[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4851-S4876]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this budget resolution represents a 
historic endeavor by the Congress and the administration. For the first 
time in 28 years, we have agreed on a path designed to balance the 
Federal budget by the year 2002. The fiscal irresponsibility that drove 
us into a national debt of more than $5 trillion, with interest 
payments amounting to 15 percent of our annual Federal budgets, was 
surely leading this Nation toward a day of economic reckoning with 
severe consequences. I am delighted that, aided by a strong economy, we 
seem to be moving toward setting our fiscal house in order.
  Despite my enthusiastic support for a balanced budget, I must admit 
that I remain deeply concerned about the state of our national security 
and plans for funding our defense establishment in this post-cold-war 
era.
  When the Clinton administration took office in 1993, it immediately 
began to cut defense spending. Within the context of the bottom-up 
review, they cut over $120 billion out of the Future Years Defense 
Program. Despite this severe underfunding of our military forces, the 
administration has shown no reluctance to use them. Multilateral 
peacekeeping operations under the United Nations became the vogue 
during the early years of the Clinton administration. The debacle in 
Somalia, where 18 American soldiers were killed in the streets of 
Mogadishu, awakened the Congress and the American people to the folly 
of these policies. Despite this concern, less than 2 years later the 
administration was dispatching U.S. troops to Haiti and then to 
peackeeping operations in Bosnia. During the first 4 years of the 
Clinton administration, our military forces were dispatched on more 
separate deployments than at any other time in our history.
  The tempo of these operations has put tremendous strain on our 
diminished force structure and its aging equipment. Indeed, the 
administration's willingness to employ our military forces in 
peacekeeping operations without regard to the adverse effects of these 
deployments has further eroded our capability to execute two 
overlapping major regional contingencies. Defense funds authorized and 
appropriated for military readiness, personnel and equipment have been 
depleted to pay for unbudgeted operations that have exceeded $15 
billion since 1993. Furthermore, the unprecedented personnel tempo from 
these operations has dramatically stressed our military personnel and 
their families.
  The administration's proposed budgets have neglected the necessary 
immediate investment in force modernization, and justified this by 
projecting significant funding increases in the outyears, when the 
administration promised to recapitalize our military forces. 
Unfortunately, these outyears never arrived. For 6 straight years, the 
administration's projected increases in the modernization accounts did 
not materialize. In fact, the amounts requested for the modernization 
accounts were lower each year than projected by the administration in 
the previous year.
  In 1995, Republicans gain control of Congress and passed a budget 
resolution intended to alleviate at least some of the problems caused 
by the underfunding of the defense budget. Over $18 billion was added 
to the defense budgets of the 104th Congress. Most of these funds were 
directed into the modernization accounts which had been so drastically 
neglected by this administration.
  During negotiations on the recent budget agreement, I urged our 
budget negotiators to adopt the congressional budget resolution for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, since those numbers were above the 
administration's request. I also urged that we accept the 
administration's request for fiscal years 2000 through 2002, when the 
projected spending targets were above those in our congressional budget 
resolution. By agreeing to the administration's spending targets in the 
outyears, we would, in effect, capture in the budget agreement the 
elusive recapitalization funds for modernization.
  This agreement before us today protects our military forces from 
unrealistic and unwise cuts in defense. I was encouraged that Secretary 
Cohen has also supported these more favorable, higher numbers for 
defense. We do not yet know the full impact on the defense budget 
resulting from the budget agreement and possible effects of outlay 
shortfalls in the later years of this agreement. However, I remain 
concerned that even the highest levels for defense considered in this 
agreement may not provide sufficient funds to adequately sustain over 
time the personnel, quality of life, readiness and modernization 
programs critical to our military services, especially if we continue 
to use funds from the defense

[[Page S4852]]

budget to pay for unbudgeted peacekeeping operations.
  Preliminary results emerging from the QDR indicate that the two MRC 
strategy will remain essentially unchanged. However, even using the 
administration's higher funding in the outyears, the QDR recommends 
force structure reductions of up to 130,000 personnel to free minimal 
funds for essential modernization. Key force modernization programs 
will also have to be significantly reduced in order to remain within 
the funding limits of the administration's defense program.
  I hope that, within the balanced budget agreement, we will provide 
adequately for our men and women in uniform to defend our Nation. It is 
clear that we must continue now and in the future to examine the 
adequacy of the funds we allocate to our national security. At the same 
time, we must continue to search for ways to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of our defense establishment--especially in the support 
structure--so that we can achieve savings to devote to the cutting edge 
of our military combat forces.
  It is gratifying to me, after almost 42 years in the Senate, to see 
the possibility of a balanced budget with adequate funds also provided 
for our national security. It has been worth fighting for. I pledge to 
continue the fight.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 336

   (Purpose: To provide $5 billion to create a partnership among all 
  levels of government to help states and school districts meet their 
school repair, renovation, modernization, and construction priorities, 
offset by closing tax loopholes; to improve the educational environment 
 for the 14 million children who attend severely dilapidated schools, 
the millions of children in overcrowded classrooms, and the 19 million 
   children who are denied access to modern computers because their 
schools lack basic electrical wiring; and to generally help states and 
  school districts bring their school buildings into the 21st century)

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], for herself, 
     and Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
     Torricelli, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Graham, Mr. Glenn, 
     Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reed, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Kerrey, 
     Mr. Dodd, Mr. Conrad, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 336.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
further 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 $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 21, line 17, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 21, line 18, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 40, line 17, reduce the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 8, reduce the amount by $5,000,000,000.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $5 billion 
to create a partnership among all levels of government to help States 
and school districts meet their school repair, renovation, 
modernization and construction priorities.
  The point of this amendment is to focus Federal resources, and to 
focus our support as a national community for rebuilding the schools in 
our country. Every day, 14 million American children attend schools 
that are in such dilapidated condition, and present such an unsuitable 
environment for learning, that their ability to access educational 
opportunity is impaired and impeded and diminished.
  So this amendment seeks to address the budget resolution that has 
been agreed upon by allocating $5 billion to the Labor Committee to 
help school districts meet their most urgent school repair, renovation, 
and modernization and construction needs. It would allow us to create a 
partnership among the national, State, and local governments to repair 
our crumbling schools and help prepare our children for the 21st 
Century.
  This amendment is not specific to any school construction plan. It is 
an up-or-down vote on whether or not the Senate believes school 
construction ought to be a priority.
  I want to take a moment to talk about school construction and why it 
is important for us to be engaged as a national community in support of 
the environment in which we expect our children to learn. At no point 
in our history has education been more important to individual 
achievement and to our national well-being.
  According to a just-published Hudson Institute study of the changing 
American work force, ``The crucial factor accounting for long-term 
success in the work force is a basic education provided at the primary 
and secondary levels.''
  The Wall Street Journal recently quoted a leading U.S. economist who 
said, ``One of the few things that economists will agree upon is the 
fact that economic growth is very strongly dependent on our own 
abilities.''
  Mr. President, that is true.
  We are putting our Nation's economic future at risk by shortchanging 
our kids at schools that are literally falling down around them. 
Unfortunately--and it is an unfortunate fact--many of our schools are 
not in adequate physical condition to meet the educational needs of our 
children. Many of our children attend schools that are literally 
falling down around them.
  The U.S. General Accounting Office, at our request, completed an 
exhaustive study of the condition of America's schools. They found that 
14 million children every day attend schools in such poor condition 
that major renovation or outright replacement of the schools is needed. 
Twelve million children every day attend schools with leaky roofs. 
Seven million children every day attend schools with life-threatening 
safety code violations.
  In this, the greatest country in the world, educational environments 
are in such bad condition that our children's performance is degraded 
by them. Our parents' generation did better by our generation than we 
are doing for our children. And that is why I have submitted this 
amendment. It is a tragedy for American children who have to attend 
schools in these conditions. None of us certainly would consider 
working in conditions this bad.
  The problem of crumbling schools is one that is not isolated nor 
limited to inner cities, nor to isolated pockets of rural poverty. The 
General Accounting Office, in one of its studies, found that 38 percent 
of urban schools, 30 percent of rural schools, and 29 percent of 
suburban schools are falling down around our children.
  In my State of Illinois alone, it is estimated to cost some $13 
million to meet the school repair needs. Nationally, the GAO has 
documented $112 billion of renovation needs.
  Clearly this is not a challenge that the local government and the 
States can do by themselves by relying on local property taxes.
  I am going to inject a little humor because this is a very sobering 
story. This ought to be a very sobering situation. But I want to inject 
a little humor in the debate.

  A couple of weeks ago Charles Schulz had a series of Peanuts cartoons 
featuring Peppermint Patty's crumbling

[[Page S4853]]

school. The problem of crumbling schools has become so widespread that 
even Peppermint Patty's school has a leaky school roof. That is what 
this cartoon is about.
  In this series of Peanuts cartoons, Peppermint Patty and her friend, 
Marcie, express their frustration over the fact they can't get anyone 
to repair the leaking roof. But the most important one, I thought, was 
this last one here when Marcie says to Peppermint Patty, ``This is how 
it is, Mr. Principal. Half the kids in our class can't read and half 
can't multiply 6 by 8. None of the them ever heard of Bosnia and 
couldn't tell you who wrote Hamlet.''
  Peppermint Patty says, ``I talked to the principal.''
  So Marcie says, ``What did he say about the roof leaking?"
  She said, ``I forgot to mention it.''
  Mr. President, unfortunately, that has been the case all along. We 
have been talking about education and educational achievement. We have 
been talking about standards for our kids. We talk about excellence for 
our children. We talk about education making our Nation competitive in 
the global economy. But we forgot to mention that they have to go to 
school to learn it. They have to have an environment that is suitable 
for learning. We have so far and for so long turned our backs on this 
problem that, again, according to the GAO, is going to require $112 
billion nationwide to address. That is just to provide the basics. That 
is just to make up for the years and years of neglect.
  The GAO also found that many of our schools are not ready for the 
21st century. Again, there is a lot of discussion on this floor about 
the information superhighway, the information age, and the advent of 
computers and technology. Fifteen million children every day attend 
schools that lack enough electrical power to fully use computers or 
telecommunications technology in their classrooms. Fifty percent of the 
schools in our country lack the necessary electrical wiring to deploy 
computers to the classrooms.
  You can't very well use these technologies if there is not the basic 
infrastructure to allow them to be used. You can't use a computer if 
you can't plug it into an outlet that works. Unfortunately, it is the 
case at this time in our country that many of our classrooms are 
inadequate to meet the technological challenges of our time.
  So we have two different issues that we have to begin to face up to. 
One is the decades of neglect and the fact that many of our young 
people are going to schools that our generation attended. And they have 
not had the continuing maintenance over time to keep them in decent 
shape or to keep them from crumbling.
  Then we have the secondary challenge of getting these old buildings 
retrofitted, or new ones built sufficient to meet the technological 
changes of the information age that this generation is going to have to 
take up, and the technologies that ought to be tools for them to 
succeed in this global economy.
  I point out that for this generation, computers are in many instances 
the functional equivalent of textbooks. We used books. They ought to be 
able to use the Net, and they ought to be able to use the computer 
technology for their education. And, yet, we are denying them even the 
basic opportunity to do so by putting them in situations in the 
crumbling schools that we see.
  I found it very interesting. Today in the New York Times on the front 
page there is an article about tax breaks for schools. This was an 
article on an entirely different subject--not entirely, but a part of 
the problem of how it is that we got to the point of having our schools 
literally falling down around us. Interestingly, the little boy in this 
picture is going to a school of the arts. There is a huge hole in the 
wall in the school at the stairs that he is going up. You can see it 
right here, a huge hole in the wall of the school that he's attending. 
Mr. President, I would like to think that this would be the exception 
to the rule. Unfortunately, according to the General Accounting Office, 
it is not the exception. It is, more often than not, the rule.

  Here is another picture that is not quite as graphic. You can see the 
peeling paint. Our children are attending schools with asbestos, they 
are attending schools with lead paint, they are attending schools where 
the roofs are leaking, where the windows are broken, where the heating 
is not adequate, where the sewage is not working. In short, the 
infrastructure consigns our children to an environment for learning 
that is not suitable and ought to be an embarrassment to all of us in 
this country.
  Added to that problem is the fact that too many of our schools are so 
overcrowded that teaching and education are difficult. Again, according 
to the Department of Education, public high school enrollment is 
expected to increase some 15 percent by the year 2006. So, just to 
maintain current class sizes, we will need to build some 6,000 new 
schools by that time.
  So the question is, how did we get to this point? How did we let it 
get this bad? And it is bad. Crumbling schools are not accidents. 
Crumbling schools happen because of some policy decisions that we have 
made here in the Congress and in our Nation. That is why this debate, I 
think, goes to the heart of the future of elementary and secondary 
education.
  At the outset, I would like to share with whoever is watching, 
listening to this debate, some pictures that I have brought out before 
but I think they are graphic reminders of what we are up against. This 
would have been a chemistry lab, I guess, if you could use it, in a 
school. As you can see, there is no way a student can learn chemistry 
in circumstances like this. More often than not it would probably 
affect performance, and that student will not be able to be competitive 
in this global marketplace, in this global economy.
  Desks, these are desks sitting against walls that are literally 
cracking and falling in.
  A set of lockers in a high school: Torn in, broken down, dilapidated. 
That neglect, that kind of disrepair, did not happen overnight. It 
happens because over a period of many, many years, in some cases 
decades, these schools have not had maintenance because the maintenance 
was deferred. Senator Patty Murray addressed this issue. As school 
districts have struggled to make ends meet, have struggled to provide 
for the educational demands of the system, they have neglected the 
infrastructure. And the result is the crumbling school phenomenon and 
crisis that we see today.
  This is another school lab.
  I point out, Mr. President, this is not just confined to one part of 
our country. It is a nationwide problem. In fact, interestingly, 
according to the General Accounting Office reports, it happens more 
often in the Western States than any other, but all regions of the 
country have crumbling schools. But it also happens in every kind of 
community in America. It happens in urban school districts. The central 
city school districts experience a 38-percent rate of crumbling 
schools. The rural districts, a 30-percent rate. The suburban 
districts, suburbia, which every one thinks of as being so well off, in 
suburbia 29 percent of the school systems in suburbia have at least one 
inadequate building. So this is a problem that we have to face up to as 
a national community. That is why this amendment has been offered.
  I said earlier, crumbling schools are not just accidents. They are a 
predictable result of the way we fund education. Overcrowding and 
deterioration in the schools will persist as long as we continue to 
rely exclusively on the efforts at the local property tax level to fund 
school infrastructure improvements. The local property tax is simply an 
inadequate way to pay for the school infrastructure improvements of the 
magnitude that our country is facing right now.
  Poor- and middle-class districts especially cannot raise 
enough revenue to meet their needs. In fact, another one of the General 
Accounting Office studies pointed out a perversity that everyone should 
become aware of, and that is that the middle class and poorer schools 
tax themselves harder, do more to raise the funds to provide for their 
education systems, than the schools in the wealthier districts. So what 
you have is the whole notion of ability to pay for schools turned on 
its head by tying educational funding to the local property tax--for, 
in some instances, laudable reasons. But by not allowing for any 
flexibility in that arrangement, what we essentially do is consign 
middle-class districts, poor districts, to a

[[Page S4854]]

greater effort in terms of raising the money to rebuild their schools 
and provide for educational services for their community. And we do not 
offset that in any way.

  In 35 States, some poor districts have higher tax rates than 
wealthier districts, but they raise less revenue because there is less 
property wealth to tax. It stands to reason. If you have a poor 
district with less property tax wealth, the rate has to be higher in 
order to reach the same result as a more well off area that has the 
capacity and has the property level to begin with. So, for the most 
part, these districts across the country have to look elsewhere, above 
and beyond their own property tax base, to help fund educational 
improvements such as repairing the crumbling schools. Unfortunately the 
General Accounting Office found that they do not get a whole lot of 
help from State governments. In fact, in fiscal year 1994, State 
governments contributed only $3.5 billion to the school infrastructure 
crisis, in other words about 3 percent of the total needed. So this 
model, this school funding model, does not work for infrastructure, 
just as it was recognized some 50 years ago in this country, that it 
would not work for highways and other infrastructure.
  Imagine for a moment if we based our system of road funding on the 
same funding model that we use for education funding. Imagine if every 
community by itself, without any outside help, were responsible for 
construction and maintenance of the roads within its borders. In all 
likelihood, with that kind of model, we would have smooth good roads in 
the wealthy towns, we would have a patchwork of mediocre roads in 
middle-income towns, and we would have very few roads if any at all in 
the poorer towns. Transportation, then, would become hostage to the 
vagaries of wealth and geography, commerce and travel would be 
difficult, and navigation of such a system would not serve the 
interests of our whole country.
  That hypothetical, however, unfortunately, describes precisely the 
state of our school funding model. That is how we fund schools. We rely 
on local property taxes to find the money and then the States chip in 
some. And, at the national level, we say it is not our problem, it is 
not our responsibility, it is a State and local responsibility. I 
submit it is time for us to rethink that model and develop a new 
partnership, a partnership among all levels of government, that will 
allow us to rebuild and modernize our schools for the 21st century. 
Just as the national community through the Federal Government supports 
the highway system, but the State and local officials decide which 
roads are to be built and where they should go, I believe that we can, 
at the national level, help finance school infrastructure improvements 
while preserving local control of education. Those two concepts do not 
have to be tied to each other at the hip. If anything, we can look to 
local governments to do what they do best, which is to deal with where 
the school shall be and what the schools will teach and those kinds of 
issues at the local level; but at the same time, engage support from 
the national community, where we can perform best. We can access money 
easier. We can make it cheaper, we can make it available to the States 
so the States can help local school districts make those decisions.
  So, we can address this issue. This amendment will engage the local, 
State and national resources in ways that preserve local control but at 
the same time maximize cooperation. At the national level, we will help 
to supply the funding. At the State and local levels, discussions will 
be had as to what schools and what features to address. Local control, 
I believe, will be enhanced by deemphasizing reliance on the local 
property tax to help solve a $112 billion national challenge.

