[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4925-S4943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the budget resolution.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.

       Pending:
       Murray-Wellstone amendment No. 291, to express the sense of 
     the Congress concerning domestic violence.
       Inhofe amendment No. 301, to create a point of order 
     against any budget resolution for fiscal years after 2001 
     that causes a unified budget deficit for the budget year or 
     any of the 4 fiscal years following the budget year.
       Hollings amendment No. 302, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Highway Trust Fund should not be taken into 
     account in computing the deficit in the budget of the United 
     States.
       Hollings amendment No. 303, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Airport and Airway Trust Fund should not be 
     taken into account in computing the deficit in the budget of 
     the United States.
       Hollings amendment No. 304, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Military Retirement Trust Funds should not be 
     taken into account in computing the deficit in the budget of 
     the United States.
       Hollings amendment No. 305, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Civil Service Retirement Trust Funds should 
     not be taken into account in computing the deficit in the 
     budget of the United States.
       Hollings amendment No. 306, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Federal Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund 
     should not be taken into account in computing the deficit in 
     the budget of the United States.

[[Page S4926]]

       Kerry amendment No. 309, to allocate funds for early 
     childhood development programs for children ages zero to six.
       Dorgan amendment No. 310, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Congress should continue efforts to reduce 
     the on-budget deficit without counting Social Security 
     surpluses.
       Warner-Baucus amendment No. 311, to ensure that 
     transportation revenues are used solely for transportation.
       Wellstone amendment No. 313, to provide for increases in 
     funding for Headstart and Early Start, child nutrition 
     programs, and school construction, which will be paid for by 
     reducing tax benefits to the top 2 percent of income earners 
     in the United States as well as by reducing tax benefits that 
     are characterized as corporate welfare or tax loopholes.
       Wellstone amendment No. 314, to provide that Pell Grants 
     for needy students should be increased.
       Abraham amendment No. 316, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that, to the extent that future revenues exceed the 
     revenue aggregates, those additional revenues should be 
     reserved for deficit reduction and tax cuts only.
       Gramm amendment No. 319, to ensure that the discretionary 
     limits provided in the budget resolution shall apply in all 
     years.
       Gramm amendment No. 320, to ensure that the 4.3 cents 
     federal gas tax increase enacted in 1993 will be transferred 
     to the Highway Trust Fund.
       Faircloth amendment No. 321, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that a non-refundable tax credit for the expenses of 
     an education at a 2-year college should be enacted.
       Ashcroft amendment No. 322, to add enforcement mechanisms 
     to reflect the stated commitment to reach a balanced budget 
     in 2002, to maintain a balanced budget thereafter, and to 
     achieve these goals without raising taxes.
       Ashcroft amendment No. 323, to limit increases in the 
     statutory limit on the debt to the levels in the budget 
     resolution.
       Bond amendment No. 324, to express the sense of the Senate 
     regarding the protection of children's health.
       Bond amendment No. 325, to express the sense of the Senate 
     concerning the Highway Trust Fund.
       McCain-Hollings amendment No. 326, to express the sense of 
     the Senate that the Congress shall take such steps as 
     necessary to reconcile the difference between actual revenues 
     raised and estimates made and shall reduce spending 
     accordingly if Spectrum Auctions raise less revenue than 
     projected.
       McCain-Mack amendment No. 327, to express the sense of the 
     Senate with respect to certain highway demonstration 
     projects.
       McCain amendment No. 328, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the revenues generated to finance an intercity 
     passenger rail fund under section 207 should not be 
     appropriated before enactment of legislation to reauthorize 
     and reform the National Rail Passenger Corporation.
       Bumpers amendment No. 330, to delay the effectiveness of 
     the tax cuts assumed in the Budget Resolution until the 
     Federal budget is balanced.
       Bumpers amendment No. 331, to ensure that the Medicare cuts 
     that will be enacted are not used to pay tax cuts and that 
     instead the tax cuts are completely paid for by the closure 
     of tax loopholes.
       Bumpers amendment No. 332, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that no budget reconciliation bill shall increase the 
     Federal deficit.
       Lautenberg (for Moseley-Braun) amendment No. 333, to 
     express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of budget 
     savings.
       Lautenberg (for Moseley-Braun) amendment No. 334, to 
     express the sense of the Senate regarding the value of the 
     social security system for future retirees.
       Lautenberg (for Dodd) amendment No. 335, to ensure that the 
     concurrent resolution conforms with the bipartisan budget 
     agreement to restrict revenue reductions over the ten-year 
     period.
       Moseley-Braun amendment No. 336, to provide $5 billion for 
     school repair, renovation, modernization, and construction 
     priorities, offset by closing tax loopholes.
       Specter amendment No. 338, to provide for a reduction in 
     mandatory spending and an increase in discretionary spending 
     relating to children's health.
       Specter amendment No. 339, to provide for a reduction in 
     mandatory spending and an increase in discretionary spending 
     relating to children's health.
       Specter amendment No. 340, to restore funding within the 
     discretionary health function to maintain progress in medical 
     research, offset by reductions in Federal agency 
     administrative costs.
       Domenici (for Grams) amendment No. 346, to require that the 
     $225 billion CBO revenue receipt windfall be used to for 
     deficit reduction and tax relief, and that non-defense 
     discretionary spending be kept at a freeze baseline level.
       Domenici (for Coverdell) amendment No. 347, to provide for 
     parental involvement in prevention of drug use by children.
       Domenici (for Kyl) amendment No. 348, 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.
       Domenici (for Snowe-Coverdell) amendment No. 349, to 
     express the sense of the Senate relative to higher education 
     tax relief and higher education expenses.
       Lautenberg (for Harkin) amendment No. 350, to express the 
     sense of the Senate supporting an increase in funding for 
     defense 050 account funds dedicated for medical research.
       Lautenberg (for Harkin-Bingaman) amendment No. 351, 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.
       Lautenberg (for Kohl-Kerry) amendment No. 352, to express 
     the sense of the Senate on early childhood education.
       Lautenberg (for Byrd) amendment No. 353, to expand 
     opportunities to access funding in the Highway Reserve fund.
       Lautenberg (for Biden) amendment No. 354, to express the 
     sense of the Senate regarding the extension of the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund through fiscal year 2002.
       Lautenberg (for Boxer) amendment No. 355, to express the 
     sense of the Senate regarding tax cut benefits.
       Robb amendment No. 356, to express the sense of the Senate 
     on Social Security and retirement savings.


