  Mr. HATCH. May I ask my colleague another question? Is it not correct 
that all we are saying here is that we would like to have a vote, win 
or lose, on our amendment today? If we win, that makes it easier for us 
to go through the process. Naturally, any good legislator should want 
to do that if you really believe in what you are doing. I have to say 
both of us believe in what we are doing.
  That is true, is it not?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. This will be the most important 
vote in this Congress on children's issues. This vote we are about to 
either have an opportunity to conduct or be denied that opportunity, 
will be the most important vote in this Congress. There is no question 
about that.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. I normally would not get this argumentative, but, to be 
honest with you, I have heard some of the worst arguments against this 
bill that I have ever heard in any Senate proceeding.
  This morning I read a New York Times article, ``Citing Lost Cigarette 
Revenue, GOP Fights Child Insurance.'' I could not believe what I read:

       Republican senators today attacked a children's health 
     insurance bill, saying the higher Federal tax it would put on 
     tobacco would cost the states more than $1 billion in revenue 
     annually by cutting cigarette sales.
       The measure, proposed by Senators Orrin G. Hatch, 
     Republican of Utah, and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of 
     Massachusetts, calls for raising the current 24-cents-a-pack 
     Federal tax to 67 cents to pay for subsidized insurance for 
     children of the working poor. The sponsors of the bill intend 
     to offer it on

[[Page S4814]]

     Wednesday as an amendment to the budget resolution.

  Here is where it is interesting:

       The Republican Policy Committee, an arm of the leadership, 
     today called the sponsoring Senators' intentions 
     ``admirable'' but misguided, ``because states depend to a 
     great degree on excise tax revenue.'' The committee estimated 
     that decreased smoking resulting from the tax increase would 
     cost states and localities $6.5 billion over five years.
       ``Even if one believes that decreased demand for tobacco is 
     positive from a societal view, it still has negative fiscal 
     aspects for the States,'' the committee said.

  Let me tell you, that is really something. I had just heard about 
this recent policy analysis put out by the Republican Policy Committee 
about the ``unforeseen effects'' of the tobacco tax. I was not exactly 
proud to be a Republican under those circumstances. I am sure some of 
my colleagues wish I were not today.
  But I am going to be because I believe in the Republican Party and I 
believe in what we stand for and I believe in taking care of kids. I 
believe in helping those who cannot help themselves.
  Let's start taking the money away from those that can but won't help 
themselves.
  As my colleagues may be aware, on April 23, the Republican Policy 
Committee issued a report entitled, ``The Complex Problem of Insuring 
Uninsured Children.'' This report, revised on May 1, noted that this is 
the first in a series of RPC papers devoted to this issue. We can only 
hope that this most recent May 16 piece of tortured logic is the last 
of this series unless more compelling analyses are forthcoming.
  Here is the point that is entirely missed. It would be a great thing 
for the public health of this country and particularly for the health 
of young Americans if tobacco tax revenues dropped substantially 
because tobacco is the single greatest preventable threat to our 
Nation's public health.
  No one should be so protective of lower tobacco taxes because the 
taxes might raise more revenues, any more than the public would support 
appointing Dr. Kevorkian as a Surgeon General in an attempt to achieve 
Medicare savings.
  I look forward to economists studying in detail the analyses of the 
May 16 RPC paper. It seems to me that the tobacco companies would have 
liked to have been able to have included this somewhat mysterious line 
of reasoning in their public comments to the FDA rules pertaining to 
the regulation of tobacco sales to minors.
  I wonder how much of the supposed $6.5 billion in lost revenues to 
States that they say will happen comes in the form of illegal sales 
that are quite literally poisoning and hooking our youth. I also want 
to know what Governors publicly take the position that State tobacco 
revenues are more important than the public health. I doubt many of the 
20-plus attorneys general involved in lawsuits to recover State 
Medicaid funds attributable to tobacco-related illnesses would agree 
that a decrease in tobacco consumption is a bad idea.
  It seems to me that the title of the May 16 report, ``Unforeseen 
Effects of the Much-Touted Tobacco Tax Should Be Changed,'' frankly, it 
would be better titled, ``The World Turned Upside Down.'' I will be 
interested to know what the experts on the Joint Tax Committee and 
other groups, how they will view this RPC analysis.
  If I were not just a humble country lawyer from out West, I would 
almost get the feeling that somebody told the analysts at the RPC to 
trash the tobacco tax in any way possible. I have been around here for 
20 years, better than 20 years. I have been trashed by more gifted 
analyses than this.
  Let me close this portion of my thoughts by saying that if I could 
get a list of Senators who are withholding support of our amendment due 
to the reasoning contained in the RPC document, I would immediately 
enter into discussions with my cosponsors. I think it is probably safe 
to say that if this is what it takes to attract more supporters to our 
measure, we can probably shift some of the funds marked for Federal 
deficit reduction to indemnify the States from potential revenue losses 
to any decrease in tobacco uses.
  Who are these Senators? Senator Kennedy and I would like to talk to 
you.
  Now the Republican Policy Committee is implying that it is more 
important to preserve tobacco excise taxes than the health of our 
children because we will get people, especially children, to quit 
smoking in the process. We know that every time smoking goes up 10 
percent, 7 percent of the kids will never touch a cigarette.
  Are we to sacrifice people's health and lives to preserve tobacco 
excise taxes? Would we rather have excise taxes than healthy citizens 
in our States? Those who argue this way seem to want to maintain big 
tobacco revenues at the expense of the life and health of our citizens.
  Now, I find this appalling because all Senator Kennedy and I are 
offering is legislation that will result in good health for smokers and 
which will help children. The arguments of the opponents are logically 
flawed. Their interest in maintaining State tax revenues at a certain 
level is more important to them than the health and welfare of the 
citizens in our States.
  When it gets to the point that we are so ideologically constipated 
that we place the preservation of State tobacco revenues above the 
welfare of our American citizens, then we need to rethink our 
philosophy. I have to say I would have been willing to sit down and 
discuss this matter with anybody, reasonably, on how to handle this.
  I have to admit that I am probably irritating everybody around here. 
But I am irritated, too. If you want to play this game, we can just 
have one vote after another from here on in until the end of the 
process, and we will finally get our vote. If it means day and night, I 
will be here. I have done it before. I can do it again.
  All I want is some consideration for our side. In all honesty, I 
don't think we have had much. We are talking about kids here. We are 
talking about the poorest of the poor kids not on Medicaid, and about 
Medicaid kids, too. We are talking about doing something right--doing 
something for people who cannot help themselves and doing it by raising 
money from the industry that is causing a lot of the troubles.
  I also have to tell you that 72 percent of all adults in this country 
think this is the right thing to do. And even 50 percent of all smokers 
think it is the right thing to do.
  There isn't a better tax cutter in this body or one more zealously 
devoted to it than Orrin Hatch. Don't tell me about raising taxes, or 
cutting taxes.
  I have been for every tax cut I can get. I was one of the few who 
voted against the 1986 tax increase in the Reagan years and the Bush 
tax increase when it came up. I voted against that even though I was 
brought down to the White House and asked to vote for it. I sincerely 
told the President I couldn't do it.
  So I have the credentials on tax cutting. I was one of the original 
supply-side proponents and went all over this country to 36 States for 
then-Governor Reagan arguing for tax cuts.
  Here we have something that could be done to rectify some of the 
problems of our society without a cost to 80 percent of American 
taxpayers--only about 20 percent would pay this--and you would think 
the whole world was coming to an end.
  I really believe that if big tobacco were smart, they would come and 
say we ought to do this. People out there would respect them, and there 
would be more of an interest in trying to work out their difficulties 
with them.
  I have to say that I am getting a little frustrated. This is an 
important issue. It shouldn't be treated trivially.
  So we will just see what happens. Unless I can be shown some better 
way of getting this amendment considered and having an up or down vote 
on it, then we are just going to keep fighting this battle until we get 
that vote.
  I am open to the suggestions of my colleagues. I am open to sitting 
down with them to talk to them and see what can be done. But until 
then, this is the way it is going to be here.
  We may lose here today. But, if we do, it won't be for the lack of 
trying, and it won't be the last time we try either. It isn't going to 
end, even if it is right up to the end of the Congress. I just want to 
notify everybody now. I do not want any arguments next year that 
somebody is going to be hurt by this debate because I have notified 
this body that I plan to press the issue.
  I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding to me.

[[Page S4815]]

  I yield back to my friend from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helms). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take maybe 3 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 40 
seconds remaining on the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the time to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Three minutes from the bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes from the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just want to commend my friend from 
Utah for presenting what is the real issue before the U.S. Senate at 
this moment, and for making such a convincing case in support of this 
amendment which will provide health insurance for children.

  Mr. President, I am having trouble understanding why our majority 
leader is not willing to let us vote on health insurance for children 
financed by a cigarette tax. I am just wondering why he is hesitating. 
What are we afraid of? Why can't the Senate decide by a majority vote 
whether our national priority is to children or to tobacco companies? 
Why can't we vote on whether the Senate stands with children or with 
Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man?
  I think we ought to move ahead and have a vote. That is what the 
regular order would be. We don't take any satisfaction in just urging 
the Senate to accept the amendment of the Senator of New Mexico. The 
only thing we are trying to do is get a vote on our particular 
amendment. I certainly hope that cooler heads of leadership will at 
least permit us the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. President, my time has expired. I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico because 
it is a restatement of what is in the budget resolution bill--$16 
billion for needy children. We are in strong support of that proposal.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I also suggest that everybody vote for this 
amendment. That is fine with me. We will just vote for it. I am 
prepared to take it, but if not, then let's vote, and we will go from 
there.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could you tell me the time on the 
Domenici second-degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the sponsor is 16 minutes 51 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes is yielded to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to make just two arguments.
  The first one is somewhat in response to my friend, Senator Hatch, 
for whom I have great respect.
  Mr. President, I think it is inconsistent with the facts of the 
agreement between the President and the Congress for any Senator to 
stand up here on the floor and talk to the American people as if their 
proposal is the only one that is going to take care of children in 
America. That is not true, whether it come from my distinguished 
friend, the senior Senator, Senator Hatch, or from whomever. The 
statement should be that they think they have another way to do it. But 
to try to look out there and say to America this is a serious issue, it 
is about kids, as if to say the agreement we made with the President 
isn't about kids.
  So we are not going to stand here and let that occur without telling 
the American people that that just isn't so, no matter how or under 
what circumstance my good friend, Senator Hatch, desires, or speaks it 
on the floor of the Senate. We are just as much about kids as his 
proposal is. For him to stand here and imply that that isn't the case 
is just not fair.
  We believe in the agreement with the President, although we would do 
it a different way. We wouldn't send the money to the Labor and Health 
and Human Services Committee. We would send it to the Finance 
Committee. But we believe we took care of the kids who are going to be 
uninsured during the next 5 years of this budget agreement.
  So I just want in my first observation to say, yes, this is about 
kids. Yes, it is about uninsured kids in America. And, yes, we cover 
them. If we want to talk about another issue, a cigarette tax, which 
this amendment does not guarantee--in fact, there is every reason to 
believe that, if you adopt it, the Finance Committee of the U.S. Senate 
and the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House need not adopt it.

  So to make like that is the issue, like something in this amendment 
is going to get you cigarette taxes--which I am not against, 
incidentally, I am not against them--but that just isn't what the 
amendment does. You can talk about some bill you have in mind, but this 
is a budget, not a bill.
  My last point is this. I defy anyone--and I urge my good friends who 
would like to take the position that this amendment is not inconsistent 
with this agreement. I would like them to do just one thing. I ask my 
friend, Senator Hatch, to do just one thing: Just get the bipartisan 
agreement when you have a moment. Look at item No. 1. I will read it to 
you. ``The elements of this bipartisan agreement provide for deficit 
reduction amounts that are estimated to be the result in the balanced 
budget by 2002.''
  It proceeds then to say that there is a tax--a summary of the 
agreement. It is in a chart form. The agreement then proceeds to say 
that the majority leader, the minority leader, the President of the 
United States--as I indicated, maybe not the Vice President, because 
maybe he is not bound by the President--but it says that this 
agreement, as contained in this piece of paper, these numbers, governs 
and that anything that will be offered that is inconsistent will be 
opposed.
  I say to Senator Hatch that his amendment takes this agreement, this 
one right here, and it changes two of the numbers right off the bat--
the $85 billion on the tax cuts is changed by his amendment. In fact, 
it is reduced by $30 billion. Excuse me. The Presidential initiatives, 
a line here, $31 billion, you have altered that by adding $20 billion.
  So now I don't believe anybody ought to be taking the point that the 
majority leader of the U.S. Senate, or minority, or our whip, or myself 
as chairman, that when we say this does break the agreement, I cannot 
conceive how anybody could say that they have another interpretation 
that says it doesn't. That makes it a very important event.
  Would Senator Nickles like to speak for a few moments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to echo the comments made by my 
colleague from New Mexico. This is even more important than the budget 
agreement.
  You are only, in the Senate, as good as your word. There is a 
document that says we are going to have net tax cuts of 85. This makes 
net tax cuts 55. There is an addendum that says there is going to be a 
kid care initiative that costs 16. This amendment makes that kid care 
initiative 36.
  This is not the agreement. If people on the other side are now saying 
this is consistent with the agreement, that is not the case. And it 
really does unravel this deal. It is beyond me.
  I would like to think that people would have more credibility in 
their word and would say, ``I will always tell you the truth.'' If 
people are going to say this doesn't break the deal and the Vice 
President is going to come down and say this is consistent with the 
deal, then we don't have a deal. Some people are just evidently quite 
happy to break it up and make sure that we don't have a deal.
  I will go further to say that this is consistent with the deal. I can 
certainly have an amendment to cut discretionary spending by $20 
billion and increase the tax cut by $30 billion. I would like to offer 
that amendment. Tell the majority leader, I would like

[[Page S4816]]

to offer that amendment. I think we spent too much money on the 
discretionary side, and I think we didn't cut taxes enough. It wasn't 
my intention to offer that amendment because it would be inconsistent 
with the deal.
  I want a balanced budget. I want some tax relief. But this amendment, 
if it passes, tells me there won't be a budget. It tells me that people 
who ``negotiated in good faith'' can say that this is consistent. 
Frankly, that bothers me more than the amendment. It bothers me a lot. 
You have to be as good as your word.
  There is a package here that says here is the agreement. It says kid 
care, $16 billion. It didn't say 36. It said net tax cuts 85. It didn't 
say net tax cuts 55. I do not want to go to my constituents and say it 
was going to be 85 but now it turned out to be 55. But, boy, we got 
gypped. We didn't do what we said we were going to do.
  We ought to at least try to do what we said we were going to do, but 
yet we have not been here 1 day and people are undermining this 
agreement and, frankly, making allegations that this is consistent with 
the package when it absolutely is not.
  If this amendment should pass, this is one Senator who will not be 
supportive of this package. And it bothers me because I want to balance 
the budget. I want to provide some tax relief. I want us to help save 
Medicare, and I think the net result is the passage of this amendment 
says there will be no budget package this year.
  I hope people are aware of this when they cast this vote. I hope they 
do not think this is just a free vote. I hope they do not think the 
rest of the people are going to run over on this side and put this 
budget resolution together and pass a net tax cut of 55. I do not think 
that will be the case. I do not think it will happen. So I hope people 
will recognize we are not talking about trivial, little things, that we 
have legislation in here that encompasses the Hatch-Kennedy bill, but 
we do have language that says we are going to have a net tax cut of 55. 
There is a $30 billion tax increase.
  If somebody wants to raise taxes--and I hear my colleagues talk about 
this--if they want to raise taxes on tobacco, very easily they can wait 
until the reconciliation bill comes in the Chamber. The reconciliation 
bill, consistent with the budget package, will have a net tax cut of 
$85 billion. If they want to have an amendment to that tax cut that 
says they want to raise cigarette taxes and cut other taxes, that is 
consistent with the package; they can do that. They cannot come in and 
say, we want to spend an extra $20 billion in kid care that is not 
consistent with the package, but they could do that. And then they will 
be playing with the real bill. They are talking about real bullets. 
They are talking about taxes.
  If they want to raise cigarette taxes and cut other taxes, I might 
support them. I might help them draft it. But they cannot come in and 
say, hey, we are going to change the net side of this tax cut as this 
amendment proposes to do from 85 to 55. They cannot do it. It is not 
consistent. It is a deal-breaker. This says the agreement is not worth 
the paper it is written on. And if the President is going to come down 
here and endorse it by his vote, or his effort, his presence, that 
means we have a real credibility problem. We have a real credibility 
problem.
  This amendment is not consistent with the agreement, and I do not 
think anybody should make that allegation. This is a budget-breaker. 
This amendment basically says we do not want a budget this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator from New Jersey will yield 3 or 4 
minutes, 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts 
from the resolution itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is yielded 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As Senator Hatch and I have pointed out, this is 
basically budget neutral. I included earlier in the Record the 
assessment of the Joint Economic Committee, and what we have 
demonstrated is that the expenditures that will be used in order to pay 
for the program will be raised by the increase in the cigarette tax.
  The opponents of this amendment cannot have it both ways. You cannot 
spend half the morning saying we are against the increase in the 
cigarette tax and then in the afternoon say, well, this is going to 
somehow diminish the whole budget agreement in terms of revenue.
  That is what they have been saying. That is what opponents have been 
saying.
  The fact is, as everyone in this body understands, this is revenue 
neutral. This is revenue neutral. I have said if they can come in and 
find out where our amendment is going to reduce the capability of the 
Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee to affect the estate 
taxes, capital gains, IRA's, student assistance, let them make that 
case. You cannot do it. You cannot do it. I listened to the rhetoric, 
and it still does not stand.

  Mr. President, the real issue I think is whether we in the Senate, on 
the one vehicle that can make the difference, are going to have an 
increase in the tobacco tax and have a children's health insurance 
program. That is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking 
about.
  I have increasing frustration with why the majority leader and the 
chairman of the Budget Committee are refusing to let us do so. We can 
make up our own minds. The case has been set. People have listened to 
the debate. Let them make up their own minds on it.
  It is our position that when it says in this budget agreement if 
bills, resolutions or conference reports are deemed to be consistent--I 
think our minority leader had indicated how it is consistent, because 
the budget points out we are taking $16 billion to look at the 
Medicaid. We are looking at those individuals who are just above the 
Medicaid, the working poor, looking at those children. A child is a 
child. We should not say, OK, it is all right, it is consistent with 
that. If you are going to be below a certain level of poverty, it will 
be 85 percent above the poverty, and say, well, that is completely 
inconsistent. The American people are not going to buy that. The 
American people are not buying that. That is an absolute phony, fake 
argument.
  This is consistent because it is looking after needy, poor children--
that is the issue--paid for by a cigarette tax. If you do not want that 
and want to oppose it, at least say let us go ahead and vote and take 
that position. But we have been on it now since 9:30 this morning. It 
is 2:30. We are denied the opportunity to let the overwhelming majority 
of the American people have a vote on it.
  Seventy-five percent of the American people support this. And if they 
are watching television today, they are saying, why can't the Senate of 
the United States at least vote it yes or no? We are being denied that. 
Quite frankly, the children who have been denied that health insurance, 
unable to get it, have been very patient. Their parents have been very 
patient. They are very patient every single night when they are 
concerned about those children. They are spending all night, all day, 
every day. We can certainly be patient, too, if the parliamentary 
process is going to deny us that opportunity. The majority has the 
right of recognition, and they can put on another amendment; we are 
supporting this. Then they put on another. But eventually that slot is 
going to open up and Senator Hatch and I are going to be here to fill 
it.
  That is where we are, Mr. President. We just cannot understand why 
here, after all these hours, with this issue and debate, somehow some 
Members on that side are saying, if you pass a small health insurance 
program for needy children, 10 million children, that is paid for, it 
is going to end the whole budget deal. That is what they are saying. 
They are saying, if you provide enough money for 10 million children, 
the world is going to come to an end. We are ending the budget deal. We 
will never get to a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, they cannot be such strong defenders of Joe Camel.
  That is where we are, Mr. President. I hope we can move ahead. We are 
going to try to point this out all the way along the line, but I hope 
we can move ahead and get to some judgment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S4817]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. GRAMM. Why not give me 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator off the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is yielded up to 10 
minutes.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in all of this passion, in all of our 
efforts to vilify cigarettes and talk about taxing them, I think we 
have really forgotten a fundamental fact, and that is that we already 
have more money in this budget than we need to buy an insurance policy 
for every child in America for whom we are seeking to provide health 
coverage.
  Let me go back and try to remind people of what this whole debate is 
about. What this whole debate is about is that the President, after 
looking at various statistical estimates, concluded that if you look at 
every family in America with income up to 300 percent of the poverty 
level, and I remind you, for a family of four that is $48,000 a year of 
income--I say to our distinguished majority leader from Mississippi, 
that is higher than the per capita income and family income of his 
State--that if you look at families up to 300 percent of poverty, there 
are as many as 10 million children in America who are not covered by 
either Medicaid or private health insurance.
  Now, what the President has done is set the goal, recognizing that 
3.3 million of these children already are or will be qualified for 
Medicaid--they just had not signed up--the President set out a goal of 
coming up with a program that helps 5 million more children to get 
private health insurance.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that the cost of a private 
health policy for a child, looking at various data that is available, 
averages about $500 per child for a fairly standard policy--lower with 
a higher deductible, higher with a much lower deductible, but basically 
$500 per child. We could go out and buy an insurance policy for all 5 
million children in America that we want to cover, and we could do it 
for less than the $16 billion that is in this bill.
  So why should we pass an amendment--unless we just get some pleasure 
from spending money, why should we pass an amendment to raise it up to 
$36 billion, which would allow us to buy three policies for every child 
in America that we are trying to help. What could possibly be the 
purpose of such an amendment? What is the purpose of the Kennedy 
amendment when he started out saying we need $20 billion? The President 
started out with a program that was less than $10 billion. We ended up 
with a budget that was $16 billion. But the amendment does not say we 
will take it to $20 billion. The amendment says take it to $36 billion.
  Now, is there no limit on the amount of money that we want to spend? 
If we already have in the budget enough money to buy an insurance 
policy for every child in America that we are trying to target here, 
even up to families that make $48,000 a year, where 82 percent of those 
families already have private health insurance policies that cover 
their children, is that not enough? Isn't one insurance policy enough? 
Why should we have in this bill enough money to buy three insurance 
policies?
  That is what the debate here is about. If we simply want to say how 
much we want to deal with this problem, maybe this amendment has some 
relevance. But the plain, honest-to-God truth is, it is going to be 
hard in any rational manner to spend the $16 billion we have already 
provided. If we just simply went out and bought every child in America 
that qualifies in this 5 million children problem that the President 
has defined, we have more than enough money already to do it.
  Why do we want to add $20 billion more? Could we not use that money 
for some better purpose? Could we not let families keep the money and 
invest it in their own children and their own future?
  So I just want to remind people, in all of this passion about how we 
want to pound our chest and say how much we care about children, we 
have already have enough money in this resolution to buy an insurance 
policy for all 5 million of the children that the President has 
targeted and that we have agreed to. We clearly could do the job for 
much less than we have already committed to spend. But the point is, 
why spend three times as much as is required to simply buy the 
insurance policies? There is no logical reason for doing it. All we are 
doing is bidding with each other for spending money.

  I would like to note, finally, two additional things. No. 1, I am not 
for this budget agreement, and I am going to be in the Chamber when 
this amendment is disposed of telling people why I am not for it. But I 
am not going to vote for the Kennedy amendment to try to kill this 
budget agreement. And I hope there is nobody on our side of the aisle, 
if this vote turns out to be very close, who is going to cast a vote 
for the Kennedy amendment thinking, by doing that, they are going to 
kill all the bad things in this budget agreement that we are not for. I 
have never found that I was smart enough to game the system and end up 
where I wanted to be on that basis.
  So we are going to have an opportunity on final passage to vote 
``no'' if we are going to be against it. I am going to offer amendments 
that present another vision. But what I want to urge my colleagues to 
do is to look at this amendment and see we already have more than 
enough money to buy the children's insurance policies that we need. So 
let us stay with the amount we have in the bill. As chairman of the 
subcommittee that is going to be instrumental in trying to put the bill 
together, I would attest that we can cover all 5 million children with 
the $16 billion we have.
  Finally, let me say that it is discouraging to see a budget deal that 
commits to $16 billion of brand new programs, little baby elephants 
that are just going to grow, and we cannot pay the bills we already 
have in Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. But, even for many 
of our Members, the $16 billion is not enough. The ink is not even dry 
on the budget deal and here we are, talking about busting it big time. 
It has to be very discouraging.