  I want, also, to share with the Members here this evening some of the 
comments from some of the endorsers of this legislation, because I 
think it is important to take a look at how it is that others who are 
concerned with education see this problem. I have to tell you, I was 
struck on my travels around Illinois, examining the crumbling school 
phenomenon in my State, how many instances I found the teachers and 
principals in classrooms, people in the school systems, just making do. 
If anything, the teachers and the school administrators, the people who 
have been involved with education and providing educational opportunity 
to our children, have had to make do over the last several decades, 
precisely because they did not have any options.
  I saw schools with children learning, not in a classroom, huddling in 
the hallway. I saw schools in which the basements had been reconverted 
and cardboard, temporary walls put up to separate one class from 
another. I saw schools in which the computers were as old, almost, as 
Senator Lautenberg's computer system. They clearly were so outmoded and 
outdated that they were meaningless for the youngsters who were trying 
to use them; one school in which the youngsters could not use the 
computers because you had to turn the lights off in the entire building 
to keep from blowing a fuse when you plugged it in. We have computers 
here at the desk. We use computers in our work. Why can't we provide at 
least as much for our children?
  I have to tell you also, some of the situations are almost--border on 
the tragic, with the condition of America's schools. There is a school 
in a part of my State, and I do not want to embarrass anybody by 
telling the story, but it is a fact, where the youngsters on the track 
team, instead of practicing at the track, because of the dilapidated 
and deteriorated condition of the gymnasium, had to go down the road to 
practice at the local prison. The prison had more modern track 
facilities. The youngsters on the track team had to go there for their 
practice because the school building was not adequate. Mr. President, 
as Americans, I know we can do better and we absolutely have to do 
better if we are going to preserve our Nation's competitiveness and 
preserve the quality of life that, as Americans, we have come to enjoy.
  More to the point, if we are in any way going to meet the challenge 
of providing to the next generation of Americans at least as much as 
what our parents provided to our generation, I believe we have an 
absolute obligation to step up to the plate and help support State and 
local governments in meeting this $112 billion challenge that the GAO 
has documented.
  The Children's Defense Fund writes a letter in support. I would like 
this letter to be printed in the Record.

       We simply cannot ignore the environment where nearly 52 
     million children spend so many crucial hours every weekday.

  Again, recognizing this is a widespread phenomenon that affects all 
children.
  As much to the point, in terms of not just affecting their ability to 
learn, what do we communicate to our children about the value of 
education? We preach, ``stay in school.'' We preach, ``It is important 
to get an education.'' Then we send them here. What do we tell them? 
What are we telling our children, when we consign them to environments 
in which no one can be expected to function--with leaky roofs and 
broken windows and floors that are rotting out from underneath them? I 
think we send them the absolute wrong message. We, in this Congress 
have, I believe, an absolute obligation to do something about it.
  I have another letter here, which is interesting, from the Council of 
the Great City Schools. It says:

       The infrastructure needs of America's schools are complex 
     and varied. Your bill does an excellent job in balancing 
     these needs, in being flexible in how they are met, and 
     leveraging other funds to expand the bill's impact.

  Again, we are not looking to meet the entirety of the $112 billion 
challenge here. We are just taking a first step with the $5 billion of 
assistance which, going to States and local governments, can give 
leverage additional funds. It is estimated that this legislation will 
allow for States and local governments to leverage 20 billion dollars 
worth of funding to address this crumbling schools phenomenon.
  This is from the National Association of State Boards of Education. 
They say, among other things:

       While our schools are literally falling down, they are also 
     filling up. Total school enrollment, already at a record 
     high, continues to increase. The student population in 
     elementary and secondary schools is expected to rise 20 
     percent over the next decade, due to the demographic 
     phenomenon known as the ``baby-boom echo.'' Overcrowding and 
     the use of temporary portable classrooms have become 
     commonplace across the country. New schools need to be built 
     to accommodate this growing demand.


[[Page S4855]]


  And then they say:

       School construction is a State and local responsibility and 
     should remain so, but their combined resources have been 
     overwhelmed by the estimated $110 billion required to repair 
     existing school facilities. Clearly, this is a national 
     problem that deserves national attention. Federal involvement 
     is consistent with the Government's historical role in 
     promoting educational equity.
  Again, I would point out this legislation will allow for the kind of 
flexibility to allow school districts with State and local governments 
to work with the national Government on behalf of this initiative.
  The American Institute of Architects in their letter say:

       By instituting a cooperative partnership between the 
     Federal Government and local school districts, the school 
     construction initiative provides Federal support for local 
     oversight of school repair projects. The return on investment 
     for improving the condition of our schools has many positive 
     dividends as well.
       By upgrading public school facilities in urban and rural 
     areas alike, this nation can renew its commitment not only to 
     a sound public infrastructure but can also ensure that 
     succeeding generations will grow and prosper from an academic 
     environment that is second to none.

  Mr. President, there was a time when we made the investment in our 
schools. But we have forgotten about them. We forgot about them. Just 
as Marcie pointed out to Peppermint Patty, the roof leaking was 
something they forgot to mention to the school board.
  So among the variety of issues in education that we face, I submit 
that the crisis of our crumbling schools is second to none. Our 
schoolchildren cannot be expected to learn if their schools are 
literally falling down around them. And only by addressing the repair 
of these schools, only by providing the kind of assistance that the 
State and local governments so clearly need in this instance will we be 
able to meet the challenge and really remedy the effects of decades of 
neglect.
  The Associated General Contractors statement of policy says, and I 
would like to raise this as an issue also:

       As a nation, we have invested $422 billion in our public 
     schools. Now 74 percent of those schools are more than 25 
     years old and nearly one-third are more than 50 years old; 14 
     million children attend schools that need extensive repair or 
     replacement. The General Accounting Office estimates that 112 
     billion dollars' is needed to refurbish our nation's schools. 
     The Federal Government does not currently fund school 
     construction. However, in light of the staggering needs and 
     the importance of education to future generations, improving 
     the quality of our schools should be a national priority.

  Mr. President, that is what this amendment calls on the Members of 
this Senate to do, to make a statement that education, repairing our 
crumbling schools, is a national priority, that it is something we put 
value on and that we are prepared to step up to the plate and meet the 
challenge of the $112 billion worth of need that the General Accounting 
Office has already documented. In so doing, as we do so, we will 
provide our youngsters with an environment in which they can learn. We 
will provide them with an environment that says we value education. By 
sending our youngsters to these crumbling schools, schools that are 
falling down around them, we send a message to our children that 
education is not important to us, this is not something that is 
valuable to us.
  In fact--and I do not mean to be critical--there was a cartoon, 
another cartoon today by Herblock, who is a famous cartoonist, which 
says, ``I hear President Clinton wants to spend money to send more 
people to college--What is College?'' And then in the back it says 
``City School.'' The doors are falling; the bricks are falling; it is 
in general disrepair.
  This is the situation we see all over this country. Obviously, while 
we support it, and higher education is important, it is not 
inappropriate for us to recognize that we have the capacity to engage 
in a partnership with State and local governments to give them the help 
they need.

  Flexibility is a very important buzzword around these parts these 
days. Everybody wants arrangements to be flexible. Everybody wants the 
Federal Government to turn things over to the States. I think that is 
wonderful, and I have supported that. But at the same time flexibility 
has to be a two-way street, one in which the State and local 
governments can come to us for help and as a national community we 
engage in behalf of our national priorities. Clearly, giving our 
children an environment that is suitable for learning ought to be a 
national priority, and that is why this amendment seeks to start us on 
a path toward providing this opportunity.
  Winston Churchill once said, ``We shape our buildings; thereafter, 
they shape us.''
  Well, Mr. President, nowhere is that more important than in the 
schools. The poor condition of America's schools has a direct effect on 
the ability of our students to learn the kinds of skills they will need 
to compete in the 21st century, global economy. Our children cannot 
compete if they cannot learn, and they cannot learn if their schools 
are crumbling down around them. So this amendment would ensure that 
school districts around the Nation are provided some assistance--some 
assistance, not a lot; $5 billion out of a $112 billion starting price 
tag is not a lot of money, but it certainly is money well spent and 
will give us the ability to begin to address this problem that has 
crept up on us.
  So, Mr. President, I encourage support of the amendment. Again, it 
should not conflict with the objectives of this balanced budget 
agreement. If anything, as the Chair may know, I am a supporter of the 
balanced budget. I supported the balanced budget amendment. I very much 
applaud the negotiators for reaching an agreement that reaches balance. 
I think it makes sense to do it. But as we do so, it is important that 
we not also throw the baby out with the bath water, as it were, that we 
also not forget that our priorities ought to start with providing our 
youngsters with the opportunity and the environment they need in which 
to learn.
  I ask unanimous consent that the series of letters and statements I 
referenced earlier be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Children's Defense Fund,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1997.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: I commend you on your 
     initiative to restore funding to the budget agreement for 
     school construction and renovation.
       It is clear that the physical condition of many of our 
     nation's public elementary and secondary schools is 
     deteriorating. Over 14 million students attend schools that 
     need major renovation or outright replacement. Some 7 million 
     children attend schools with life safety code violations. 
     About 12 million children attend schools with leaky roofs. In 
     communities in every state, schools are crumbling and 
     children struggle to learn in unsafe conditions. At the same 
     time, schools are not equipped to use modern technology. The 
     General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that it would 
     cost more than $112 billion to renovate and upgrade our 
     children's schools.
       While in the past school construction and renovation have 
     been state and local responsibilities, given the magnitude of 
     the challenge that states and localities face, I believe that 
     we need a new partnership. Certainly the federal government 
     is not the sole answer. However, a federal role in 
     partnership with states and localities as proposed in your 
     amendment makes sense. We simply cannot ignore the 
     environment where nearly 52 million children spend so many 
     crucial hours every weekday.
       Children need your amendment. If I can provide any 
     assistance to you, please let me know.
           Sincerely yours,
     Marian Wright Edelman.
                                  ____

                                                    Council of the


                                           Great City Schools,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 1997.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: On behalf of the Council of the 
     Great City Schools, a coalition of the nation's largest urban 
     public school systems, I am writing to give our enthusiastic 
     endorsement for your new school infrastructure initiative, 
     ``The Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools Act''.
       The infrastructure needs of America's schools are complex 
     and varied. Your bill does an excellent job in balancing 
     those needs, in being flexible in how they are met, and in 
     leveraging other funds to expand the bill's impact. The 
     measure is also strong in allowing construction, repair and 
     upgrading. Finally, the bill does a particularly good job at 
     targeting scarce federal money to where the needs are 
     greatest, the nation's poorest communities.

[[Page S4856]]

       This proposal, first outlined last summer, is one of the 
     boldest and most helpful initiatives ever introduced in the 
     U.S. Senate. It addresses one of America's most severe 
     domestic needs and does so in a way that has real promise for 
     success. Thank you for your leadership both in calling 
     attention to the needs in school repair and renovation and in 
     shaping a program to meet them.
       America's Great City Schools are resolute in our support of 
     your proposal. And we will strongly encourage Congress to 
     support it. Our children deserve what this bill proposes.
       Again, thank you for your leadership and advocacy. Please 
     let us know if we can be helpful to you in this critical 
     effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Casserly,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            The American Institute


                                                of Architects,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1997.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: The American Institute of 
     Architects (AIA) wishes to commend the sponsors of S. 456, 
     ``The Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools Act of 1997.'' 
     In order to adequately meet the challenges of the 21st 
     Century, America's elementary and high school students need a 
     modern and safe environment.
       As the saying goes, ``a picture says a thousand words.'' 
     Hopefully, the photographs received from various school 
     districts around the country will convey the urgency for 
     repairing and modernizing the physical structure of our 
     public schools. By initiating a cooperative partnership 
     between the federal government and local school districts, 
     the school construction initiative provides federal support 
     for local oversight of school repair projects. The return 
     investment for improving the condition of our schools has 
     many positive dividends as well. By upgrading public school 
     facilities in urban and rural areas alike, this nation can 
     renew its commitment not only to a sound public 
     infrastructure, but can also ensure that succeeding 
     generations will grow and prosper from an academic 
     environment that is second to none.
       The AIA looks forward to working with Congress and other 
     organizations in the months ahead so that America's schools 
     have the resources necessary to provide the quality education 
     our students so richly deserve.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Raj Barr-Kumar,
     1997 AIA President.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                    State Boards of Education,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 10, 1997.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: The National Association of 
     State Boards of Education (NASBE) is a private nonprofit 
     association representing state and territorial boards of 
     education. Our principal objectives are to strengthen state 
     leadership in education policymaking, promote excellence in 
     the education of all students, advocate equality of access to 
     educational opportunity, and assure responsible governance of 
     public education.
       We are writing to express our support for federal 
     assistance in the area of school construction. As you are no 
     doubt aware, the deterioration of America's school 
     infrastructure has reached crisis proportions. A Government 
     Accounting Office report found that one-third of all U.S. 
     schools are in need of extensive repairs or replacement and 
     60% have at least one major building deficiency such as 
     cracked foundations, leaky roofs, or crumbling walls. We 
     cannot expect our children to learn much less excel in such 
     decrepit and unsafe environments.
       NASBE has been concerned about the issue of school 
     construction for some time. In the fall of 1995 we began a 
     one-year study of the condition of school infrastructure. The 
     result was a comprehensive report which I have enclosed 
     entitled, Building Our Future: Making School Facilities Ready 
     for the 21st Century. I commend it for your review.
       While our schools are literally falling down, they are also 
     filling up. Total school enrollment, already at a record 
     high, continues to increase. The student population in 
     elementary and secondary schools is expected to rise twenty 
     percent over the next decade due to the demographic phenomena 
     known as the ``baby boom echo.'' Overcrowding and the use of 
     temporary, ``portable'' classrooms have become commonplace 
     across the country. New schools need to be built to 
     accommodate this growing demand.
       School construction is a state and local responsibility, 
     and should remain so, but their combined resources have been 
     overwhelmed by the estimated $110 billion required to repair 
     existing school facilities. Clearly, this national problem 
     deserves national attention. Federal involvement is 
     consistent with the government's historical role in promoting 
     educational equity.
       We applaud both you and President Clinton for your efforts 
     to address this critical situation by proposing a $5 billion 
     federal investment to spur school construction, recently 
     introduced as legislation in the Senate and House as S. 456 
     and H.R. 1104 respectively. NASBE is encouraged by this 
     action and we look forward to working with congressional 
     leaders like yourself and Administration officials in 
     fostering a partnership between federal, state and local 
     entities to improve the learning conditions of American 
     children.
           Sincerely,
                                                Brenda L. Welburn,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


   [Excerpt from Associated General Contractors Statement of Policy]

                          Infrastructure Needs

       Invest in safe schools for our children--As a nation, we 
     have invested $422 billion in our public schools. Now, 74% of 
     those schools are more than 25 years old and nearly one-third 
     are more than 50 years old. 14 million students attend 
     schools that need extensive repairs or replacement. The 
     General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that $112 billion 
     is needed to refurbish our nation's schools. The federal 
     government does not currently fund school construction. 
     However, in light of the staggering needs and the importance 
     of education to future generations, improving the quality of 
     our schools should be a national priority.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield. I would 
not like to lose any of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may reserve her time.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Florida has the next 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator finished?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Reserving my time, 
I will yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with great reluctance I rise in 
opposition to the amendment. I do so only because, with the necessities 
of education, we have to establish certain priorities. There is no 
question but that rebuilding the infrastructure is an important 
priority. But there are others that at this particular time I think 
have to take priority.
  I do appreciate, for instance, in the city of Washington this body, 
Congress, has a certain obligation to restore the schools. That is 
about $2 billion that we are going to have to find a way to fund in 
order to bring this city back to where it ought to be.
  On the other hand, there is somewhere around $120 billion in 
infrastructure repairs necessary in this country. How we get that I do 
not know. I do know that $5 billion would start it, but there are other 
priorities--and I will tick off a number of those priorities--for which 
we could use these resources better.
  First of all, as the body probably knows, I voted in favor of 
expanding the amount of money that will be available by supporting the 
Hatch-Kennedy bill. If that money were available, it might tend to 
change my position. But when I look out there right now, our most 
immediate needs are trying to get the educational system in order to 
provide the kind of skilled labor we need in this Nation. That means we 
have to change the K through 12 programs by professional development in 
order to give us the math standards we need in order to provide the 
skilled labor force. This is going to take a considerable amount of 
immediate resources.
  In addition to that, getting our schools up to speed with respect to 
the technical aspects of computers and other means of being able to 
improve access to modern technology, to improve the schools, would take 
about $16 billion. In addition to that, it would take about $8 billion 
a year to keep them up to snuff.
  Another area we have to deal with is higher ed as well. We already 
know that we have incredible problems in that respect. Most importantly 
are worker training areas. Right now, in order to provide the work 
force for the future, we have to find ways to, first of all, provide 
sufficient additional remedial help so that our young people who 
graduate will be ready to go to work in skilled labor. We do not have 
those resources yet.
  We will be passing out a worker training bill, and we will be needing 
resources in order to do that. We have created another huge priority in 
this Nation, and that is taking the welfare people who are involved in 
receiving benefits, to train them and retrain them in order to have 
jobs. That is incredibly important, and it has to be done. That is 
going to take other billions of resources.