                           Amendment No. 336

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized to 
speak on her amendment for up to 50 minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself such time 
as I may require.
  Before I start, I ask unanimous consent Senator Baucus be added as a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am going to yield to my 
colleagues from Massachusetts and Minnesota in a moment to speak on 
this. But I would just like to pick up the debate where we left off 
last evening.
  This is the amendment to begin to repair America's crumbling schools 
and to help provide an environment suitable for learning to the 14 
million children who attend school every day in this country, schools 
with leaky roofs, with crumbling walls, with sewage backing up in the 
basement, with insufficient electrical equipment to plug in computers, 
children who attend schools in our country that are not suitable 
environments for learning. Mr. President, I believe we can do better.
  There has been a great deal of debate about who should pay for the 
crumbling schools. As we know, it is traditional in this country that 
State and local governments pay for elementary and secondary education. 
In fact, the Federal Government only supports elementary and secondary 
education nationwide at about a 7 percent level, so we are barely 
engaged in the funding formula. But as it is no doubt apparent, and I 
know it is apparent to everybody in this room, we are facing a crisis 
of national proportions because the formula for funding elementary and 
secondary education just does not work in ways that are adequate to 
meet the needs of our children. It does not work because the property 
tax base of elementary and secondary funding has been so inelastic as 
not to provide for the repair, construction, and maintenance of schools 
over time. So we are faced with a crisis of monumental national 
proportions.
  The General Accounting Office tells us it will take $112 billion to 
repair our schools, to just bring them up to a level of adequacy--code 
violations removed, where students can actually learn--without even 
getting to putting in new technologies. It is pretty clear children 
cannot learn if their schools are falling down around them. They cannot 
use computers if there are no electrical systems to plug them into. 
Unless we engage as a national community to provide local districts and 
to provide States with some assistance in meeting this huge challenge, 
the challenge will continue to go unmet and we will hamstring an entire 
generation and make them less capable of competing in this global 
economy, this technological age.
  We can do better. Our parents turned over to us schools that were 
adequate to our needs. The public schools were not in this condition. 
In fact, if anything, most of the schools that most American children 
attend were built for our generation. We have an obligation to help 
provide some financial assistance to States and to local districts to 
repair their crumbling schools.
  I wanted to put it on a light note before I turned it over to my 
colleagues. I thought this was a perfect picture to talk about where we 
are. This is a cartoon. As a matter of fact, I have two cartoons. The 
first one says, ``A computer in class opens a whole new world