  Defeating this amendment, it seems to me, is the reasonable thing to 
do, unless you really believe that it is just important that you be 
able to say to people: Not only did I want to insure people, but I 
wanted enough money to do it several times over so we can do it just as 
inefficiently as we wanted to and still reach everybody. Unless that 
gets you something at home, don't waste this $20 billion. Don't vote to 
raise taxes and spend this money. We already provide the funds 
necessary to serve the children we seek to serve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helms). Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield off the bill as much time as the distinguished 
majority leader desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me that 
time. We don't want to go over everything that has been said two or 
three times this afternoon, but let me again make it very clear, if the 
Kennedy health care proposal had been in this budget agreement, I would 
never have agreed to it. I would have never signed on to it. This is a 
new entitlement program. It is money on top of what is in the budget 
agreement. As a matter of fact, I agree with the Senator from Texas, 
what he just said, the $16 billion was more than I thought was 
necessary. But it is in the agreement and the Finance Committee is 
already working, I am sure, on ways to deal with those children that 
might, in fact, be uninsured or not covered. They have the opportunity 
to do that. And there is enough money in here to do it.
  But, now the Senator comes in here and makes all kinds of threats 
about how we will go on and on and on today, until we get a vote--I 
guess he presumes to put this in there. And then the argument is made 
that this does not change the agreement.
  Would it change the agreement if an amendment is offered to cut 
spending, which I think should happen--there is not enough spending 
restraint in this agreement--and add it to tax cuts? I would be 
inclined to vote for that, want to vote for that. That would be the 
right thing to do. But that would clearly change the makeup of this 
agreement.
  So, to now say that this does not change it, that it is revenue 
neutral, when in fact it adds a tremendous

[[Page S4818]]

amount of money to the area of child health care--the Senator from 
Massachusetts wants a Government takeover in this area. That is what 
really is at stake here. He knows this clearly is beyond what was 
included in the agreement and it would completely unravel it. What will 
come out of this is we will reach a point where we will not have a 
budget resolution. I think that would be a real tragedy. But I want to 
make it clear, I am opposed to this amendment, No. 1, because I think 
it violates what we agreed to, but, also, I am opposed to the Kennedy-
Hatch approach here. I think it costs too much money. I don't think it 
is the answer to the problem.
  The Finance Committee can work on this and come up with solutions 
that will get the job done for those children who do in fact have a 
problem. So I do not think it is fair to imply we are not concerned 
about this area and we cannot deal with this problem. It is just the 
Kennedy-Hatch proposal is not the be-all and end-all. There are other 
proposals out there: 100 percent deductibility or 80 percent 
deductibility of the cost of this health care is one way to go, with 
more flexibility for the States. Why, the States are already using that 
flexibility to make sure children are covered. In the State of Utah 
already the Governor, with limited flexibility, has been able to make 
sure that a third of the children that were not covered are in fact 
covered. That was pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article in April 
of this year.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator points out the State of Utah already has a 
program where they are attempting to cover uncovered children, as do 32 
other States.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Under the language in the bill presented by the Senator 
from Utah and the Senator from Massachusetts, that program would 
essentially be overridden. That program would no longer exist, because 
the eligibility requirements are strict, those required under the 
Kennedy bill are so strict that the Utah program would no longer fit in 
it and therefore could no longer function.
  This bill would eliminate that Utah program, along with 33 other 
States. Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. GRAMM. Including New York.
  Mr. LOTT. I was not aware that it was actually that restrictive, but 
I know the Senator, who is a former Governor, knows what the States 
already have been doing and is familiar with the specifics of this 
proposal and how it would make it even more difficult to provide the 
coverage that is needed.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will yield, yes.
  Mr. HATCH. I think it should be pointed out to the majority leader 
that our bill does not interfere with the innovative programs in Utah 
and many other States which are doing so much to help children get 
health care.
  I think it is important to underscore that even with the great Caring 
program, there are still 56,000 kids in Utah who are not covered. This 
is in spite of the Utah Governor's substantial efforts as well. And I 
might add that throughout the country similar efforts are occurring.
  If the Senators believe that the language of my bill is not clear on 
this point, I am open to suggestions on what we can do here.
  But I think that a much larger point bears repeating. The budget 
includes a reduction in spending of about $14 billion for Medicaid. 
Clearly, everyone recognizes that most of the reductions will probably 
come from the disproportionate share program, or DSH. There are not 
many other offsets within the Finance Committee.
  At the same time, the budget includes $16 billion in new money for 
children's health care initiatives. It seems reasonable to assume that 
the Medicaid reductions will come from DSH--which, after all, is a 
program for the poor--and the increase will be given back to the poor 
in the form of Medicaid improvements or a mandatory grant program.
  So it looks to me like a fairly good percentage of the $16 billion in 
new money will end up being taken from another program serving poor 
children and seniors.
  Don't get me wrong. I think it is a wonderful thing for the budget to 
include the $16 billion.
  But if you analyze the numbers, you will see that that amount 
probably will cover the 3 million kids who currently qualify for 
Medicaid but are not enrolled, and maybe even a few more. But I doubt 
it will even cover 5 million in a meaningful way, as the budget 
document suggests.
  And that still leaves 5, 6, or 7 million kids who are not covered.
  All I am saying is this. We are not interfering with any of those 33 
State programs. This bill does not interfere with them. In fact, it 
builds on existing State efforts.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could regain my time--
  Mr. HATCH. If I may just finish? I apologize for taking so much time, 
but let me make this point, since my State was mentioned and since I 
think the statements were not completely accurate.
  Under our bill--which as Senator Nickles pointed out earlier is not 
even the subject of our amendment today--participating States would use 
Federal grants to help working parents with incomes too high for 
Medicaid buy private health insurance or purchase care through a 
Community Health Center for their children.
  So Utah could use the Federal funds under the CHILD bill to 
supplement the current privately supported Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
Caring program for children, which serves over 1,000 children. This 
program provides a base on which to greatly expand subsidized private 
health insurance coverage.
  And I know this is true, because I am one of those who helped get 
that program up and running.
  I might also add, just for my good friends and colleagues, the 
distinguished majority leader and the Senator from New Hampshire, the 
Utah program has endorsed the Hatch-Kennedy bill. I think that is just 
something that needs to be said.
  Mr. LOTT. What the Senator from Utah is trying to do, along with the 
Senator from Massachusetts, is mandate how this problem should be 
addressed and add more money beyond what is needed to get the job done, 
and to put it in the budget resolution. We had lengthy discussion about 
how to deal with this. Meeting with the President's representatives, 
talking with the President, we came up with what we thought was a 
reasonable compromise in terms of the amount of money, $16 billion, 
without the Government takeover provisions, without the Federal 
mandates. I have information here that indicates there are five new 
major Federal mandates included in this bill, which will, in fact, 
complicate the job of insuring the children.
  We have an adequate amount of money. We are saying to the Finance 
Committee and the Members of the Senate, in a subsequent vote that we 
will have on a reconciliation bill, that there is an area where we need 
to help children who are not covered. We have the funds to do it. And 
for them to come up with proposals.
  They will be able to do that. But, no, the Senator is saying: Do it 
our way and do it with an additional $20 billion. Clearly, this is not 
going to get through the process. It just cannot, because we will not 
have a budget agreement if this is included in there. I do not mean 
that as any sort of threat. I just mean, if we start down that trail 
there are going to be other amendments offered that then--look, if the 
agreement we shook hands on is going to be wiped out here with this 
amendment, where does it stop? There are other amendments pending out 
there. There are amendments I would like to vote for. I intended, on 
our side, to oppose them because they were not part of the agreement. I 
would like us to have a disaster fund set up in advance. The Senator 
from Texas has an amendment on that. I do not think there are adequate 
tax cuts in this agreement. I think we should have more.
  If we are going to start doing that, we will wind up with at great 
big mess on our hands and no budget agreement. That is what is at stake 
here. Over the insistence that we do it the way the Senator from 
Massachusetts says, to add another $20 billion above what we agreed to 
and what is necessary, we are going to threaten to take down a 
multitrillion-dollar budget agreement

[[Page S4819]]

that gets us to a balanced budget, that has some reforms in it, some 
restraint on spending--not nearly enough--and some tax cuts, and not 
nearly enough in that area either. I don't think it is worth 
jeopardizing a multitrillion-dollar agreement that the President signed 
on to.
  If he has changed his mind, if he has walked away from this, I think 
he owes me, you know, the right to know if that is the case. I expect 
that before the day is out we are going to have some votes. We are 
going to see whether the Democrats are going to live up to holding this 
package to the way we agreed to it or not. If you are not, then how am 
I going to be able to do that?
  I have taken the flak, I have kept my word. This clearly will defeat 
the whole purpose of the agreement and what has already been approved 
in the House of Representatives last night in the wee hours of this 
morning, and what came out of the Budget Committee on a 17-to-4 vote.
  Now we are going to rewrite it here on the floor, mandating it has to 
be done this way. I just think it is absolutely the wrong thing to do, 
Mr. President, and we intend to resist it all the way.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield 5 minutes on the bill?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this debate is reaching the ridiculous. 
To say that one-third of 1 percent--that is what we are talking about 
in the total budget agreement--the majority leader--this is going to 
take the budget deal down. We are talking about one-third of 1 percent 
spending, over the next 5 years; over one-third of 1 percent, paid for.
  They say ``Oh, that is going to bring it down because it is 
inconsistent with the budget agreement.''
  Look, Mr. President, I am reading from the budget agreement under 
``children's health, paragraph 2.'' The funding that is in the program 
here can be used for this purpose:

       A program of capped, mandatory grants to States to finance 
     health insurance coverage for uninsured children.

  That is what our bill is. That is what our bill is. It is a capped 
grant to the States for uninsured children. It could not be any more 
specific than what is included in the budget agreement. That is what 
some of the $16 billion could be for. So we say: Well, let us add it 
for some of those who are the sons and daughters of working families 
that do not make sufficient kind of income to be able to do it. Now, 
when the majority leader gets up--all we are looking for is a vote. We 
are voting. It is quarter to 3 now, and we are being denied a chance to 
vote on this issue. He refuses. He says if this goes through, this one-
third of 1 percent on an issue that relates to a grant to States to 
finance coverage for uninsured children--that is a good statement of 
what our bill is all about, included in the budget agreement, and he is 
trying to say this is so far removed--it is difficult for me to be able 
to accept.
  Finally, just on this point, I listened to my friend from Texas talk 
about the problems, how easy it is to cover all of these children. It 
is interesting, Texas has 1.4 million uninsured children 18 years of 
age or younger; nearly 1 in 4 children, 23 percent, is uninsured. It is 
the second-highest percentage and the second-highest total number in 
the country. Texas would receive, under our legislation, $2.6 billion 
to insure uninsured children with this particular program, an average 
of $655 million a year for the uninsured children.
  This is supported by close to three-quarters, 74 percent, of the 
State of Texas.
  I respect my colleague from Texas saying, ``Well, there really isn't 
a problem out there,'' but there is a problem out there. There is a 
problem across the country. All we are saying, all Senator Hatch is 
saying, is this is paid for; it is an issue of covering children which 
is paid for with a tobacco tax.
  Can we not in the U.S. Senate say, let us, on this issue, go forward 
with a vote? Evidently, we are being denied this. It is suggested that 
if we dare to go forward with a vote and we possibly are able to 
convince Republicans, as well as Democrats, that this is a national 
priority, a priority for families in America to provide insurance for 
uninsured children of the neediest families, that suddenly the whole 
economy and the Nation is in danger. This is a simple choice between 
children and the tobacco industry, Mr. President. That is what we are 
faced with. It seems to me we ought to be able to decide on children 
this afternoon.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time does the Senator from Illinois--do we 
want to alternate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to alternate. How much time does the 
Senator want?
  Mr. GREGG. Ten minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes off the resolution to Senator Gregg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise again to recall some of the comments 
I made earlier, but also to address a couple of other issues that have 
been raised here.
  First off, I think it is good that the Senator from Massachusetts has 
finally admitted--I suspect maybe over the active opposition of his 
colleague from Utah--that this is a mandated program. He calls it a 
``capped mandated program,'' I call it an unfunded mandated program, 
but the fact is, we finally got it out in the open. This is a brand new 
major entitlement, and it is a mandated entitlement. There is nothing 
discretionary about this, nothing at all discretionary about this.
  As I said earlier, if this is discretionary, this has the same 
relationship of being discretionary as my golf game has to Tiger 
Woods'. The simple fact is, it has no relationship to discretionary.
  Let's talk about a couple specific events that occurred relative to 
the States that get stuck with this program, because they are all going 
to get stuck with this program. Under section 2802, States lose almost 
all flexibility in designing health care programs for kids--almost all 
flexibility. Under section 2802, programs like the one we have in New 
Hampshire, which I described earlier which is covering in its 
demonstration period up to 50 percent of the kids we are trying to 
target without additional public costs, and we will get to the 100 
percent as we develop a plan under the proposal in this budget 
agreement, which gives us the additional money to do that, but that 
plan will be wiped out. And there are 33 other States in this country 
that have initiatives going forward to address these targeted youth, 
targeted children, which programs would be put at dramatic risk, if not 
be wiped out.
  I suggest the interpretation of the amendment of the Senator from 
Utah is inconsistent with the amendment's language itself. The 
amendment states very clearly--very clearly--that States must comply 
with the Medicaid criteria for supplying health care, and almost in 
every State, these initiatives that are going forward do not comply 
exactly with the Medicaid criteria as for insurance purposes. So 
flexibility is denied.
  Not only does that happen, as I mentioned earlier, this amendment is 
just the ultimate in the Federal Government coming in and taking over 
an entire sector of health care. It is a nationalization of health care 
for, basically, kids and, thus, creating a tremendous movement from the 
private sector to the public sector with costs, as kids will move out 
of private-sector coverage on to public coverage.
  Not only does that occur, but this amendment specifically states that 
waivers are rejected now. I have to tell you, as a former Governor, it 
is hard to get waivers, but one of the good things that this President 
has done is that he has loosened up the waiver process, and Secretary 
Shalala has been receptive to States that come forward with ideas 
relative to Medicaid and have asked for waivers. I suspect Utah and I 
suspect Massachusetts--I know Massachusetts, and I know New Hampshire 
and New Mexico have all participated in this waiver process to try to 
deliver better health care using imaginative and creative ideas that 
the State health agencies develop. But do you know what this amendment 
says? It says, ``Tough luck, States. From here on out, we give no 
waivers at all''--the ultimate regulatory dictatorial action; the 
ultimate

[[Page S4820]]

excess of the Federal regulatory structure.
  This is a power grab, pure and simple, an attempt to move the issue 
of how you finance health care for kids in America to the Federal level 
and, as a result, it is an outrageous--an outrageous--new mandated 
program. It is nice we finally have an admission of that after all the 
denial we heard earlier, which I found incredible, but finally we have 
an admission that this is a mandated program.
  The practical effect of creating this program will be it is going to 
cost an additional $20 billion on top of the $16 billion already in the 
budget for this targeted population which can be taken care of, as so 
appropriately presented by the Senator from Texas, with the $16 
billion, which obviously can be taken care of because the President 
signed on to it and it is his No. 1 priority. This is such an insult to 
the President to bring this forward in this manner, because they are 
essentially saying the President didn't know what he was talking about 
when he said he could take care of this problem with $16 billion.
  They are saying we need $36 billion to do it. The reason they need 
$36 billion, and $36 billion is an extraordinarily low estimate, is 
because they have a nationalization plan. That is what they are 
planning, they are planning to have all the kids today who are in 
working families who have low incomes but who happen to be covered by 
health insurance moving off that private sector on to the public 
sector. There will be a stampede of employers essentially saying, 
``We're no longer going to cover you, you have to be covered by the 
public sector.'' That is why the price is going up. That is why they 
need all this extra money.
  It is not going to give any child any more coverage of any 
significant nature. All it is going to do is allow the Federal 
Government to take over the program and allow the taxpayers to pick up 
a large percentage of the costs which is presently being picked up by 
the employer.
  It is truly an outrage for us--after we have been down this road for 
the last 40 years of seeing Federal programs that have not worked when 
the Federal Government has federalized them, programs where the States 
have been delivering services, and suddenly the Federal Government 
comes in and federalizes it and we see they do not work, and in an 
attempt to address that just a year ago, we tried to reverse the 
situation with welfare, for example, and move the programs back to the 
States--for us to have proposed before us a program which says 
essentially the Federal Government knows best, States are going to be 
written out of the process, and we are going to create a huge new cost 
to the taxpayers of this country so that some bureaucrats here in 
Washington can control the definition of how kids are delivered health 
care and in the process wipe out the coverage that is occurring in the 
private sector and the capacity of States to have flexibility, it is 
just a public policy initiative which is totally inconsistent with what 
has been the flow of events in this country from a standpoint of 
knowing what works and what does not work in the last few years.
  We have this one other issue that keeps being thrown in our face: We 
have a choice between tobacco and children. That is not the choice. The 
choice is between whether or not we want to nationalize health care or 
whether we want to let the States continue to participate in the 
process. There is no choice on coverage here. The President has 
demanded, and we have put in because we believe it is appropriate, $16 
billion to cover kids, to cover the targeted population. That is a fait 
accompli; it is done. The extra $20 billion demanded in this amendment, 
which is going to be paid for by a tobacco tax increase, has nothing to 
do with coverage. What it has to do with is federalization, 
nationalization of a program. So this does not have anything to do with 
a choice between kids and tobacco. The kids have already won. We have 
already in this bill taken care of that issue.
  Now, if the other side were honest about this, they would allow us to 
divide the question. They would allow us to divide the question, and 
let's have a vote on the tobacco tax increase, independent of this 
brand new major entitlement. But they are not going to let us divide 
the question. I will move to divide the question. It will be objected 
to.
  I am happy to have an up-or-down vote on tobacco tax increases. As 
Governor, I increased tobacco taxes. I do think it is an area we should 
leave to the States, because I do think it is a revenue source most 
States like to use. I know my State of New Hampshire right now has 
another tobacco tax proposal on the table to pay for kindergarten. If 
this goes through, I suspect the projected income from that tax 
increase to pay for the kindergarten program will be severely 
restrained.
  These two have been joined together in order for somebody to have a 
nice little phrase they can put on television at night, but it has no 
relationship to reality, substance or the manner in which this bill is 
structured and the way it will deliver services, because we have, in 
the bipartisan budget agreement--well, the President has in the 
bipartisan budget agreement, with the support of the leadership of the 
Congress, committed to caring for these kids and making sure they have 
insurance.
  All this plan does is create a brand new huge bureaucracy which is 
going to, once again, federalize the system, write the States out of 
the process, eliminate the private sector effort in the area and give a 
Federal bureaucracy new lateral control over an element of the economy 
or an area of the economy where the States are making progress and 
where with the underlying budget proposal problem will be generally 
solved.
  So it is about as misdirected a proposal as I have seen in recent 
times, probably not since the Clinton health care plan have I seen a 
more misdirected proposal, and I believe that was appropriately 
rejected and I hope this proposal will be appropriately rejected.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Illinois 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for up 
to 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate, and 
it reminds me of a lesson I learned in politics many years ago. The 
teacher was a fellow who was my boss at the time in Illinois in the 
Illinois State Senate by the name of Cecil Partee. He was president of 
the senate. He was an African-American Senator from the city of 
Chicago. He used to say, when it comes to political decisions, you will 
always hear a good reason for a decision, but you may not hear the real 
reason.
  We have heard a lot of good reasons from the other side as to why 
they might oppose the Hatch-Kennedy proposal, but very few of them are 
willing to articulate the real reason that they oppose it. Some have 
said it is a mandate, a Federal mandate. You hear the word over and 
over and over again. I went through the legislation again, and I have 
to tell you, they should read it more closely. This is voluntary. Each 
State will decide whether to participate and under what terms they will 
participate. There is no Federal mandate, there is an opportunity here 
for a State to address a problem, a problem which I think both 
Democrats and Republicans would agree is a serious national health 
problem: 10.5 million uninsured children in America. These are kids who 
do not get the appropriate medical care, the children of working 
families, families that, unfortunately, do not have health care 
benefits that many of us enjoy. These kids deserve the same level of 
protection, and it would be voluntary for each State to determine 
whether or not they want to participate in the program.
  Then, of course, there is this argument that this is not part of the 
budget agreement. Senator Kennedy made a point very well a few minutes 
ago that the actual budget agreement before us has a specific reference 
in every type of program. So if these so-called good reasons--the 
mandate and going outside the four corners of the budget agreement--are 
not the real reason, what is the real reason for the opposition to the 
Hatch-Kennedy amendment? I think the real reason is very obvious. This 
is the last gasp of the tobacco lobby to stop a 43-cent-a-pack tax on 
cigarettes. They know what is going to happen.

[[Page S4821]]

  When you raise the price of cigarettes, as has been demonstrated in 
Canada and so many other countries, children are less inclined to start 
smoking. They cannot afford it. Look what this means in terms of the 
impact upon our public health. Increasing the Federal tax by 43 cents a 
pack is going to mean 16.6 million fewer smokers, 5.3 million fewer 
children dying prematurely and 835,000 children's lives saved.
  It is going to mean a lot fewer sales for tobacco companies, too. 
That is what this is about. They know that if we put this Federal tax 
in place, kids will stop smoking, they are less likely to be addicted 
to the product, and, down the line, they will not be the steady 
customers the tobacco industry needs to stay in business.
  It is no accident that over 80 percent of smokers today started 
smoking before the age of 18, over half before the age of 16. When they 
are immature and make a rash decision to start using chewing tobacco or 
spit tobacco or cigarettes, they become addicted to nicotine, an 
addiction which will claim one out of three of them in terms of lives 
lost.
  So that is what this debate is about. It is about a tax which an 
industry is fighting. They will not come out and say it on the floor 
because, quite honestly, it is not a popular thing to say. 
Overwhelmingly, the public supports an increase in the cigarette tax. I 
will tell you that 76 percent of the women, 69 percent of Independent 
voters, 67 percent of Republican voters, 79 percent of Democrat voters 
understand that this tax is a reasonable, revenue-raising measure to 
pay for an important national priority.
  I think it is time to blow through this smokescreen from the tobacco 
lobby. As they say in the ads here: Take your pick, Senator. Who are 
you going to stand with, Joe Camel or a little boy named Joey who is 
uninsured? This is an easy choice for me. It should be for every 
Member. I think the Senate owes Senators Hatch and Kennedy, because of 
their leadership, a clear vote on this issue. I think with that clear 
vote, we will say definitively that the real reason for the opposition 
to this amendment is not a good reason, that we in fact are going to 
give to each State the opportunity to participate in a program to 
insure their children. We will pay for it with a tax on tobacco 
products.
  Frankly, let me add this, too. For those who say, why do you keep 
picking on tobacco? Why do you zero in on cigarettes so much? Take a 
look at this chart.
  In 1993, cigarettes killed more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, car 
accidents, fires, cocaine, heroin, murders, and suicides combined. This 
is not just another issue. This is the No. 1 public health issue in 
America. With this bill we not only insure the children who need the 
insurance, we attack a problem which is claiming lives every single 
day.
  Will the Senate have the courage to rally behind this Hatch-Kennedy 
bill? I certainly hope so. And for good reason we can stand up and say 
to the people of America, we are protecting your children, not just 
with insurance, but also with a tobacco tax which discourages children 
from taking up tobacco habits.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield me 3 
minutes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes off the bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is interesting to listen to those who are 
now so interested in tobacco and kids. They say, ``Will you support Joe 
Camel or Joey?'' For months and months and months we have had a bill 
here that would embrace all of FDA regulations, that would do 
everything to prevent kids from smoking. Nobody wants to get on it. 
Nobody wants to help. We get rid of Joe Camel. We get rid of the 
Marlboro Man.
  All you want is an issue. You do not want to solve the problem. So, 
yes, we can get emotional about kids. I have voted for 22 long years 
for kids. I am a grandfather with five grandchildren, and I am not 
going to do anything to harm them. They do not smoke. I do. That is my 
business. I am an adult. They are underage.
  So why can't adults make a decision and let us go ahead and try to 
accomplish those things that will stop youth from smoking? Do you think 
a 43-cent-a-pack increase is going to stop kids from smoking? They will 
just find cheap tobacco and bring it in here and reduce the price of 
cigarettes. You want to do away with the program? Let them grow tobacco 
from fence row to fence row. Tobacco gets so cheap you cannot raise it, 
and cigarettes go to a quarter a pack. They are using kids here and not 
trying to solve a problem.
  That is what irritates me. I am from a tobacco-growing State. It is 
$3 billion every year to my farmers. And 69 percent of those farmers 
have other jobs. It is a husband, wife, and family income. But you do 
not want to do that. You want to try to eliminate all that. You do not 
want to try to stop kids from smoking. You want to stomp up here--
``Every day 1,000 more will die.''
  Those are your words.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is right.
  Mr. FORD. Where in the world have you been to try to stop it? 
Nowhere. You just want to increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes, on 
a pack of cigarettes to stop kids from smoking. That is it. That is 
what you are saying. But there is a bill here to get rid of it. No one 
wants to join in that effort.
  So it is kind of tough for me, coming from a tobacco State, trying to 
do what everybody here is talking about, except let the adults have a 
choice. I think that is what it ought to be. But, no, we want to add 
the tax on. We want to reduce by 35 percent--I heard the Senator from 
Massachusetts say it is only one-third of 1 percent of the budget. It 
reduces 35 percent of the tax cut. That is a pretty healthy hunk.