[[Page S4857]]

  So although I sympathize with the amendment, I strongly believe the 
resources at this time that we do have available would have to be 
placed in slightly different order than would enable us to try to take 
care of the huge backlog and which has traditionally been accepted as 
the responsibility by the State and local governments. For those 
reasons, Mr. President, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Moseley-
Braun's amendment to the Budget Resolution that would provide $5 
billion for a national school construction initiative. I would like to 
commend Senator Moseley-Braun for her leadership on this issue, and I 
would also like to thank Senators Kennedy and Harkin for their fine 
efforts to address this critical problem.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. 
Crumbling schools are not just an urban problem. They are a nationwide 
problem, and rural areas are no exception. In fact, 30 percent of 
schools in rural areas report at least one inadequate building feature.
  A 1996 report by the General Accounting Office found that in my home 
state of South Dakota, 25 percent of schools have inadequate plumbing, 
21 percent of schools have roof problems, 29 percent have ventilation 
problems, and 21 percent percent of schools are not meeting safety 
codes.
  We have adopted a nationwide goal of trying to connect every school 
building in the country to the internet. Teaching our children to use 
new this technology is critical for preparing them for the 21st 
century. Yet, in my home state, 22 percent of schools have inadequate 
electrical wiring. In their present condition, these schools cannot 
accommodate computers in the classroom.
  South Dakota's tribal schools also face very serious facilities 
problems and major construction backlogs. There are nine federally 
recognized tribes in South Dakota. At the same time, my State has 3 of 
the 10 poorest counties in the nation, all of which are within 
reservation boundaries.
  With 56 percent of its people under the age of 24, the native 
American population in this country is disproportionately young when 
compared the American population overall. This population strains 
existing school facilities. The BIA estimates that there is a 
construction backlog of $680 million in its 185 elementary, secondary 
and boarding schools serving Indian children on 63 reservations in 23 
States. Of these schools, 63 percent are over 30 years old; 26 percent 
are over 50 years old. Annual appropriations for BIA education 
facilities improvement and repair have averaged $37 million annually, 
which unfortunately meets only 5 percent of total need.
  Nationwide, the statistics are similarly ominous. Crumbling schools 
are a problem of enormous magnitude. Fourteen million children attend 
classes in buildings that need major repair or renovation. Seven 
million children go to school in buildings that have safety code 
violations. Sixteen million children study in classrooms without proper 
heating, ventilation, or air conditioning.
  It is nearly impossible to measure the impact that these conditions 
have on students' ability to learn, but there is no doubt that the 
impact is severe.
  Clearly, there is much we can do to improve our existing school 
building infrastructure. But that is only part of the problem. Our 
Nation is experiencing significant growth in school enrollment. 
Estimates are that we will need to build 6,000 new schools by the year 
2006 if we want to keep class sizes the same as they are presently.
  This amendment would allocate $5 billion to the House and Senate 
committees of jurisdiction to devise a school construction and 
renovation initiative. We are not mandating a specific approach in this 
amendment. Rather, we hope that this $5 billion Federal contribution 
can be used in partnership with State and local efforts to leverage 
over $20 billion of dollars of construction activity nationwide. An 
effort of this magnitude would benefit our students for generations, 
and I am proud to support this amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter 
of Senator Moseley-Braun's school infrastructure amendment.
  One of the major problems facing elementary and secondary education 
today is the poor condition of our school buildings. In my home state 
of Rhode Island, many schools are in need of extensive repairs and 
upgrades.
  I have visited several of these schools, including the Harris 
Elementary School in Woonsocket which was built in 1876. To put this in 
perspective, in 1876 the nation celebrated the centennial of the United 
States; Rutherford B. Hayes was elected President by one vote; Custer 
confronted the Sioux at Little Big Horn; Alexander Graham Bell 
transmitted the first complete sentence by voice over wire; Henry Heinz 
put ketchup in a bottle; and Colorado became the 38th State.
  Sadly, the Harris Elementary School's library is a small trailer 
parked in the school's playground. In addition, I have received 
compelling footage of the condition of the schools in North Providence, 
including the Stephen Olney School, which has asbestos in the floors 
and water damaged classrooms, and the Centredale School, which has 
leaking classroom ceilings.
  These examples and numerous others across my State and the Nation 
show the urgent and real need for a school construction initiative. A 
problem of this magnitude demands a Federal response.
  Indeed, a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that in 
Rhode Island 29 percent of schools report at least one inadequate 
building of any type; 61 percent have at least one inadequate building 
feature; 75 percent have at least one unsatisfactory environmental 
factor, such as heating and ventilation; and 37 percent have 
insufficient capability for computers.
  Nationally, the statistics are equally compelling. Fourteen million 
children, in one-third of the Nation's schools, are learning in 
buildings that need major renovations or should be replaced outright. 
Seven million students attend schools with safety code violations, such 
as the presence of lead paint, asbestos, or radon in the walls, floors, 
or ceilings. One-third of students study in classrooms without 
electrical wiring and power outlets to accommodate computers and 
multimedia equipment.
  We should not pass up this opportunity to repair our Nation's 
schools.
  While the budget resolution before us does include some increases in 
education funding and provides protection for important education 
initiatives, the agreement's caps on discretionary funding do not 
guarantee room for the school construction initiative. The same may 
also be the case for school reform and efforts to improve the 
recruitment, education, and mentoring of teachers, for which the 
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future report, What 
Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future, suggests almost $5 billion 
is needed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Moseley-Braun amendment, which 
seeks to make $5 billion available for school repair, renovation, and 
construction. Indeed, this must be a top priority as we work to provide 
students a quality education and prepare them for the future.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I find myself in a very difficult position.
  First, I commend the Senator from Illinois for her interest not only 
in school construction, the infrastructure for schools, but her view 
about investments in children, about what it is going to take to help 
our society stabilize, about what it is going to take to avoid 
criminality and violence that we see so freely around our country. She 
has been a leader on those issues for children. She is always 
discussing what it is that we have to do to make certain that children 
will grow up as contributing adults with a prospect for their own 
successes.
  It is consistent with her views on what we ought to be doing for the 
children in our country to be concerned about the schoolhouses they 
attend.
  Senator Moseley-Braun has made too many speeches, written so much 
about what the alternative to incarceration and prosecution is, and it 
is investment in our kids. If there is not a

[[Page S4858]]

particularly identifying view of what we ought to be doing for our 
children than a bunch of broken down schoolhouses, then I would tell 
you there is nothing else.
  I am a member of the Budget Committee, the senior Democrat on the 
Budget Committee, and as I said, this is a painful point at which I 
find myself. We have a consensus budget resolution. It took a lot of 
work. I was surprised, I must say, when I saw the agreement in its 
final form because I was expecting that there would be some funds 
reserved for improvement of the school facilities around the country. I 
did not think at the time that the original $5 billion request was 
held, but I thought it might be somewhere in the vicinity of $3 
billion, certainly not enough to make a dent when we consider that the 
GAO estimate, as the Senator from Illinois mentioned, is that there is 
$112 billion needed to bring our schools up to date.
  Now, I happen to come from a highly urbanized State, a State in which 
we have more than a fair share of poverty.
  Our cities, and we have many of them, are among the poorest in the 
country--Newark, Camden, Paterson, my birthplace, I think is the fifth 
poorest city in America. I visit my old hometown, if I can call it 
that, on a fairly regular basis. It is often said here that we do these 
things, but I happen to go to the same barbershop that I have been 
going to since I was in college--and that was some years ago--and the 
barber is still cutting. Even if he misses a few hairs here and there, 
I don't care, but it takes me back to the city of my birth.
  I have a lot of sentiment attached to that city because they were 
hard-working people, people who were determined to have their children 
succeed and invest whatever they could in terms of personal involvement 
in the development of those kids. School was the No. 1 thing. That was 
always the concern of the parents.
  I can tell you, I don't like to admit this publicly, but I was a 
truant one day, and it was just my luck my father found out. I was 
never truant again. I visited that school just last week because I was 
helping them establish the connections they needed to get ultimately 
into the Internet, the schools being wired. My old company paid for the 
wiring of the schools in Paterson where our company started because my 
partners, like I, came from poor working-class families. I remember 
what it was like living that way, not particularly enjoying anything 
but the memory of good family life. So we helped to get the schools 
wired in the city.
  When I was there, I was struck by the horrific condition of not that 
schoolhouse, not that school building in particular, but others in the 
city, with signs of almost war-type devastation, with broken windows 
and things of that nature.
  I am also, since I was very active on the environment committee, 
conscious about the hazards to the health of the children. Forget about 
the disruptions to learning, for the moment--asbestos, lead paint, 
things that you would not permit your children to be near, to fiddle 
with if you had any way around it.
  So when I think of the amendment proposed by the Senator from 
Illinois, I say, yes, it is difficult for me. I am going to support the 
amendment that the Senator is offering in hopes that we can find some 
way to finance it. The amendment, I understand, includes a source for 
the funding coming from where, may I ask, reduction of tax cuts?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is correct. It is not specific. It raises the 
revenue floor by $5 billion.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is on the Finance Committee.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. She will have the task of having to find a way to do 
it, because I think that it is probably not going to be allowable in 
the budget resolution.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield? This is 
the book, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options.'' It is 
kind of a loophole cookbook, and I am certain that in the course of the 
Finance Committee's deliberations that we can find $5 billion here that 
will make up for the difference, so that will provide the funding 
stream for this.
  I very much appreciate the Senator from New Jersey. You have seen the 
realities, you have seen what these children have to live through and 
live with. You know that they cannot go into the information age based 
on the kind of environment we are providing them.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. They cannot even go sometimes to the age of 
civilization in some of these facilities.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. They are firetraps. They are insecure at a time when 
security is high in the consciousness list. So I hope a source can be 
found that doesn't violate the basic construction we put into this 
budget resolution.
  I commend the Senator from Illinois for her dedication, for her 
determination to bring this problem foursquare in front of us and try 
and solve it.
  The statistics are so terrible that if you look at them, they begin 
to lose their significance: 30 percent of the children not having 
adequate heating and ventilating; 24 percent--other schools without 
adequate plumbing. The list goes on. That is just the physical eyesore 
that is out there that you would expect to be something resembling a 
decaying factory and not a facility that is being used by youngsters 
who are trying, with the help of often inadequate supervision, to try 
and find some life for themselves that they can follow and get through. 
If you walk into a place that is a dump, it is not going to lift your 
spirits to start your day.

  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and just remind everybody 
that we now have other amendments in order and that this amendment will 
be voted upon. As I understand it, there is a UC that allots the 
remaining time for use in the morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator is correct. The 
Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, that is correct, and we will take 
this up, again, in the morning as part of the vote.
  I just want to say in closing, it is a funny thing, reality really 
does have a ring about it that is unavoidable, and I don't think there 
is anyone in this Chamber or anyone who is a Member of this Senate who, 
if they spent the time to go around in their own States and visit the 
schools there, elementary and secondary schools, will deny the validity 
of what the GAO has told us is true.
  Everyone knows about the crumbling school problem, and if you talk to 
your constituents or visit schools in your area, you will find it 
there. That is what is so stunning about this issue. It is not an 
inner-city issue, it is not a Midwestern issue, it is an American 
issue, and it affects every kind of community and every kind of child. 
If, indeed, we are going to turn our back and say we have other things 
to do, we are too busy to get around fixing the window but we want you 
to meet these standards, we are not going to help these States meet 
this $112 billion burden, but we are going to give them all the 
flexibility in the world, or we are not going to give the local 
governments--the local communities that are taxing themselves the most 
and are having the hardest time repairing these crumbling schools.
  That is what is so compelling to me in engaging this new partnership 
in which we don't take over Federal educational content. No one is 
looking to do that. It is appropriate that local governments deal with 
what kind of schools they have and what the children learn, the 
conditions and the teachers and the curriculum and those kinds of 
things. I think that is appropriate. So we are not talking about the 
Federal Government taking over anything, but rather, in this air of 
flexibility, saying we are prepared to be responsible and give the 
flexibility and help States and local governments meet this $112 
billion challenge, because, indeed, our very national security is at 
risk. We will not be able to stay the greatest country in the world in 
this global economy in the world if we send our children to schools 
where even Peppermint Patty gets rained on in the classroom.
  I thank very much the Senator from New Jersey. I thank my colleagues.
  Madam President, I inquire, how much time is remaining on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 27 minutes; the

[[Page S4859]]

Senator from New Mexico has 56 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will it come from my time?
  Mr. NICKLES. It will come from our time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Certainly.
  Mr. NICKLES. Does the current law, Davis-Bacon, apply as well? You 
mentioned flexibility, but would the schools who do the building or do 
the maintenance also have to comply with Davis-Bacon regulations?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is not addressed specifically in 
this amendment. However, Federal contracting rules would apply, but the 
States and local governments would have to come forward with their own 
contracting rules. The question has been raised about Davis-Bacon, to 
be honest. We don't yet have, since the funding formula has not been 
worked out in terms of Federal funding of infrastructure and State and 
local funding of infrastructure--

  Mr. NICKLES. But there is no exemption from Davis-Bacon?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. No, there is not.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I control the time still.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois controls the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. My understanding is the Senator wanted to ask a 
question.
  Mr. NICKLES. No, I want to speak on the amendment.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Let me say this, the amendment does not go to 
those contracting rules, and, again, I think the issue of Davis-Bacon 
and those arguments which would take up all the time in connection with 
Federal highway projects is not a relevant issue with regard to this 
effort in behalf of rebuilding crumbling schools.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
and in answer to the question, obviously Davis-Bacon applies, because 
all Federal contracting dealing with Federal money would apply. We 
would have the Federal Government setting wage determination rates. So 
I object to this amendment for that reason, but also for other reasons. 
The Federal Government does not have a primary responsibility of trying 
to build new schools or to rebuild schools. That is not a Federal 
responsibility.
  Some people say, ``Well, we need more education money, we need more 
education programs.'' We have 788 education programs spending $98 
billion a year spread all throughout the Government. One that we don't 
have, if we adopted the Senator's amendment, would be a $5 billion 
school building program. That is one program we do not need, and we 
cannot afford.
  Schools are the primary function of State and local government, and 
to build or rebuild or to figure out which schools should be rehabbed, 
that really should be decided by local and State government. That 
should not be decided by Washington, DC. Contingent with that money 
comes Federal strings, regulations, such as Davis-Bacon. The Federal 
Government would be determining what the wage rates would be to comply, 
to rehab the school building. Some of those wage rates are outlandish 
in comparison to what is normally paid for schools or for other 
buildings and projects in those areas.
  With greatest respect for my colleague from Illinois, I know her 
intentions are very sincere and I know a lot of schools need to be 
rehabbed, I know a lot of schools need to be replaced, I know a lot of 
schools are in pathetic shape, but it is not the function or 
responsibility of the Federal Government to try and solve all the 
problems and certainly not the construction of local schools or the 
rehab of local schools, which, I might mention, $5 billion would hardly 
scratch the surface. Then we would have to have the Federal Government 
determine if the needs in the hundreds of billions of dollars--how is 
the Federal Government going to determine who wins and who loses? I 
imagine you could spend $5 billion for school renovation in the State 
of Texas alone. Quite possibly, I imagine the State of Illinois alone.
  So you have all this competition amongst the various schools and 
States for who is going to get this money. This is not a function for 
the Federal Government. The 10th amendment to the Constitution says all 
other rights and powers are reserved to the States. We should certainly 
leave this one, school construction and renovation, to the States and 
to the localities, not to the Federal Government.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Madam President. In the first place, 
what we are talking about fixing are our Nation's schools.
  I think we can have a separate debate, a separate vote on the merits 
of paying workers prevailing wages. But I would point out to my 
colleague that some 32 States, many cities and townships, already have 
their own prevailing wage laws affecting school construction. And 
frankly, any school district that is receiving Federal Impact Aid 
funding today is already subject to Davis-Bacon.
  Now, the truth is that Davis-Bacon applies to Federal highway 
construction, and few people argue that the Federal Government has no 
role in highway construction.
  I ask my colleague, what is the difference? If the highways were in 
this kind of condition, clearly there would be a rush to create a 
partnership so that we can provide support in order to support 
transportation in our Nation. But the schools are in this condition. 
And the Senator is suggesting that we turn our backs and say it is up 
to the States and local governments to do it by themselves.
  I think the pictures and the debate about this issue demonstrate very 
clearly that they have not been able to do it by themselves, and it has 
not been through want of trying. It is not as though school districts 
have deliberately set out to put children in classrooms that look like 
this. It is not as though local school boards have not wanted to vote 
the money to provide for the schools.
  The Senator from Vermont knows full well that with the District of 
Columbia schools you see the condition. And it is not as though the 
people here in D.C. did not want to make certain the windows were 
fixed, but they had other emergencies. That is the exigencies of 
education they had to meet first: classrooms, textbooks, lighting, the 
basics, teacher salaries. So the funds have gone to that. And 
maintenance has been deferred time and time again.
  Again, of the 50 percent of the schools in this country that are over 
50 years old, in all too many instances those schools have suffered 
just about that same amount of neglect and deferred maintenance. Well, 
as with maintenance of anything else, it just gets worse as the problem 
gets older.
  This problem is going to get worse and worse over time. And school 
districts have been trying. In fact, one of the reports by the General 
Accounting Office talked about the fact that school districts that have 
the least try the hardest and that they have been trying to meet these 
infrastructure needs, but all too often have not been able to. They 
cannot go into the capital markets to borrow money at favorable rates 
because they do not have the bond rating. So the result is classrooms 
that look like this.
  So I will just suggest to my colleagues that this is not in any way 
about Washington telling school districts what classrooms to fix or 
what schools to rebuild or where to put the construction effort. In 
fact, the whole idea is to have that kind of decisionmaking start at 
the local level and start and stay at the local and State level. That 
is the point of their decisionmaking. All we would do as a national 
community is to give financial assistance in ways that will allow these 
local districts to leverage additional money to meet what is clearly 
their local need on the one hand but, in the final analysis, is our 
entire need.
  If one community or another cannot afford to provide their youngsters 
with laboratories in which their youngsters

[[Page S4860]]

can learn chemistry, how can we expect to be competitive in a global 
economy, in global competition? If a community cannot afford it and is 
being taxed to the maximum extent, and they just do not have the money 
to address the basics of the rain coming through the window or the roof 
leaking, how can we expect these youngsters to learn, even assuming for 
a moment there are other program priorities that the Federal Government 
has traditionally taken up with regard to elementary and secondary 
education?
  Of course, our role has always, as a national community, been limited 
in elementary and secondary education. But even assuming for a moment 
that there are other priorities, I daresay, it should go without 
argument that ought to be a priority also. Our kids cannot learn, they 
cannot take advantage of whatever those other priorities are in schools 
that are literally falling down around them.
  We are going to take a vote on this tomorrow morning. There will be 
some further debate about it tomorrow morning. I encourage my 
colleagues to take a close look, to call home, to check out what is 
going on in your own States, because this is a problem that, again, is 
national in scope, but it particularly goes to the well-being and the 
access to educational opportunity for every child in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would point out that the primary 
responsibility for this construction lies with the States, and that if 
we were to go on in a new venture to pick up the responsibility of 
reconstructing the schools in this country of about $115 to $120 
billion, that obviously would create a huge change in our priorities.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I understand that under the unanimous-
consent order, the Moseley-Braun amendment is now set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be set aside.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order agreed to was to recognize the 
Senator from Florida at this time.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I have no objection to allowing the 
Senator from Vermont to proceed at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be very brief.
  I thank my good friend from Florida for allowing me to do this.


                           Amendment No. 337

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] for himself and Mr. 
     Coats, moves to recommit S. Con. Res. 27 to the Committee on 
     the Budget with instructions to report the same back to 
     the Senate forthwith with the following amendments:
       Strike the reconciliation instruction for the Committee on 
     Labor and Human Resources.
       Adjust the reconciliation instructions for the Committee on 
     Finance to reflect an increase in revenues of $1,057,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002 and $1,792,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, so I do not sound totally inconsistent 
with the arguments I just made, I would let it be known that I intend 
to withdraw my amendment at the conclusion of my statement.
  I rise today with my good friend from Indiana, Senator Coats, to 
offer this motion. What this does is to remove the reconciliation 
instructions from the budget bill, the reconciliation instructions of 
my own committee. The reason for that is that this would require us to 
reduce the aid for our higher ed students.
  I would remind everyone that last year this body greatly reduced the 
instructions then of some many billions of dollars and sent it over to 
the House. They came back and refused to go along. And this body voted 
99 to 0 to insist upon the Senate's position. That resulted in 
restoring almost all of the money to the higher ed area.
  The only area that my committee, the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, has any money that is in the reconciliation area is with 
respect to the higher ed funding of our student loans. The budget 
agreement as recently written cuts the student financial aid account by 
$1.8 billion over 5 years. I would note that that is substantially 
lower than last year. We end up, even after all the reductions from 
about $19 billion down, we still ended up with $4 billion. So I commend 
the Budget Committee for coming back with half of what was required 
last year.
  Our motion would restore these funds however and remain budget 
neutral by providing for adjustment on the revenue side of the 
agreement. I think it is important to remind my colleagues of the 
central importance that student aid plays in our children's future.
  The balanced budget agreement is dependent upon increases in working 
productivity and in future economic growth. This growth in turn is 
dependent upon the quality and availability of a well-educated work 
force.
  Let us take a minute to reflect on the facts regarding the economic 
impact, the higher education impact upon Federal aid to student 
participation. Participation in higher education is one of the most 
dramatic predictors of economic success.
  As you can see from this chart--the chart I would have had but do not 
have--that shows dramatically that the more education you have, the 
more economic availability you have.
  With a high school degree, your high range is at $43,000. If you have 
a bachelor's degree, it is $73,000. And if you have a doctorate, it 
goes well above that.
  In the past years, only those that had postsecondary education have 
been able to stay even with the cost of living. And only those with 
doctorates and masters degrees have improved their standard of living.
  So it is incredibly important we provide the access of our young 
people to go to higher education. The postsecondary, as I referred to 
it now--we have given much emphasis on the higher education without 
keeping in mind the postsecondary training education that is available.
  Federal financial aid plays an essential role in allowing students 
from low and middle income families to attend community colleges and 
universities. Thirty-six percent of all students receive some form of 
Federal financial aid in order to allow them to attend college. This 
Federal investment is returned many times over in increased economic 
productivity and income in Federal taxes. Without this aid, however, 
many of the students would not be able to fulfill their dreams to 
attend college.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, education is, for many of us, a top 
priority. S. 1, the first bill introduced in the 105th Congress 
evidenced that fact. The rhetoric from our President would seem to 
indicate that education was also his top priority, yet at this very 
moment he is supporting a budget which will result in a decrease of 
$1.8 billion to student aid programs. I rise today to support the 
Jeffords motion which ensures access to educational opportunities for 
all Americans.
  Since the early 1980's, the price of going to college has increased 
at more than twice the rate of inflation; growing even more rapidly 
than the cost of health care. This is the chief reason that a college 
education is unaffordable for American families.
  Initiatives, such as those included in S. 1, provide tax relief for 
families, encourage planning for the future through the use of college 
savings accounts, and build on already successful programs, such as 
Federal student loans and work study. These initiatives deserve our 
support. Unfortunately, the budget that we are considering today will 
make it virtually impossible to adequately provide these critically 
important programs to students and their families.
  I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Jeffords and I in this firm 
resolve to protect higher education programs, thereby ensuring that all 
students have access to post-secondary educational opportunities. 
Access to higher education is critical and should not be compromised in 
this budget resolution.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would again ask Members to keep in mind the 99 to 0 
vote which occurred last year that said we should not do anything that 
impacts in the ability of our students to attend higher education. So I 
will ensure that the reconciliation that we send, if anything, will 
make sure that

[[Page S4861]]

it does not in any way hinder the ability of students to attend higher 
education.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 337) was withdrawn.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.


                           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)

  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I have an amendment at 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, 
     Mr. Specter, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 315.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE 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 state of crisis'' and the 
     National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1994 that ``the 
     present cohort of clinical investigators in not adeuqate'';
       (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 no second-degree amendments to 
this amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and the following Senators: Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Frist, 
Specter, Harkin, D'Amato, DeWine, Boxer, Collins, Durbin, Reid, Breaux, 
and Dorgan.
  Madam President, let me quickly state the amendment is a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. Let me just say to my colleagues that I 
recognize that what we are doing here is merely making a statement. But 
I think it is an important statement to be made.
  This has to do with a sense of the Senate about doubling the 
investment in the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years.
  It further States that it is our intent that the investments of the 
National Institutes of Health be increased by $2 billion in this next 
fiscal year.
  I begin my remarks, as I do often about this issue, by speaking about 
my own personal experiences, in essence, what motivates me to offer 
this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Before I get into those kinds of personal feelings, maybe I ought to 
share with my colleagues an experience that I had just a few months 
ago, the last hearing that the Senate--at least I believe it was--the 
last hearing that the Senate held in the 104th Congress. It was a 
hearing that was chaired by Senator Hatfield and Senator Cohen, and it 
was a hearing to raise the awareness of the American people about the 
advantages and the needs of more research dollars.
  General Schwarzkopf was one of those individuals who testified. He, 
in essence, said that one of these days the American people are going 
to realize how little we have invested in basic research in health 
care, in health care research, health research in this country, how 
little we have done. He said, in essence, when they find that out, they 
are going to be mad as hell and they are going to want something done 
about it.
  I have spent many years now here in the Senate trying to raise the 
voices of concern, and the time has now come, frankly, that another 
year cannot pass without this Congress and this Senate making a 
commitment to doubling the investment at the National Institutes of 
Health.
  And I say so in recognizing I do this from an emotional perspective 
because I, like so many others, represent families that have been 
devastated by disease. In my particular case, I am talking about 
cancer. Since the last time I spoke on the floor of the Senate about 
this issue I lost another member of my family to the disease. I lost my 
father, who died at the age of 83 with esophageal cancer.

  I remember at a particular moment as he was fighting the disease, and 
I guess this moment comes for most of us, dad realized regardless of 
all the advantages and all the breakthroughs that have taken place with 
research, that frankly nothing more could be done for him. One of the 
doctors suggested what they needed to do next was to insert a feeding 
tube into his stomach. Dad's reaction to the doctor was, ``That's not 
going to happen to me. I have lived a pretty good life. I have raised 
eight children,'' and he said with a little grin, ``They have all done 
pretty well. So I look upon my life as one that has been pretty 
successful.'' He said, ``It's time for me to die. I'm going back home. 
I'm not going to stay in the hospital. I'm not going to eat anything 
else. I'm not going to drink anything else. It is time for me to die. I 
accept that.''
  That was totally different than the experience that I had with my 
younger brother who died of melanoma at the age of 35. At that age, I 
guess it is almost impossible to give up. You have a sense that you 
have got to fight every step of the way. Maybe there will be a 
discovery made is the sense of what people feel. I can tell you as a 
member of the family, I sure was hopeful, each day, maybe a new 
procedure, maybe a new experimental drug would come along and save my 
brother Michael's life, who for 12 years, from the age of 23, on knew 
that each year could be the year in which he would lose his life.
  So I say today, Madam President, I can no longer be kind of quiet 
about this issue. I realize I am here today speaking about my own 
personal experiences, but in essence I represent every family in 
America. Why are we taking this? Why have we, as a Nation, said over 
and over and over again we do not have the money to invest in this kind 
of research? We are talking about $2 billion more in this next fiscal 
year--$2 billion more, and we are told we do not have the money. Now I 
know how difficult it is going to be to find it. I do not mean to be 
underestimating that. But if our Nation made the commitment to do it we 
could find the resources to invest $2 billion more at the National 
Institutes of Health.
  As I say, my story is a story about cancer. I was diagnosed with the 
same cancer that killed my brother, within months after I came to the 
U.S. Senate. And I would say this, if it had not

[[Page S4862]]

have been for Michael's death, I probably would have been the one who 
died because I would not have been sensitive to the information on the 
early warning signs of the disease. I would have ignored the mole on my 
side until maybe it was too late. All I am saying is I do not think we 
as a Nation should ignore the warning signs.
  You can talk about Parkinson's disease, and many of us have had the 
opportunity to talk with Morton Kondracke or with Joan Samuelson. In my 
case, a dear friend, Bob Finkernagle, another dear friend, Pat Hucker, 
whose wife is suffering with the disease. There have been tremendous 
breakthroughs with respect to Parkinson's disease but there is a lot 
more out there that can be discovered, a lot more that can be done.
  During these past several years I have had the opportunity to speak 
with Dr. Varmas, Dr. Klausner, Francis Collins, all out at the National 
Institutes of Health, and as you listen to them talk about breakthrough 
after breakthrough after breakthrough you cannot help but be excited 
about what the opportunities are for further investments in medical 
research.
  There is a gene known at the P-53 gene with respect to cancer. 
Interestingly enough, this gene, when it malfunctions, when it is 
mutated, has been found in somewhere between 50 percent and 80 percent 
of all cancers. It is a tumor suppressor gene and research scientists 
all across America and around the world are, in fact, trying to figure 
out the mechanism. They have indicated that in their tests in the 
laboratory that when a P-53 gene that is not mutated is placed in with 
other cells it, in fact, stops the growth of those cells. More money 
needs to be invested to find out whether P-53 holds a key for a cure.

  What can be the benefits from more research? One of the things that 
would happen is that we would see that the number of people that 
participate in clinical trials would go from 2 percent to 20 percent. 
What does that mean to the average person? Well, it means that some 
mother or some father or some brother, some sister, might have an 
opportunity to have drugs that are available on the market but only 
through a clinical trial. We would increase from 2 percent to 20 
percent if we were to double the investment at NIH.
  The number of grants that would be approved would jump from 25 
percent to 40 percent. More access to state-of-the-art care, ability 
for the research centers to attract new talent. I could go on and on.
  The point here is this, and I will close my comments at this time, 
with another story from that same hearing that I referred to a little 
bit earlier. There was an individual on that panel with General 
Schwarzkopf by the name of Travis Roy. Travis Roy is a young man whose 
dream it was to play ice hockey in Boston, and he succeeded. 
Unfortunately, in the first 11 seconds of a game he was hit in such a 
manner that he is paralyzed from the neck down. He said to the Members 
at that hearing, to the panel, that his dream was to be able to hug his 
mother again someday. You know something, if we had listened to that 15 
years ago, our reaction, sure, we would have had the compassion and the 
concern for that young man, but in the back of our mind we would have 
said, but you know there is nothing we can do about it. Well, something 
dramatically has changed in America. We no longer believe that there is 
nothing we can do about it. We have seen so much happen in the field of 
research that we now believe there are opportunities all across the 
board in all different kinds of diseases for breakthroughs that will 
save lives.
  Today, I had the opportunity to listen to a physician by the name of 
LaSalle LaFalle, a former President of the American Cancer Society. He 
said, ``When I was trained, I was told that there was no cure for 
leukemia, that everyone died from leukemia. Hodgkin's disease, everyone 
died from Hodgkin's disease.'' We know now the cure rate of leukemia is 
around 60 percent, and Hodgkin's disease is 80 percent. That is a 
result of the investments we made in basic research. I ask my 
colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask my distinguished colleague, Senator Mack, who 
controls the time, for an allocation of 10 minutes.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to support this 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution because the results of the National 
Institute of Health have been dramatic, really stunning. We have seen 
dramatic breakthroughs in heart disease, in breast cancer, in prostate 
cancer, in ovarian cancer, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, new 
generations of AIDS drugs are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus 
in HIV-infected persons to nearly undetectable levels. With respect to 
the variety of cancers, the death rates have begun a very, very steady 
decline. Most recently we have made enormous progress as well in 
schizophrenia.
  The accounts on the National Institutes of Health have risen 
consistently over the past decade and a half. Regardless of whether the 
chairman of the subcommittee was Senator Weicker, Senator Chiles, 
Senator Harkin, or myself, a position which I now hold, we have found 
the money for very, very substantial increases in the funding for NIH. 
Last year we had an increase of some 6.9 percent for a total of $820 
million. The year before, $643 million. I commend my colleague, Senator 
Mack, for his leadership in first offering a resolution early on to 
double NIH funding over the next 5 years, and the resolution tonight, 
to add $2 billion to NIH funding.

  I suggest that we need to go a step beyond the sense-of-the-Senate 
Resolution, and if I might attract the attention of the distinguished 
manager of this bill, Senator Domenici, in supporting this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution, I wish to point out that the figures, while well 
intended, to express the views of the Senate, are not binding in terms 
of what will occur. The reality is, of course, that nothing is binding. 
The whole budget resolution is, in a sense, the sense of the Senate. 
Now there are some parts which are protected, as Senator Domenici has 
explained, under an agreement between the congressional leadership and 
the President. Those, however, require the confirming by the entire 
body, and that may not happen and they are subject to a veto if that 
does not happen, but in the very broad sense we express in this budget 
resolution what we would like to see done.
  Now, at a later point in the budget resolution I will call upon my 
distinguished colleague from New Mexico to support an amendment which I 
will offer which will add $1.1 billion to the 550 function, which 
surprisingly has been reduced in the resolution now before the Senate. 
Under a freeze, that figure is set at $25 billion and in the budget 
resolution it is at $24.9 billion.
  So, notwithstanding the very impressive presentation made by my 
colleague from Florida, he is talking about Confederate money. If we 
are to have real money in order to present this to the Appropriations 
Committee, in a discussion I have had with the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska, Senator Stevens, we are going to have to have real dollars 
put in an offset. As much as I would like to see $2 billion as 
suggested by Senator Mack I do not know quite how to get there with an 
offset, but I think this is admirable.
  I suggest to my colleagues that if we take four-tenths of 1 percent 
from discretionary nondefense, a total of some $258 billion, we will 
have $1.1 billion. That sum of money would enable us to have an 
increase in the NIH budget, something in the neighborhood of $950 
million, which would be hard cash and something which is really very, 
very, badly needed.
  When we talk about the number of grants provided through NIH, we 
currently have some 27,000 research project grants, 878 center grants, 
nearly 15,000 training grants. But even at that, only one in four 
approved grants are funded.
  Now, beyond NIH, we will face in this subcommittee LIHEAP, Low-Income 
Energy Assistance. I know my distinguished colleague from New Mexico 
has been a leader on mental illness, and he will be coming to the 
markup and will be making a very valid, very impassioned plea, as he 
has done each year. If I could continue to have the attention of my 
colleague from New Mexico,

[[Page S4863]]

each time he as come to me as chairman--and we have had rotations as to 
who is the chairman of which subcommittee--and each time Senator 
Domenici has come to me, I have said, ``Yes. Pete. Yes, sir.'' He is 
right. But if I am to be able to say that as chairman of the committee, 
we are going to have to have some hard dollars. For Senator Domenici's 
recommendation, I had a discussion with Senator Stevens, and he said, 
``I will follow Pete's lead, but we are going to have to have more than 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.''
  I know my distinguished colleague from New York is standing beside 
me. I want to yield the remainder of my time because I think there is 
going to be a very persuasive argument offered by my colleague, Senator 
D'Amato.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from New York?
  Who yields time?
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, let me say to my friend and colleague from 
New York that Senator Frist was--2 minutes?
  All right.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I will not take a long time.
  Mr. President, let me just simply say this: I support the efforts of 
my distinguished colleague from Florida. He has been instrumental in 
helping to lead the way. I remember when we first appropriated money 
from the defense account for breast cancer research. Were it not for 
his persuasiveness on the floor, I do not know if we would have ever 
made that historic breakthrough. That was an amendment offered by 
Senator Harkin and myself. It was really Senator Mack who made a 
difference in this presentation with his efforts.
  Let me say this: We are missing the boat. We are just dreadfully 
missing the boat. Where is our sense of priority in terms of how we do 
the business of the people?
  I have to tell you something. We should take money from any one of a 
number of sources to see to it that the NIH is properly funded. What we 
are doing today--making scavengers and beggars of the best in 
biomedical research--is just simply wrong, whether it is for AIDS, 
whether it is pediatric work, cancer research, breast cancer, or 
prostate cancer. Virtually every male in this Chamber is going to get 
prostate cancer if they live long enough.
  What are we doing to ourselves and to future generations? I suggest 
that we are mortgaging it by not coming forward and allocating 
resources. I don't care if it comes from the gasoline tax, the 
cigarette tax, or from cutting expenditures in other areas. We couldn't 
invest money more prudently than in this kind of medical research.
  We shouldn't be juggling funds and saying take it from diabetic 
research and put it into some other area. Every one of these areas 
under NIH needs more money.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we not only pass this resolution but 
then do the business of the people, and that we stand up and say, 
``Yes, we are going to allocate the necessary resources.'' There was a 
4.3-cent-per-gallon raise in the gas tax to help bring the deficit 
down. You ask the American people if they wouldn't take one penny of 
that--which is a lot of money on an annual basis, well over $1 
billion--and use that for medical research. You ask them whether or not 
they would be willing to see to it that expenditures that we are making 
today should not be diverted to this area. And they would tell you to 
spend the money for the research so we don't have to go begging and 
turning down worthy applications because we are talking about the lives 
of our children and future generations.
  I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues for their patience.
  Mr. MACK. I say to the Chair that I believe the Senator 
from Pennsylvania has three amendments.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition simply to send forward 
to the desk three amendments in accordance with the pending rule.
  I thank my colleague from Florida.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK. I now yield 5 minutes to Senator Frist of Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
amendment before us just introduced by the Senator from Florida which 
expresses the sense of the Senate that the Federal commitment to 
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health is one of the 
highest priorities in this year's budget resolution. This amendment 
very simply states that Congress should double the appropriations for 
the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years and, in the 
fiscal year 1998, increase NIH funding by $2 billion.
  I would like to commend my colleague, the Senator from Florida, 
Senator Mack, for his leadership in bringing this amendment forward 
today to ensure our commitment short term and long term to biomedical 
research. I was an original cosponsor with Senator Mack of similar 
legislation, Senate Resolution 15, introduced on the first day of the 
105th Congress, the Biomedical Research Commitment Resolution of 1997, 
which demonstrated collectively our commitment to increasing biomedical 
research substantially over the next 5 years.
  I rise as a member of the Senate Budget Committee who has struggled 
with the effort to balance the budget which we will achieve by the year 
2002 and at the same time preserve a strong role, a vital role, a 
critical role, in biomedical research during the times of obvious 
fiscal restraint. Historically, Congress has in many ways over the 
years demonstrated a continued strong support of increased funding for 
the important work that we all know occurs at the National Institutes 
of Health.
  The scientific and medical breakthroughs supported by the NIH in the 
last 50 years have vastly improved our capacity to prevent disease, to 
diagnose disease, and treat human disease. I contrast my status as a 
heart and lung transplant surgeon to my father, a family physician who 
practiced medicine for 50 years, when he started, he carried around 
most of the knowledge that he needed at that time to treat somebody in 
his head and most of his tools in a simple black bag. How far we have 
come because of our commitment to invest in biomedical research.
  As a heart and lung transplant surgeon, I have had the opportunity to 
see firsthand the great advances which have revolutionized the way we 
think about disease. As Americans, we benefit every day from the 
highest quality of health care in the world. And it is vital--it is 
vital--that we continue to invest for the long term as well as the 
short term in our research efforts to maintain this high quality.
  The research supported by the NIH has resulted in numerous medical 
advances. A whole new industry in the postwar period has sprung up that 
supports and encourages research. For the first time in this postwar 
period we have had mortality rates more affected by chronic disease 
than infectious disease.
  I want to speak, as I see the Senator from New Mexico here on the 
floor, about the Human Genome Project and what we have seen. We are 
poised today to move into a whole new era that we couldn't have 
imagined 10 years ago where it is critical that we continue to maintain 
that investment to see these potential cures, these new ways to make a 
diagnosis come to fruition.
  The Human Genome Project is an international effort, historic effort, 
with the goal of understanding and deciphering the human genetic code. 
The project has achieved already hugely important milestones in our 
understanding of the molecular basis of disease and the crucial role 
that our genes play in how we function and how disease is caused. This 
past year we have witnessed the mapping of chromosomal locations for 
genes related to, as referred to earlier, an inherited aspect of 
Parkinson's disease as well as a hereditary form of prostate cancer, 
which was just mentioned by the Senator from New York. The tools of 
this Human Genome Project have led to the isolation of a gene 
responsible for hereditary hemochromatosis, an iron in our metabolism 
disorder which causes multiple organ failure which we didn't understand 
historically.