  One State gets $29 million under this bill of the so-called Kennedy-
Hatch. And it is $1.4 billion additional taxes to that State. So they 
do not come out ahead. How do they come out ahead? They have to match 
if they voluntarily accept it. Under this bill, they have to match. And 
they are mandated--mandated--on what they do once they accept it.
  I do not understand. People talk about trying to save kids. You have 
an opportunity to do it. But, no, they want the issue. They want the 
issue. Bigger Government, less tax cuts, but they do not want to get at 
the real root of the thing and try to begin to work.
  For months now--month after month after month--you refuse to join 
with some of us, even from tobacco States, that want to stop kids from 
smoking. All you want to do is make an issue out of it and say, I want 
to choose between Joe Camel and Joey. That is not true, because I have 
given every Senator here an opportunity to put Mr. Joe Camel where he 
belongs, and the Marlboro Man.
  I have made my choice. I want the adults to have a choice and kids 
not to smoke. But all you want to do is have another issue and pound 
and pound and pound here to try to unravel a balanced budget amendment 
on the backs of the children on the basis you want to make a choice 
between Joe Camel and Joey. I have made my choice. I am for Joey. I 
have been for him for 22 years. But you act like I cannot join in 
trying to help reduce the ability of children to smoke. It is there.
  So I just want everyone to know that if you want--want--to help Joey, 
help me get rid of Joe Camel. This does not get rid of Joe Camel. This 
does not get rid of the Marlboro Man. It just increases the cost of 
smoking to the lower income, just increases the cost to the lower 
income and unravels a balanced budget. One-third of 1 percent--you 
reduce 35 percent of the tax cuts in this bill.
  I hope my 5 minutes are up. I am beginning to sweat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank you, Madam President.
  I am not for Joe Camel, but I am for this budget agreement. I think 
that the question before the Senate today is, are we willing to run the 
risk of unraveling an agreement that has been entered into by 
Republican Members working in good faith with Democratic Members 
working in good faith with this administration to try to do something 
that we have not been able to do for many years?
  We shut the Government down in the last Congress because we could not

[[Page S4822]]

agree on a budget. You talk about affecting children. When you shut 
down all the services of the Government, you affect young people, you 
affect children, you affect senior citizens, and you affect every 
aspect of our society. We did that in the last Congress because we 
could not come together and agree on a budget that was balanced in 
terms not only of spending but of how we spend the money that we are 
allocated to spend.
  We have a historical agreement in front of us that breaks that 
pattern of not being able to work together, by coming together and 
saying, yes, there are Democratic priorities and, yes, there are 
Republican priorities, and both sides have to give.
  It is really interesting that the people who have said that they 
cannot support this agreement--I respect their positions; they are good 
citizens, they are good Congress men and women, they are good Members 
of the Senate. But if you look at where the opposition is coming from, 
it is not from the center, it is not from the mainstream, it is from 
more liberal Members and more conservative Members. Again, I respect 
their positions. But what we have been able to put together is a budget 
agreement that can work.
  There will be all kinds of efforts to try to change that agreement. I 
am concerned those efforts will do damage to the overall agreement. 
Generally, when things sound so simple, they generally do not work, and 
this sounds so simple: Let's insure more children, and do it by raising 
the tax on a product that many people do not like. If it sounds so 
simple it is too good to be true, generally it is.
  I think what we are neglecting to focus in on is what this agreement 
already has in it. This fragile agreement already has about $16.8 
billion in it right now without this amendment to insure more children 
who are currently uninsured. That is a major achievement.
  Should we insure every child? Of course. But we cannot do it all at 
once. This agreement insures 5 million more currently uninsured 
children in this country. $16.8 billion is already in this budget 
package for that purpose. I know that you know certainly the folks who 
support increasing it right now--I mean, their intentions are good 
intentions. I agree with their intentions. The question is not should 
we do it? The question is how we do it, how we do it in the context of 
the other priorities we have as a nation and as a society.

  Just this week, I think yesterday, in the other body, our friends on 
the other side of the Capitol, some said, ``Well, we ought to spend 
more money for highways.'' There is no question about that. We need 
more transportation, better transportation, we need mass 
transportation, we need highways, we need to fix the bridges that are 
crumbling down that when they fall they kill people, highways that kill 
people every year, 40,000 deaths on highways, much of it as a result of 
inadequate highway systems in this country.
  Should we improve highways? Of course. Should we spend more money on 
highways? Yes. The question is how we go about getting there. This 
budget provides a blueprint, a map, a way to get from here to there 
that has been agreed to by Republican leaders, by Democratic leaders, 
and by the administration.
  I just say that we have a plan of action. I suggest that we support 
that plan of action, and, in doing so, we are going to have to be 
called upon to say no to some ideas and concepts that I have no 
disagreement with. Of course we want to do this. Of course I want to 
move in that direction.
  Again, the question today is not whether we should do it, but how we 
go about doing it. I suggest that the fragile package that is before us 
is the proper approach to solving the problem of uninsured children in 
this country. Five million more insured under this budget package is a 
major, major achievement. We should be proud of it.
  Should we discontinue our efforts? Of course not. We should continue 
to work and to expand. There will be ways offered in the respective 
committees in order to achieve those goals. But I suggest that this is 
not the right approach at this time.
  I think that one of the concerns I have is that if the whole entire 
budget agreement begins to unravel and fall apart we run the risk of 
doing a great deal more damage, not just to one segment of our 
population, but to the entire country. We did that in the last 
Congress. It was not a proud moment for this body nor the other body.
  I think we have come a long way since then. Let us not go back to 
those days. I suggest that we should stick with the budget package. 
That is the right thing to do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank Senator Breaux for his 
remarks. I think he has offered kind of a calming set of remarks for 
us. Somebody observing, whom I have great trust in, sent me a little 
note to say thank Senator Breaux for being so calm in his response.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Pat Sellers, 
a congressional fellow assigned to Senator Daschle, be granted floor 
privileges for the duration of the debate on Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 27.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining on 
the substitute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the distinguished Senator from New Mexico yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes off the bill to the distinguished 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my friend from New 
Mexico.
  Madam President, I listened to the earlier remarks of the Senator 
from New Hampshire, and I believe that my colleague has either misread 
or mischaracterized many aspects of the CHILD bill.
  Let me set the record straight.
  First, despite what the Senator from New Hampshire and other Senators 
may have alleged here, nothing in this bill mandates any State to 
participate.
  Let's go through some of the other erroneous accusations that have 
been made by those who oppose the bill.
  First, they said it created an entitlement program. This totally 
ignores the fact that the bill states explicitly ``Nothing in this 
title shall be construed as providing an individual with an entitlement 
under this title.''
  Moreover, the States themselves establish eligibility criteria for 
this voluntary block grant program. The bill explicitly provides that 
participating States need not provide subsidies to otherwise subsidy-
eligible children, even according to their own criteria, if funds are 
not adequate. Funding for the program is automatically reduced if 
revenues are insufficient to cover costs including the cost of deficit 
reduction.
  Some have said this bill creates new mandates on States. 
Participation in this program is purely voluntary for States. The 
program maximizes State flexibility and merely establishes reasonable 
requirements for States choosing to participate to assure that Federal 
funds meet program objectives, in the same way as such other health 
block grant programs as the substance abuse block grant, the maternal 
and child health block grant, and the preventive services health block 
grant operated.
  There is nothing new about this. This is the way you write a grant 
program.
  Then, opponents of the bill said it mandates the Medicaid benefits 
package. The facts are that the States choosing to participate in the 
program are expected to provide the benefits for children that the 
State already provides under the State Medicaid program. We advanced 
this proposal recognizing the importance of potential sensitivity of 
this issue and have indicated our willingness to modify this section if 
better ideas emerge. And we will certainly do that.
  Medicaid benefits include services that are particularly critical for 
children such as broad coverage for preventive benefits. Children 
meeting the State eligibility requirements in families that receive 
insurance through employer-based plans are eligible for subsidies to 
cover the employee coinsurance and copayment attributable to

[[Page S4823]]

the children and such employer-based plans need not comply with the 
Medicaid package of benefits. The limits on cost sharing under Medicaid 
are not mandated.

  Another claim that has been made here today, on more than one 
occasion, is that the CHILD bill eliminates any future Medicaid 
waivers.
  The fact is that, first, if a State chooses not to participate in the 
CHILD Program, the law will have absolutely no effect on its ability to 
receive a Medicaid waiver. In other words, the provision will only 
affect participating States.
  If a State chooses to participate in the CHILD Program, it must not 
cut back on the existing Medicaid eligibility requirements for 
children. We did this to assure that States use program funds to cover 
additional children, rather than replace existing State funding 
responsibilities under Medicaid.
  This has nothing to do with Medicaid managed care and expanded 
Medicaid coverage, the two major subjects of Medicaid waivers.
  Another claim that has been made is that the bill mandates abortion 
funding for teens because the program requires benefits the equivalent 
of those under Medicaid.
  As a Senator who is proud of his pro-life voting record, I would 
never do anything to advance the cause of those who wish to expand 
abortion coverage. I do not believe that my bill would cover abortions. 
As an appropriated program, the CHILD bill would be subject to annual 
appropriations and would fall under the Hyde amendment prohibitions 
relating to abortion services.
  I know that some of my colleagues are disappointed in having to 
consider this amendment today. Some believe it would break the budget 
deal. Others are fearful of a tax increase. My purpose is simple: I am 
exercising my rights as a Senator to amend this budget and increase 
funding for children.
  Why can't we just get a vote on this one way or the other?
  Let me just say that I worked with the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for many years when I was on the Budget Committee. I know 
that he worked very hard in achieving this budget agreement, and I 
commend him for it. In fact, I admire him for it. I was not part of 
that negotiating team. But I am still a U.S. Senator who should be 
allowed to have a vote on his amendment.
  As I understand the situation, we are now in the process of allowing 
Senators who were not part of the Budget Committee or part of the 
budget negotiating team to review what the leadership of the Congress 
and the administration have agreed upon. Our job today is to review 
this deal, use our judgment and decide whether we support this 
agreement.
  What it comes down to is that the sponsors of this amendment believe 
it improves the budget package. We get $10 billion more in deficit 
reduction under our amendment. And we help about 5 million more kids 
who aren't helped.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand what is the matter with that. 
What is so difficult about that? Why can't we help these kids?
  I agree that the $16 billion in the bill is a good provision. I feel 
good about that.
  But much of that money--as much as $14 billion--will be in effect 
taken from other existing programs for seniors and kids that are 
important--such as the disproportionate share hospital program.
  So what we are doing here is taking moneys that have been used to 
help the poor and other people and put it another category to help the 
poor.
  Well, I am happy to have the $16 billion in additional funding for 
kids, and the recognition that there is a problem here. But that still 
will only solve the problems probably for the 3 million kids who 
qualify for Medicaid and who the CHIPS bill is designed to help.
  But I keep asking myself, ``What about the 7 million kids who weren't 
covered?'' Perhaps there will be enough funding to cover some of them. 
But there are at least 5 million, probably 6 million--and maybe as high 
as 7 million--who are not taken care of.

  That is all we are trying to do here.
  And we are recommending a block grant to deal with the problem, a 
block grant just like the many other health and social services block 
grants that have worked very well through the years.
  I understand that one of the key areas of concern relates to the 
benefit package. Having been through the victorious battle over the 
flawed Clinton health care proposal in 1993-94, I know full well all 
the baggage that a Washington-dictated benefit package carries.
  When I introduced the CHILD bill, I stated my willingness to work 
with the Governors and others to see whether an alternative to the 
Medicaid benefit plan would be acceptable to all parties. I remain 
willing to do so. I think Senator Kennedy as well has said that he is 
aware that this is a sensitive issue which needs to be addressed.
  Perhaps an explanation of why I agreed to the Medicaid package will 
be helpful to everyone here.
  First, there was the practical concern of moving the legislative 
process forward that I felt argued against an endless series of 
``reinventing-the-wheel'' type meetings to come up with a benefits 
package. I have been through that before. As you can appreciate, this 
would have touched off a time-consuming siege by the various medical 
provider specialty groups arguing that their specialty merited 
inclusion.
  Second, on the merits, while I remain open to be persuaded otherwise, 
I am unaware of a children's health insurance model clearly superior to 
the current Medicaid standard with its children's early and periodic 
screening, diagnosis, and treatment--EPSDT--component. As you know, the 
general standard of EPSDT is that medically necessary services be 
provided. On its face, it is difficult to fault this principle.
  While I understand the view that EPSDT is too generous compared with 
other health insurance plans as implemented by the States and 
interpreted by the courts, I think it incumbent upon those who make 
this criticism to specify precisely what services should not be 
included in the benefits package.
  I am open to that. Such a dialog, if grounded in specifics, could 
only have a salutary effect on the refinement of the CHILD bill and 
perhaps for the Medicaid Program as well.
  I expect that the Governors will have something to say about this 
topic after they develop their principles for child health insurance 
which we expect to see at the end of the month. I plan to hear what 
they have to say and continue to work with them.
  We have to keep in mind that our amendment addresses the problem of 
children from poor families where parents work but just do not earn 
enough money to provide for health insurance. We ought to be ashamed 
not to solve this problem, when we solve so many other problems that 
are a lot less important than this one.
  I don't see why we should have this big donnybrook or why we should 
be fighting so vigorously over this. We ought to just do it.
  And we can do it--fully funded--by asking the one community that many 
experts acknowledge has caused $50 billion to $100 billion in 
unnecessary costs annually to help pay for the problem.
  With that, I will be happy to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts 
off of the resolution.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have said since early today that we 
are prepared to move ahead with a vote, if we are unable to get the 
assurances that we would go ahead with the vote on the underlying 
amendment, the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, which we are 
supporting.

  I would just say to my friends that have spoken recently that we are 
in strong support of that amendment because that will provide the $16 
billion to take care of some of the neediest children. But there is 
also the $14 million deficit that is going to be basically traded off 
against that. That represents the $14 billion on Medicaid. And half of 
all the Medicaid recipients are children. So it will be diminished in a 
very substantial degree.

[[Page S4824]]

  We heard again somewhat that this is spoiling the budget agreement. 
As I reiterated, this is one-fifth of 1 percent of the total budget 
over the period of the next 5 years. It is difficult for me to believe 
that one-fifth of 1 percent affecting one-fifth of 1 percent of our 
economy is going to be a budget buster, particularly when it is paid 
for. As we indicated, it is paid for. And, as I indicated in the former 
part of the debate, many of those who have spoken in opposition 
complain about it being paid for because it is going to increase the 
cigarette tax. But I want to say that those who wondered about whether 
this was really relevant in the budget agreement, as I have mentioned, 
under the children's health proposal they talk about that how that $16 
billion for the 5 years could be spent. They said it could be spent in 
one of the following ways, or it mentioned other possibilities. It said 
one of the ways is a program cap of mandatory grants to States. That is 
what our program is. It caps grants to States to finance insurance 
coverage for uninsured children.
  So, Madam President, we believe that we should be entitled to a vote.
  Again, I am really amazed that it has taken this long a time to get 
to a vote with all of the kinds of complex issues that we have to 
debate and talk about here on the budget resolution. This is a very 
simple issue. Are we going to put the interests of children of working 
families, those that are on the bottom, second, third, fourth rung of 
the economic ladder--are we going to side with them on a selfsustaining 
financed program of health insurance through the States based upon what 
the States are doing through the private sector with the discretion of 
the State making those judgments or are we going to side with the 
tobacco interests?
  That is the issue. That is the question. It is not very difficult. We 
hope for those reasons--plus I thought the excellent statement that was 
made by the minority leader in terms of how he, too, believes that this 
is entirely appropriate--that we could move ahead and get some action.
  I thank the Chair. I withhold the balance of the time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution 
to the distinguished Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished floor leader. I very much 
appreciate the 5 minutes.
  Madam President, I have watched this debate now for the last couple 
of hours from my office. I think it is an important debate. In a sense 
it is a bellwether debate.
  I think the case which the proponents for the Hatch-Kennedy 
legislation have made is very clear and a strong case. Probably no 
State would be more helped by the Hatch-Kennedy legislation than my own 
State, the State of California.
  I had the privilege of working with the Senator from Louisiana as our 
Democratic leader, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, 
as a Republican leader on the centrist coalition. Over a period of 
about a year and a half in that work I have come to the conclusion that 
the only way to balance the budget is in a bipartisan way; that if it 
is a Democratic budget, Republicans vote against it; and, if it is a 
Republican budget, Democrats vote against it. Therefore, it has always 
seemed to me that the only way you do this is to sit down and work the 
numbers out together and come up with a plan.
  What do you know, Madam President, that has happened. And it has 
happened because of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the Budget Committee. It has happened because of the President. It has 
happened because of the majority and minority leaders of both sides of 
this great House giving their imprimatur to the process and 
participating. After 4 or 5 months of discussions there is an 
agreement.
  It is not everything that everybody wants, but if you believe, as I 
do, that the only way to balance this budget is to do this, then this 
becomes a very significant debate. I would like to vote for Hatch-
Kennedy. It would help my State. We have--let me give you the exact 
figure--1.7 million uninsured children in California. This is a big 
deal. I would like to vote for it.
  If this bill is taken down, though, it is a major commitment and 
statement that this body cannot work together, that both sides of this 
body cannot solve what is a critical problem facing this Nation. Every 
week, I have a meeting of constituents, about 100, 125 people, who just 
happen to come by the office, and I show them a small pie of outlays in 
the year 2003, that if we do not do something, what happens. The result 
of the small pie is that you have almost 75 percent of the outlays of 
the Federal Government consumed by net interest on the debt and 
entitlements. And by then, you could eliminate all discretionary 
spending and you cannot solve the problem.
  Well, we have not gone the whole way, but this bill before this House 
goes a major way in solving the problem.
  I stood with the President in Baltimore. I said I would support this, 
as did a number of people on our side. The Senator from Louisiana was 
there. We stood and we remarked how close the numbers in this budget 
bill are to the numbers of the centrist coalition. So we felt in some 
way that our year and a half, or whatever it has been, I say to the 
Senator from Louisiana, has been worthwhile.
  I am very concerned. I am very concerned that this bill will be taken 
down if this amendment is successful. I would like to vote for this 
amendment. So I am looking for a way, and I hope that both the minority 
leader and the majority leader might in some way hear this, that there 
might be a time when we could have a separate vote agreed to on Hatch-
Kennedy and move ahead with this budget reconciliation bill at this 
time.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I congratulate the Senator for making this point, that 
every budget we have had in the past and been signed into law is 
necessarily a compromise. There are a lot of things that a lot of 
people would like in this legislation that are not there. I know the 
Senator from California has talked about additional children being 
covered. I support that effort. I mentioned the highway bill. We need 
money for transportation. We have talked about needing more money for 
schools, to try to fix schools that are falling down around the 
country. The point is, and I think the Senator from California is 
making it, that we have to deal with an agreement that has the chance 
of passing, if the $16 billion for more child care that is in this 
budget now ever has a chance to become law.
  I would say, as one member of the Senate Finance Committee, we are 
going to look at exactly what the essence of this amendment does in the 
Senate Finance Committee. There is no problem with us considering this 
approach and voting on it and adding it to later legislation coming 
down the pike. So this does not mean this is over. We can continue to 
look at this suggested means in future legislation.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana very much. It has 
been a very special privilege for me to work with the Senator on the 
centrist coalition.
  I am not in the leadership of this body, but I would be hopeful that 
the leadership would hear this. I think this budget agreement--on our 
side, we have said every time we have had the debate on the balanced 
budget amendment, we do not need an amendment to the Constitution. Let 
us just sit down and do it. Well, we make a mockery of our own 
statements if we do not sit down and do it right now. And we have that 
opportunity to do it in this agreed-upon compromise.
  So I would be hopeful that it might be possible to put together some 
guarantee both for the Senator from Utah and the Senator from 
Massachusetts, who have worked so hard, both of them. I have never seen 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee as passionate as he has been in 
the Chamber in the last 2 hours. He obviously believes. The Senator 
from Massachusetts has a long history--the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, 
other bills, his chairmanship and his ranking status on the Labor 
Committee. I think we know his commitment and we know he will be there 
for

[[Page S4825]]

working families and for children at any time. I hope there can be some 
appreciation in this body for the need to have an agreement to honor 
the agreement that was made and to once and for all say to the American 
public we have come together as two political parties. We have balanced 
this budget by the end of 5 years, and we can all be proud of working 
together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I say to the leadership, please do something. Let 
us get another time to consider the Hatch-Kennedy bill so that we can 
move on and be very proud of this body.
  I thank the Chair for its indulgence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to Senator Feinstein, just about 
the time this Senator feels like he is not being heard, the hard work 
that you put in on the budget was not worth it, something very pleasant 
happens, and I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator like 10 minutes off the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I would like to make a couple comments 
about where we are, and I also wish to thank our colleague from 
California, as well as Louisiana, in saying there is an agreement; we 
ought to abide by it.
  I was looking at the budget agreement. There is one enclosure which 
says children's health, and it says 5-year expenditure, $16 billion. It 
is enclosed. It says we want to provide health care, $16 billion, 5 
years, to provide health care for 5 million children by the year 2002. 
That is in the agreement. It is included.
  So for somebody to say that it was included in the agreement to add 
another $20 billion, to make this $16 billion $36 billion, is 
absolutely not the case. It really loses credibility, and it makes a 
lot of us wonder whether we can trust the White House, whether we can 
trust our colleagues in trying to implement a 5-year deal if we could 
not trust them basically for a day, not to mention we are trying to 
make obligations for the next 5 years.
  I am a little shaken. I will absolutely say I have wanted to support 
this deal, hope to support this deal, but when I hear some of the 
people who have negotiated it say it is within the context of the 
budget agreement to have $36 billion for child care, a new additional 
child care entitlement, when the provision clearly added to the budget 
resolution was $16 billion, not $36 billion, there is a difference. 
There is a big difference.
  Now, I want to make a few comments concerning the underlying bill 
that Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy are promoting and maybe respond 
to some of the statements that were made and maybe challenging some 
provisions of this bill.
  I do not support the bill. I think the underlying bill that 
individuals are trying to promote--that is not what we are voting on. 
We do not have bill language added to this budget resolution.
  A budget resolution, for the information of colleagues and the 
public, is not a law. It is a guideline. It says spend so much money, 
tax so much money. This amendment spends $20 billion more and it raises 
taxes $30 billion more, both of which are inconsistent with the 
agreement, both of which, frankly, are outside the scope of the 
agreement.
  Now, should we pass it? I would say no. Should we pass the so-called 
Hatch-Kennedy bill? I would say no. I would tell my colleagues from 
Utah and Massachusetts, I think they did very well in this budget 
negotiation. They got 16 out of 20--that is 80 percent--for a new 
program, a new entitlement program when we are trying to balance the 
budget. I think they should be high-fiving each other and saying, hey, 
we won; we got 80 percent of what we want. We stuffed those people who 
really wanted to hold the lid on new programs. We beat them. But 
instead of saying, hey, we got 80 percent, we are happy, they came back 
and said, we are going to double our offer. We are not satisfied with 
16. The original bill that they introduced was 20, but now they want 
36. I just find that to be grossly fiscally irresponsible.

  Now I want to talk a little bit about the substance of the underlying 
bill. I heard my colleague say that, well, it is not an entitlement. 
And I have stated repeatedly that it is an entitlement. Let us look at 
the bill. If you look at page 19, it says ``budgetary treatment.'' 
``Authority in advance represents an obligation of the Federal 
Government to provide payments to the States.''
  An obligation. It does not sound like it is discretionary to me. An 
obligation for the Federal Government to provide payments to the 
States.
  Now, in the first place, maybe I should ask, the tobacco taxes 
envisioned, are those discretionary? I do not think so. All the States 
would have to pay into the program; all the States would be paying 
additional taxes. That is not discretionary. I don't think anybody has 
made that allegation.
  Page 19 says there is an obligation of the Federal Government to pay 
to the States. I mentioned earlier that the Federal mix of this is much 
more generous than under Medicaid, that the Federal Government would be 
paying, in many cases, 80 to 90 percent of the cost of this program, 
not 50-50, not splitting the cost with the States. The Federal 
Government paying 4 to 1, 5 to 1 what the States are paying.
  Now, sure, a State is going to opt out of that. If Uncle Sam is going 
to be paying 90 percent of the cost of the program, more generous than 
Medicaid, the States are going to opt out. First, the States have to 
pay the taxes and then you create a new entitlement program. The 
Federal Government is going to pay up to 90 percent of the cost of the 
program, and you say, oh, the States do not have to participate. They 
have to pay the taxes and then Uncle Sam will pay 90 percent of the 
costs, and the States are going to say, no, I don't think so. And then 
you look at the underlying provisions of the bill; what do the States 
have to do. If this is such an optional program, you need to look at 
page 6, ``Requirements for Qualifying Children's Direct Benefit 
Option.''
  Page 7. ``The States shall insure.'' Paragraph 2: States shall 
insure, each participant shall insure, shall insure, shall provide, 
States may not, and on and on. States may not allow imposition of cost 
sharing; States may not enter into a contract, on and on. There are 
something like 30 ``States shall'' or ``States may not'' in this 
provision. This is not optional. All kinds of mandates, telling the 
States what to do with this program, including saying, States, you do 
not get another Medicaid waiver. Most States have Medicaid waivers 
pending. This says, ``No more. Need not apply. Cannot do.''