  These advances in genetics research are opening the door to our 
understanding of the causes of disease and giving hope to millions of 
Americans suffering from genetic disorders. We

[[Page S4864]]

will see these treatments and we will see these cures for some of the 
most devastating diseases.
  Again, I have to recognize the Senator from New Mexico, because it is 
he who deservedly has the title of the father of the Human Genome 
Project, for his wisdom in launching this project in the United States 
of America--the very person who has spent all day today and yesterday 
and will be tomorrow leading us into a balanced budget by the year 
2002. The Human Genome Project is a success story for Federal 
investment in biomedical research.
  In closing, the Human Genome Project is just one example of the many 
success stories from the National Institutes of Health. As chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, as a scientist, as 
someone who has seen, firsthand at the bedside, people die, and who has 
sat at the bedside of those whom we can have a cure for if we make that 
investment today, I stress the importance of our continued commitment 
to this investment so that we can reap these benefits.
  In this spirit, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support passage of this amendment in recognition that the future of our 
Nation's health and the future of the health of our children is 
dependent upon our strong investment in biomedical research today.
  Mr. President, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California, Senator 
Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Florida for this opportunity.
  One of my great pleasures in the Senate has been to chair the Senate 
Cancer Coalition with Senator Mack, and in that capacity, we have had 
four hearings. We have listened and heard a great deal about cancer.
  I think, Mr. President, if you ask the American people two questions 
about Federal spending, in two areas, and if you asked, ``How much do 
we spend as a portion of our budget on foreign operations?'' the 
American people would think it is very high. If you ask them, ``What do 
you think we spend on research for health?'' I think they would say it 
is a great deal. In fact, it is less than one percent of our budget.
  Today, at the NIH only 28 percent of the grant applications are 
funded. That is down from 30 percent in 1992. We are doing less. Only 
20 percent of new grants are funded.
  How would NIH use more funds? They would use the funds in areas that 
show scientific promise:
  Brain disorders: areas such as neural development, neural 
degeneration, with emphasis on Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's 
disease.
  New Therapies: drugs to combat cancer and AIDS; bioengineering to 
repair damaged tissues; treatments to improve care at the end of life.
  Genetics: better identification of inherited mutations which 
contribute to cancer risk; better identification of environmental 
impact of genetic mutations.
  Now let's turn to the National Cancer Institute.
  The National Cancer Institute in fiscal year 1997 can only fund 26 
percent of grant applications. NCI funded 32 percent in 1992. They are 
down in 4 years from funding 32 percent to 26 percent of grant 
applications.
  General Norman Schwarzkopf, a prostate cancer patient, said: ``During 
the past decade, Federal funding for cancer research has, after 
adjusting for inflation, increased only one percent.''
  Mr. President, 7.4 million Americans have a history of cancer; 1.3 
million cases will be diagnosed this year and 560,000 Americans will 
die. But we spend one tenth of one cent of every Federal dollar on 
cancer research.
  On May 7, NCI Director Dr. Klausner said NCI could use double its 
current funding. How would NCI use additional funds? First, experts say 
they could increase the testing and search for causes of cancer. 
Second, more people could participate in cancer trials. We could 
increase access of eligible adult cancer patients participating in 
clinical trials. Today, only 2 percent of eligible cancer patients can 
participate and we could increase that to 20 percent. NIH could 
increase the number of cancer centers from 55 to 75. Cancer researchers 
could improve earlier detection of cancer and expand studies of 
environmental risk factors for cancer, as was urged by experts at a 
recent hearing of our Senate Cancer Coalition. NCI could monitor more 
people to better understand the impact of treatment on cancer patients. 
Today, NCI can monitor only 10 percent of the American population with 
cancer, a sample that is too small. More monitoring can yield more 
information about the outcome of treatments.
  Mr. President, NCI has identified five important new research areas 
that could realize the large dividends that are described in NCI's 
``bypass budget.'' What is the bypass budget? The Congress requested 
the National Cancer Institute to annually identify, in their 
professional judgment, their promising scientific unmet needs.
  Here is what they are: First, Cancer genetics: Within 5 years, the 
goal is to identify every major human gene predisposing to cancer. 
Second, NCI could increase animal models of human cancers that would 
allow testing in animals of early detection, prevention, and treatment 
strategies. Third, NCI could improve detection technologies, to sharpen 
the sensitivity of technologies and smaller numbers of tumor cells. 
Fourth, NCI could improve developmental diagnostics to better 
understand the difference in and the properties of tumors, how they 
change, how they respond to treatment and thereby improve the 
treatments. And fifth, NCI could increase what is called investigator-
initiated research by 30 percent, to capitalize on new ideas and talent 
all across the country. This would increase research conducted in 
universities and labs.
  With our aging population growing, our research needs will grow. 
People are living longer. By the year 2000, the number of people aged 
75 to 84 will increase by one-third, to 12.3 million people. People 
over 85, the fastest growing segment of our population, will grow 70 
percent, to 4.9 million. One-third of U.S. health care spending today 
goes to people over age 65. These costs, left unabated, will grow 
exponentially. The rising aged population will tax Medicare, Medicaid 
and the health system overall.
  NIH is working on research to delay the diseases and disabilities of 
aging. Let me give some examples. Mr. President, 4 million Americans 
today have Alzheimer's disease, a degenerative disorder that can leave 
people unable to function on their own. By delaying the onset of 
Alzheimer's for 5 years, we can save $50 billion annually.
  Half of all people over age 65 have symptoms of arthritis. 
Osteoarthritis costs $8 billion annually. By delaying the onset by 5 
years, we can save $4 billion.
  Hearing loss: 30 percent of adults age 65 to 75, and 40 percent of 
those over 75, have some degree of hearing impairment. Delaying the 
onset by just 5 years could save $15 billion annually. What is my 
point? Research is cost effective.
  We need more health research because we have diseases and disorders 
for which there is no cure.
  AIDS has surpassed accidents as the leading killer of young adults. 
It is now the leading cause of death among Americans age 25 to 44.
  The prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased over the past 35 
years.

  Just pick up Time magazine and you see that asthma rates jumped 58 
percent, from 1982 to 1992 for children, and asthma is the leading 
cause of school absences from chronic conditions.
  40,000 infants die each year from devastating diseases, and 20 
million Americans have rare diseases for which there are few effective 
treatments. Seven to ten percent of children are learning disabled.
  The rate of low birth-weight among African-American children is 13 
percent, compared to 6.2 percent for white Americans. One condition 
that increases the risk of premature delivery is bacterial vaginosis, 
and African Americans have a higher rate.
  So we can alleviate suffering, find treatments, cure diseases, if we 
have the research, if we devote the resources to it. The irony is that 
most people, 75 percent of the people in America, would pay higher 
taxes for this kind of research.
  I contend that increased research will reduce health care costs. Let 
me

[[Page S4865]]

give some examples of annual economic costs. Cancer, $104 billion 
annually; heart disease, $128 billion; Alzheimer's, $100 billion; 
diabetes, $138 billion; mental disorders, $148 billion; stroke, $30 
billion. A 5-year delay in Alzheimer's--again, $50 million savings. 
Savings in delaying the onset of stroke would be $15 billion. And a 
delay in the onset of Parkinson's disease would save $3 billion 
annually.
  For every $1 spent on measles/mumps/rubella vaccine, $21 is saved. 
For diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine, $29 is saved. This is 
prevention. And research can bring us prevention.
  Hip fractures, common among the elderly, are a leading cause of 
nursing home admissions. They account for one in every 5 admissions. 
NIH research found that estrogen therapy reduces osteoporosis and hip 
fractures. In 1991, 1 year alone, the reduction in fractures in women 
taking estrogen replacement saved $333 million in these nursing home 
admission costs.
  Medicaid and Medicare: 56 percent of nursing home costs are paid by 
these programs. They total over $44 billion annually. These costs are 
rising. We all know this from our budget deficit debate. By delaying 
the onset of chronic aging-related illnesses, spending for nursing home 
care could be cut by $35 billion.
  What is my point? My point is health research makes sense for many 
reasons, but we are not doing as well as we could. The scientific 
community has repeatedly pointed out that we are neglecting research. 
The Institute of Medicine has described U.S. clinical health research 
as, ``in a state of crisis.'' Without adequate support, we will see a 
serious deficiency of clinical expertise, a reduction in effective 
clinical interventions, increases in human suffering and disability, 
and increases in the costs of health care.
  A June 1995 national survey by Research America found, as I said, 
that 75 percent of the public would pay more for medical research. This 
is one of the reasons why Senator Mack, Senator D'Amato, Senator Reid, 
Senator Johnson and I will be proposing a tax checkoff for the IRS 
form, giving Americans the opportunity to use a checkoff to contribute 
to cancer research. This could be an effective public-private 
partnership. It is one of the reasons why we are also for a breast 
cancer stamp, which would have 1 additional cent, and that 1 cent would 
go to breast cancer research.
  Mr. President, 94 percent of Americans believe it is important for 
the United States to maintain its role as a world leader in medical 
research. We cannot do it if health research is less than 1 percent of 
our budget. We cannot do it when good grants are turned down because 
the funding isn't there. Only 3 cents of every health care dollar spent 
in this country is used for research--3 cents. NIH's budget is less 
than 1 percent.
  I made my case. Medical science is on the cutting edge of many 
important discoveries. It is a time when we should be nourishing 
research. This is not the time to backslide. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Mack-Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor and I thank the 
Chair.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by my colleague from Florida, 
calling for a doubling of our investment in biomedical research at the 
National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years. Now, some may 
question why we are calling for such a significant increase in spending 
as part of a balanced budget agreement. However, I believe that our 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution is entirely consistent with the goal of 
a balanced budget, because there is no investment that would yield 
greater returns for the American taxpayer than an investment in 
biomedical research.
  Our nation currently spends billions of dollars each year, both 
directly and indirectly, to treat and care for chronic diseases. For 
example, cardiovascular disease costs us $138 billion each year. 
Alzheimer's disease costs about $100 billion each year, primarily in 
nursing home and other long-term care costs. Strokes result in health 
care costs of almost $30 billion annually. And Parkinson's disease 
costs our society about $6 billion annually. We basically have two 
choices. We can sit back and continue to pay the bills and endure the 
suffering, or we can aggressively pursue a national strategy aimed at 
preventing, delaying, and even curing these devastating and 
debilitating diseases and conditions.
  While we are spending billions of dollars each year on patient care, 
as the Senator from California has pointed out, only 3 cents--3 cents 
of each health care dollar are currently invested in medical research. 
Opportunities for progress in biomedical and related health science 
research have never been better, but currently, we are only funding a 
fraction of the promising grant applications submitted to NIH. 
Moreover, not only are the investments in research disproportionately 
low compared to the cost of patient care, but the potential of research 
to reduce health care costs is vastly under realized.
  The work of Dr. Jonas Salk and his colleagues to produce a vaccine 
for polio serves as a dramatic example of research as a high-yield 
investment. The lifetime costs of maintaining just two children 
stricken with polio is greater than all of the money --all of the 
money--ever spent on the research that virtually eliminated the 
disease.
  The potential for achieving even greater savings from health care 
research is enormous. For example, the Alliance for Aging Research has 
estimated that a 5-year delay in the onset of Alzheimer's disease could 
cut health care spending by much as $50 billion annually and that a 5-
year delay in the onset of stroke could save our Nation $15 billion a 
year.
  This is no time to put the brakes on research spending. Rather, we 
should accelerate our efforts and increase our commitment to medical 
research that can cure, prevent or delay disease. This strategy is 
especially important as we move into the next century when our public 
health and disability programs will be increasingly strained by the 
aging of our population.
  Finally, the cost of disease and disability cannot be measured in 
dollars alone. Only those who have had to care for a father or a 
husband whose quality of life has been cut short by a stroke can 
appreciate how devastating it can be. Or think of the family whose 
mother or grandmother no longer recognizes her own children or 
grandchildren because of Alzheimer's disease.
  These diseases take their toll emotionally as well as financially. 
They can dramatically and irretrievably alter the lives of the affected 
individuals and their families, as Senator Mack has so eloquently 
testified. Therefore, I am very pleased to be joining Senator Mack in 
offering this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to join us in passing it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Florida for 
yielding.
  I am honored to be a cosponsor on this resolution. There are so many 
things that we vote for in the Chambers of the Senate and House, and I 
often wonder what the average person in the street would do if they 
were faced with casting a yes-or-no vote on issues we face in the 
Chamber.
  I think I know what they would do when it comes to this resolution. 
If we are talking about a substantial increase in medical research as a 
major budget priority, I think I know where the American people would 
end up on that. They would be supportive. They understand, as we do, 
what is at stake.
  There have been a lot of things said in the Chamber, and I stand 
behind the statement of the Senator from California, the Senator from 
Maine and others, and they have recounted the work that has been done 
by NIH. I will not go on to repeat all those things, the breakthroughs 
that the National Institutes of Health has initiated. There are so many 
in the area of hip fractures, as the Senator from California said, 
breast cancer. The No. 1 leading cancer cause of death among women is 
lung cancer from smoking, but No. 2 and very serious is breast cancer.

[[Page S4866]]

  What is happening at the National Institutes of Health in 
breakthrough research on bone marrow transplant is giving new hope to 
women who have learned that they have been diagnosed with breast 
cancer. That is something that every single husband, every father, 
everyone can identify with in a family as an important breakthrough.

  Diabetes, heart disease, stroke, the list goes on and on. But I would 
like to ask my colleagues to think about this in a different and more 
personal context. I would daresay that in the next 12 months some 
Member of this Senate, someone sitting in the gallery, or someone 
listening to this debate will be seated in a doctor's office or a 
hospital when a doctor walks in the room and says that either myself or 
you or a loved one has been diagnosed with a serious illness. It takes 
your breath away to even think that it might happen, and yet we know it 
happens every day. You and I and everyone listening pray to God that 
the next words out of the doctor's mouth are, ``But I have good news. 
There is a promising new therapy. There is a new surgery. There is a 
new medicine. We think that we can conquer this.'' And your heart 
starts beating and you realize you have hope.
  That is what this is all about. This is not about a budget 
resolution. This is not about numbers on a page. It is about the hope 
that every family wants to have when faced with this threat of a 
serious illness. This investment in the National Institutes of Health 
is money well spent, not just because it can lead to new cures and lead 
to people having longer lives and less suffering, but let me mention 
one other element that I do not know has been spotlighted.
  Across America today young men and women are deciding what to do with 
their lives. We hope that a substantial number of them will dedicate 
their lives to science, to medical science, and to research. But if 
they fear that their education is not going to lead to a position where 
they can get involved in research, they are less likely to do so. When 
we make a commitment to medical research at the National Institutes of 
Health, we say to that class of young scientists, men and women, we 
have a job waiting for you. We need you and we need your talent and we 
need you to stick with it so that you can live through the satisfaction 
of finding a breakthrough in the field of medicine and in science.
  So it is not just a matter of saving those who are ill. It is a 
matter of encouraging young people to dedicate their lives to medical 
research. And that is why the sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by 
the Senator from Florida is so critically important.
  The National Institutes of Health in 1995 funded approximately 2,140 
research institutions and over 18,000 investigators. And yet, if I am 
not mistaken--and I stand to be corrected by my colleagues here--we are 
funding about one out of four or one out of five eligible research 
grants. In other words, there are three or four grants there that are 
very promising in medical research that we cannot fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. This resolution offered by the Senator from Florida, 
which I am happy to cosponsor, will provide the resources for that 
absolutely essential research.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I rise to support the Mack amendment which recognizes the 
importance of funds for the National Institutes of Health [NIH] 
research programs.
  The investment that the American public has made in medical research 
funded by the NIH has been the foundation of this Nation's medical 
research enterprise--one of the leading sectors of our economy.
  The NIH supports research at 2,000 colleges, universities, and other 
scientific institutions, including the efforts of more than 50,000 
researchers and their staff throughout the country.
  An NIH appropriations increase of 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal 
years and a $2 billion increase by 1998 will save millions of lives.
  In 1991, NIH launched the Women's Health Initiative, a 15-year study 
to examine hormone replacement therapy and its impact on cardiovascular 
disease--the leading cause of death in the U.S.; dietary intervention 
in the prevention of breast and colonrectal cancer; and vitamin D and 
calcium in the prevention of osteoporosis and colonrectal cancer.
  Breast Cancer--the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second 
leading cancer killer of American women--affects one in eight women in 
their lifetimes. Federal funding for breast cancer research and 
programs has continued to increase, but this year alone over 180,000 
American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer.
  I want to see the death rate from more diseases drop. I want to see a 
commitment in research funds for ovarian cancer--the silent killer--
about which there is so little known.
  I want to see eradication of diseases like Scleroderma, a disease 
most can't pronounce--but there are more cases of scleroderma than 
multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy.
  In the 25 years since the National Cancer Act was signed into law, 
the toll taken by cancer continues to rise. In 1996, over 1.5 million 
Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer and over 550,000 
people lost their lives to cancer. This year, the numbers will continue 
to climb.
  In 1997, approximately 131,920 Californians will be diagnosed as 
having cancer. This is the equivalent of almost 15 new cases every hour 
of every day. Approximately, 53,610 Californians will die from cancer.
  Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men and has 
become the most common cancer in California. (American Cancer Society, 
1997 California Cancer Facts and Figures). Based on current U.S. rates, 
about 19 of every 100 men born today will be diagnosed with prostate 
cancer during their lifetime, while approximately 4 of every 100 men 
will die from this disease.
  In 1997, approximately 24,000 Californians will be diagnosed with 
prostate cancer and an estimated 3,500 deaths will occur.
  More funding for cancer research will make a difference. While there 
is no shortage of good research ideas in the cancer field overall, the 
chances for funding these research opportunities keeps getting worse.
  The overall percentage of approved but unfunded investigator-
initiated grants steadily increased from 40 percent in the 1970's to 85 
percent in 1995. This trend needs to be reversed.
  This amendment is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment and make sure that appropriate levels of 
funding are invested in research which saves lives.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gorton 
and Senator Hutchison of Texas be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. If I could just make a couple of brief comments and then we 
will be through.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. MACK. As I listened to the discussion, and most of you heard me 
go through some of my experiences, I will never forget the moment that 
my wife told me she had discovered a lump in her breast and the doctor 
had told her that she had cancer. The sense of terror that gripped both 
of us, the sense of fear that we experienced--and I must say to you, 
there were a lot of selfish feelings going on inside me. I thought that 
I was going to lose my wife, that she would die of cancer. That is the 
reaction most people have when they are told they have cancer. I 
thought I was going to lose her. And so I wonder to myself, knowing 
what we know today, the breakthroughs that have already taken place in 
research, what keeps us from doubling the investment at NIH? Why will 
people accept the notion that we cannot do more?
  I just cannot comprehend that. And so I would ask my colleagues 
tonight to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, recognizing 
that it is only the first step in a long, hard fight to find the 
dollars to double the investment in the National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient 
second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, do I understand we are finished with the 
debate except Senator Kennedy?

[[Page S4867]]

  Mr. MACK. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Mack for introducing 
this amendment. He has consistently fought for the increases at NIH 
over a long period of time. This makes eminent sense for the reasons he 
and others have outlined. I hope that his amendment will be accepted 
and that we could move ahead on this extraordinary opportunity to 
support breakthroughs in health care, in so many different areas 
affecting so many different families in America. He deserves great 
credit, and I am proud and privileged to cosponsor the amendment.
  Our amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the Federal 
commitment to the National Institutes of Health should be doubled over 
the next 5 years, increasing the current NIH budget of $13 billion to 
$26 billion by the year 2002.
  This increase is critical to fulfilling our hope for healthy lives 
for all Americans. Every family is touched by the scourge of disease. 
This amendment will be a step toward reducing that burden. It is vital 
to maintaining the investment we've already made and to moving forward 
to improve the health of the American people. It can also be a key 
strategy in our efforts to save Medicare.
  NIH began in 1887 as a one-room Laboratory of Hygiene. It has grown 
in the past century into the premier biomedical research facility in 
the world, for the benefit of literally billions of citizens in this 
country and of many other lands.
  In the 1950's, NIH research found that fluoridated drinking water 
could prevent dental cavities in children. In the 1960's, NIH 
scientists helped crack the genetic code, beginning the studies that 
would lead to recombinant DNA technology and gene therapy. In the 
1970's, NIH-sponsored research began to unravel the mysteries of the 
genetic origin of cancer.
  The promise of new medical research is boundless. As impressive as 
the progress of the past has been, it pales in comparison to the 
opportunities for the future. We stand on the threshold of stunning 
advances in medicine through deeper understanding of the fundamental 
mechanisms of the cell, through mapping of human genes, through 
biotechnology, and through a host of advances that are already on the 
horizon.
  But instead of moving toward that horizon, we are in danger of 
standing still. The proportion of worthwhile projects that NIH is able 
to fund has declined steadily over the past 15 years. Today, they can 
fund only about one in four such projects. That means, for example, 
that in 1996 the NIH had to turn away about 18,000 applications.
  Every unfunded application represents a missed opportunity. As 
funding sources dry up, the best young minds are discouraged from 
entering the field of biomedical research. The situation is growing 
dire. In 1994, the National Academy of Sciences warned that we have too 
few clinical investigators to conduct the research that is most needed.
  In recent years, medical research has changed the world we live in, 
revising much of what we know about life, about diseases afflicting 
citizens of all ages. It has led to a breathtaking array of new 
technologies and therapies which have improved the health of Americans 
of all ages and walks of life.
  From vaccines against childhood diseases, to treatments for spinal 
cord injury, from chemotherapy for cancer to medication for mental 
illness, medical research is improving the lives, and health of people 
everywhere.
  Since we began to immunize small children with the Hib vaccine, which 
was developed by NIH scientists in the 1970's and 1980's, cases of 
deadly spinal meningitis have dropped by more than 98 percent. Diseases 
like mumps, whooping cough, and chickenpox, all common in the past, 
have dropped to their lowest levels in history. We are on the verge of 
eradicating polio from the world.
  Spinal cord injury affects thousands of Americans, often striking in 
the prime of active lives. A recent NIH study found that a new drug, 
given within 8 hours of the injury, improves recovery by 20 percent, 
and gives patients greater independence and better health.
  Chemotherapy for testicular cancer, the most common form of cancer in 
men aged 15 to 35, can bring a cure rate of 60 to 65 percent.
  Researchers have identified genes linked to certain forms of breast 
cancer, and have developed new treatments for colon cancer. Improved 
detection and treatment methods like these have increased the 5-year 
survival rate for cancer victims to 52 percent. The gain since the 
1960's represents over 80,000 additional cancer survivors each year.
  For the first time, we have effective prescription drug treatments 
for series mental health conditions, such as major depression, bipolar 
disorder, and schizophrenia. Many of these medications were developed 
by NIH-supported research.
  We are also making progress against other intractable and 
debilitating diseases. Diabetes affects more than 16 million Americans. 
Recent research has improved treatment and offers the possibility of a 
cure.
  Research on heart disease has made important advances. Since 1971, 
deaths from heart disease have dropped by 41 percent. NIH-funded 
research showed that one aspirin a day can reduce early mortality from 
heart attacks by 23 percent, and reduce subsequent nonfatal heart 
attacks by almost 50 percent.
  Estrogen therapy in women has been shown to have a wide range of 
benefits, including reduced heart disease, osteoporosis, and 
Alzheimer's disease.
  Dramatic progress is taking place in the treatment of stroke, which 
affects 3 million Americans each year. Victims who receive a new clot-
dissolving drug in the first hours after a stroke recover more fully 
and more quickly than other patients. Half of the patients receiving 
this treatment recover completely. Other advances have reduced death 
from stroke by 59 percent since 1971.
  Parkinson's disease affects more than half a million Americans. 
Doctors can now identify the area of the brain causing the tremor, and 
destroy it with a procedure that has been successful in over a thousand 
patients. Patients require fewer physician visits and less medication. 
The treatment reduces the number of falls leading to hip fracture and 
the need for hospitalization, nursing homes, and physical therapy.
  Recent research on Alzheimer's disease suggests that preventing 
small, silent strokes can help those at risk delay the onset of the 
disease.
  Research on the cutting edge of molecular biology, immunology, and 
neuroscience are making advances. In the early 1980's, AIDS was 
virtually untreatable. Today, new drugs are maintaining health in 
people with HIV for longer and longer periods.
  Biomedical research is cost-effective. Research costs for the Hib 
vaccine were about $30 million. Today, the vaccine saves $70 to $150 
million a year in direct medical costs. The spinal cord injury study 
cost very little. If the medication comes into widespread use, the 
potential savings are in the billions of dollars. Estrogen therapy 
costs less than a dollar a day; cost savings in money and human 
suffering are huge.
  We all know that Medicare is one of the most successful social 
programs ever enacted, but it is threatened today by demographic 
changes and the retirement of the baby boomers that lie ahead. Rather 
than saving the program by raised premiums of cutting reimbursements, 
there may be a better way.
  A Duke University study earlier this year suggests that a small 
improvement in the disability rate among older Americans can bring 
large cost savings for Medicare. The decline in disability that is 
already occurring is attributable to research on the diseases of aging. 
If we take sensible steps to fix Medicare for the short-term, the most 
effective way to keep it solvent for the long term may well be to 
maintain and strengthen the existing trend toward better health for 
older Americans. The key step in that strategy is support for medical 
research.
  Continued and expanding investment in such research will also provide 
benefits to the larger economy. As advances move from the laboratory 
into the commercial sector, new businesses and jobs will follow.
  A recent study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found 
that the licensing of university inventions--including biomedical 
technologies--adds $21 billion to the economy and supports 200,000 jobs 
each year.
  Doubling the NIH budget will build on this progress and help to 
ensure

[[Page S4868]]

that its potential is achieved. It will provide funds to strengthen the 
research community, encouraging the best, and brightest of America's 
college graduates to make their careers in scientific research. This 
increased support will be tangible evidence of Congress' commitment to 
the health of all Americans.
  Some will ask if we can afford to double the NIH budget. I would turn 
the question around to ask if we can afford not to do so. President 
Charles Vest, of M.I.T. has written, ``Modern medicine is born of 
scientific research and delivered by advanced technology. Its human 
benefits can be realized only through the wise and caring public policy 
of a nation willing to invest in the future.'' If we can't afford to do 
this, we can't afford the future. The fundamental issue is priorities, 
and I urge the Senate to give its strong support to this bipartisan 
proposal.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Mack's 
amendment to double the research budget of the National Institutes of 
Health over the next 5 years and to add $2 billion to NIH funding now 
for fiscal year 1998. I want to thank the Senator for bringing this 
amendment to the floor today and this issue to the attention of our 
colleagues.
  This level of funding is critical. It's clearly needed if we're going 
to tackle the serious medical problems that America faces--including 
cancer, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, AIDS, and the need for additional 
information about the special medical needs of children.
  Research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health has a proven 
track record that has touched the lives of many Americans. The broad 
scope of its achievements is truly impressive. It includes the 
development of new treatments for disease; identification of genetic 
mutations for a varied set of diseases; identification of genetic 
mutations for a varied set of diseases; and contributions to the 
development of new scanning technologies. These spectacular advances in 
health could not have been achieved but for the commitment of Federal 
dollars we make to the NIH.
  And let us be clear on this. The returns on the public investment in 
biomedical research have been impressive. Not only have we won Nobel 
prizes and built on decades of basic research, we have contributed to 
our national economic growth. Our investments have given life to 
America's biotechnology industry. Some have estimated that revenues in 
this industry will approach $50 billion annually by the year 2000 and 
create as many as 500,000 new jobs.
  I am supporting this effort because I believe it reflects a 
commitment to substantially strengthen our priorities toward biomedical 
research. We cannot rest on our laurels. We must work to improve the 
health of our citizens. I also want to make a personal commitment to 
work with my colleagues there in Congress and with the NIH to make 
advantage of the important opportunity this amendment presents to 
advance research that benefits all of us--and especially, all of our 
children.
  Let me highlight just one example of the type of activity that 
additional NIH research could support. Children under the age of 21 
represent 30 percent of the population--and yet the NIH devotes only 
somewhere between 5 and 14 percent of its budget to their needs. Just 
as there has been a recognition in recent years that women and 
minorities have been neglected in research efforts nationwide, there's 
a growing consensus that children deserve more attention than they are 
getting.
  Children are not small adults. They go through different 
developmental stages, they metabolize drugs differently, and they 
respond to illnesses and treatments differently. Children's health 
needs are not only different--they're often ignored by the private 
sector.
  Federal funding for research--especially medical research--is a 
fundamental responsibility of Government. Today, the Senate must 
acknowledge that responsibility and act to enhance the ability of NIH 
to improve the health of all Americans.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Domenici, Senator Gramm, and Senator Thurmond as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. MACK. Yes, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wanted to just alert the Senate, we 
were not quite sure when this vote was going to occur, and I have just 
spoken to our leadership office and they would like to give Senators a 
little bit of time to get in here. So I wonder if we could start this 
vote at a quarter of.
  Mr. President, I think what we will do, I have a couple of comments, 
and then I think what we will do is go ahead and have the up-or-down 
vote and just keep it open for 20 minutes or more, and that will give 
Senators who are en route a chance to get here. I think that will be 
all right.
  Mr. President, I compliment Senator Mack on the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, but I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the 
Congress on what it has already done for the National Institutes of 
Health.
  Yes, we should do more. But last year we gave the National Institutes 
of Health a 7 percent increase. This year, if all goes as planned, they 
will get a 3\1/2\ percent increase.
  Now, the National Institutes of Health this year under the new plan 
will be a $13.1 billion enterprise, so it is not like we are not doing 
something significant. And while I believe that a sense-of-the-Senate 
saying we should do more, if we can, makes good sense, let me suggest 
that the greatest health science in the world is going on at the 
National Institutes Of health of the United States, the biggest 
breakthroughs are being made there along with the business investment, 
pharmaceutical investment in America. We are truly at the cutting edge 
of some very significant wellness events.
  Sometime when I have time in the Chamber, we will talk a little more 
about how the Human Genome Project got started, for it is an 
interesting kind of story. I do not intend to do it tonight. It is one 
of the greatest programs we have going, and I thank Senator Frist for 
mentioning my name in conjunction with its inception. I had a bit to do 
with that.
  Now, if we had any time in opposition, we yield it back.
  Has the Senator asked for the yeas and nays? The yeas and nays have 
been requested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. There was 
a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 315 offered by the 
Senator from Florida. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Gregg] and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms] would each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 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
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Helms
       
  The amendment (No. 315) was agreed to.

[[Page S4869]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am sorry that I have to inconvenience 
a couple of people that are waiting around, particularly my good 
friend, the chairman, but I have to get a little business done, if I 
can.
  I have some amendments that have been cleared on both sides. I would 
like to send them to the desk with the attendant statements, whatever 
they are.


                           Amendment No. 341

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that certain elderly legal 
  aliens should continue to receive benefits during a redetermination 
                           transition period)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Feinstein, and others. I believe the amendment is a 
good amendment. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment regarding the 
elderly disabled and the SSI program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. DeWine and Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 341.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CERTAIN ELDERLY LEGAL 
                   ALIENS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that:
       (1) the Committee on Finance will include in its 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     changes in laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Finance that allow certain elderly, legal immigrants who will 
     cease to receive benefits under the supplemental security 
     income program as a result of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
     193; 110 stat. 2105) to continue to receive benefits during a 
     redetermination or reapplication period to determine if such 
     aliens would qualify for such benefits on the basis of being 
     disabled.
       (2) the Committee on Finance in developing these 
     recommendations should offset the additional cost of this 
     proposal out of other programs within the jurisdiction of 
     Committee on Finance.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Domenici, 
Lautenberg, Boxer, Chafee, DeWine, D'Amato, and Kennedy am offering the 
sense of the Senate that would require the Finance Committee to allow 
elderly legal immigrants to continue receiving SSI during their 
redetermination period. Under the current budget agreement, all elderly 
would be cut off of SSI as of October 1, 1997.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership of the bill managers on both 
sides for their recognition of the devastating impact this budget 
agreement has on over 400,000 elderly legal immigrants, and encouraging 
the Senate to provide an important interim provision.
  While I support the budget resolution's broad budget balancing 
framework, I have expressed over and over again, my deep concerns over 
its failure to restore SSI for over 400,000 elderly legal immigrants, 
30 percent of which are over the age of 75 and who will be cut off from 
SSI as of October 1, 1997.
  The current budget agreement, falls short of what is needed to keep 
the elderly immigrants from losing their life supporting benefits.
  The Budget Agreement provides:
  SSI benefits for disabled legal immigrants who are disabled and were 
in the country as of August 22, 1996.
  SSI benefits for those who became disabled and got on the rolls 
between August 22, 1996 to June 1, 1997.
  The budget agreement bans:
  SSI for most elderly legal immigrants, even those elderly immigrants 
who rely on SSI for survival.
  Food Stamps for most legal immigrants.
  Although restoring SSI for the disabled is an important first step to 
a major flaw in the Welfare Reform bill passed by Congress last year, 
the elderly legal immigrants who depend on SSI will still lose their 
benefits under the agreement.
  Under the current agreement, an 83-year-old woman with no family, who 
speaks little or no English, will be just as homeless as one who is 
disabled when she loses her SSI benefits. What is she supposed to do, 
get a job?
  Under Welfare Reform, approximately 725,000 elderly, blind, and 
disabled legal immigrants could lose SSI benefits on August 22 of this 
year. Under the budget agreement: 42.5 percent or 307,630 disabled 
legal immigrants who were receiving SSI as of the date of enactment of 
the Welfare Bill would continue receiving SSI. However, for 417,360 or 
57.5 percent of elderly legal immigrants who are currently receiving 
SSI would be cut off as of October 1, 1997.
  The President estimates that 66 percent of the elderly legal 
immigrants who will be cut off from SSI initially could be recertified 
under the disabled category.
  However, due to what I believe is an unintended mistake, even those 
elderly legal immigrants who are also disabled would be cut off from 
SSI on October 1, 1997. The elderly would become eligible for SSI only 
if they requalify after the cutoff.