  They don't want to touch on the issue of abortion, because I heard my 
colleague say this bill does not mandate abortion. I just disagree. I 
think people are entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think they 
are entitled to their own facts. If my colleagues would look at page 5 
in the bill: For purposes of this title, qualifying children policy is 
a policy for an eligible child that provides coverage for medical care 
for such child that is the equivalent of medical assistance available 
for State child assistance available under title XIX of the Social 
Security Act.
  If this is available for a State plan, if abortion coverage is 
available in Medicaid under a State plan, then it must be provided 
under this plan.
  I know I heard my colleagues say, wait a minute, this is covered by 
Hyde language, and we don't pay for abortion under Hyde language. That 
is not what this says. This says, if abortion is a benefit under a 
State plan--and you have a lot of States, 14 States, including some of 
the biggest States, New York and California, for example, they have 
State-paid-for Medicaid coverage of abortion; 14 States have it. The 
Federal Government does not pay for it. But remember, Medicaid is a 
Federal-State program and some States have mandated State program 
benefits. In this case, the State pays for abortion coverage.
  This bill says that if the State provides this benefit, they have to 
provide the same benefits they provide under the State Medicaid plan. 
It does not say Federal Medicaid plan. It doesn't say only Federal 
Medicaid benefits. It says State Medicaid benefits. So you have 14 
States that now have State-paid-for abortion coverage that would have 
to have it under this plan. It is in

[[Page S4826]]

the bill. It is on page 5, line 19 through 25.
  So I just make that point. I want to be very factual. This bill 
leaves a lot to be desired. We should not set up a new entitlement and 
have the Federal Government paying 80 or 90 percent of the costs of 
Medicaid coverage for kids when we do not pay that much for the lowest 
income. This is a higher level than for the lowest income level. We are 
going to have a greater subsidy for this group than we are for the 
lowest group? I don't think so.
  What we have is we have the situation now where we find ourselves, 
where we have the $16 billion entitlement--I think it should be 
discretionary under the underlying bill--$16 billion to provide health 
care for kids that, for whatever reason, do not have insurance.
  I might review that scope because I have heard people say, wait a 
minute, we are going to provide health care for 10 million kids. Let us 
look at that scope. Madam President, 3.3 million of those kids already 
are eligible. They have health care. They are eligible for Medicaid. 
They qualify. About a third of them have incomes above 200 percent of 
poverty. If they are a family of 4, if they have an income of $32,000 
or more, we should not be buying them insurance. That is not the 
Federal Government's role. So you have about 3.5 million between 100 
percent of poverty and 200 percent of poverty. You have 30-some-odd 
States that already have coverage for kids in excess of the Medicaid 
eligibility standard, Medicaid eligibility standards going up to 133 
percent of poverty. Thirty-some-odd States, 39 States, have Medicaid 
coverage in excess of Federal mandates. We are going to preempt those 
in this case, and we are going to provide a very expensive Federal 
mandate on the States to provide that coverage for that 3.5 million, 
which, I might mention, half of those kids will have insurance within 4 
months.
  So, really, the chronically uninsured population is probably around 2 
million. The underlying bill provides $16 billion. It starts out at a 
couple of billion and grows to 2.5 billion, 3.5 billion, almost 4 
billion over that period of time. That is enough, maybe more than 
enough, to provide ample coverage for the chronically uninsured child.
  What we do not need to do is say: Here is $16 billion--the original 
Hatch-Kennedy bill had $20 billion--so they have $16 billion. They have 
80 percent of what they are looking for. Then they want to, maybe--I 
don't know what the purpose is--to say now we want $20 billion on top 
of our $16 billion, we want $36 billion, even though in the bill they 
originally introduced, they wanted $20 billion. Now the demand is for 
$36 billion--certainly a budget buster. Certainly a deal breaker.
  If we have a deal that says new kid care entitlement is $16 billion, 
and we are going to have an amendment and just make it $36 billion; if 
we are going to have a deal that says net tax reduction is going to be 
85, and then all of a sudden it turns into 55, then we don't have a 
deal. That means maybe we cannot trust people. If we cannot trust 
people, that does not speak very well for this institution.
  I urge my colleagues, if and when we get to an up-or-down vote on the 
Hatch-Kennedy bill, I urge them to vote ``no''. First, because it is a 
deal breaker, and, second, I urge them to vote ``no'' because this is 
not good policy and we do not need to do it twice. We do not need to 
try to solve this problem on uninsured kids both in the Finance 
Committee and the Labor Committee and give equal amounts of money for 
both to solve this problem.

  I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. So, Madam President, I----
  Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear the request.
  Mr. NICKLES. I asked the Senator from New Mexico for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. HATCH. Oh, sure.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What's the dispute? I give you 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. He said 5.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I said 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry, 5 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, to conclude, a couple of points. A deal 
is a deal. If we are going to break the deal, if we are going to be 
amending what the size of the tax cut is, if people want to do that, 
then I am going to have an amendment. This amendment cuts the size of 
the tax cut by $30 billion. I am going to have an amendment to increase 
the tax cut by $30 billion. If this amendment spends $20 billion more, 
I am going to have an amendment to spend less money someplace else.
  In other words, this bill unravels the whole package and people will 
find out this is not the easiest package to craft. There is no question 
it unravels the package, if one would just look at the budget package 
we already have. So I urge my colleagues, if for no other reason, to 
vote ``no''.
  Also, likewise, I urge them to vote no on the substance. Somebody 
said something about, wait a minute, because you are trying to defend 
tobacco--that is hogwash. If my colleagues want to have an amendment to 
raise tobacco prices, let them do it. But let's not be doubling the 
size of the new entitlement program before the new entitlement program 
even starts. Let's not more than double it in the name of fiscal 
austerity. It is ridiculous. When the tax package comes out, if people 
want to, on the reconciliation bill, if they want to have an increase 
in the tobacco tax, so be it. If we offset it with another tax 
reduction, maybe I will support it. But let's not do it in this 
package. This, in my opinion, would be a killer amendment and certainly 
should be defeated. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify some issues raised 
today on the Senate floor by a colleague of mine. Specifically, these 
issues had to do with a paper entitled ``Unforeseen Effects of the Much 
Touted Tobacco Tax'' published on May 16, 1997 by the Senate Republican 
Policy Committee, of which I am chairman.
  My colleague made several statements about the analysis but failed to 
address the substance of the paper's argument: That the $6.5 billion 
loss in state revenue over the next five years will hinder states' 
ability to provide services to their citizens. This loss of revenue 
will pressure states to accept a new program that includes many 
mandates and additional costs that will yet further strain their 
budgets. Finally, this substantial incursion to a state revenue source 
establishes a dangerous precedent for further such incursions by the 
federal government.
  It is a principle of the Republican party that the federal government 
should not place an unfunded mandate on the states, regardless of the 
reason. If the end is so laudable, then the federal government should 
provide the means for delivering it. In the last Congress, a proposal 
to prevent unfunded mandates was given the Republican party's highest 
priority. Introduced as the first bill in the Senate, S.1, passed (86-
10) with all Republicans supporting it, and sent to the President who 
signed it.
  The program debated today violated that principle by not only leaving 
states with an unfunded liability, but reducing their revenues for 
their own priorities. In short, the program being debated not only 
would increase states' spending but decrease their revenues at the same 
time.
  The paper put out by the Republican Policy Committee made that clear. 
The fact that my colleague chose to ignore it and the underlying 
problem of the program's approach, does not change the program's impact 
and should not diminish our concern that the states be treated fairly 
and honestly by the federal government.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent all first-degree amendments in 
order to Senate Concurrent Resolution 27 must be offered by the close 
of business on Wednesday, May 21.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent all amendments be subject 
to

[[Page S4827]]

second-degree amendment as provided under the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I now ask for the vote to occur on Domenici amendment No. 
307, and it be considered a first-degree, and, following that vote, the 
Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to amendment No. 297, with 4 
minutes of debate to be equally divided, all without intervening 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Domenici amendment, which we just agreed is a first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, could I inquire of the manager, is that 
immediate? Is there any intervening time, or is that immediate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is immediate. There are 4 minutes after this 
Domenici amendment before the vote on Hatch-Kennedy, or in relation to, 
which probably means a table, but you understand that.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 98, nays 2, 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
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     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

                                NAYS--2

     Hagel
     Thompson
       
  The amendment (No. 307), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 297

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FAIRCLOTH). There are 4 minutes of debate 
equally divided on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Hatch-Kennedy 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes equally divided on the 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. I will take a minute and then the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts will take the other.
  I have to say, this was a constructive debate. I think we all learned 
a lot about children's health and more importantly about the political 
process.
  You know, it is tough work trying to spend money for kids.
  I have been accused of being a Democratic pawn here today.
  So I find it amusing that several of our ``yes'' votes have been 
quietly converted to ``noes'' this afternoon by some of the biggest and 
best lobbyists there are. And I am not speaking of the tobacco 
industry.
  There is no way of knowing, but I think we would have won this one if 
we had it at the scheduled time at 11:30. We will leave that discussion 
for a later date.
  How much time does this Senator have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me just end it this way.
  I think the President and the people in the White House have caved 
here, people who we had every reason to believe would be supportive of 
kids' health.
  Let me say, the Washington Post framed the issue in its editorial 
page just yesterday. They said, ``This is a vote against the harmful 
effects of tobacco, in favor of children's health, in favor of State 
decision-making, and in favor of fiscal discipline. How many times do 
they get one like that? They ought to vote aye.''
  I hope Senators will vote against the motion to table, and in favor 
of our amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Excuse me, I say to Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we made a great deal of progress 
in this debate. We knew it would be an uphill battle because we knew 
the power of the tobacco industry. And we intend at the next available 
opportunity to offer this proposal again. And we shall offer it again 
and again until we prevail.
  It is more important to protect children than to protect the tobacco 
industry. Every child deserves a healthy start. We who support this 
amendment are not afraid to debate it on its merits. We are willing to 
stand to be counted for our children. We are willing to stand for our 
children's health. And we are willing to stand in favor of the single 
most important means of reducing teenage smoking--the tobacco tax.
  On both of those issues, this will be the most important vote of the 
year. We will stand with children. And I hope our colleagues will stand 
with us.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, most people in the United States think 
the best thing we can do for kids and for children is to balance the 
budget of the United States. If my motion to table does not prevail, 
the chance of getting a balanced budget for our children and 
grandchildren then is out the window because this amendment that they 
have offered is a total breach of an agreement between our President, 
Democrats, and Republicans. It is as simple as that.
  Unless you vote to table it, you are voting to accept an amendment 
that kills the balanced budget, under the rubric of helping children.
  We have covered uninsured children in this bill to the tune of $16 
billion. And there are few among us that think that is an insufficient 
amount to cover the uninsured children in the United States. I hope you 
will support the motion so we can get on with getting this job done.
  It has been an interesting debate. I thank Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Hatch for the way they conducted themselves, although on 
occasion we all got a little bit too heated up, according to my wife 
who is watching this on television. She said, in particular, Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Domenici, if we talk a little lower our faces would 
not get so red.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be brief because I know everybody 
knows what the issue here is now. We are ready to vote. I want to urge 
my colleagues to vote to table the Kennedy-Hatch amendment. This is a 
deal breaker.
  I have had occasion now to again talk to the President. And his press 
representative has gone out and said, while he supports the concept of 
what is in this amendment--he recognizes it--it is a deal breaker, and 
this amendment should be defeated.
  We have money in the agreement, $16 billion, for child care that the 
Finance

[[Page S4828]]

Committee is going to be able to take and work with and come up with a 
proper solution. That is the way we should go. We should not add this 
on this resolution because the net result would be this whole 
resolution and agreement would come unglued.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 297) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr President, I would like to rise to explain my vote 
on the Hatch-Kennedy amendment. The budget resolution under 
consideration is a fragile compromise. Support from the President, 
Republicans and Democrats was achieved after months of negotiation.
  One of the key provisions in this agreement of great importance to me 
is the additional $16 billion for health care coverage of children. 
This funding will be used to cover an additional 5 million children. 
Connecticut alone is estimated to have 85,000 uninsured children 18 
years and younger. The new funding will go a long way to bring health 
care to those kids.
  The Hatch-Kennedy amendment was a good faith effort to go farther and 
I agree--we should go farther. Over 10 million American children lack 
insurance and more each month go uncovered. For these children and 
their parents health is not just a blessing, it is an economic 
necessity.
  The amendment sponsors also said much about tobacco today with which 
I agree. According to the CDC, smoking is the leading cause of 
preventable death in the United States. Smoking is up among teenagers 
and this rise ultimately will translate into many premature deaths from 
smoking-related diseases. I have no hesitancy to support an increase in 
tobacco taxes.
  But the vote I cast today was not on children's health coverage. It 
was not on a tobacco tax. The vote I cast today was on whether to make 
substantial changes in critical elements of an arduously negotiated 
bipartisan budget agreement. On this issue, the issue of whether to 
risk the resolution, I disagreed with the sponsors of the amendment.
  I felt that the amendment threatened to undo the careful balancing 
and months of negotiation represented by the budget compromise. In the 
end, the effort to increase spending, threatened the children's health 
care coverage that we had achieved through negotiations.
  I hope that we will return to the issue of children's health 
coverage, but at this time the wiser course is to move forward in 
support of the resolution in front of the Senate. Compromise is never 
perfect, but perfection is rarely possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have had several people--I think under 
the previous order I was to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous-
consent request.
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMM. If I may, I have several other people who have asked me to 
do the same thing so maybe I should begin by asking unanimous consent 
that I might recognize Senator Hollings to offer an amendment, Senator 
Inhofe to offer an amendment, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts to offer 
an amendment, and then I had Bob Kerrey who was going to do an 
amendment very briefly that has been accepted, and then let me go ahead 
and recognize my colleagues from South Dakota and from Virginia to 
offer amendments, and I would ask unanimous consent that I might do 
that without losing the floor and that then I might be able to offer an 
amendment that has been agreed to, and then bring up the amendment that 
will be debated.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent 
request just to get someone in the Chamber included in the Senator's 
list.
  I have a unanimous-consent request to get someone in the Chamber on 
the list.
  Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to include it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.


              Amendments Nos. 302, 303, 304, 305, and 306

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Texas. I ask unanimous consent amendments 302, 303, 304, 305, and 306 
be called up and set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes 
     amendments numbered 302, 303, 304, 305, and 306.

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

                           amendment no. 302

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Highway Trust 
 Fund should not be taken into account in computing the deficit in the 
                      budget of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . HIGHWAY TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR 
                   DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Highway Trust Fund--
       (1) should not be included in the totals of--
       (A) the Budget of the United States government as submitted 
     by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code; or
       (B) the Congressional Budget (including allocations of 
     budget authority and outlays provided in the Congressional 
     Budget);
       (2) should not be--
       (A) considered to be part of any category (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(4))) of 
     discretionary appropriations; or
       (B) subject to the discretionary spending limits 
     established under section 251(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b));
       (3) should not be subject to sequestration under section 
     251(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 901(a)); and
       (4) should be exempt from any general budget limitation 
     imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
     outlays) of the United States government.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 303

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the the Airport and 
  Airway Trust Fund should not be taken into account in computing the 
              deficit in the budget of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 
                   FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the budget resolution

[[Page S4829]]

     that the receipts and disbursements of the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund--
       (1) should not be included in the total of--
       (A) the Budget of the United States government as submitted 
     by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code; or
       (B) the Congressional Budget (including allocations of 
     budget authority and outlays provided in the Congressional 
     Budget);
       (2) should not be--
       (A) considered to be part of any category (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(4))) of 
     discretionary appropriations; or
       (B) subject to the discretionary spending limits 
     established under section 251(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b));
       (3) should not be subject to sequestration under section 
     251(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 901(a)); and
       (4) should be exempt from any general budget limitation 
     imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
     outlays) of the United States government.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 304

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Military 
 Retirement Trust Funds should not be taken into account in computing 
            the deficit in the budget of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . MILITARY RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the receipts 
     and disbursements of the retirement and disability trust 
     funds for members of the Armed Forces of the United States--
       (1) should not be included in the totals of--
       (A) the Budget of the United States government as submitted 
     by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code; or
       (B) the Congressional Budget (including allocations of 
     budget authority and outlays provided in the Congressional 
     Budget);
       (2) should not be--
       (A) considered to be part of any category (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(4))) of 
     discretionary appropriations; or
       (B) subject to the discretionary spending limits 
     established under section 251(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b));
       (3) should not be subject to sequestration under section 
     251(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 901(a)); and
       (4) should be exempt from any general budget limitation 
     imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
     outlays) of the United States government.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 305

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Civil Service 
Retirement Trust Fund should not be taken into account in computing the 
              deficit in the budget of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the receipts 
     and disbursements of the retirement and disability trust 
     funds for civilian employees of the United States--
       (1) should not be included in the totals of--
       (A) the Budget of the United States government as submitted 
     by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code; or
       (B) the Congressional Budget (including allocations of 
     budget authority and outlays provided in the Congressional 
     Budget);
       (2) should not be--
       (A) considered to be part of any category (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(4))) of 
     discretionary appropriations; or
       (B) subject to the discretionary spending limits 
     established under section 251(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b));
       (3) should not be subject to sequestration under section 
     251(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 901(a)); and
       (4) should be exempt from any general budget limitation 
     imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
     outlays) of the United States government.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 306

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Federal 
 Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund should not be taken into account 
      in computing the deficit in the budget of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Federal Unemployment Compensation 
     Trust Fund--
       (1) should not be included in the totals of--
       (A) the Budget of the United States government as submitted 
     by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code; or
       (B) the Congressional Budget (including allocations of 
     budget authority and outlays provided in the Congressional 
     Budget);
       (2) should not be--
       (A) considered to be part of any category (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(4))) of 
     discretionary appropriations; or
       (B) subject to the discretionary spending limits 
     established under section 251(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b));
       (3) should not be subject to sequestration under section 
     251(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 901(a)); and
       (4) should be exempt from any general budget limitation 
     imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
     outlays) of the United States government.

  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 301

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I make the same request, that amendment 
301 be called up and set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 301.

  Mr. INHOFE. 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:


                           amendment no. 301

(Purpose: To create a point of order against any budget resolution for 
 fiscal years after 2001 that causes a unified budget deficit for the 
  budget year or any of the 4 fiscal years following the budget year)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . BALANCED UNIFIED BUDGET AFTER 2001.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any budget 
     resolution or conference report on a budget resolution for 
     fiscal year 2002 and any fiscal year thereafter (or amendment 
     or motion on such a resolution or conference report) that 
     would cause a unified budget deficit for the budget year or 
     any of the 4 fiscal years following the budget year.
       (b) Exception.--This section shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new 
     entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 309

  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask 
that it be temporarily set aside per the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] for himself, Ms. 
     Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 309.

  Mr. KERRY. 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:


                           amendment no. 309

      (Purpose: To empower local communities to provide essential 
 interventions in the lives of our youngest children ages zero to six 
      and their families so children begin school ready to learn)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be changed and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation that provides funding for early childhood 
     development programs for children ages zero to

[[Page S4830]]

     six provided that the legislation which changes revenues or 
     changes spending will not increase the deficit for--
       (1) fiscal year 1998;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--
       (1) Adjustments for Legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the 
     Senate appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and 
     revised functional levels and aggregates to carry out this 
     section. These revised allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional 
     levels and aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (2) Adjustments for Amendments.--If the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget submits an adjustment under this 
     section for legislation in furtherance of the purpose 
     described in subsection (a) upon the offering of an amendment 
     to that legislation that would necessitate such a submission, 
     the chairman shall submit to the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels and aggregates 
     contained in this resolution.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee shall report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.

  Mr. KERRY. I ask the amendment be set aside per the unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 310

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, and Mr. Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 
     310.

  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:


                           amendment no. 310

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on Social Security and 
                         balancing the budget)

       At the appropriate place in the resolution, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND BALANCING 
                   THE BUDGET.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) This budget resolution is projected to balance the 
     unified budget of the United States in fiscal year 2002;
       (2) Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 
     requires that the deficit be computed without counting the 
     annual surpluses of the Social Security trust funds; and
       (3) If the deficit were calculated according to the 
     requirements of Section 13301, this budget resolution would 
     be projected to result in a deficit of $108.7 billion in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this budget resolution assume 
     that after balancing the unified federal budget, the Congress 
     should continue efforts to reduce the on-budget deficit, so 
     that the federal budget will be balanced according to the 
     requirements of Section 13301, without counting Social 
     Security surpluses.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 311

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for himself and Mr. 
     Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 311.

  Mr. WARNER. 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:


                           amendment no. 311

 (Purpose: To ensure that transportation revenues are used solely for 
                            transportation)

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new title:

    TITLE IV--TRANSPORTATION REVENUES USED SOLELY FOR TRANSPORTATION

     SEC. 401. READJUSTMENTS.

       Levels of new budget authority and outlays set forth in 
     function 400 in section 103 shall be increased as follows:
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, by $0 in outlays and by $0 in new 
     budget authority;
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, by $770,000,000 in outlays and by 
     $3,600,000,000 in new budget authority;
       (3) for fiscal year 2000, by $2,575,000,000 in outlays and 
     by $4,796,000,000 in new budget authority;
       (4) for fiscal year 2001, by $3,765,000,000 in outlays and 
     by $5,363,000,000 in new budget authority; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2002, by $4,488,000,000 in outlays and 
     by $5,619,000,000 in new budget authority;

     SEC. 402. HIGHWAY TRUST FUND ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Allocated Amounts.--Of the amounts of outlays allocated 
     to he Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate by 
     the joint explanatory statement accompanying this resolution 
     pursuant to sections 302 and 602 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, the following amounts shall be used for contract 
     authority spending out of the Highway Trust Fund--
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, $22,256,000,000 in outlays;
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, $24,063,000,000 in outlays;
       (3) for fiscal year 2000, $26,092,000,000 in outlays;
       (4) for fiscal year 2001, $27,400,000,000 in outlays; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2002, $28,344,000,000 in outlays;
       (b) Enforcement.--Determinations regarding points of order 
     made under section 302(f) or 602(c) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 shall take into account subsection (a).
       (c) Statutory Implementation.--As part of reauthorization 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991, provisions shall be included to enact this section into 
     permanent law.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask that the amendment be laid aside, and I ask the 
managers if the Senator from Virginia can follow the Senator from 
Florida [Mr. Mack].
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We reserve the right to object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to agree to that. I have to get a better 
understanding.
  Mr. WARNER. I thought that was the understanding, having discussed 
it----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have to look at it a little more carefully and see 
where we are going this evening.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I hope the manager will give us----
  Mr. DOMENICI. He is going to have a chance to have his amendment; 
there is no question.
  Mr. President, may I be recognized for a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think any Senators ought to be worried about 
having to get to the floor now to offer their amendments. Under the 
unanimous-consent request, we said they had to be filed by the close of 
business today. You can just file them.
  They have to be offered in the Chamber. OK. So I say to Senators, I 
am going to get us many as I can, and then I will want later----
  Mr. GRAMM. Why don't we do the people on the floor. If others appear, 
let us do it, but that will run into hours. Let us let everybody on the 
floor file their amendment if they want to.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 312

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, Mr. Robb, Mr. Frist, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Roth, and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 312.

  Mr. KERREY. 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:

[[Page S4831]]

                           amendment no. 312

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate on the need for long-term 
                          entitlement reforms)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING LONG-TERM ENTITLEMENT 
                   REFORMS.

       (a) The Senate finds that the resolution assumes the 
     following--
       (1) entitlement spending has risen dramatically over the 
     last thirty-five years.
       (2) in 1963, mandatory spending (i.e. entitlement spending 
     and interest on the debt) made up 29.6 percent of the budget, 
     this figure rose to 61.4 percent by 1993 and is expected to 
     reach 70 percent shortly after the year 2000.
       (3) this mandatory spending is crowding out spending for 
     the traditional ``discretionary'' functions of government 
     like clean air and water, a strong national defense, parks 
     and recreation, education, our transportation system, law 
     enforcement, research and development and other 
     infrastructure spending.
       (4) taking significant steps sooner rather than later to 
     reform entitlement spending will not only boost economic 
     growth in this country, it will also prevent the need for 
     drastic tax and spending decisions in the next century.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that levels in this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) Congress and the President should work to enact 
     structural reforms in entitlement spending in 1997 and beyond 
     which sufficiently restrain the growth of mandatory spending 
     in order to keep the budget in balance over the long term, 
     extend the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare Trust 
     Funds, avoid crowding out funding for basic government 
     functions and that every effort should be made to hold 
     mandatory spending to no more than seventy percent of the 
     budget.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the need to keep 
the budget in balance over the long haul. The budget resolution we are 
considering today will bring us into balance by 2002. I support that 
budget resolution, that budget effort. But after that work is done, 
there is some additional work and very difficult work that we need to 
do.
  There are four sets of numbers that I want to bring to my colleagues' 
attention. The first set of numbers deals with where we are headed in 
terms of how much of the budget goes to discretionary spending and how 
much goes to mandatory spending, that is entitlements and interest on 
the debt. In 1963 our budget was approximately 70 percent 
discretionary, 30 percent mandatory spending. At the end of this budget 
agreement, it will be over 70 percent mandatory and less than 30 
percent discretionary spending. And about 10 years beyond that it will 
be nearly 100 percent mandatory spending.
  What my amendment says is we ought to fix it at 70 percent, we ought 
to do what we can to fix it at 70 percent, that at some point we have 
to stop the movement toward this budget becoming 100 percent mandated 
spending.
  The second set of numbers, Mr. President, illustrates that this 
problem is not caused by liberals; it is not caused by conservatives. 
It is caused by a very difficult demographic fact, and that demographic 
fact is the baby boom generation: 77 million people born between the 
years 1945 and 1965.
  Third, today we have 133 million Americans who are working; they are 
supporting about 39 million beneficiaries in the Social Security 
program. In 2030, when a baby born today will be 33 years of age, there 
will be 163 million workers, a 20-percent increase, but there will be 
more than a doubling of number of people who will then be 
beneficiaries, 80 million. We need to address the difficult policy 
issues behind these numbers sooner rather than later.
  Let me give you my last set of numbers, Mr. President, and then I 
will be finished. I have heard lots of people come to the floor and 
talk about the need to take care of our children and make sure that we 
are investing in our children.
  In 1996, 29 percent of our population is under the age of 20. In 
2030, 24 percent of our population will be under the age of 20. So 
again, in 33 years, a relatively short period of time, we are going to 
go from 79 million people under the age of 20 to 83 million people 
under the age of age 20. But in the over 65 category we will go from 13 
percent to 20, from 34 million to 68 million, a doubling of that 
population.
  This amendment simply says to understand the growth of mandatory 
programs and get that growth under control, it is the sense of the 
Senate that we make every effort we can to hold mandatory spending 
below 70 percent of the Federal budget and that we make the structural 
reforms necessary to make that happen.
  I appreciate very much the Senator from Texas allowing me to do this, 
and I appreciate very much both the Senator from New Mexico and the 
Senator from New Jersey agreeing to accept this as part of this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment from the 
Senator from Nebraska which expresses the Sense of the Senate that 
adjustments in Federal benefit programs should be considered by the 
Senate. I commend my colleague from Nebraska for his work on this 
important effort.
  Mr. President, this amendment recognizes the fact that we face an 
explosion in entitlement spending over the near horizon, not just 
because we promised too much to too many, but principally due to simple 
demographics. Our people are living longer and the great baby boomer 
generation is getting closer to retirement.
  In l940, the average woman in America who retired at age 65 received 
social security benefits for l3.4 years. By l995, women--and men--were 
living much longer. And the average woman retiring in l995 will receive 
l9.l years of Social Security--or nearly 6 more years of benefits--
because the retirement age still remains at 65.
  In l950, seven workers supported each social security beneficiary, 
Mr. President. By l990 there were just five workers per beneficiary. 
And by the year 2030, there will be fewer than three workers per 
beneficiary.
  We all know the statistics. By the year 20l2, if no changes are made, 
entitlements and interest on the debt will consume every single dollar 
the Federal Government takes in. This stifles our ability to invest in 
our Nation and protect some of our most vulnerable citizens.
  And it doesn't have to be, Mr. President. Small steps today can save 
billions tomorrow. Billions of dollars of debt we will not leave to our 
children--the baby bust generation, as Pete Peterson calls those who 
will inherit our debt.
  Mr. President, this amendment proposes that we work to enact 
structural reforms which will successfully restrain the growth of 
mandatory expenditures. In my view, the Senate should consider such 
reforms as using the most accurate measure of cost-of-living available, 
extending the civil service retirement age for future Government 
workers, extending the military retirement age for future enlistees, 
gradually tracking Medicare eligibility with Social Security 
eligibility, and extending the retirement age for Social Security.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Otherwise, the day 
will surely come when we will have to explain to our children why, when 
we could have made a difference, we failed to enact entitlement reform.
  These kinds of choices are never easy politically--but they just get 
tougher as the problem becomes more acute. Now is the time to act if we 
are going to act responsibly.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 312) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request, if 
I may. I ask unanimous consent that Nick Minshew, a fellow in the 
office of Senator Wellstone, be granted floor privileges for the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 291

  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington for an amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment--it is 
at the desk--No. 291 on domestic violence.

[[Page S4832]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] for herself and 
     Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 291.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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:


                           amendment no. 291

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress concerning domestic 
                               violence)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION 
                   CLARIFYING AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Domestic violence is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women. The Department of Justice estimates that 
     over 1,000,000 violent crimes against women are committee by 
     intimate partners annually.
       (2) Domestic violence dramatically affects the victim's 
     ability to participate in the workforce. A University of 
     Minnesota survey reported that \1/4\ of battered women 
     surveyed had lost a job partly because of being abused and 
     that over \1/2\ of these women had been harassed by their 
     abuser at work.
       (3) Domestic violence is often intensified as women seek to 
     gain economic independence through attending school or 
     training programs. Batterers have been reported to prevent 
     women from attending these programs or sabotage their efforts 
     at self-improvement.
       (4) Nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by the 
     Taylor Institute of Chicago, Illinois, document, for the 
     first time, the interrelationship between domestic violence 
     and welfare by showing that from 34 percent to 65 percent of 
     AFDC recipents are current or past victims of domestic 
     violence.
       (5) Over \1/2\ of the women surveyed stayed with their 
     batterers because they lacked the resources to support 
     themselves and their children. The surveys also found that 
     the availability of economic support is a critical factor in 
     poor women's ability to leave abusive situations that 
     threaten them and their children.
       (6) The restructuring of the welfare programs may impact 
     the availability of the economic support and the safety net 
     necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse without risking 
     homelessness and starvation for their families.
       (7) In recongition of this finding, the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate in considering the 1997 Resolution on 
     the budget of the United States unanimously adopted a sense 
     of the Congress amendment concerning domestic violence and 
     Federal assistance. Subsequently, Congress adopted the family 
     violence option amendment as part of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996.
       (8) The family violence option gives States the flexibility 
     to grant temporary waivers from time limits and work 
     requirements for domestic violence victims who would suffer 
     extreme hardship from the application of these provisions. 
     These waivers were not intended to be included as part of the 
     permanent 20 percent hardship exemption.
       (9) The Department of Health and Human Services has been 
     slow to issue regulations regarding this provision. As a 
     result, States are hesitant to fully implement the family 
     violence option fearing that it will interfere with the 20 
     percent hardship exemption.
       (10) Currently 15 States have opted to include the family 
     violence option in their welfare plans, and 13 other States 
     have included some type of domestic violence provisions in 
     their plans.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the provisions of this 
     Resolution assume that--
       (1) States should not be subject to any numerical limits in 
     grading domestic violence good cause waivers under section 
     402(a)(7)(A)(iii)) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(7)(A)(iii)) to individuals receiving assistance, for 
     all requirements where compliance with such requirements 
     would make it more difficult for individuals receiving 
     assistance to escape domestice violence; and
       (2) any individual who is granted a domestic violence good 
     cause waiver by a State shall not be included in the States' 
     20 percent hardship exemption under section 408(a)(7) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my amendment seeks only to clarify the 
support of this body for the family violence option, adopted during 
consideration of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act. The family violence option allows States to waive 
victims of domestic violence and abuse from punitive work and education 
requirements, without being penalized. States would not be required to 
include these individuals in their 20-percent hardship exemption.
  The family violence option amendment, which I joined with Senator 
Wellstone in offering to the welfare reform legislation, was intended 
to give States the flexibility to ensure that victims of domestic 
violence and abuse do not become victims of welfare reform. The 
amendment was adopted and accepted as part of the final conference 
report.
  At the time, it was clear to many of us that there is a direct 
relationship between domestic violence and poverty. Many women and 
their children become trapped in violent situations based on their 
economic dependency. For many women and their children, welfare offers 
the only way out of a violent and dangerous environment. To create 
arbitrary obstacles to this assistance simply ensures that women and 
children will be trapped. This was obvious to many of us, but a recent 
report from the Taylor Institute made our case more solid. This report 
reviewed previous studies on domestic violence and abuse and made some 
startling conclusions regarding the number of women who are receiving 
welfare and who have been abused by their partner. I can tell my 
colleagues that this number alone could well exceed the 20-percent 
hardship exemption.
  Giving States the flexibility that they need to address this crisis 
is absolutely necessary if the true objective is welfare reform. Any 
effort to move people from welfare to work must address the obstacles 
facing those victims of abuse and violence.
  Many States have attempted to include a family violence option in 
their welfare reform implementation plans. However, because there 
appears to be a general lack of congressional intent on this option, my 
amendment is necessary to assist those States who are trying to do the 
right thing. The States need to know that they will not be penalized 
for exempting victims of domestic abuse and violence from the mandatory 
work and training requirements.
  For many victims, simply finding a job can place them and their 
children in great danger. Giving an employer their home phone number or 
address exposes them to their abuser. Placing their child in unsecured 
day care exposes the child to the abuser. Victims of domestic violence 
and abuse cannot simply utilize most day care options. Once they leave 
their abuser they subject themselves and their child to the risk of 
retaliation. How can we say to a victim of domestic violence that they 
must find a job knowing that we are placing them and their children in 
harms way?
  Helping and guiding abused women and children off of welfare involves 
much more than job training. Many of these women are already employed 
or have been employed in the past; but their abuser is the obstacle 
that traps them into a life of poverty. States must be able to meet 
these needs without jeopardizing the overall success of their welfare 
reform plans.
  I ask my colleagues for not just their support, but their help as 
well. Please vote yes on this amendment to prevent women and children 
from being trapped in a violent situation simply because they cannot 
meet certain requirements that have nothing to do with improving their 
lives. I know that none of my colleagues would have supported placing 
obstacles in the way of women trying to leave a violent home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Washington wish her 
amendment set aside?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 313

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I send an amendment to the desk and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 313.

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

[[Page S4833]]

                           amendment no. 313

 (Purpose: To ensure that this resolution assumes increases in funding 
  for Headstart and EarlyStart, child nutrition programs, and school 
  construction, and that this additional funding will be paid for by 
  reducing tax benefits to the top 2 percent of income earners in the 
  United States as well as by reducing tax benefits that are commonly 
          characterized as corporate welfare or tax loopholes)

       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by 1,650,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by 2,190,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by 3,116,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by 4,396,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by 5,012,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 1,650,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 2,190,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 3,116,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 4,396,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 5,012,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by 5,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by 1,601,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by 2,539,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by 4,141,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by 6,543,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by 1,650,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by 2,190,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by 3,116,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by 4,396,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by 5,012,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by 1,101,000,000.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by 1,690,000,000.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by 2,039,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by 2,616,000,000.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by 3,541,000,000.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by 3,796,000,000.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by 5,843,000,000.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by 4,312,000,000.
       On page 26, line 6, increase the amount by 400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by 400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, increase the amount by 500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by 500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 22, increase the amount by 500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by 500,000,000.
       On page 27, line 5, increase the amount by 600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 6, increase the amount by 600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 13, increase the amount by 700,000,000.
       On page 27, line 14, increase the amount by 700,000,000.
       On page 38, line 14, decrease the amount by 700,000,000.
       On page 38, line 15, decrease the amount by 2,700,000,000.
       On page 40, line 17, decrease the amount by 5,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by 5,012,000,000.
       On page 41, line 8, decrease the amount by 16,364,000,000.
       On page 43, line 21, increase the amount by 1,101,000,000.
       On page 43, line 22, increase the amount by 440,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by 2,039,000,000.
       On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by 1,366,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, increase the amount by 3,541,000,000.
       On page 44, line 3, increase the amount by 2,546,000,000.
       On page 44, line 5, increase the amount by 5,843,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by 4,312,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 314

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Moynihan, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 314.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:


                           amendment no. 314

(Purpose: To ensure that the provisions in this resolution assume that, 
 before funds are spent on unjustified tax benefits and tax loopholes 
  commonly known as corporate welfare, Pell Grants for needy studnets 
                          should be increased)

       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 43, line 21, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 43, line 22, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 44, line 3, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 315

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Frist, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. DeWine, 
     Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Breaux, 
     and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 315.

  Mr. MACK. 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:


                           amendment no. 315

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Federal 
  commitment to biomedical research should be doubled over the next 5 
                                 years)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL 
                   INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) heart disease was the leading cause of death for both 
     men and women in every year from 1970 to 1993;
       (2) mortality rates for individuals suffering from prostate 
     cancer, skin cancer, and kidney cancer continue to rise;
       (3) the mortality rate for African American women suffering 
     from diabetes is 134 percent higher than the mortality rate 
     of Caucasian women suffering from diabetes;
       (4) asthma rates for children increased 58 percent from 
     1982 to 1992;
       (5) nearly half of all American women between the ages of 
     65 and 75 reported having arthritis;
       (6) AIDS is the leading cause of death for Americans 
     between the ages of 24 and 44;
       (7) the Institute of Medicine has described United States 
     clinical research to be ``in a

[[Page S4834]]

     state of crisis'' and the National Academy of Sciences 
     concluded in 1994 that ``the present cohort of clinical 
     investigators is not adequate'';
       (8) biomedical research has been shown to be effective in 
     saving lives and reducing health care expenditures;
       (9) research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health 
     has contributed significantly to the first overall reduction 
     in cancer death rates since recordkeeping was instituted;
       (10) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health has resulted in the identification of genetic 
     mutations for osteoporosis; Lou Gehrig's Disease, cystic 
     fibrosis, and Huntington's Disease; breast, skin and prostate 
     cancer; and a variety of other illnesses;
       (11) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health has been key to the development of Magnetic Resonance 
     Imaging (MRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning 
     technologies;
       (12) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health has developed effective treatments for Acute 
     Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Today, 80 percent of children 
     diagnosed with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia are alive and 
     free of the disease after 5 years; and
       (13) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health contributed to the development of a new, cost-saving 
     cure for peptic ulcers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this Resolution assumes that--
       (1) appropriations for the National Institutes of Health 
     should be increased by 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal 
     years; and
       (2) appropriations for the National Institutes of Health 
     should be increased by $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 
     over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

  Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 316

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

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] for himself, Mr. 
     Kyl, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 316.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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:


                           amendment no. 316

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that, to the extent that 
    future revenues exceed the revenue aggregates contained in this 
 resolution, those additional revenues should be reserved for deficit 
                      reduction and tax cuts only)

     SEC.   . SENSE OF SENATE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH DIVIDEND 
                   PROTECTION.

       (a) Findings.--
       The Senate finds that with respect to the revenue levels 
     established under this resolution:
       (A) According to the President's own economists, the tax 
     burden on Americans is the highest ever at 31.7 percent.
       (B) According to the National Taxpayers Union, the average 
     American family now pays almost 40 percent of their income in 
     state, local, and federal taxes.
       (C) Between 1978 and 1985, while the top marginal rate on 
     capital gains was cut almost in half--from 35 to 20 percent--
     total annual federal receipts from the tax almost tripled 
     from $9.1 billion annually to $26.5 billion annually.
       (D) Conversely, when Congress raised the rate in 1986, 
     revenues actually fell well below what was anticipated.
       (E) Economists across-the-board predict that cutting the 
     capital gains rate will result in a revenue windfall for the 
     Treasury.
       (F) While a USA Today poll from this March found 70 percent 
     of the American people believe that they need a tax cut, 
     under this resolution federal spending will grow 17 percent 
     over five years while the net tax cuts are less than 1 
     percent of the total tax burden.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     with respect to the revenue levels established under this 
     resolution, to the extent that actual revenues exceed the 
     revenues projected under this resolution due to higher than 
     anticipated economic growth, that revenue windfall should be 
     reserved exclusively for additional tax cuts and/or deficit 
     reduction.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the patient Senator from 
Texas.


                  Amendment Nos. 317, 318, 319 and 320

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, having been patient, I want to send four 
amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes amendments 
     numbered 317, 318, 319, and 320.

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


                           amendment no. 317

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate to address emergency 
                               spending)

       At the end of title III insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) emergency spending adds to the deficit and total 
     spending;
       (2) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempts emergency 
     spending from the discretionary spending caps and pay-go 
     requirements;
       (3) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 expires in 1998 and 
     needs to be extended;
       (4) since the enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act, 
     Congress and the President have approved an average of $5.8 
     billion per year in emergency spending;
       (5) a natural disaster in any particular State is 
     unpredictable, but the United States is likely to experience 
     a natural disaster almost every year.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assume that--
       (1) the Congress should consider in the extension of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act provisions that budget for emergencies 
     or that require emergency spending to be offset;
       (2) such provisions should also provide flexibility to meet 
     emergency funding requirements associated with natural 
     disasters;
       (3) Congress and the President should appropriate at least 
     $5 billion every year within discretionary limits to provide 
     natural disaster relief;
       (4) Congress and the President should not designate any 
     emergency spending for natural disaster relief until amounts 
     provided in regular appropriations are exhausted.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 318

 (Purpose: To hold nondefense discretionary spending for fiscal years 
 1998 through 2002 to the levels proposed by President Clinton in his 
   fiscal year 1997 budget request for these same years, saving $76 
 billion, and using these savings to increase the net tax cut from $85 
 billion to $161 billion, allowing full funding of the $500 per child 
       tax credit and full funding of the capital gains tax cut)

       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 2 by $2,800,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 4 by 
     $14,200,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $22,000,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $23,200,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $14,800,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $2,800,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 12 by 
     $14,200,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $22,000,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $23,200,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $14,800,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 4 by 
     $10,400,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $15,100,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $16,800,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 7 by $5,400,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 8 by $3,700,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 12 by 
     $2,800,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $14,200,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $22,000,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $23,200,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $14,800,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $10,400,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $2,800,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $15,100,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $14,200,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 21 by 
     $16,800,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $22,000,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 2 by 
     $5,400,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 3 by 
     $23,200,000,000.

[[Page S4835]]

       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $3,700,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $14,800,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 7 by 
     $14,800,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 8 by 
     $77,000,000,000.
       On page 43, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $10,400,000,000.
       On page 43, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $2,800,000,000.
       On page 43, decrease the amount on line 21 by 
     $15,100,000,000.
       On page 43, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $14,200,000,000.
       On page 43, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $16,800,000,000.
       On page 43, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $22,000,000,000.
       On page 44, decrease the amount on line 2 by 
     $5,400,000,000.
       On page 44, decrease the amount on line 3 by 
     $23,200,000,000.
       On page 44, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $3,700,000,000.
       On page 44, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $14,800,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 319

   (Purpose: To ensure that the discretionary limits provided in the 
              budget resolution shall apply in all years)

       On page 45, strike line 10 through the period on line 18.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 320

 (Purpose: To ensure that the 4.3 federal gas tax increase enacted in 
 1993, which for the first time dedicated a permanent gas tax increase 
  to general revenues, will be transferred to the Highway Trust Fund, 
      providing about $7 billion per year more for transportation 
 infrastructure and reducing other spending by an equal amount, making 
                     the transfer deficit neutral)

       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $6,931,000,000.
       On page 18, line 9, increase the amount by $6,931,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $7,052,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $7,052,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $7,171,000,000.
       On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $7,171,000,000.
       On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $7,292,000,000.
       On page 19, line 8, increase the amount by $7,292,000,000.
       On page 19, line 15, increase the amount by $7,414,000,000.
       On page 19, line 16, increase the amount by $7,414,000,000.
       On page 35, line 9, decrease the amount by $6,931,000,000.
       On page 35, line 10, decrease the amount by $6,931,000,000.
       On page 35, line 15, decrease the amount by $7,052,000,000.
       On page 35, line 16, decrease the amount by $7,052,000,000.
       On page 35, line 21, decrease the amount by $7,171,000,000.
       On page 35, line 22, decrease the amount by $7,171,000,000.
       On page 36, line 2, decrease the amount by $7,292,000,000.
       On page 36, line 3, decrease the amount by $7,292,000,000.
       On page 36, line 8, decrease the amount by $7,414,000,000.
       On page 36, line 9, decrease the amount by $7,414,000,000.
       On page 43, line 14, decrease the amount by $6,931,000,000.
       On page 43, line 21, decrease the amount by $7,052,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, decrease the amount by $7,171,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, decrease the amount by $7,292,000,000.
       On page 44, line 5, decrease the amount by $7,414,000,000.

  Mr. GRAMM. Under the unanimous-consent request, the first amendment 
is a disaster amendment that has been accepted by Senator Domenici. I 
do not think that will require much debate. The amendment that we will 
debate and we will vote on is the amendment having to do with taxes. 
And so what I would like to do is to set aside the other two amendments 
and go ahead and begin the debate on the amendment on taxes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 318

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to make an opening statement now 
about the budget before I turn to the amendment on taxes. Let me begin 
by congratulating those who have put the budget agreement together. I 
have had an opportunity in both the House and the Senate to work on 
many budgets. I understand the difficulty of putting a budget agreement 
together. And I think when so many people have done so much work, it is 
incumbent on someone who opposes that final product to say why. So what 
I would like to do is to go ahead and explain why I am not for this 
budget, what I believe is wrong with the budget, and then consider an 
amendment which corrects to a significant degree not everything that I 
find objectionable in the budget, but certainly as a movement toward 
the vision that I have for the future of the country and what we would 
like that future to be.
  Let me begin by going through a couple of charts which I think will 
save time for the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for one moment.
  The clerk will report the amendment.

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 318.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me start by going through the budget 
that is before us and outlining the concerns I have about it. I would 
like to discuss it in some detail. Let me say in advance the two points 
I hope to make. No. 1, that this does not balance the Federal budget, 
and neither the country nor the Congress should be deceived about that, 
nor should this change our behavior in being vigilant about spending.
  Second, I want to make the point that this does not save Medicare, 
that, quite the contrary, it simply engages in a bookkeeping entry on 
Medicare that makes it look better in the short run, but we are adding 
five new or expanded Medicare benefits which clearly will add to the 
financial insolvency of the system.
  Having gone through that, then I will turn to the amendment. First of 
all, let me talk about deficits. When this budget debate started, based 
on a re-estimation of the economy due to stronger economic output and 
stronger performance, what was required to balance the Federal budget 
when this budget debate started was $339 billion of deficit reduction. 
When the President and congressional negotiators met for the first 
time, that was the level of deficit reduction that was required, as 
compared to current law, to balance the Federal budget. In other words, 
if we had simply not had a budget and left every law in place, not 
repeal any law, not pass a new law, and kept discretionary spending at 
its current level, it would have taken $339 billion of deficit 
reduction to balance the Federal budget.
  I would like to first go through how this budget balances the budget 
in 2002.
  On Thursday night 3 weeks ago, when we reached an impasse in the 
budget negotiations, the Congressional Budget Office came forward with 
the glorious news that, due to a change in the estimation they had 
made, the Federal Government could expect to collect $225 billion of 
additional revenues over the next 5 years. That $225 billion of 
additional revenues that the Congressional Budget Office decided to 
project for the future represents 66 percent of all deficit reduction 
required to balance the budget that is before us; 66 percent of the 
deficit reduction simply comes from the fact that the Congressional 
Budget Office, 3 weeks ago, decided to change the estimate about the 
future performance of the economy and tax collections, based on the 
very strong quarter of economic growth we are in.
  Mr. President, $28 billion of the deficit reduction in the budget 
before us comes from an assumption that the measure of inflation will 
be lower in the future, and that $28 billion of savings that comes from 
an assumption about the Bureau of Labor Statistics changing the measure 
of inflation represents 8 percent of the deficit reduction needed in 
the budget before us.
  Mr. President, $77 billion of the deficit reduction in the budget 
before us comes from the assumption that, with a balanced budget, the 
economy will be even stronger, and that represents 23 percent of the 
deficit reduction in this budget.
  So, when we total all this up, 97 cents out of every dollar of 
deficit reduction in the budget before us comes not from changing 
policy, not from constraining entitlements, not from cutting 
discretionary spending, but from assuming--from assuming--that revenue 
collections will rise in the future, from assuming that inflation will 
be lower in the future, from assuming that the economy will be stronger 
in the future. So, before this budget ever does anything, it assumes 97 
cents out of every dollar of the projected deficit for the next 5 years 
away. Only 3 cents out of every dollar of deficit reduction in this

[[Page S4836]]

budget represents a change in policy. In fact, that is a whopping total 
of $9 billion of deficit reduction in this budget that comes from 
changing Government policy.
  In fact, every penny of that deficit reduction comes from assuming 
that we are going to sell to radio and television stations, and to 
nonbroadcast users, spectrum, and that spectrum is going to bring $26 
billion into the Treasury. In fact, the last year where all this $9 
billion of savings is needed, it is assumed to bring in $14.8 billion. 
Last year, we sold spectrum to fund increased spending of $2.9 billion. 
We estimated it would bring that. When it was sold, it brought $13.6 
million. In other words, for every $200 we thought we were going to get 
by selling spectrum, we got $1. But we still spent every dollar of the 
$2.9 billion we assumed.
  So the first point I want everybody to understand--and it is 
important that they understand it because someone might believe that we 
have put the deficit behind us by making hard choices here--the truth 
is, 97 cents out of every dollar of deficit reduction in this budget, 
as compared to current policy and current law, comes from simply 
assuming the economy is going to be stronger in the future and that 
prices are going to be lower in the future. And, of course, no one 
knows what is going to happen in the future.
  Next, I would like to go through and show you a startling fact, which 
is, not only does this budget not reduce the deficit, but in reality it 
raises the deficit by $71 billion over the next 4 years as compared to 
what would happen if there were no budget. Let me try to explain this. 
I know it is a little complicated, but, if you look at this, I think 
you can see it.
  Under current law, with current spending, if we simply continue to do 
exactly what we are doing now, with no budget, the deficit next year 
would be $76 billion. But, under this budget, with policy changes, we 
are adding $14 billion, much of it in new spending on discretionary 
accounts and 13 new mandatory and entitlement spending programs. So 
actually, by passing this budget today as compared to current policy, 
we are raising the deficit for the coming year by $14 billion, from $76 
to $90 billion.