  CBO estimates that it would take 6 months or longer to rectify all 
the elderly legal immigrants currently on the rolls. During the 
recertification period, no elderly legal immigrant would be receiving 
SSI. How will they survive for 6 months? They will mostly become 
homeless or fall onto County General Assistance rolls.
  The impact of the SSI ban for elderly legal immigrants will be 
devastating and immediate, especially in the high immigrant States.
  In California, 163,900 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI.
  In New York, 65,340 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI.
  In Texas, 32,640 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI.
  In Florida, 44,310 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI.
  In Illinois, 13,360 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI.
  In Massachusetts, 13,410 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI.
  Come October 1, 1997, we will see hundreds of thousands of elderly 
legal immigrants, of which 30 percent are over 75 years old, and who 
may also be disabled, thrown out into the streets and homeless.
  Under the Budget Agreement, 137,728 or 34 percent of elderly legal 
immigrants nationwide will lose their SSI permanently because they will 
not be able to qualify as disabled; 55,726 elderly legal immigrants in 
California will lose their SSI; 22,215 elderly legal immigrants in New 
York will lose their SSI; 11,076 elderly legal immigrants in Texas will 
lose their SSI; 15,065 elderly legal immigrants in Florida will lose 
their SSI; 4,542 elderly legal immigrants in Illinois will lose their 
SSI; and 4,425 elderly legal immigrants in Massachusetts will lose 
their SSI.
  The alternatives for these elderly legal immigrants are bleak--if 
they do not have family who can care for them, they either end up in a 
homeless shelter or end up on County General Assistance rolls.
  Senator John Chafee and I have previously introduced a bill that 
would restore SSI benefits to all elderly, blind or disabled legal 
immigrants who were receiving SSI prior to the passage of the welfare 
reform bill. We propose that no current recipient should be thrown off 
from their SSI benefits. We agree that for those coming into the 
country after the enactment date, we ban SSI and require instead, the 
sponsors to be responsible for their family members.
  I believe that this is a responsible action that must be taken by 
Congress to correct a serious flaw in the welfare bill.
  Allowing the elderly to continue receiving their SSI until they can 
be recertified is the first step but not the final solution. The final 
solution is to provide for all elderly and disabled legal immigrants 
who were on SSI as of August 22, 1996, to continue receiving their SSI.
  As we go forward in the budget reconciliation process and final 
passage of the fiscal year 1998 budget, I urge my

[[Page S4870]]

colleagues to support the Chafee-Feinstein provision that protects the 
elderly legal immigrants who were getting SSI at the date of enactment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an SSA table be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

    TABLE 3.--NUMBER OF ALIENS RECEIVING SSI PAYMENTS BY ELIGIBILITY
                    CATEGORY AND STATE, DECEMBER 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                     Total       Aged     Disabled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................    724,990    417,360    307,630
                                        --------------------------------
Alabama................................        480        370        110
Alaska.................................        750        390        360
Arizona................................      7,650      3,900      3,750
Arkansas...............................        340        190        150
California.............................    293,180    163,900    129,280
Colorado...............................      5,140      2,740      2,400
Connecticut............................      4,370      2,700      1,670
Delaware...............................        330        200        130
District of Columbia...................        860        530        330
Florida................................     69,710     44,310     25,400
Georgia................................      4,570      3,930      1,640
Hawaii.................................      3,770      2,850        920
Idaho..................................        410        220        190
Illinois...............................     23,980     13,360      9,620
Indiana................................      1,080        730        350
Iowa...................................      1,170        600        570
Kansas.................................      1,500        700        800
Kentucky...............................        720        380        340
Louisiana..............................      2,500      1,430       1070
Maine..................................        540        200        340
Maryland...............................      7,800      5,970      1,830
Massachusetts..........................     23,980     13,410     10,570
Michigan...............................      7,350      4,060      3,290
Minnesota..............................      6,640      2,340      4,300
Mississippi............................        440        230        220
Missouri...............................      1,900      1,030        770
Montana................................        150      (\1\)      (\1\)
Nebraska...............................        720        340        380
Nevada.................................      2,370      1,590        780
New Hampshire..........................        350        200        150
New Jersey.............................     22,140     14,580      7,560
New Mexico.............................      3,350      1,530      1,820
New York...............................    113,900     65,340     48,560
North Carolina.........................      2,600      1,590      1,010
North Dakota...........................        180      (\1\)      (\1\)
Ohio...................................      5,340      3,380      1,960
Oklahoma...............................      1,340        880        460
Oregon.................................      4,260      2,200      2,060
Pennsylvania...........................     11,340      6,470      4,870
Rhode Island...........................      3,440      1,700      1,740
South Carolina.........................        580        420        160
South Dakota...........................        200      (\1\)      (\1\)
Tennessee..............................      1,380        850        530
Texas..................................     54,760     32,640     22,120
Utah...................................      1,420        700        720
Vermont................................        150      (\1\)      (\1\)
Virginia...............................      6,780      5,150      1,630
Washington.............................     13,160      5,920      7,240
West Virginia..........................        190      (\1\)      (\1\)
Wisconsin..............................      4,790      1,800      2,990
Wyoming................................      (\1\)      (\1\)     (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative sampling error too large for presentation of estimates.
 
 Source: SSI 10-Percent Sample File, December 1996.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the Budget Committee for their help on this 
amendment.
  The amendment before the Senate addresses the treatment of poor, 
elderly legal immigrants who are dependent on SSI benefits. SSI is a 
Federal program that provides cash assistance to those who are either 
elderly or disabled, and of very low income.
  Pursuant to last year's welfare law, legal immigrants may no longer 
receive SSI benefits. Those who were receiving SSI on the date the law 
was enacted therefore are scheduled to lose that assistance beginning 
on August 1 of this year, although thanks to an amendment I offered 
with Senator D'Amato and others to the disaster relief bill, that 
cutoff date likely will be pushed back to October 1.
  In my view, the welfare law's SSI restrictions were not only harsh, 
but unfair, particularly to those elderly or disabled legal immigrants 
who were relying on those critical benefits at the time. It seems an 
increasing number of Senators and Representatives agree. Therefore, 
this year Congress is considering proposals to revise the legal 
immigrant SSI restrictions.
  The particular proposal suggested by the budget resolution addresses 
immigrants' plight by exempting from the SSI ban those who are disabled 
and who were in the country when the bill was signed. While that is an 
important step toward fairness, it would mean that legal immigrants who 
are elderly, but not disabled, would be left out, and would lose their 
SSI benefits.
  If this proposal were enacted, the Social Security Administration 
would need to re-evaluate all the elderly SSI recipients to determine 
how many would requalify as disabled. That process would take perhaps 6 
months. The question then would become the fate of these elderly 
recipients during the redetermination time. Would they be dropped from 
the program during those six months, and then be reinstated later if 
they requalified? Or would they be allowed to continue on the program 
until it was clear whether or not they would requalify?
  Senators Feinstein, D'Amato, DeWine, and I believe that in that 
situation, it makes absolutely no sense to kick elderly recipients off 
of SSI during the redetermination period, only to reinstate many of 
them at a later date. However, as written, the budget resolution is 
silent on this point. Therefore, we worked with Senator Domenici to 
clarify this issue. The amendment before us would ensure that elderly 
recipients would be allowed to continue to receive this critical SSI 
assistance during the time it would take to redetermine their status.
  This clarification makes sure that should the proposal in the budget 
resolution be enacted, elderly legal immigrants will be treated with 
compassion and not subjected to the sudden and perhaps unwarranted loss 
of basic assistance.
  Mr. President, I want to point out that the proposal suggested by the 
budget resolution is an important one, but it is just one of the many 
that the Finance Committee may consider during the upcoming 
reconciliation process. As I mentioned, I believe that the budget 
resolution approach, as clarified by our amendment, goes a long way 
toward restoring fairness for vulnerable legal immigrants who were in 
the country and playing by the rules when the welfare law was enacted. 
But I must say that I am sorely disappointed that the budget resolution 
proposal leaves elderly legal immigrants--those who by definition have 
no other source of income and are too old and frail to work--out in the 
cold. To my view, then, the budget resolution proposal therefore 
addresses only part of the problem, and I intend to work with my 
colleagues here and in the Finance Committee toward a more 
comprehensive solution.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment 
and commend my colleagues for bringing this important issue before the 
Senate.
  We have discovered an unintended gap in the budget agreement with 
regard to SSI coverage for disabled immigrants. If this budget 
agreement is adopted, elderly immigrants dependent on SSI assistance 
who are also disabled will continue to receive that assistance. 
However, the Social Security Administration states that it may take 6 
months for the agency to review the current SSI caseload and make that 
determination. In the meantime, many elderly immigrants will lose their 
assistance, only to requalify later on the basis of their disability.
  Clearly, this was not intended under the budget agreement, and I 
commend Senator Domenici, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Chafee, Senator 
Feinstein, and my other colleagues for their commitment to resolve this 
problem and cover this gap.
  I also join many of my colleagues in expressing my hope that more can 
be done. As we proceed with legislation to implement this agreement, I 
hope that we can find ways to ensure that immigrants who fall on hard 
times and have no sponsors to fall back on can still get help. I am 
particularly concerned about elderly immigrants and immigrant children.
  So I commend my colleagues for their leaderhip in bringing this 
amendment before the Senate. We have made progress in restoring 
assistance to immigrants under this budget agreement, and I look 
forward to working with them on this important issue in the days ahead.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no objection here, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 341) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 342

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding retroactive 
                                 taxes)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coverdell, I send 
to the desk an unprinted amendment which has been cleared on both sides 
regarding retroactive taxes, a sense of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 342.


[[Page S4871]]


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

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING RETROACTIVE TAXES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in general, the practice of increasing a tax 
     retroactively is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers;
       (2) retroactive taxation is disruptive to families and 
     small business in their ability to plan and budget.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) except for closing tax loopholes, no revenues should be 
     generated from any retroactively increased tax; and
       (2) the Congress and the President should work together to 
     ensure that any revenue generating proposal contained within 
     reconciliation legislation pursuant to this concurrent 
     resolution proposal, except those proposals closing tax 
     loopholes, should take effect prospectively.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I rise to offer a sense of the 
Senate amendment to the concurrent budget resolution before us that 
sets our nation on the path to budgetary balance. This amendment 
addresses a practice that I believe is one of the most reprehensible 
burdens government can place on its taxpayers, retroactive taxation.
  My conviction for putting a stop to retroactive taxation dates back 
to just months after I began my service representing Georgia in the 
United States Senate and occurred as a result of one of the most 
egregious examples of retroactive taxation in our history. I am 
speaking of the retroactive tax rate increases enacted as part of the 
Administration's 1993 tax package whose passage in the Senate required 
the Vice President to cast the deciding vote.
  At the time, estimates of the price tag to taxpayers of these 
retroactive tax increases were over $10 billion! In other words, with 
more than two-thirds of the year having been gone, the federal 
government effectively told the American people, ``All your planning 
was for naught, and we don't care.''
  To bring an end to this practice, I introduced legislation in the 
103rd Congress, the 104th Congress, and now in the 105th Congress. This 
is not an issue which I intend to drop, and I'll tell my colleagues 
why.
  Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to share with you the 
story of Mrs. Joanne Dixon, a retired farmer from Girard, Georgia, who 
suffered personally from the 1993 retroactive tax increases. In her 
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Federalism, and Property Rights, she described herself and her family 
as a simple farming family that, like many of their neighbors, farmed 
their land, attended church, contributed to their community and paid 
their taxes. They were proud to be farmers and still believe it to be a 
good life.
  Tragically, in February of 1993, her husband suffered a life-
threatening illness brought on by the rigors of running a farm, which 
they had done together for 38 years. In light of the circumstances, it 
soon became clear they would have to leave farming and auction off 
everything they had worked for all their lives. In her testimony Mrs. 
Dixon said, ``I could never put our feelings into words to adequately 
express what we went through. I will never forget the day of the 
auction itself. Looking back, I don't know how we stood it, but we 
managed.''
  After living with a very painful decision, the Dixons dutifully paid 
their taxes. Imagine if you would, Mr. President, their surprise when 
they learned they owed still more in federal taxes because of the 1993 
retroactive increases.

  Let me again refer to Mrs. Dixon's own words, ``The amount of money 
itself was not a large amount, but we still had to pay the retroactive 
tax out of funds we had planned for retirement. However, for me that is 
not the issue. After what we had been through to know that the federal 
government can tax you simply because it chooses was a real shock. 
Furthermore, our situation also left us with no way to recover the 
money we had to pay in this additional retroactive tax. We were out of 
business. The retroactive tax was a shameful tax.''
  Mr. President, it was clear to Thomas Jefferson that the only way to 
preserve freedom was to protect its citizen from oppressive taxation. I 
believe he would agree that the retroactive imposition of massive taxes 
is the ultimate slap in the face of the American citizen. Even the 
Russian Constitution does not allow you to tax retroactively.
  American families, businesses, and communities must know what the 
rules of the road are and that those rules will not change. They have 
to be able to plan their lives, plan for their families, and plan their 
tax burdens in advance.
  We have before us an historic opportunity to bring the Federal budget 
into balance. This is a goal I have worked long and hard to achieve 
since coming to the Senate. In the march to a balanced Federal budget, 
I believe we need to do so in a way that is fair to American families 
and small businesses.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection here, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 342) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 343

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

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Mr. 
Dorgan, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Hollings. It is a sense of the Senate 
regarding long-term balancing of Social Security accounts. We have no 
objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Dorgan, 
     for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Hollings proposes an 
     amendment numbered 343.

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

       At the appropriate place in the 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 without counting 
     Social Security surpluses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 343) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 344

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting sufficient 
              funding for veterans programs and benefits)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
regarding veterans' programs on behalf of Senator Daschle, myself, and 
Senator Rockefeller, an unprinted amendment, regarding supporting 
sufficient funding for defense programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Daschle, for himself and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 344.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.

[[Page S4872]]

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

       Insert at the appropriate place the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING SUFFICIENT FUNDING 
                   FOR VETERANS PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) veterans and their families represent approximately 27 
     percent of the United States population;
       (2) more than 20 million of our 26 million living veterans 
     served during wartime, sacrificing their freedom so that we 
     may have ours; and
       (3) veterans have earned the benefits promised to them.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the assumptions underlying this Budget Resolution 
     assume that the 602(b) allocation to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs will be sufficient in FY98 to fully fund all 
     discretionary veterans programs, including medical care; and
       (2) funds collected from legislation to improve the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs' ability to collect and retain 
     reimbursement from third-party payers ought to be used to 
     supplement, not supplant, an adequate appropriation for 
     medical care.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 344) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 345

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

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray I offer a 
sense of the Senate regarding family violence option clarifying 
amendment. This was accepted by the U.S. House in their budget 
resolution. I see no reason why we should not accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mrs. Murray 
     proposes an amendment numbered 345.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF 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 committed 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 recipients 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 recognition 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 the 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 
     granting 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 domestic 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)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 345) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                   Amendments Nos. 346, 347, and 348

  Mr. DOMENICI. We can save a little bit of time because we have a 
number of amendments that are going to qualify and Senators do not have 
to stand up and go through all of that maneuvering. I ask unanimous 
consent the amendments that I send to the desk be considered as having 
been offered by their appropriate sponsor and thus qualified as under 
the previous order, and further they be considered as having been set 
aside. I do this en bloc for the Senators enumerated on the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes 
     amendment numbers 346, 347, and 348.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. 346

(Purpose: to require that the $225 billion CBO revenue receipt windfall 
  be used for deficit reduction and tax relief, and that non-defense 
       discretionary spending be kept at a freeze baseline level)

       On page 3, line 3, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 4, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 5, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 6, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 7, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $13.7 billion.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $23.4 billion.
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $33.2 billion.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $42.9 billion.
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $52.7 billion.
       On page 4, line 12, decrease the amount by $6.3 billion.
       On page 4, line 13, decrease the amount by $16.9 billion.
       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $26.7 billion.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $36.6 billion.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $46.8 billion.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.

[[Page S4873]]

       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $22.5 billion.
       On page 35, line 9, decrease the amount by $13.7 billion.
       On page 35, line 10, decrease the amount by $6.3 billion.
       On page 35, line 15, decrease the amount by $23.4 billion.
       On page 35, line 16, decrease the amount by $16.9 billion.
       On page 35, line 21, decrease the amount by $33.2 billion.
       On page 35, line 22, decrease the amount by $26.7 billion.
       On page 36, line 2, decrease the amount by $42.9 billion.
       On page 36, line 3, decrease the amount by $36.6 billion.
       On page 36, line 8, decrease the amount by $52.7 billion.
       On page 36, line 9, decrease the amount by $46.8 billion.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 347

(Purpose: To provide for parental involvement in prevention of drug use 
                              by children)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN 
                   PREVENTION OF DRUG USE BY CHILDREN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) 2,000,000 more children are using drugs in 1997 than 
     were doing so in 1993. For the first time in the 1990's, over 
     half of our Nation's graduating high school seniors have 
     experimented with drugs and approximately 1 out of every 4 of 
     the students have used drugs in the past month.
       (2) After 11 years of declining marijuana use among 
     children aged 12 to 17, such use doubled between 1992 and 
     1995. The number of 8th graders who have used marijuana in 
     the past month has more than tripled since 1991.
       (3) More of our Nation's school children are becoming 
     involved with hard core drugs at earlier ages, as use of 
     heroin and cocaine by 8th graders has more than doubled since 
     1991.
       (4) Substance abuse is at the core of other problems, such 
     as rising violent teenage and violent gang crime, increasing 
     health care costs, HIV infections, teenage pregnancy, high 
     school dropouts, and lower economic productivity.
       (5) Increases in substance abuse among youth are due in 
     large part to an erosion of understanding by youth of the 
     high risks associated with substance abuse, and to the 
     softening of peer norms against use.
       (6) Nearly 1 in every 10 students who received a diploma 
     last June is a daily user of illicit drugs.
       (7) A 1995-96 school year survey of drug usage by students 
     revealed that 25 percent of children using drugs are doing so 
     at home or at the home of a friend. Despite these alarming 
     statistics, less than 30 percent of students stated that 
     their parents talked to them about the problem of alcohol and 
     drugs.
       (8) In the 1990-91 school year survey, over 40 percent of 
     the students reported that their parent regularly talked to 
     them about drugs. The 1995-96 survey reported an 11 percent 
     decrease in parental involvement and a corresponding 10 
     percent increase in the number of students in the 6th through 
     8th grades, who use drugs, and a 17 percent increase in the 
     number of students in the 9th through 12th grades who use 
     drugs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the provisions of this resolution assume that, from resources 
     available in this budget resolution, a portion should be set 
     aside for a national grassroots volunteer effort to encourage 
     parental education and involvement in youth drug prevention 
     and to create a drug-intolerant culture for our children.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, recently the Senate has made strong 
statements promoting efforts to fight against teenage drug use. 
Programs to mobilize America's parents are desperately needed in these 
efforts as we struggle to deal with a rising epidemic of teenage drug 
use.
  Survey after survey has shown a shocking rise in teenage drug use. 
Since 1992, drug use among teens has more than doubled. We recently 
learned that for the first time since the 1980's over half of all 
graduating high school seniors will have been involved with illegal 
drugs and the use of heroine and marijuana by high schoolers has 
reached levels unprecedented in the 1990's. The number of 8th graders 
who have used marijuana in the past month has exploded since 1991, 
growing by over 350%, and heroine use in our high schools has doubled. 
The fact that 35.8% (or more than one out of every three high school 
seniors) used marijuana in the past year should be a wake up call to us 
all, as marijuana serves as a gateway to the use of cocaine, LSD, 
heroin and other highly addictive drugs. Overall, this is a complete 
reversal from the previous 12 years when teen drug use was cut in half 
between 1980 and 1992. A decade of progress has been destroyed.
  Yet in spite of these alarming statistics, research conducted by the 
National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education [PRIDE] shows 
that 7 out of 10 American parents are not talking to their children 
about the dangers of drug use. These numbers are especially alarming in 
light of the fact that PRIDE's research indicates that mobilizing 
parents is one of our most effective ways of fighting this rising 
epidemic. For example, among students who said they never hear from 
their parents on the subject of drugs, 35.5% reported using illicit 
drugs in the last year. Yet this number falls to 26.6%--a relative 
decrease of 25% for students whose parent often discuss this issue with 
them. In response to the rise of teenage drug use in the 1980's, 
parents across the country became active in the anti-drug movement. 
Their efforts played a key role in reducing drug use by teenagers from 
the all-time high of 54 percent in 1979 to just 27 percent by 1992.
  Over the past several years, PRIDE has devoted a great deal of 
attention to the question of how we, as a nation, can again capture the 
level of parental involvement that helped drive down teen drug use in 
the previous two decades. PRIDE has proposed a grassroots plan focused 
on a renewed parent movement in the fight against illegal drug use. The 
goal of this initiative is to educate parents and involve them in 
programs that will prevent and reduce drug abuse by their children. 
This volunteer-based approach will allow parents to create a drug 
prevention program most suitable to their community.
  My experience with PRIDE has convinced me that grassroots efforts by 
America's parents are essential in order to reverse the skyrocketing 
rates of teenage drug use. I hope that the Senate will build on the 
amendment I have offered today and fully support programs such as PRIDE 
which enlist our parents in the war on drugs.