  In 1999, if we simply continue current policy, the deficit would be 
$77 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But we are 
going to add $13 billion to the deficit, so it will actually be $90 
billion.
  In the year 2000, we are raising the deficit from $70 to $83 billion, 
by $13 billion. In the year 2001, continuing current policy would 
produce a deficit of $22 billion, but we are going to raise it by 
another $31 billion. We are going to more than double it, so the 
deficit would be $53 billion. And the first and only deficit reduction 
due to policy change in this budget is $10 billion in the year 2002, in 
a new century, under a new President. Until we reach that point, 
nothing in this budget lowers the deficit by a penny, and, in fact, 
this budget raises the deficit by a total of $71 billion in those 4 
years.
  Let me turn to some other points. Probably the most startling thing 
that people will come to understand about this budget is that it spends 
so much money that the first thing we have to do in this budget is 
waive the spending limit set in the 1993 budget. Let me remind my 
colleagues and anybody at home who might be watching this debate, in 
1993 we had a Democrat Congress and we had a Democrat President. They 
passed a budget where they increased spending and increased taxes. But 
they set a spending cap in that budget, and that cap said, by 1998, we 
would spend no more than $546.4 billion on discretionary accounts. That 
was in the President's budget. The Congress actually lowered that a 
little to $545.9 billion the next year.
  Under this budget deal, we are going to spend $553.3 billion. So the 
first act of this new budget is to bust the budget law that is 
currently in effect, and we are going to have to waive a point of order 
at some point that I am going to raise so that we can spend $7.4 
billion more than we set out, in the 1993 budget, to spend in 1998. 
This is a partisan point, but it is very relevant. This is going to be 
the first time in history that a Republican Congress is going to vote 
to bust the budget set by a Democrat Congress so we can spend more 
money.
  We have had a lot of discussions about what this budget does and does 
not do with regard to spending. I am sure, as people who follow the 
debate know, we have all kinds of ways of confusing this debate. We 
have what we call a current service baseline, where you cut relative to 
what you would have spent. So, for example, if you are going to buy a 
new shotgun and you come home and your spouse looks at you funny 
because you already own 20 shotguns, you say, ``Look, honey, I was 
going to spend $1,200, but I only spent $1,000, so I saved $200.'' It 
is that kind of baseline under which people talk about this budget 
saving money.
  But let me talk about things you know something about. Do you 
remember the Contract With America? Well, I remember it. I think the 
American people remember it. The Senate and the House have forgotten 
it. But we wrote a budget called the Contract With America, and we all 
ran for office on it, at least people on this side of the aisle did. We 
passed that budget in 1995, and, as compared to that budget for the 
years 1998 through the year 2002, this budget we are voting on here 
today will raise spending by $212 billion on discretionary nondefense 
programs, basically social programs, above the level contained in the 
Contract With America budget that was adopted in 1996. So however you 
want to define spending, the one thing we know is, compared to the 
budget that we adopted 2 years ago for the same years, we are 
increasing spending by $212 billion, basically on nondefense 
discretionary social programs.
  We voted on a budget right here on the floor of the Senate a year ago 
that set spending totals for 1997 and 1998, through the year 2002. As 
compared to the budget we voted on just last year, the budget before us 
today spends a whopping $189 billion more in the same years on 
discretionary social programs than we spent in the budget we adopted on 
this very floor only a year ago at this time. As compared to the 
President's budget that he offered last year, this budget spends an 
additional $76 billion on social programs, and, as scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office, this budget actually spends slightly more 
than the President asked for in this year's budget.

  In reality, the 1 year that really matters is the year that this 
budget will set out in detail, that is, the 1998 budget as compared to 
our 1996 budget. This will spend, in 1 year, $38 billion more than the 
Contract With America; as compared to the budget we adopted last year, 
it will spend $23 billion more; as compared to the budget the President 
submitted last year, it will spend $3 billion more, simply on 
discretionary programs. But that is just discretionary programs.
  This budget will create or fund 13 mandatory and entitlement programs 
that will either be created new or will be expanded or will represent 
new benefits. I remind my colleagues that every one of these mandatory 
programs in these entitlement programs is a little baby elephant that 
is set to grow in the future. We just adopted, by unanimous consent, an 
amendment of our dear colleague from Nebraska that said to us, listen, 
we need to be alert about the growth of entitlements and maybe we ought 
not to let these programs consume more than 70 percent of the budget. 
We all supported the resolution. But you need to realize that the 
budget before us has 13 new spending programs or additions or 
additional funding to mandatory and entitlement programs that do not 
exist under current law.
  Let me go over what those are: environmental reserve fund. We have 
five new or expanded Medicare benefits. I am going to come back to 
Medicare. We increase Medicaid funding for the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico. We increase Medicare funding in terms of reducing 
copayments at the very time we cannot pay for Medicare as it now 
exists. We restore welfare benefits for immigrants and refugees and 
asylees. We expand the Food Stamp Program. We expand a welfare-to-work 
grant. We expand child health care and barely avoided raising it by 
another $20 billion.

  So, basically, there are two reasons that I am not for this budget, 
and I didn't come here today to argue against it thinking I was going 
to convince anybody. This is a wonderful political deal. It is a 
wonderful political

[[Page S4837]]

deal because it allows everybody to get what they want. It allows 
President Clinton, in his own words, to have the largest expansion in 
social programs since the 1960's. It allows Republicans to talk about 
having a tax cut. And it allows both parties to claim they are 
balancing the Federal budget. But in reality, if it sounds too good to 
believe that we are having the largest increase in social spending 
since the sixties and we are cutting taxes and balancing the budget at 
the same time, the reason is that it is too good to be believed. In 
reality, it is not true.
  The two points I want to make are these: First, we are not balancing 
the budget here; we are simply assuming the budget is balanced. It may 
be that, based on a strong economic performance in the last quarter, 
the future picture of the economy is changed for 5 years. It may be 
that this is going to be, by far, the longest and strongest recovery in 
American history. But the probability is that that is not true, and it 
is not sound policy to set out the financial plan for the whole country 
based on those kinds of assumptions. I do not think it would be quite 
as far-fetched as assuming you could pay your bills because you are 
going to win the lottery, but, basically, for anybody to believe that 
we are balancing the budget based on policy decisions that I already 
demonstrated are not true, it is important that the Congress, it is 
important that the country not let its guard down and understand that 
all we have done in this budget is assume the deficit away, and it may 
or may not be gone.
  I raise this concern because in the supplemental appropriations that 
we dealt with last week, we added another $6.6 billion to these 
spending totals, so that we have, in reality, already busted this 
budget which has not yet been adopted. These spending totals that I 
talked about of being $189 billion above last year's budget in this 
budget, we have already added to that by passing a supplemental last 
week, which adds another $6.6 billion to the deficit.
  The second and final point I want to make about the budget is it is 
very important that nobody believe that this budget solves the Medicare 
problem. What does this budget do about Medicare? First, it says we are 
going to lower reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. We have done 
that a dozen times. It has never worked, and it has never worked 
because, like all wage and price controls, people find ways to get 
around it. Yet, while we know it has never worked in the past, we have 
it in this bill because we have agreed to take, in essence, the 
President's policy in Medicare.
  But that is not the worst part of it. The claim that this budget 
saves Medicare for 10 years is not just based on that unachieved and 
unachievable savings by simply reducing payments to hospitals and 
doctors; it is based on taking the fastest growing part of Medicare and 
taking it out of the Medicare trust fund and funding it in general 
revenue. Home health care, which is the fastest growing part of 
Medicare, is taken out of the trust fund under this budget agreement 
and is funded out of general revenue.
  Virtually every person on my side of the aisle, when this was 
discussed 6 months ago, said, ``Well, that's fraudulent.'' That is 
equivalent to having a bunch of debt on your credit card and you go to 
the bank and borrow money and pay part of it off and then you say, 
``Well, look, I'm out of debt.''
  As I said when this was suggested by the President, ``Look, I can do 
you better, I can make Medicare solvent for 100 years. Take hospital 
care out of the trust fund.'' But does that change anything? Does that 
solve anything?
  So here we are engaging in a shell game which is totally fraudulent, 
taking the fastest growing part of the trust fund out, not counting it, 
paying for it out of general revenues and claiming we save Medicare for 
10 years when Medicare is going to cause a $1.6 trillion drain on the 
Federal Treasury in the next 10 years.

  The terrible tragedy of this is we were on the verge of getting a 
bipartisan consensus to really reform Medicare. I am afraid that by 
accepting this budget deal we are going to take the pressure off 
Congress, because if Medicare is solvent for 10 years because we have 
taken the fastest growing part of it out and hidden it in general 
revenues, is there a problem? Why should we all cast tough votes that 
could cost us our jobs if we can tell people there is no problem?
  Do not believe this balances the budget. It simply assumes the budget 
is balanced. We have assumed it was balanced on many other occasions, 
and it has not been balanced, I am afraid. Just like a family budget, 
assuming you win the lottery normally does not work. The way you 
balance your budget sitting around your kitchen table is by saying no. 
There is no ``no'' in this budget. There is no ``no'' here. There is no 
``no'' to anybody. There is nothing in this budget that really 
represents any kind of fundamental change in policy. What this budget 
is is a wonderful political document, but I am afraid that this 
political document is going to induce us to spend more, it is going to 
induce us not to deal with Medicare, and America is going to be the 
loser.
  Let me turn to my amendment, and let me say this is a controversial 
amendment. Some are going to say this is a deal-breaker amendment and, 
in a sense, if you want to argue that, you can. But let me talk about 
the amendment.
  First of all, I have a chart up here, and I want people to understand 
what has happened to the Federal budget in the last 10 years. If you 
look at 1987 and then you look at 1996 and you adjust for inflation, 
real spending on defense has gone down by 27 percent, real spending on 
entitlements has gone up by 38 percent, and despite all of the protest 
from the President and from Members of Congress, nondefense 
discretionary spending, the fundamental general Government, social 
programs, general Government operating expenses, are up over 10 years 
by 24 percent. So all of Government has grown dramatically in the last 
10 years except defense.
  What has happened to family income in the last 10 years? If you take 
the average family income of America and you adjust it for inflation 
and take out taxes and payroll taxes and look at what the average 
working family in America had to spend in 1987 and what they had to 
spend in 1996--we do not have the figure for this year yet--basically 
what happened to the American family, as compared to the American 
Government during this same 10 years, was Government grew and grew 
rapidly, but here is what happened to the average family:
  After taxes, after inflation, the income of the average working 
family in America fell, after-tax income from $28,302, 10 years later, 
10 years of working and struggling and often both the husband and the 
wife where families are blessed with two parents in the household, 10 
years later, that average family is making $27,737 after taxes. So in 
10 years where Government has grown, in 10 years where we have not said 
no to Government, working families have actually seen their spendable 
income after taxes decline from $28,302 to $27,737.
  My amendment is very simple. My amendment says, let's go back to the 
budget that President Clinton submitted last year. I remind my 
colleagues that in the budget he submitted last year, it provided 
funding for not only last year but this year and every year to 2002. 
When we voted on our budget, the President said his budget for 1997 
provided the education funding, housing funding, the medical care 
funding that America would need through the year 2002. Various Members 
of the Senate stood up and spoke on behalf of this budget.
  Senator Lautenberg said:

       It makes critical investments in education and training. It 
     provides increased funding for programs like Head Start, 
     title I, safe and drug-free schools.

  The President said:

       This budget funds my priorities.

  One year later, for the same years, the President says, ``Well, you 
know I said last year I had enough money for all those things, but 
actually now, I need $76 billion more for the same 5 years than I said 
I needed last year.''
  So here is what my amendment does. My amendment goes back and takes 
the President's last year's budget for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 
and says, ``OK, Mr. President, we are going to give you everything you 
said last year you needed to spend in these years, and then we are 
going to take the $76 billion of savings and we are going to give them 
back to families by cutting taxes and by guaranteeing that families 
will

[[Page S4838]]

get the $500 tax credit per child that we promised in our budget and 
guaranteeing that we will get full capital gains tax cut.''
  If you vote for this amendment, what do you say? You are going to 
hear many ways of saying what you are saying is, ``You are cutting 
Government spending below the President's requested level, below the 
budget; you are breaking the deal.'' In reality, what you are saying 
is, ``We are giving the President everything he said he needed last 
year,'' but we are saying more than that. We are saying, rather than 
spending another $76 billion in Washington on behalf of all these 
families, we are going to give that money back to them and let them 
spend it themselves. That is what this is about.
  The question you have to answer on this amendment is this: Can we 
spend this money on behalf of American families better than they can 
spend it? By letting families keep $500 more per child, for every 
working family in America, can they take that money and invest it in 
education, housing, nutrition, and health care better than we can spend 
it on their behalf? Do we know their interests better than they do?
  Let me say, I do not think so. I know the Government, and I know the 
family, and I know the difference. I believe that the biggest problem 
in America, in terms of finances, is that Government is spending too 
much and families are spending too little. We are literally starving 
the only institution in America that really works, and that is the 
family. How can it make sense for Government to grow year after year 
after year when the family budget has declined in real terms on an 
after-tax basis for the last 10 years? Shouldn't we take this $76 
billion more than the President asked for last year and let families 
spend it instead of letting the Government spend it?
  Now, if we adopt this amendment, we are going to change the budget, 
we are going to have $76 billion less of Government spending, basically 
on social programs. I am not saying there are not some good programs in 
there, but I am saying this, that if you take all $76 billion of new 
discretionary spending and you let American families look at it and 
say, ``Would you rather have us spend this for you or would you rather 
spend it yourself?'' the vast majority of working families would say, 
``I would rather spend it.''
  In fact, if you just ask taxpayers, who paid for it, I would not 
doubt that 95 percent of them would say, ``Yeah, I think probably I can 
spend it for my family a little better than you can spend it for me.'' 
So that is what this is about.
  This does not raise the deficit. It just simply says, instead of 
giving the President $76 billion more to spend than he asked for last 
year, since he said last year he could fund the Government and do 
everything he wanted to do for $76 billion less, and now this year he 
wants more. They discovered this magic money out there where the 
Congressional Budget Office decided that we were going to collect all 
this revenue. So the President said, ``Look, I need more spending.'' 
Now, that is one argument. It is a legitimate argument. I just do not 
happen to agree with him. I am saying, let us give it back to families. 
After all, that is where the money is coming from. Let families spend 
it. This is our vision. This is the Republican vision. It is America's 
vision.
  A budget is about choosing between two competing visions. The budget 
before us is a clear vision: more Government. The budget before us is a 
budget that says, more Government is in the interest of the American 
people. The President may say the era of big Government is over, we may 
parrot those words, but this budget does not say the era of big 
Government is over. This budget says the era of big Government is 
permanent and it is expanding.
  What my amendment says is, let us let families spend this new money 
instead of giving it to the Government to spend.
  I know this is a controversial amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
support it. I do not suffer under any delusions, but I wanted to show 
my colors on this amendment. I want people to know there are at least a 
few people in the Senate who have not forgotten what we promised.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I say to the Senator, in this budget negotiation there 
seemed to be an impasse, and then all of a sudden it appeared there was 
a substantial additional block of money.
  Now, is that money the result of people working more and paying more 
taxes?
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, I hope that is what it is. But all we know is that 
the Congressional Budget Office came up with this estimate, that 
because of the strong economy that we have had in the last quarter, 
that looking into the future, we were going to collect $45 billion a 
year off as far as the eye could see. Now, to the extent they are 
right, it is coming because families are paying more taxes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. And people are working hard?
  Mr. GRAMM. They are working harder. They are working longer.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Instead of rewarding people who work harder by letting 
then keep more of what they are earning, the approach is to take more 
of it and spend more on Government?
  Mr. GRAMM. Basically what happened was that they said, ``Well, now 
that we've got all this money, let's let Government spend more of it.'' 
The President is actually asking for--and we are giving him--$76 
billion more to spend for the same years that he said last year he had 
enough, but now because of this bird's nest on the ground, this new 
discovery of revenues, what is happening is we are getting ready to let 
the Government spend $76 billion more, but never once apparently did 
anybody say, ``Hey, maybe with this new money we ought to let families 
spend it.'' What my amendment says is, look, give the President 
everything he asked for last year, but do not go up another $76 billion 
simply because there is more money there. Let us give it back to 
working families.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. To the people who have to earn it and pay the taxes.
  Mr. GRAMM. The person who earned it will end up keeping more of it 
because with this we will guarantee that we have enough money--unlike 
the current bill which has a net tax cut of $50 billion--to fund a $500 
tax credit for every child in a working family in America, which costs 
$105 billion, and capital gains tax cuts and changes in death duties. 
The problem is, we have $188 billion of promises and a $50 billion net 
tax cut. It is like trying to pour 188 pounds of sugar into a 50-pound 
bag. What we are doing here is, we are raising the tax cut by not 
letting Government spend this money so families can spend it.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. It seems to me that what you have proposed is giving 
the President everything he asked for when he asked for it last year, 
before he saw this potential of a bigger pie. Certainly he knows how to 
ask largely and how to ask to meet the need. He certainly has no 
reticence about asking. With the additional potential for resources, 
when people earn more and develop more for this country, we ought to 
let the people have some of what they earn instead of saying, we will 
take that and spend it on Government, even if it means we have to 
adjust our--it occurs to me they are having to adjust their ambition 
bigger and bigger. The harder and harder the American people work, the 
idea is, the more the Government can spend as a result of it.
  Mr. GRAMM. When they are working, they are not doing it so the 
Government can spend it. I think they are doing it so they can spend 
it.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Of course they are.
  Mr. GRAMM. The tragedy is, 10 years ago, after taxes and being 
adjusted for inflation, the average working family made over $28,000 a 
year, $28,300. And 10 years later, after inflation and taxes, they are 
making $27,700. The average working family has less to spend today than 
they did 10 years ago. Government spending has grown every year for 10 
years. And now, rather than letting working families keep more of what 
they earn, we are letting Government grow more.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it fair to say then, Government has taken the raise 
that people would have anticipated in the last 10 years, and they took 
it and spent it?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes. Again, if you believe that Government can spend it 
better than families, if you believe--some of our colleagues do--if you 
believe that Government knows what is

[[Page S4839]]

better for families, that Government is a good steward of their money, 
you might want to say, ``Well, these families might waste it. If we 
gave them this $500 tax credit, a family of four getting to keep $1,000 
more to invest in their children and family, their future, they might 
make bad decisions,'' and leave it here with President Clinton and the 
trustworthy Congress, if you believe that this is a bad amendment.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. If you believe that you may want to make a downpayment 
on a bridge someone wants to sell you in Brooklyn.
  It is pretty clear to me, Government has not been the most efficient 
or effective way to deploy resources.
  I want to thank the Senator. I thank him for yielding for this point 
of clarification.
  I find very appealing the idea that we would let the American people, 
when they earn more, keep more. Families would rather spend it on 
themselves rather than send it here in hopes that something would 
happen with it here that might benefit their families.
  I commend the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator.
  Let me conclude and yield the floor, because I know others want to 
speak.
  This is a pretty simple amendment. It says that we are giving the 
Government $76 billion more than the President said that he needed last 
year for these same years to do everything he wants to do from child 
health care to education.

  Much of this spending increase occurred when we discovered 
miraculously--and I hope in fact we discovered it instead of making it 
up--that the future looked brighter. What I am saying is, do not give 
this additional $76 billion to Congress and the President. Give it back 
to families and let them invest it in their future and their children.
  I believe this amendment represents a different vision than the 
budget before us. I think it represents a vision that believes that the 
future is going to be brighter if we have more opportunity and more 
freedom. What freedom is more basic than the right of families to spend 
their own money? Should Government grow every year even if working 
families see their budgets declining? I do not think so. So, as a 
result, I have offered this amendment. I want people to know that there 
is support for having Government tighten its belt a little so that 
families can loosen their belt a little. That is what the amendment is 
about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield to the Senator so long as he might speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 321

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that a nonrefundable tax 
 credit for the expenses of an education at a 2-year college should be 
                                enacted)

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. First, I would like to send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for it to be considered and that it then be temporarily set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 321.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING TAX CREDIT FOR 
                   WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING AT VOCATIONAL 
                   SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that, any legislation enacted 
     pursuant to this resolution, contain a tax credit for 
     expenses of workforce education and training at vocational 
     schools and community colleges.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on education. I 
usually don't agree with the President on policy. However, this is one 
occasion where I do agree. The President in this year's State of the 
Union Address, proposed that billions be spent on education in his 
``Call to Action for American Education.'' One of the principles in 
this plan is his hope scholarship proposal. President Clinton proposes 
2 years of a $1,500-a-year for college tuition, enough to pay for the 
typical community college.
  I agree that we should give every adult American the opportunity to 
obtain the first 2 years of higher education. On January 21, I 
introduced S. 50 which provides for a $1,500-a-year tax credit for 
students attending two-year schools. S. 50 has the cosponsorship of the 
majority leader, Senator Lott, and Senators Connie Mack, Lary Craig, 
Harry Reid and Jim Jeffords. Just last week, at the Republican National 
Committee annual dinner, House Speaker Newt Gingrich listed vocational 
training as one of the four top priorities for our budget resolution.
  S. 50 will encourage workers in all age brackets to pursue an 
education beyond high school without incurring the costly expenses of 
attending a 4-year college. By improving the training and skills of our 
workers, we will create better jobs in manufacturing and technology 
throughout the United States. There is nothing more important to 
keeping competitive in the global marketplace.
  As State commerce secretary for North Carolina, I attracted more than 
500,000 jobs into North Carolina by strengthening our community college 
systems and offering custom training of workers in specific skills. In 
the past 8 years, North Carolina has been among the top three States in 
new-plant locations and gained a toehold in the film industry which now 
invests $2.5 billion a year in my State.
  As we begin to see the impact of changes made to welfare in the last 
Congress, more people will be off of welfare and looking for work. This 
bill would provide the job skill training needed for these individuals 
to find gainful employment. Senator Lott understands the importance of 
vocational training. So does Speaker Gingrich. As discussions proceed 
in the budget resolution, let us please find money, within that $35 
billion set out for education, to help community colleges. Community 
colleges help people find real jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Thank you.


                           Amendment No. 318

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to now speak very briefly 
on Senator Gramm's amendment.
  I think he has just reached to the heart of Government spending, and 
he did it very succinctly. There is $76 billion more that the President 
discovered he needed because by some mathematical manipulation we 
decided we had $76 billion more to spend. We discovered $76 billion; we 
spend $76 billion. Now, if we had discovered $176 billion, guess how 
much the President would have needed? $176 billion.
  I just want to say that I strongly support the amendment of the 
Senator from Texas. I intend to speak on it further later. But I at 
this moment enthusiastically support it and will continue to speak on 
it at a later time when we have time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield the Senator from Missouri additional time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you.


                           Amendment No. 322

     (Purpose: To add enforcement mechanisms to reflect the stated 
 commitment to reach a balanced budget in 2002, to maintain a balanced 
  budget thereafter, and to achieve these goals without raising taxes)

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

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], for himself, Mr. 
     Gramm, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Helms and Mr. 
     Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 322.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the amendment be 
set aside.

[[Page S4840]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC.   . BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or amendment or motion thereto, or 
     conference report thereon) or any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would cause--
       (1) total outlays for fiscal year 2002 or any fiscal year 
     thereafter to exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, 
     unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of 
     Congress provide for a specific excess of outlays over 
     receipts by a rollcall vote:
       (2) an increase in the statutory limit on the level of the 
     public debt in excess of the level set forth in section 
     101(5) of this resolution with respect to fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002 and for fiscal years after 2002 as set for 
     fiscal year 2002 unless three-fifths of the whole number of 
     each House provide for such an increase by a rollcall vote: 
     or
       (3) an increase in revenues unless approved by a majority 
     of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
       (b) Waiver.--The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     section for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this section may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       (c) Definition.--In this section:
       (1) Total receipts.--The term ``total receipts'' includes 
     all receipts of the United States Government except those 
     derived from borrowing.
       (2) Total outlays.--The term ``total outlays'' includes all 
     outlays of the United States Government except for those for 
     repayment of debt principal.
       (3) Increase in revenues.--The term ``increase in 
     revenues'' means the levy of a new tax or an increase in the 
     rate or base of any tax.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.


                           Amendment No. 323

(Purpose: To limit increases in the statutory limit on the debt to the 
                       levels in the resolution)

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

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 323.

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

         On page 45, strike line 2, and insert the following: 
     ``exceed; or
       ``(3) any bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on such bill or resolution) for fiscal year 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 that would increase the 
     statutory limit on the level of the public debt in excess of 
     the level set forth in section 101(5) of this resolution with 
     respect to fiscal years 1998 through 2002 and for fiscal 
     years after 2002 as set for fiscal year 2002.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 318

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Gramm amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Gramm, let me compliment you on the 
expression of your philosophy this evening. I think you have heard me a 
couple times. I think perhaps it is a question of how much can we do 
and get it done? But I have a vision of the United States that I would 
explain to you in a way that is very new to me.
  I did not grow up with this vision. I came to this place. I had been 
a public servant, and I kind of liked the idea so I said I will run for 
the Senate. I guess it was because in my State we had so few 
Republicans then that they looked around and said, well, that young guy 
just lost a race--thank God, it is the only one I ever lost--he is as 
good as any, why not ask him to run. So I ran. I came here as the first 
Republican in 38 years.
  I was here for about 3 years when an announcement came that the King 
of Spain--remember the young man, King Carlos of Spain, a magnificent 
transition figure in Spanish modern times. He had been a king, well-
taken care of, no idea, as I thought, of freedom because he lived under 
a dictator, right, for all these years. Then, all of a sudden the 
dictator goes away, and they say, ``You are in charge, King.''
  Then they said, ``Why don't you come over and talk to the Congress.'' 
So he came over here. I remember sitting in my office as if it were 
yesterday, and I said, ``I don't know whether I ought to go.'' As you 
already know, I like to work. I was sitting around my desk, in my early 
years, thinking it was far more important to call to New Mexico or 
write a letter to my constituents. Then something said, ``You know, New 
Mexico has a lot of Spanish people in it. You know a lot of them. Maybe 
you ought to go because he might say something about the culture and 
you may learn something.'' Well, Senator Gramm, I went. He gave an 
eloquent speech. I learned nothing about the Spanish culture. I knew 
more about that than what he talked about up there--he may know more 
than I--that he alluded to.

  He said something very intriguing that I had trouble with and I did 
not believe it for a while. He said all significant human achievement 
occurs when a man or a woman is free. I wrote that down and took it 
back to my office, and I said how could that be true? Michelangelo was 
a great achiever, and I ticked off in my mind a number of others that I 
had heard of in history that achieved a lot, and there was not any 
freedom around to speak of. I was wrong. There was very little freedom, 
but the great achievers were made free by selection. Somebody with a 
lot of money said, ``I want to make this talented person free and I 
would like them to achieve.''
  Frankly, I got a picture of history in my mind right then, but the 
reason the world had achieved so little until we had more and more 
freedom of individuals was just that. There were not enough people free 
to be enterprising, to be innovative, because society did not let them 
be free. So what I ended up concluding was a different image of the 
United States where I concluded that we have been superachievers 
because we have been compared to the rest of the world. In history, we 
made more and more people free, we got rid of slavery, we made them 
free. As we moved along, we did civil rights and we made more people 
free.
  I began to understand as I worked here that there was something else 
and that was if you worked and made a profit in your business or a good 
salary in your work that freedom was to be measured by how much you had 
of that money and that achievement in wealth to use in whatever way you 
wanted. I came to the conclusion, once again, that our greatness in 
achievements, and our achievements are everywhere, was because we were 
leaving people with resources that they earned, to be free and take a 
chance. Some failed but many succeeded.
  Now, my 25 years here has not diminished that idea one bit. In fact, 
I believe that I can even make a case. You know how hard I work for the 
mentally ill. One day we had an exchange on the floor and tonight I am 
apologetic because I said to you, ``It is too bad you do not know 
anything about the mentally ill,'' and you said, ``Yes, I do,'' and you 
told me about somebody in your family. So I was not being fair that 
day. I was being very arrogant.
  But I can make an argument that if mentally ill people is how I think 
of freedom as the achievement mechanism for America collectively, if a 
mentally ill person can be cured of the devil in them, which people 
used to think is some kind of a devil that is a disease, you can cure 3 
million people, America has more of a chance for even more achievement, 
because you never can tell which people you make free are going to be 
achievers.
  So you see, you have a notion here in your budget, your visionary 
budget, that you would like to leave more money in the hands of 
individuals. If I read you right, it is essentially to be free, it 
might even be free to make mistakes. I have talked to you about that, 
and you said sure, sometimes you just have to let people make mistakes, 
but let them make it while they are trying to do their thing with their 
resources.
  You probably had a much earlier vision and a more profound 
understanding because you are an economist and

[[Page S4841]]

you understand capitalism so well, but I have been pleased to learn 
from you. Capitalism is the essence, when coupled with freedom, is the 
essence of opportunity because the capital works to achieve and the 
individual works to achieve, and when you marry them up you have an 
economy that is just hell bent for success and growth, and when you 
squeeze it, there are a lot of ways to squeeze.
  People wonder whether regulations have anything to do with freedom. 
We do not explain it very well. It has a lot to do with freedom because 
the extent to which you are regulated, you have taken a bit of freedom 
away from someone or something.
  Now we would both agree in a democratic capitalist society you cannot 
be free to do everything and anything. We pride ourselves on having 
laws, but what people do not understand is if you have regulations that 
are $50 billion more than they need to protect the public, you have 
taken away $50 billion worth of freedom somewhere in this country to 
grow and prosper and energize. So I understand that and I understand 
when you tax people in the wrong way and when you tax them too much the 
very same thing happens.
  In fact, I believe you, with your expertise as a Ph.D. in economics, 
can probably find times in our economic history when we taxed things so 
wrongly that you could actually prove that we went in the wrong 
direction. I am reminded of one, when in a fit of lunacy we put a big 
tax on these little boats. What happened? It was amazing, like you and 
I told them, but they said, ``No, no, we are taxing these rich people 
that own boats.'' Well, within 18 months we had our friends down here 
from those States saying, ``Our workers are out of jobs because the 
people who own the boats decided you are taxing them so much they do 
not get the boats anymore.'' It took a long time but we finally 
repealed that. To be honest, people have to have a degree of freedom or 
they will not buy a boat they want. They will say if you tax me too 
much I will go without, and there go workers and businesspeople.

  My problem is, Senator, that I do not believe with President Bill 
Clinton in the White House that we can get that budget, that consent of 
yours, that we could get it adopted and implemented. I think we almost 
tried something like this, you and I together, maybe even a little 
more, and we did not get anywhere. That does not mean you should ever 
stop trying what you are doing and expressing your vision, but frankly, 
I do not believe we can get it. I think you will know later this 
evening how many votes you will get for your proposal, and it is a 
little bit of an indication of what I felt when I started working this 
year. One of my better friends said they would finally say to the 
Senators who might not have been there, they said, ``Domenici said to 
me last year unless we have some kind of assurance out of the White 
House I am not sure I want to do a totally Republican budget because I 
am not sure we are getting anywhere.''
  We are having a great exercise in doing what you and I are doing on 
the floor and maybe making some sense to a few million but we do not 
get it done, so I will not even take time to go through how much more 
we would have to reduce various programs so that Senators might know. I 
will just say that there would be a substantial reduction in the 
discretionary accounts of our country almost across the board and 
almost every one if your amendment was adopted over what we agreed to 
with the President.
  I am firmly convinced, Senator Gramm, that if we produced 
appropriations bills at those levels, I do not think we can get there 
because I do not think we can get that kind of agreement out of either 
case, and if we were to adopt them, I believe you would have a veto and 
we would be back as we have been before. So I chose as one who probably 
does not understand as deeply as you do what economic freedom is, but I 
think I have shown you today in the few minutes on the floor that I 
think I am getting it. It has taken me 65 years, but I think I am 
getting it. I think what we did is the best we can do.
  Frankly, I am going to say what I said before on the previous 
Kennedy-Hatch amendment. I believe it violates the budget agreement 
that we entered into, except I would not expect Senator Phil Gramm to 
read the agreement and say it does not. I think you would read it as 
the absolute man that you are and you would say, right upfront, it 
does. You would not try to make some argument that, well, it does not 
because it is this or that. It just does.
  Frankly, when I find amendments that do that, I hope you understand I 
am obligated to resist them if I feel comfortable and confident we are 
going to get there under the budget that you do not like. I totally 
appreciate every reason you give. I think it is better than not having 
a budget this year and I think, also, Senator, that unless we have some 
great experience that I do not contemplate, understanding what I can 
about the tea leaves, that we will actually balance before 2002, 
because we have used such economic assumptions that are so conservative 
that I believe we are going to be off again each year $40 billion or 
$50 billion, just as we have been the last 3 or 4 years when the 
economy helped this curve.
  Now, if we had a recession that lasted 3 years, all bets are off, but 
I assume even in the budget you propose we would be off the mark, 
there, too, if we had a recession for 3 years and we take into account 
what you economists do when you do multiple years of economic 
assumptions. You build the potential for recession into being a more 
conservative versus a more generous set of economic assumptions. That 
is what I have learned from the CBO as to how they build a recession 
into their numbers.

  Now, if anybody wants to ask how much more various programs will 
probably be reduced under Senator Gramm's proposal, I will look it up 
and go over and talk to you and see if I am right, but I believe you, 
again, are willing to stand up and say it would be substantial compared 
to this budget because you find enough savings in your approach to then 
use those savings and add on to the tax cuts that we have.
  Fellow Senators, I hope you understand that I have not for 1 minute 
this evening on the floor been critical of Phil Gramm and those who 
feel like he does. It is just that most of us who will be supporting 
this budget feel the same way, most of the Republicans who support the 
basic budget, feel the same. They think there are two ways to get there 
and that the bipartisan approach is more apt to be successful because 
it is more apt to happen. It will not necessarily be more successful as 
an instrument in accomplishing a vision, but it probably will occur.
  With that, I say to the Senate, my instructions from our leader are 
that we not take any longer time than you need and perhaps my ranking 
member, and then we would proceed to a vote as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Domenici.
  Let me simply reiterate a couple points I made early on. First of 
all, I am not claiming for a minute that even though we are spending 
$76 billion more than the President asked for last year--I am simply 
trying to take us back to a budget that last year he thought was 
adequate. There is no doubt about the fact that $76 billion is going to 
do a lot of things for a lot of people.
  I am not claiming there will not be programs that would have 
benefited with the $76 billion that will not be losers under my 
amendment. What I am saying is that I believe that working families can 
spend the $76 billion better than the Government can spend it, and that 
is really the choice that my amendment proposes.
  Let me also say to Senator Domenici that I am a firm believer in the 
old Jefferson adage that good men with the same facts often disagree. I 
think one of the good things about the Senate when we follow our 
rules--and sometimes we do not always do that here, we have certainly 
done it here today, I think--is that we can talk about what we believe 
in and what we want to happen, but the fact that people disagree with 
us does not in any way diminish their belief or say that we are 
necessarily right and they are wrong. Our system is a system of 
competing visions.
  I say going back to the point about freedom. I am very concerned when 
average working families find the Federal Government taking the amount 
of their income that is taken today in payroll taxes and income taxes. 
I am also concerned that if we do not do

[[Page S4842]]

something about Medicare and if we do not do something about Social 
Security, in 25 years the average taxpayer in America will be sending 
about 50 cents out of every dollar they earn to Washington, DC. And I 
think you reach a point where the tax rate is so high that it does 
infringe on your freedom.

  Are we still the same America that Senator Domenici grew up in and 
that I grew up in if the Federal Government is taking 50 cents out of 
every dollar earned by the average family 25 years from now? That is 
the future that we are looking at if you do not dramatically change 
Government policy.
  My objective today is simply to offer an alternative. I am not for 
the underlying budget. It is clear that the adoption of my amendment 
would dramatically change that budget. And I want to change it, which 
is why I have offered the amendment. I don't deceive myself into 
believing that this is a majority view today. But I do believe it is a 
majority view in the country. And I believe that it will ultimately be 
a majority view here in American Government.
  It is obviously a question that we all have to ask ourselves. When 
you have a divided Government, what are the functions of the two 
parties? Are the functions of the two parties to try to get together 
and make an agreement? Or are the functions of the two parties 
basically delineated as presenting two competing visions for the 
future, and then letting America choose the clearer vision, presenting 
competing ideas and letting America choose the superior idea?
  These are obviously things that people have contemplated, thought 
about, and prayed over for many years in the U.S. Senate.
  I choose today to offer an alternative to the budget because this 
budget does not represent the vision that I believe in. This budget 
does not produce the America that I want produced. I believe that it is 
unwise in the America of 1997 to give the Government another $76 
billion to spend on discretionary programs when that money could go to 
hard-working American families to spend on their children and invest in 
their future.
  But it is really a choice between two competing alternatives with the 
overlay that Senator Domenici talked about of where we are with the 
Democrat President.
  My objective in offering this amendment--and I thank the Senator for 
his kindness--was to simply give people an opportunity to know that 
there is an alternative, that there are people who believe that this 
budget does not move us in the right direction, and that the right 
direction is less Government and more freedom. I think the fundamental 
way we find less Government and more freedom is by having Government 
spend less so that people can spend more.
  I don't think anybody is in doubt about where they stand on this 
amendment.
  So I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I listened with interest to the 
discussion that was going on regarding the amendment that we are now 
considering. It is a surprise. I shouldn't say that. It is not a 
surprise. But there is an anomalous difference between where we were 
when we were talking about Hatch-Kennedy and the response from those 
who were opposed when they were talking about how inconsistent it was 
with what we had.
  We had an agreement. I use the term ``hammered out'' 
because ``hammered out'' seems like it was really tough. And it was 
tough to get this agreement. It took a lot of giving, it took a lot of 
review, and a lot of hard thinking to get the consensus that we arrived 
at.

  It was said that it is ``inconsistent.'' How can you do it after all 
the work that was done with the President and ``we,'' and Senator 
Domenici and ``I,'' and the people from the House, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee sitting 
there night after night for something like 6 weeks, long, long days? 
Finally we get this agreement. And there was shock almost, and people 
were horrified by the notion that Senators Hatch and Kennedy wanted to 
provide another $20 billion for children's health and tax tobacco and 
cigarettes to do it. The debate was I would say fairly long, fairly 
arduous at times, and fairly strong in terms of the exchange.
  But here we have now a proposal after we labored so hard to get 
nondefense discretionary up to a point that was acceptable.
  Once again I do not want to go through the whole litany of what the 
budget consensus constitutes--some give and take, and some got taken. 
But we are at this point now when suddenly we are talking about 
increasing the net tax cuts for the first 5 years from $85 billion to 
$161 billion by taking it out of nondefense discretionary. I hope that 
this wouldn't get a lot of consideration when it comes time to vote.
  I heard my good friend and distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee say that President Clinton isn't the kind of President under 
which you could do something like this, the thought or the inference 
being, ``Well, this is too good. This is too positive.''
  Madam President, I am not an economist by profession, though my 
degree from Columbia is in economics. But I learned economics the hard 
way. I started one of America's great companies, modestly I say. And I 
started one of America's greatest industries, the computing industry. 
My name is in the hall of fame in Dallas, TX, for having been a member 
of information processing pioneers. So I learned it by doing it. I also 
learned it by reading.
  I remember the days of a very popular President, President Reagan. 
Under his leadership, about which people were so euphoric, the tax cut 
that was then introduced was in present terms something like $12.8 
trillion. That was supposed to be evidence of how good the supply side 
would be and what eventually would trickle down into the economy which 
would stimulate things, and everybody would be kind of happy 
thereafter.
  But what we saw instead was the incredible growth in the debt in this 
society of ours with annual deficits just booming, and total debt 
skyrocketing. We are finally working our way out of it. And the 
reference is that this President wouldn't permit it. When this 
President took over the debt, the annual deficit was $290 billion. It 
is projected to be $67 billion, now the third projection by the 
Congressional Budget Office, that neutral body that is targeting their 
sights on what is accurate, and what is honest and what is fair. They 
have changed their mind three times in the last 6 or 7 months.
  People are working at more new jobs created than in almost any period 
I think--I will say almost in any period of history. Unemployment is at 
a historic low. Inflation is at a very stable rate. All signs are 
pretty darned good.
  We ``hammer out'' this agreement laboring all those hours, people 
getting angry at one another at times but finally agreeing. I shouldn't 
put the focus on ``angry.'' Once in a while tension would creep in. But 
essentially it was a debate or a negotiation conducted with the best of 
intentions. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and I, it is 
fair to say, worked very well together, as did our colleagues from the 
House. We were determined to try to solve the problem and not get the 
temperature up too high.
  We are here now. After all of that, and after the discussion we had 
throughout the day today about the violation of the consistency of the 
budget agreement, and now we are looking at what I think is a gross 
violation--if one can term it a violation--about changing not only the 
nondefense discretionary but increasing the tax cutoff over which there 
was much labor.
  A lot of people on this side did not want to see a major tax cut. As 
a matter of fact, many of them didn't want to see any tax cut. But it 
was understood that in the context of an agreement you sometimes do 
things that you wouldn't otherwise do. If you are working alone you can 
do anything you want. If you own the company you can do anything you 
want. If you are the CEO you can do almost anything you want. But when 
you get here we have to depend on the good will and the good judgment 
of others in order to arrive at agreement. Thus, we are faced with what 
I think is a difficult but nevertheless honorable consensus that was 
arrived at.
  The notion that we might change it at this late hour, change it by 
taking

[[Page S4843]]

away nondefense discretionary, which I frankly think is underfed in 
some ways. Defense discretionary in my view is overfed in some ways. I 
just hope that our colleagues when it is time to vote--and I hope that 
will be soon--will reflect on the inconsistency factor that was 
considered so delicate and so essential before to maintain consistency 
that we will maintain consistency here, and that this amendment will be 
defeated.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, we are going to try to do a little 
business even before we vote.
  Senator Gramm has another amendment that we are going to take up 
shortly that is acceptable, and Senator Brownback has one that has been 
agreed to.
  But I would like to announce to the Senate that what we are going to 
try to do is to vote at 6:30, and Senator Gramm has indicated that we 
will try to do that and work on that together. I would like then to ask 
unanimous consent that when that vote is finished Senator Strom 
Thurmond be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, Senator Robert Byrd be 
allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes thereafter, and Senator Moseley-
Braun has an amendment to send up. We are not going to take an 
amendment to debate it until it is on the list. We are putting 
amendments on lists and agreeing to tell people that they can take them 
up.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do not know if there is an exchange of lists or 
not. Was something missed in the mechanics process?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was just trying to make it kind of orderly so 
everybody would know.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree to that. But if it were very orderly, then 
Senator Moseley-Braun would be heard right now. But I certainly want to 
defer, if she doesn't mind.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That isn't true. But anyway I am not going to argue 
about it.
  Would Senator Gramm agree by unanimous consent to set his amendment 
aside temporarily while Senator Brownback offers an amendment that will 
be accepted, and then we will return to the Senator from Texas?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I wanted to ask a question.
  We are finished with the debate on the tax amendment. We had a sense 
of the Senate about how we fund disasters in the future, which I 
thought had been agreed to. What I would like to do, if we can set it 
up by unanimous consent, is deal with that one, and then debate and 
vote on the tax amendment. But I would be happy to let Senator 
Brownback go with his amendment and then come back. If we can dispose 
of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I would like to get it finished.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He is in order under the previous agreement. Senator 
Gramm's amendment was up next. And the amendment that he is referring 
to we thought we would accept. But I understand that the minority is 
not going to accept it.
  So I would think the amendment would be in order and would be the 
next item after we dispose of the amendment that is pending.
  Did Senator Bond have something?
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I have two amendments that I would like to 
file and have set aside. Both of them are sense-of-the-Senate 
amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set 
aside so that I may introduce and set aside two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Missouri?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I will not object. But I 
would like to get the attention of the chairman and the ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like to get the attention of the chairman and the 
ranking member for a moment.
  I do not want to get in the way of the Senator from Missouri to have 
his amendments considered. I would like to get in the queue in terms of 
being able to make a presentation on the budget tonight. I understand 
that the chairman and ranking member were entering into agreements with 
respect to that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to include the Senator. I told the Senator a 
while ago, and I would like to see if we could do one thing first and 
then see what we can fit in. But I would like to ask unanimous consent 
that at 6:30 we proceed to vote on or in relation to the pending Gramm 
amendment and no other amendments be in order to the Gramm amendment 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to----
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair. All day now I thought there was 
agreement that I would follow Senator Gramm after his amendments, one 
amendment and one sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Upon the conclusion 
of those activities, then we would take up the matter of my amendment. 
I have patiently waited all day. I obviously would have no objection to 
the statement Senator Thurmond would like to make and Senator Byrd, but 
certainly I would like my amendment to be the next amendment taken up 
at the conclusion of the vote on Senator Gramm.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think we have a misunderstanding. We thought we were 
accommodating Democrats by not having amendments for a while because 
they have some event. But if that is not the case, then what we are 
going to do is follow some kind of order here. If we can get this one 
agreed to, we will vote at 6:30. Then I would ask that the next 
amendment be the second Senator Gramm amendment, and then, Senator, 
that your amendment be in order thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request propounded by the Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will get the Senator next.
  Mr. CONRAD. Can I get included in this train so when the train leaves 
the station, I am on board?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Might I just ask, we have already asked that the 
train start with Senator Thurmond, who has 10 minutes, Senator Byrd who 
has up to 20 minutes to speak--15 to speak. Let us leave it up to 20, 
and now I would ask, how long would the Senator like to take?
  Mr. CONRAD. Twenty.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator be allowed to speak for 20 minutes. It is 
my understanding that if we agree to that, the sequence would be we 
finish the Gramm amendment and vote on it at 6:30. If we can get any 
work done in here in the meantime, we will and take your last, second 
amendment, and then when the Senator has finished----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may inquire of the chairman.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Why are we doing two Gramm amendments in a row? As 
far as I know, there was no understanding. I would be happy to hear 
what the unanimous-consent agreement was, just to refresh my memory.
  Mr. GRAMM. There was a unanimous consent.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We can do that. I just have been telling Senator Gramm 
for a long time--he had three. We accepted one. We thought this other 
one was going to be accepted, and we were going to debate one. I think 
we waste more time if we argue the point than go ahead.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. You told Senator Gramm what you told him, and I told 
Senator Moseley-Braun what I told her and somehow or other there is a 
miscue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you mind waiting?
  Mr. GRAMM. We had a unanimous-consent request whereby I had stopped, 
and we had about 20 people come over and do all kinds of things.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is true.
  Mr. GRAMM. And I asked unanimous consent that they might be 
recognized for that purpose. But then that I would be re-recognized to 
deal with these two amendments. Now, I am not trying to

[[Page S4844]]

hog the floor. I thought that the amendment that had to do with paying 
for disaster was going to be accepted. Senator Domenici said he was for 
it. I thought people would just take it. Now, all of a sudden, there is 
some opposition to it. I think we can deal with it very quickly. Why 
don't I just set a time limit on it of 10 minutes and then we can 
either voice vote it or we can have a rollcall vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Why don't we do this. If we vote on the present Gramm 
amendment, the one that is being presented at this time, why don't we 
vote on that and give us a chance to take a look at the other one. And 
I appreciate the misunderstanding of the Senator from Texas because 
there was some confusion. He was gracious about accepting these UC's, 
and I absolutely agree with that.
  I thought we were in the process of alternating sides. But I would 
ask the indulgence of the Senator from Illinois.
  Would the Senator from Illinois agree to having a vote on the Gramm 
amendment that is presently pending, and give us a chance to review the 
other one and consider it for 10 minutes, if that is OK. Then I would 
propound a unanimous-consent agreement to do just that, or do we just 
have an understanding to proceed that way?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think we have enough understanding to do that.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. May I ask the status of the unanimous consent request that 
began this whole process?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are several unanimous-consent requests 
that are pending.
  The Senator from Missouri made a unanimous-consent request that we 
set aside the amendment currently pending.
  Mr. BOND. For the purpose of presenting two amendments which I would 
then ask be set aside simply to comply with the filing requirement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Missouri?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.


                       Amendment Nos. 324 and 325

  Mr. BOND. I send two amendments to the desk, one a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution regarding protection of children's health on behalf 
of myself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Ashcroft, reflecting on the 
disproportionate share of hospital payments; a second sense-of-the-
Senate resolution on behalf of myself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
Reid, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Graham, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Sessions, asking that 
the Senate reestablish linkage between the revenues deposited into the 
highway trust fund and transportation spending from the trust fund. I 
send these to the desk and ask they be filed and I ask that they may be 
set side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will first read the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes amendments 
     numbered 324 and 325.

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


                           amendment no. 324

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the protection 
                         of children's health)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Today's children and the next generation of children 
     are the prime beneficiaries of a balanced Federal budget. 
     Without a balanced budget, today's children will bear the 
     increasing burden of the Federal debt. Continued deficit 
     spending would doom future generations to slower economic 
     growth, higher taxes, and lower living standards.
       (2) The health of children is essential to the future 
     economic and social well-being of the Nation.
       (3) The medicaid program provides health coverage for over 
     17,000,000 children, or 1 out of every 4 children.
       (4) While children represent \1/2\ of all individuals 
     eligible for medicaid, children account for less than 25 
     percent of expenditures under the medicaid program.
       (5) Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funding under the 
     medicaid program has allowed States to expand health care 
     coverage to thousands of uninsured pregnant women and 
     children. DSH funding under the medicaid program is essential 
     for current and future coverage of these uninsured 
     populations.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that the health 
     care needs of low-income pregnant women and children should 
     be a top priority. Careful study must be made of the impact 
     of medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reform 
     proposals on children's health and on vital sources of care, 
     including children's hospitals. Any restrictions of DSH 
     funding under the medicaid program should not devastate 
     current State medicaid coverage of children and pregnant 
     women, or hinder health care coverage expansion opportunities 
     for these uninsured populations.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 325

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the Highway 
                              Trust Fund)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) there is no direct linkage between the fuel taxes 
     deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and the transportation 
     spending from the Highway Trust Fund;
       (2) the Federal budget process has severed this linkage by 
     dividing revenues and spending into separate budget 
     categories with--
       (a) fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund as 
     revenues; and
       (B) most spending from the Highway Trust Fund in the 
     discretionary category;
       (3) each budget category referred to in paragraph (2) has 
     its own rules and procedures; and
       (4) under budget rules in effect prior to the date of 
     adoption of this resolution, an increase in fuel taxes 
     permits increased spending to be included in the budget, but 
     not for increased Highway Trust Fund spending.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) in this session of Congress, Congress should, within a 
     unified budget, change the Federal budget process to 
     establish a linkage between the fuel taxes deposited in the 
     Highway Trust Fund, including any fuel tax increases that may 
     be enacted into law after the date of adoption of this 
     resolution, and the spending from the Highway Trust Fund; and
       (2) changes to the budgetary treatment of the Highway Trust 
     Fund should not result in total program levels for highways 
     or mass transit that is inconsistent with those assumed under 
     the resolution.