                           amendment no. 348

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the budget resolution 
   agreement does not foreclose the possibility of Congress adopting 
    additional tax cuts in the future, so long as they are paid for)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that nothing in this 
     resolution shall be construed as prohibiting Congress from 
     providing additional tax relief in future years if the cost 
     of such tax relief is offset by reductions in discretionary 
     or mandatory spending, or increases in revenue from 
     alternative sources.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 346, 
347, and 348 are now set aside.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and this has 
been cleared but I want to read it--I ask unanimous consent that during 
the consideration of the legislation and any conference report thereon 
pursuant to the reconciliation instructions set forth in the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, for the purposes of 
section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
legislation which reduces revenues pursuant to reconciliation 
instruction contained in the fiscal year 1998 resolution, the second 
reconciliation bill, shall be taken together with all other legislation 
passed in the Senate pursuant to the reconciliation instructions 
contained in that resolution, the first reconciliation bill, when 
determining whether any provision of the second reconciliation bill is 
extraneous; further, it is clearly understood that the unanimous 
consent is contingent upon the Senate considering two reconciliation 
bills pursuant to this budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 349

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate that higher education tax 
 cuts should encourage parents and students to save for the costs of a 
higher education, and to provide relief from the debt burden associated 
         with borrowing to pay for a post-secondary education)

  Mr. DOMENICI. When I was sending amendments to the desk that had been 
approved on both sides we failed to introduce one on behalf of Senator 
Snowe. This is another sense of the Senate regarding education, tax 
deductions, and credits. It has been accepted on both sides. This is 
being sent to the desk on behalf of Senator Snowe to qualify under the 
requirement that it be in by closing time tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S4874]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Ms. Snowe, 
     for herself and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     349.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the budget agreement reached between Congressional 
     leaders and President Clinton provides for $85 billion in net 
     tax relief over five years.
       (2) in a May 15, 1997, letter to President Clinton, the 
     Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader agreed 
     that the tax package must include tax relief of roughly $35 
     billion over five years for post-secondary education, 
     including a deduction and a tax credit.
       (3) the letter further stipulated that the education tax 
     package should be consistent with the objectives put forward 
     in the HOPE Scholarship and tuition tax proposals contained 
     in the Administration's FY 1998 budget proposal
       (4) as outlined in the Administration's FY 1998 budget 
     summary, the objective of the education tax credits and 
     deductions is to ensure that financial barriers to higher 
     education continue to fall for all Americans, and to 
     encourage Americans to pursue higher education and to promote 
     lifelong learning.
       (5) students at the undergraduate level have seen tuition 
     increases outpace inflation for more than a decade, which has 
     led to an increased demand for student aid, including student 
     loans.
       (6) the typical student loan borrower--including 
     undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students--now 
     accumulates more than $10,000 in educational debt. This 
     rising debt burden poses a serious threat to students and may 
     lead to some students no longer pursuing a higher education.
       (7) post-secondary education tax cuts that encourage 
     savings and that address this rising debt burden would 
     encourage Americans to pursue a higher education and promote 
     lifelong learning, and would, therefore, be consistent with 
     the objectives sought by President Clinton in his budget 
     proposal.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels of this resolution and legislation enacted 
     pursuant to this resolution assume--
       (1) that higher education tax relief should encourage 
     Americans to pursue a post-secondary education and promote 
     lifelong learning.
       (2) tax incentives that encourage parents and students to 
     save for higher education expenses, and that provide relief 
     from the debt burden associated with borrowing to pay for a 
     post-secondary education, are consistent with the objectives 
     set forth in this resolution, and should be included in any 
     post-secondary education tax cut package.


            Amendments Nos. 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, and 355

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a group of amendments that will be sent to the 
desk to be considered, and I ask unanimous consent they be considered 
as offered by the appropriate sponsor and qualify under the previous 
order, and further they be considered as having been set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by 
numbers.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes 
     amendments numbered 350, 351, 352, 253, 354, and 355.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. 350

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting an increase in 
 funding for defense 050 account funds dedicated for medical research)

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

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MEDICAL RESEARCH.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the funds in the defense 
     050 account that are assumed to be dedicated for medical 
     research should be increased by $900,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1998.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 351

      (Purpose: To reduce the incentives to use tax gimmicks that 
artificially increase revenues in 2002 in ways that make balancing the 
                   deficit more difficult after 2002)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC.   . ANTIGIMMICK TAX SCORING.

       For purposes of scoring any revenue provision of a 
     reconciliation bill enacted pursuant to this resolution, a 
     provision that increases revenue in fiscal year 2002 by an 
     amount $1,000,000,000 or more in excess of the amount that 
     the provision increases revenue in either fiscal year 2001 or 
     2003 shall be scored by--
       (1) subtracting the amount of the excess from the revenue 
     amount for fiscal year 2002; and
       (2) dividing the amount of excess by 4 and adding the 
     quotient to the revenue score for the provision for each of 
     the fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 352

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on early childhood 
                               education)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Scientific research on the development of the brain has 
     confirmed that the early childhood years, particularly from 
     birth to the age of 3, are critical to children's 
     development.
       (2) Studies repeatedly have shown that good quality child 
     care helps children develop well, enter school ready to 
     succeed, improve their skills, cognitive abilities and 
     socioemotional development, improve classroom learning 
     behavior, and stay safe while their parents work. Further, 
     quality early childhood programs can positively affect 
     children's long-term success in school achievement, higher 
     earnings as adults, decrease reliance on public assistance 
     and decrease involvement with the criminal justice system.
       (3) The first of the National Education Goals, endorsed by 
     the Nation's governors, passed by Congress and signed into 
     law by President Bush, stated that by the year 2000, every 
     child should enter school ready to learn and that access to a 
     high quality early childhood education program was integral 
     to meeting this goal.
       (4) According to data compiled by the RAND Corporation, 
     while 90 percent of human brain growth occurs by the age of 
     3, public spending on children in that age range equals only 
     8 percent of spending on all children. A vast majority of 
     public spending on children occurs after the brain has gone 
     through its most dramatic changes, often to correct problems 
     that should have been addressed during early childhood 
     development.
       (5) According to the Department of Education, of 
     $29,400,000,000 in current estimated education expenditures, 
     only $1,500,000,000, or 5 percent, is spent on children from 
     birth to age 5. The vast majority is spent on children over 
     age 5.
       (6) A new commitment to quality child care and early 
     childhood education is a necessary response to the fact that 
     children from birth to the age of 3 are spending more time in 
     care away from their homes. Almost 60 percent of women in the 
     workforce have children under the age of 3 requiring care.
       (7) Many States and communities are currently experimenting 
     with innovative programs directed at early childhood care and 
     education in a variety of care settings, including the home. 
     States and local communities are best able to deliver 
     efficient, cost-effective services, but while such programs 
     are long on demand, they are short on resources.Additional 
     Federal resources should not create new bureaucracy, but 
     build on successful locally driven efforts.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budget totals and levels in this resolution assume 
     that funds ought to be directed toward increasing the supply 
     of quality child care, early childhood education, and teacher 
     and parent training for children from birth through age 3.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 353

  (Purpose: To expand opportunities to access funding in the High way 
                             Reserve fund)

       On page 56, line 7, strike the word ``enacted'' and insert: 
     ``reported or an amendment is adopted''.
       On page 56, line 15, strike the words ``enactment of 
     legislation'' and insert: ``reporting of legislation or upon 
     the adoption of an amendment''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 354

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the extension of 
    the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund through fiscal year 2002)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC.   . SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 
     provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
     freedoms and security, and with the support of Federal 
     assistance, State and local law enforcement officers have 
     succeeded in reducing the national scourge of violent crime, 
     as illustrated by a murder rate in 1996 that is projected to 
     be the lowest since 1971 and a violent crime total in 1996 
     that is the lowest since 1990.
       (2) Through a comprehensive effort to attack violence 
     against women mounted by State and local law enforcement, and 
     dedicated volunteers and professionals who provide victim 
     services, shelter, counseling, and advocacy to battered women 
     and their children, important strides have been made against 
     the national scourge of violence against women, illustrated 
     by the decline in the murder rate for wives, ex-wives, and 
     girlfriends at the hands of their ``intimates'' fell to a 19-
     year low in 1995.
       (3) Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts need 
     continued financial commitment from the Federal Government 
     for

[[Page S4875]]

     funding and financial assistance to continue their efforts to 
     combat violent crime and violence against women.
       (4) Federal, state and local law enforcement also face 
     other challenges which require continued financial commitment 
     from the Federal Government, including regaining control over 
     the Southwest Border, where drug trafficking and illegal 
     immigration continue to threaten public safety and menace 
     residents on the border and throughout the nation.
       (5) The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established in 
     section 310001 the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) fully funds the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, including the 
     Violence Against Women Act, without adding to the Federal 
     budget deficit.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions and the functional totals underlying this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) the Federal Government's commitment to fund Federal law 
     enforcement programs and programs to assist State and local 
     efforts to combat violent crime, including violence against 
     women, will be maintained; and
       (2) funding for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund will 
     continue in its current form at least through fiscal year 
     2002.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 355

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX CUTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Concurrent 
     Resolution on the Budget assumes that--
       (1) A substantial majority of the tax cut benefits provided 
     in the tax reconciliation bill will go to middle class 
     working families earning less than approximately $100,000 per 
     year; and
       (2) The tax cuts in the tax reconciliation bill will not 
     cause revenue losses to increase significantly in years after 
     2007.
                                  ____

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendments 
numbered 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, and 355 will now be set aside.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday I voted for an amendment offered 
by Senator Hollings. I would like to take a brief moment to explain my 
vote.
  Senator Hollings is absolutely right in his contention about this 
budget agreement. The so-called balanced budget agreement that has been 
hammered out by the White House and the Congress does not, in fact, 
balance the budget.
  While the agreement purports to balance the budget, I would urge my 
colleagues to look at page 4 of the budget resolution, which will put 
the agreement into effect. It says, in section 101(4) of the 
resolution, that the budget will be $108 billion in deficit in the year 
2002. Why is that the case? Because they are claiming a balanced budget 
using a ``unified budget,'' which means they can count the Social 
Security surpluses to offset other deficits.
  However, as I have said in previous debates, using the Social 
Security surplus creates a deficit for our future. The surplus that is 
accrued in the year 2002 in the Social Security accounts is needed in 
the following decades to fund the retirement needs of the baby boom 
generation. If that money is now used as an offset against other 
spending to balance the budget, it will not be there when it is needed 
to meet Social Security needs in future years.
  The way to balance the budget in a real and honest way is to do as 
Senator Hollings suggests. We must make spending cuts that are 
necessary and delay both the tax cuts and the spending increases in 
specific accounts until there is room in the budget to accomplish them 
while still balancing the budget in a real way.
  Robust economic growth is driving the budget deficit down 
substantially. I think there will ultimately be room for some tax cuts 
and for some targeted investment increases in certain areas, such as 
education, health care and the environment. But the priority ought to 
be to balance the budget first and do it fully and completely by 
reaching a budget deficit of zero in 2002 without using the Social 
Security trust funds. Then, as the economy continues to grow, added 
revenue will allow us to both provide needed tax cuts as well as 
targeted investments in critical accounts. Not many Members of the 
Senate voted for the Hollings amendment, because most want to rush to 
provide tax cuts now and to provide spending increases in certain 
accounts now. But if we do that there is no guarantee that we will 
truly reach an honest balanced budget in the near term.
  Unfortunately, the Hollings amendment failed. It failed by a large 
margin. However, as the budget process continues, I intend to work as 
best I can to advance deficit reduction. The resolution we are debating 
does move in the right direction. While it is not a balanced budget 
plan, it is a deficit reduction plan. It does achieve $204 billion of 
deficit reduction. And for that reason, I think it's better to support 
this negotiated agreement. At least this agreement makes some progress.
  To sum up, I would have felt better if this agreement had delayed 
both the tax cuts and spending increases until the budget is truly 
balanced. While this agreement provides hope for those of us who want 
the deficit cut, and who want the budget balanced, it also serves up 
the dessert before the main course. It requires less discipline than we 
need. I still believe that we should continue to work to do more than 
just balance the unified budget. Balancing the unified budget will 
still leave this country with a budget deficit.


                           nuclear waste fund

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to inquire of the managers regarding the 
impact of the resolution now being considered by the Senate.
  My question relates to the legislative intent of the resolution as it 
relates to the nuclear waste fund and specifically regarding its impact 
on S. 104 passed by the Senate on April 15, 1997. What is the impact of 
the budget resolution on the provisions of S. 104 and the Nuclear Waste 
Fund?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The budget resolution does not prejudge the outcome of 
the debate concerning the nuclear waste issue. However, S. 104, as 
passed by the Senate, does not violate the Budget Act. If S. 104 is 
enacted into law, there is sufficient funding in the offsetting 
collections and the budget could accommodate full funding of both the 
permanent repository and the interim storage at Yucca Mountain within 
the statutory schedules mandated.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his response.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreements

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate resumes Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 27 on Thursday, there be 13 hours remaining to be 
equally divided under the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate resumes Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 27 on Thursday, that time remaining on the 
amendment numbered 336 be limited to 50 minutes under the control of 
Senator Moseley-Braun, 10 minutes under the control of Senator 
Domenici, and following the conclusion or yielding back, Senator 
Domenici be recognized to move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I further ask that no other amendments be in order 
prior to the motion to table the amendment of Senator Moseley-Braun.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. From what I understand, Senator Boxer wants to speak 
for 3 minutes and then I want to put the Senate into morning business 
with speeches up to 10 minutes. I am assuming you will be recognized at 
that point and Senator Stevens will be here to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Stevens has 5 minutes. It is fine if he goes 
before me.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have a series of matters for the leader to perform 
before that time.
  Mr. CONRAD. And I have 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California for up to 3 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 355

  Mrs. BOXER. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member. I 
understand that after our brief conversation they will accept an 
amendment that Senator Durbin and I will be introducing tomorrow that 
has already been sent to the desk.
  Mr. President, because the economy is so strong and the Clinton 
budget plan in 1993 was so right, we can now finish the job of 
balancing the budget in a fair and responsible way. The plan before us, 
for the most part, I believe is fair and reasonable. No more 
destruction of Medicare and Medicaid, gone are the $270 billion cuts 
proposed by

[[Page S4876]]

Republicans last year, gone are the $88 billion cuts they wanted to do 
to Medicaid, no more talk about doing away with the Department of 
Education, the Department of Commerce, no more suggestion that the 
Environmental Protection Agency should be stripped of its power and its 
funds.
  Now, I believe this radical revolution is over with this budget deal. 
Could this budget deal be better? Yes, of course, it could. One way, 
Mr. President, it could be better is if we kept our tax cuts moderate 
and targeted them to the middle-class. We could reach balance sooner. 
We would still have resources left to do more for our children and our 
communities.
  What Senator Durbin and I--and it is cosponsored by Senators Daschle, 
Harkin, and Bumpers--what we say in our amendment, and I am very 
pleased it will be accepted, is that a substantial majority of the tax 
cut benefits provided in the reconciliation bill will go to middle-
class working families earning less than approximately $100,000 per 
year and that the tax cuts in the reconciliation bill will not cause 
revenue losses to increase significantly in the years after 2007.
  In other words, we have two points to our amendment. One is tax cut 
benefits go to the middle-class; and two, we do not want to see an 
explosion of deficits in the outyears.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the chairman is accepting this. I am 
pleased we are walking down this path together. I really will watch 
this because we have no assurance that this amendment will be kept in 
the conference, but we will keep our eye on it because I suspect if we 
insisted on a vote we would get a near unanimous vote.
  I am hopeful we can keep this language in the bill itself. If it is 
stripped out, Mr. President, I will be back once we get to the 
reconciliation bill, to make sure that tax cuts are not going to the 
people who are earning $1 million but are, in fact, going to our hard-
working families who earn approximately $100,000 a year.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. Again, my thanks to the Members 
of the Budget Committee. This has been a long time in coming. It is not 
the perfect budget but I think it puts an end to the radical revolution 
that was threatened a couple years ago and it will bring us to balance. 
It is good for our children, and overall I am pleased with it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________