  Mr. BOND. I ask they be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I really do not like the Senate to be 
in the state of confusion that it is in. This kind of makes me feel as 
if I am not doing my job here. So could we start over and see if I 
could straighten matters out so that at least I do not feel embarrassed 
about having everybody talking at the same time.
  I would like for the rest of the evening if somebody here in the 
management side of this could invent some streamlined method of letting 
people introduce these amendments that are nothing more than conforming 
UC requests that said you have to file them tonight. Maybe you have a 
code word for it and we just say this is X amendment and we will get it 
done so people do not have to read them. And if you get a unanimous-
consent that kind of does that for us, we would both appreciate that, I 
assume.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Having said that, I want to ask that by unanimous 
consent, any unanimous consent that I heretofore received in the last 
20 minutes be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on 
Senator Gramm's amendment and the one that has been debated, either on 
it or related to it, at 6:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right for the moment, I intend to 
propose to table the Gramm amendment and do not want to be excluded 
from that or precluded by it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You are not.
  Now, Madam President, let me ask further that immediately after that, 
Senator Brownback be recognized to offer an amendment which is going to 
be accepted and has been agreed on both sides.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And I have unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be 
permitted to introduce an amendment for 2 minutes.

[[Page S4845]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. It is one of these code amendments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It has the code. The code is zip.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. That will be the next item of business. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request of the Senator from New Mexico that the Senator from Kansas be 
recognized following the vote on the Gramm amendment?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Reserving the right----
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is next. I am going to come right to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, I say to the Senator from Texas, would 
you mind taking your second amendment and setting it aside and let 
Senator Moseley-Braun go and then you follow her?
  Mr. GRAMM. That would be fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK. So thereafter, Senator Moseley-Braun would be 
recognized for her amendment, and then Senator Gramm for his second 
amendment that everybody knows about. We might be able to work it out. 
And then when they are completed, that we then stack the votes until 9 
o'clock and that subsequent to the debate on those amendments, they 
would be set aside and the following three Senators would be permitted 
to speak on the floor of the Senate: Senator Byrd, 15 minutes----

  Mr. BYRD. When would that be?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That would probably be--I am just going to guess with 
the Senator, but I am thinking it would be like quarter of 8.
  Mr. BYRD. Quarter of 8. I could have had my speech made.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I know. We are just not as good at putting things 
together.
  Would the Senator want to do that sooner?
  Mr. BYRD. I will only need 12 or 15 minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Reserving the right to object, I was not clear 
whether or not the Senator's request included a request to stack votes 
on these amendments. I would have to object to that, to stack the 
votes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Senator.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I would object to the stacked votes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will tell you the leader wanted the votes stacked, so 
if you do not want to accept it, I will stand here on the floor and 
speak until 9 o'clock. I do not know why we could not agree to stack 
the votes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I also have to reserve the right to consult with our 
leader to see if we could not make that a little bit later than 9 so 
that we can----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would ask that all my unanimous-
consent requests be vitiated and we proceed to a vote, except the one 
that we will vote at 6:30 on Senator Gramm's amendment. And then we 
will stand around here and try to work it out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Amendments Nos. 326, 327, and 328

  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk three 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments 
     numbered 326, 327, and 328.

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


                           amendment no. 326

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding truth in 
                    budgeting and spectrum auctions)

       At the appropriate place in the resolution, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) The Senate finds that:
       (1) The electromagnetic spectrum is the property of the 
     American people and is managed on their behalf by the Federal 
     Government;
       (2) The spectrum is a highly valuable and limited natural 
     resource;
       (3) The auctioning of spectrum has raised billions of 
     dollars for the Treasury;
       (4) The estimates made regarding the value of spectrum in 
     the past have proven unreliable, having previously 
     understated and now overstating its worth;
       (5) Because estimates of spectrum value depend on a number 
     of technological, economic, market forces, and other 
     variables that cannot be predicted or completely controlled, 
     it is not possible to reliably estimate the value of a given 
     segment of spectrum; therefore,
       (b) It is the Sense of the Senate that as auctions occur as 
     assumed by this Resolution, the Congress shall take such 
     steps as necessary to reconcile the difference between actual 
     revenues raised and estimates made and shall reduce spending 
     accordingly if such auctions raise less revenue than 
     projected.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 327

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to certain 
                    highway demonstration projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) 10 demonstration projects totaling $362 million were 
     listed for special line-item funding in the Surface 
     Transportation Assistance Act of 1982;
       (2) 152 demonstration projects totaling $1.4 billion were 
     named in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987;
       (3) 64 percent of the funding for the 152 projects had not 
     been obligated after 5 years and State transportation 
     officials determined the projects added little, if any, to 
     meeting their transportation infrastructure priorities;
       (4) 538 location specific projects totaling $6.23 billion 
     were included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991;
       (5) more than $3.3 billion of the funds authorized for the 
     538 location specific-projects remained unobligated as of 
     January 31, 1997;
       (6) the General Accounting Office determined that 31 States 
     plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico would have 
     received more funding if the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act location-specific project funds 
     were redistributed as Federal-aid highway program 
     apportionments;
       (7) this type of project funding diverts Highway Trust Fund 
     money away from State transportation priorities established 
     under the formula allocation process and under the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991;
       (8) on June 20, 1995, by a vote of 75 yeas to 21 nays, the 
     Senate voted to prohibit the use of Federal Highway Trust 
     Fund money for future demonstration projects;
       (9) the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 expires at the end of the Fiscal Year 1997; and
       (10) hundreds of funding requests for specific 
     transportation projects in Congressional Districts have been 
     submitted in the House of Representatives.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) notwithstanding different views on existing Highway 
     Trust Fund distribution formulas, funding for demonstration 
     projects or other similarly titled projects diverts Highway 
     Trust Fund money away from State priorities and deprives 
     States of the ability to adequately address their 
     transportation needs;
       (2) States are best able to determine the priorities for 
     allocating Federal-Aid-To-Highway monies within their 
     jurisdiction;
       (3) Congress should not divert limited Highway Trust Fund 
     resources away from State transportation priorities by 
     authorizing new highway projects; and
       (4) Congress should not authorize any new demonstration 
     projects or other similarly-titled projects.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 328

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the revenues 
  generated under legislation described in section 207 should not be 
  appropriated before the enactment of legislation to reauthorize and 
            reform the National Rail Passenger Corporation)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AMTRAK.

       It is the sense of the Senate that any revenues generated 
     to finance an intercity passenger rail fund under section 207 
     of this resolution shall not be appropriated to the National 
     Rail Passenger Corporation until such time as legislation has 
     been signed into law to reauthorize and reform the National 
     Rail Passenger Corporation.

  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if all this has come apart, I would like 
to remind the Chair that when I recognized Senator Dorgan and the cast 
of thousands here, in that unanimous-consent request was the request 
that we first consider, we deal with two amendments of mine, one that I 
thought was

[[Page S4846]]

agreed to and one that I knew was going to be somewhat controversial. I 
just simply want to reaffirm, if all these other deals are off, that 
that unanimous-consent request is still there, and that after this vote 
the pending business would be my amendment.
  Now, I am perfectly willing to let the Senator from Illinois go 
before me, but if that is not going to work out, I want to go ahead and 
claim the right that I had under that unanimous-consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I concur with that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wonder if we can just take a minute to confer with 
our leader.


                           Amendment No. 318

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Gramm 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to table the Gramm amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second on the motion to 
table.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And the yeas and nays are ordered. Is that correct?
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The time has come for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kempthorne
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 318) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I propound a parliamentary inquiry. There 
was some confusion about the unanimous-consent requests that were made 
just before the vote and as to whether or not some of those requests 
have been agreed to and remain to be fulfilled. That is my question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is uncertain whether a unanimous-
consent agreement was reached with respect to the amendment of the 
Senator from Kansas to go next.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, our other distinguished President pro 
tempore is on the floor, and we have a very good attendance. I ask 
unanimous consent, notwithstanding any previous order, I might proceed 
at this time for not to exceed 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from West Virginia?
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if our colleague 
from West Virginia would simply permit me to offer an amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. And have it laid aside?
  Mr. KYL. Exactly.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I 
would like to make the same request of the Senator from West Virginia 
in order to offer three amendments.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. I retain my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
also just would like to offer an amendment and lay it aside.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all Senators 
presently on the floor who have amendments which they wish to offer so 
they will be properly offered, I ask that they be allowed to offer 
them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from West Virginia that all Senators who wish to offer 
amendments be permitted to do so under the terms of the unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I say 
to Senators, before we leave here tonight--and we are going to come 
back and vote at 9--we hope by that time to have a unanimous-consent 
arrangement so Senators will not have to each stand up and send those 
amendments to the desk. Madam President, I say to Senator Bumpers, we 
hope to have that done, but if he wants to do it now while he is on the 
floor, fine.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It will take 10 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the Senator's request.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is very generous of the Senator from West Virginia 
to propound this request. I certainly do not object, but understand, I 
say to my colleagues, that the amendments then should go up 
immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment Nos. 333, 334, and 335

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I have one amendment I send to the 
desk on behalf of Senator Dodd, and I have two amendments which I send 
to the desk on behalf of Senator Moseley-Braun.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes 
     amendments numbered 333, 334 for Ms. Moseley-Braun and 
     amendment numbered 335 for Mr. Dodd.

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


                           amendment no. 333

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of 
                            budget savings)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF BUDGET 
                   SAVINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Poverty rates among the elderly are at the lowest level 
     since our Nation began to keep poverty statistics, due in 
     large part to the social security system and the medicare 
     program.
       (2) Twenty-two percent of every dollar spent by the Federal 
     Government goes to the social security system.
       (3) Eleven percent of every dollar spent by the Federal 
     Government goes to the medicare program.
       (4) Currently, spending on the elderly accounts for \1/3\ 
     of the Federal budget and more than \1/2\ of all domestic 
     spending other than interest on the national debt.

[[Page S4847]]

       (5) Future generations of Americans must be guaranteed the 
     same value from the social security system as past covered 
     recipients.
       (6) According to the 1997 report of the Management Trustee 
     for the social security trust funds, the accumulated balance 
     in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is 
     estimated to fall to zero by 2029, and the estimated payroll 
     tax at that time will be sufficient to cover only 75 percent 
     of the benefits owed to retirees at that time.
       (7) The accumulated balance in the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund is estimated to fall to zero by 2001.
       (8) While the Federal budget deficit has shrunk for the 
     fourth straight year to $67,000,000,000 in 1997, measures 
     need to be taken to ensure that that trend continues.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that budget 
     savings in the mandatory spending area should be used--
       (1) to protect and enhance the retirement security of the 
     American people by ensuring the long-term future of the 
     social security system;
       (2) to protect and enhance the health care security of 
     senior citizens by ensuring the long-term future of the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.); and
       (3) to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline to 
     ensure that the level of private investment necessary for 
     long-term economic growth and prosperity is available.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 334

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the value of the 
              social security system for future retirees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR FUTURE RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The social security system has allowed a generation of 
     Americans to retire with dignity. Today, 13 percent of the 
     population is 65 or older and by 2030, 20 percent of the 
     population will be 65 or older. More than \1/2\ of the 
     elderly do not receive private pensions and more than \1/3\ 
     have no income from assets.
       (2) 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.
       (3) Poverty rates among the elderly are at the lowest level 
     since the United States began to keep poverty statistics, due 
     in large part to the social security system.
       (4) Seventy-eight percent of Americans pay more in payroll 
     taxes than they do in income taxes.
       (5) According to the 1997 report of the Managing Trustee 
     for the social security trust funds, the accumulated balance 
     in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is 
     estimated to fall to zero by 2029, and the estimated payroll 
     tax at that time will be sufficient to cover only 75 percent 
     of the benefits owed to retirees at that time.
       (6) The average American retiring in the year 2015 will pay 
     $250,000 in payroll taxes over the course of his or her 
     working career.
       (7) Future generations of Americans must be guaranteed the 
     same value from the social security system as past covered 
     recipients.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that no change 
     in the social security system should be made that would 
     reduce the value of the social security system for future 
     generations of retirees.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 335

 (Purpose: To ensure that the concurrent resolution conforms with the 
  Bipartisan Budget Agreement to restrict revenue reductions over the 
                            ten-year period)

       On page 41, line 9 strike the period and add, ``and 
     $250,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2007''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Arkansas.


                    Amendment Nos. 330, 331 and 332

  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily laid aside in order for me to offer three amendments, which 
I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes amendments 
     numbered 330, 331 and 332.

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


                           Amendment No. 330

  (Purpose: To delay the effectiveness of the tax cuts assumed in the 
        Budget Resolution until the Federal budget is balanced)

       Change the figure on line 11 of page 3 to zero.
       Change the figure on line 12 of page 3 to zero.
       Change the figure on line 13 of page 3 to zero.
       Change the figure on line 14 of page 3 to zero.
       Strike lines 7-9 on page 41 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       ``reduce revenues by not more than $20,500,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002 and $20,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 331

(Purpose: To ensure that the Medicare cuts that will be enacted are not 
 used to pay for tax cuts and that instead the tax cuts are completely 
               paid for by the closure of tax loopholes)

       Strike lines 7-9 on page 41 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       ``Raise revenues by $19,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 
     $30,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.''


                           amendment no. 332

      (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that no budget 
 reconciliation bill shall increase the Federal deficit, either during 
              the five year scoring period or thereafter)

       Add the following new section at the appropriate place in 
     the Resolution:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE OPPOSING THE ENACTMENT OF 
                   RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION WHICH ADDS TO THE 
                   FEDERAL DEFICIT.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the Congressional Budget Act allows for a point of 
     order to be raised against a Budget Reconciliation Bill or a 
     particular Title of a Budget Reconciliation Bill if the Bill 
     or Title would increase the deficit during a fiscal year 
     covered by the Bill;
       ``(2) the Congressional Budget Act allows for a point of 
     order to be raised against a Budget Reconciliation Bill or a 
     particular Title of a Budget Reconciliation Bill if the Bill 
     or Title would increase the deficit during a fiscal year 
     after the year covered by the Bill; and
       ``(3) the purpose of the Budget Reconciliation process is 
     to enact legislation to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
       ``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate should not enact Budget Reconciliation 
     legislation which increases the Federal Budget deficit either 
     during any fiscal year covered by the Reconciliation 
     legislation or any fiscal year thereafter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia still has 
control.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry, I thought the Senator had yielded for that 
purpose.
  Mr. BYRD. I think I made a request. If I may be heard, my request was 
that all Senators who are presently on the floor may be permitted to 
send their amendments to the desk, and it will be considered as having 
been offered in order to comply with the requests that amendments be 
filed before the day ends. So I think that takes care of it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the Senator from West Virginia, is his 
request that all Senators can simply send their amendments to the desk 
without the formality of offering them from the floor?
  Mr. BYRD. That was my request. I do not know if it was objected to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the agreement that was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, we have an agreement on the amendment 
that is pending subject to just a modification. Can we do the 
modification in 30 seconds and clear the floor and then let both our 
distinguished senior Senators speak, and then we can start the whole 
process again? We can do that in 30 seconds. Can we do that?
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to that. I just hope we will not lose 
an audience before I get to speak.
  Mr. GRAMM. We can add Senator Thurmond to the unanimous-consent 
request and let both speak. I think it will be good.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Brownback has an amendment just like yours. Can 
we take it right after yours? It will take 10 minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Good, and I promise I will stay around and listen.


                     Amendment No. 317, As Modified

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk to 
amendment No. 317. All the amendment says is it is a sense of the 
Senate that we need to move toward setting aside in advance funding for 
emergencies; that we ought to ask Presidents to submit budgets that 
prepare for emergencies. We know we are going to have them every year. 
We have averaged $7 billion in emergency spending for the last 6 years. 
We ought to go ahead and make it part of the process that these are 
funded in advance.

[[Page S4848]]

  This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Obviously, we will have to 
vote on this to get to appropriations, but it has been cleared on both 
sides.
  I thank our colleagues for accepting it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to amendment No. 317 being 
modified?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) emergency spending adds to the deficit and total 
     spending;
       (2) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempts emergency 
     spending from the discretionary spending caps and pay-go 
     requirements;
       (3) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 expires in 1989 and 
     needs to be extended;
       (4) since the enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act, 
     Congress and the President have approved an average of $5.8 
     billion per year in emergency spending;
       (5) a natural disaster in any particular State is 
     unpredictable, but the United States is likely to experience 
     a natural disaster almost every year.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assume that the Congress should 
     consider in the extension on the Budget Enforcement Act and 
     in appropriations acts--
       (1) provisions that budget for emergencies or that require 
     emergency spending to be offset;
       (2) provisions that provide flexibility to meet emergency 
     funding requirements associated with natural disaster;
       (3) Congress and the President should consider 
     appropriating at least $5 billion every year within 
     discretionary limits to provide natural disaster relief;
       (4) Congress and the President should not designate any 
     emergency spending for natural disaster relief until such 
     amounts provided in regular appropriations are exhausted.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 317, 
as modified?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 317), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 329

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on enforcement of the 
                      bipartisan budget agreement)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself and 
     Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 329.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with. We can do this very quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ENFORCEMENT OF BIPARTISAN 
                   BUDGET AGREEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the bipartisan budget agreement is contingent upon--
       (A) favorable economic conditions for the next 5 years;
       (B) accurate estimates of the fiscal impacts of assumptions 
     in this resolution; and
       (C) enactment of legislation to reduce the deficit.
       (2) if either of the conditions in paragraph (1) are not 
     met, our ability to achieve a balanced budget by 2002 will be 
     jeopardized.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals and limits in this resolution 
     assume that--
       (1) reconciliation legislation should include legislation 
     to enforce the targets set forth in the budget process 
     description included in the agreement and to ensure the 
     balanced budget goal is met; and
       (2) such legislation shall--
       (A) establish procedures to ensure those targets are met 
     every year;
       (B) require that the President's annual budget and annual 
     Congressional concurrent resolutions on the budget comply 
     with those targets every year;
       (C) consider provisions which provide that if the deficit 
     is below or the surplus is above the deficits projected in 
     the agreement in any year, such savings are locked in for 
     deficit and debt reduction; and
       (D) consider provisions which include a provision to budget 
     for and control emergency spending in order to prevent the 
     use of emergencies to evade the budget targets.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Senator Kohl and I have a great deal of concern about 
getting some enforcement mechanisms put into place during 
reconciliation so that the budget agreement that is reached, if it is 
passed, is then enforced. It is in the reconciliation of the bill. That 
is what this amendment will do. We need to work together during 
reconciliation to enforce the targets that have been established.
  Madam President, this is a hopeful budget deal. We must hope that we 
do not have one slight downturn in the economy. We must hope that we 
did not make one flawed assumption, and we must hope that we don't have 
a national emergency.
  Madam President, no matter how well intended things may be, things 
don't always work out the way you hope they will. If any one of these 
hopeful events don't occur, then the budget won't be balanced. This is 
why Senator Kohl and I are offering this sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  This budget deal was only made possible because the night before the 
agreement, CBO found an extra $225 billion in revenues.
  This deal assumes we will be able to achieve 72 percent of the 
savings in the last 2 years with more than half occurring in the last 
year.
  And because these numbers are so fragile and ever-changing at best, 
and because this budget promises to balance without much real fiscal 
restraint, it is imperative that we enact strong budget enforcement 
reforms to assure that the goals of this deal are reached.
  We cannot simply rely on hope to end this cycle of debt we are 
passing onto our children. To make balancing the budget a reality, this 
deal needs teeth. We need to strengthen this deal by at least enforcing 
it.
  This amendment does not change any numbers, it does not alter any of 
the goals of this agreement. It only says that Congress should put in 
place tools to make sure this deal is honored.
  What is in the amendment?
  This amendment requires that this summer the Budget Committee report 
a bill that requires: That every year the President sends Congress a 
budget that complies with this agreement; that the budget adopted by 
Congress complies with this agreement; provides that if the deficit is 
below the targets set out in this budget that the money is not spent, 
rather it shall be saved; that emergency spending is paid for; and this 
amendment establishes legal procedures that will assure that the goals 
of this agreement are reached.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise as a supporter of this budget and 
as a sponsor of the Brownback-Kohl enforcement amendment. This budget 
deserves the support of the Senate for several reasons.
  It is bipartisan and centrist. It finds priorities--like education 
and child health--that transcend party lines. It includes reasonable 
tax relief targeted toward families and economic growth. It balances 
the budget by the year 2002, and it produces surpluses to reduce the 
debt in the years after that.
  In this budget, the Congress and the administration have found a way 
to do what the American people have long asked us to do: Balance the 
budget in a balanced manner--grow the economy without growing income 
inequality--strengthen the country by strengthening the working family.
  The amendment I offer today with my colleague from Kansas makes this 
very good budget stronger. It calls on the Budget Committee to report 
enforcement legislation that will lock in the deficit targets in the 
agreement.
  While there are some enforcement provisions in the budget deal, we 
don't think they go far enough. Our amendment calls for enforceable 
caps on all parts of the budget--entitlements, discretionary spending, 
and tax expenditures. It requires windfall savings from a good economy 
or lower than anticipated spending to be locked in to deficit 
reduction. And it calls for reform in emergency spending procedures so 
that Congress cannot use true disasters as

[[Page S4849]]

an excuse for off-budget spending on favorite programs.
  Again, said. Out amendment does not change the budget deal. It 
strengthens it. It guarantees that the balanced budget becomes a 
reality. And it will assure the American people that we are serious 
about reaching balance by 2002.
  It is important that we make that assurance. This budget is open to 
criticism because it increases the deficit from $67 to $90 billion in 
1998 and 1999 before bringing it to 0 in 2002. All of the deficit 
reduction in this agreement occurs after the turn of the century.
  We simply are not credible if we promise to cut the deficit a couple 
of years down the road. People have heard that from Congress for too 
long. I urge my colleagues to support this budget--and more. I urge 
them to commit to it by agreeing on strong enforcement procedures that 
will guarantee the deficit reduction we promise. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Brownback-Kohl amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask that this amendment be agreed to by unanimous 
consent. It has been worked out between the parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Is there further debate on the 
amendment? If there is no objection, amendment No. 329 is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 329) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia, under the 
previous order, is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator permit me one thing?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I gather Senator Byrd is going to speak and then 
Senator Thurmond is going to speak. Then I would ask unanimous consent 
two amendments be in order and in the following sequence: Senator 
Moseley-Braun--and how much time did the Senator want to take on her 
amendment?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. It was my understanding that I would be allowed an 
hour tonight and then some time in the morning to vote on it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you want the whole hour? That is all I am asking.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes, the whole hour.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK. Following the debate on her amendment, at the 
conclusion of the time, that Senator Mack be recognized to offer a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding the National Institutes of 
Health.
  Mr. MACK. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator want to reserve the statutory time of 
an hour?
  Mr. MACK. I have already received requests of at least an hour.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. That means then we will not resume voting 
until 9 o'clock or slightly thereafter when these matters have been 
finished. We will vote in sequence, first on Senator Moseley-Braun's 
and then on Senator Mack's. And we are reserving the right to table 
either one if we so desire or if anyone desires to do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that that request be granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object. If I could get the----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I get instructions, I am so sorry, that I am unaware 
of. I understand Senator Moseley-Braun will agree to have her vote be 
the first vote up in the morning.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Tonight at 9 o'clock, we will vote on Senator Mack's 
proposal that I just described.
  Would the Senator like to vote this evening?
  Mr. MACK. I would like to have a recorded vote. This evening would be 
fine. My only question would be, are we really fixing a time at 9 
o'clock or----
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will not have a vote until 9 o'clock.
  Mr. MACK. Sometime after that?
  Mr. DOMENICI. At 9 or thereafter.
  Mr. MACK. Very good.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Any other Senators that might have an amendment they 
would like to call up tonight?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I might.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You are in.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like to get included in this train. I would like 
to get in on this one.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you want to follow whatever we have just indicated 
the sequence is? You will follow thereafter with a speech here on the 
floor. I ask unanimous consent for that to be added to the request.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will not agree to any other amendments at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

                          ____________________