[[Page S4927]]

for us.'' And the little girl says, ``Look, a picture of a school with 
no leaking roof, no peeling paint, with textbooks for everyone. . . .''
  ``A whole new world for us'' because this is the real world. It is 
the crumbling schools, the broken plaster in the walls, the lack of 
electrical connections, broken plumbing, code violations, lead paint in 
the walls, asbestos--that is the environment to which we send our 
children to schools. The new one would be one with no leaking roof, no 
peeling paint, and with textbooks for everyone. This one, 
unfortunately, is the reality.
  The second cartoon speaks to the reality again as well. Again, these 
are issues that everybody knows to be true. That is why it is almost 
surprising to even have to say these things. All you have to do is go 
out in your State, and you will see schools in this kind of condition. 
This is Peppermint Patty. Peppermint Patty's crumbling school. 
Peppermint Patty, in the first few panels, talks about how the roof is 
leaking again. And then Marcie says, ``Sir, the roof is leaking again 
and you are getting all wet.''
  ``I don't like to complain, Marcie.''
  ``Then I'll do it for you. We were just wondering, ma'am, if 
perchance you might have noticed . . . the roof is leaking.''
  And then the custodian, of course, goes up, falls off the roof, and 
then, ``How about that, Marcie, I think they fixed the leak in the 
roof. Let's just hope there aren't some other places where . . .'' and 
that's when the rain starts coming down on Marcie herself.
  As we talk about the importance of education, of a college education, 
of national standards and goals and the like for education--it is 
conversation. It is just conversation if we don't give the youngsters 
an environment in which to learn. They clearly cannot learn if the 
environment, the setting, is such that it impedes their ability to 
access the technology, it diminishes their ability to focus in on what 
it is we are trying to communicate to them.
  This last panel which I wanted to bring to your attention, really, I 
thought, points out the problem altogether. That is, infrastructure, 
facilities, the environment, the structure have been forgotten. It is 
everybody pointing fingers at everybody else. It's this unit of 
government's job, it's that unit of government's job, it is not our 
responsibility; turning our backs, pointing fingers, and forgetting 
altogether about the basics. We are talking about computers, but we 
haven't remembered that you have to have electrical systems to use 
them. So this last one says, ``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 them ever heard of Bosnia and couldn't tell you who wrote Hamlet.''
  ``I talked to the principal, sir.''
  ``What did he say about the leaking roof?'' says Peppermint Patty, 
who is under a rainstorm.
  And Marcie says, ``I forgot to mention it.''
  Well, we have been forgetting to mention it. We have been neglecting 
infrastructure and we have been letting the problem get worse and 
worse. As with any maintenance issue, if you let it go, it doesn't get 
better, it just gets worse. So this amendment, this $5 billion, is just 
a start to try to reach the level of the $112 billion that the General 
Accounting Office tells us is needed.
  Here is reality. I have been showing cartoons, but this is reality. 
This is a chemistry lab, built probably when I was in high school, if 
not before--probably when my parents were in high school. Clearly, this 
is not suitable to teach any youngster chemistry in these times. There 
is no equipment. It is falling down. You can see this is just age; this 
is not kids trashing the school. That's just old, outdated--I would 
imagine, from the type of construction, since I like to do 
construction, this is probably close to the 1920's, if not earlier.
  Here is another. Desks that you and I probably used that have been 
recycled, Mr. President, with peeling paint. One of the problems the 
GAO found is a lot of the paint peeling has lead in it, and we know 
from other research what lead does to youngsters.
  Here's another one. The kids may have trashed the lockers, but at the 
same time the lockers seem to me to have gone a long way toward being 
trashed before the kids got there. You can't use these things.
  But this is the condition of the schools.
  Here is another lab. Look at that. What do we tell our children about 
the value of education? What do we tell them about what we think about 
them, sending them into conditions like this?
  Before I conclude, I want to point out something that may be 
counterintuitive about this whole issue but that is reality; that is, 
crumbling schools is not just an inner city problem. Crumbling schools 
are not just problems in poor communities. Crumbling schools happen all 
over our country. In fact, the GAO tells us the central cities 
experience crumbling schools at a rate of 38 percent; the suburban 
communities at a rate of 29 percent; the rural communities at a rate of 
30 percent. Add to that that it is a nationwide problem--in fact, if 
anything, the West has this problem more than the Midwest, and the East 
has it more than the Midwest. So it is a problem that is national and 
is in every kind of community and affects 14 million children every 
day.

  It is shameful to me that we did not have this already in the budget 
as part of the budget agreement. I was very distressed about that part. 
But I hope the Members of this Chamber will recognize that this is 
reality, that we have to have a partnership. We need to help States and 
local governments meet this need. We are not looking to take anything 
over. This will maintain local control of the schools, local control of 
the decisionmaking about what schools get fixed and what features get 
addressed. But, surely, surely, with a $112 billion national problem, 
here at the national level we can find $5 billion to help our school 
districts and our States repair the crumbling schools in which we 
expect our children to learn.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend from 
Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, and commend her for bringing this 
matter to the U.S. Senate. Her amendment addresses basic and 
fundamental needs to help children get a good education, and to offset 
that by closing some of the tax loopholes.
  In reviewing the agreements that were made in the balanced budget 
amendment, it is clear that almost every program is going to bear the 
brunt of belt tightening--with the exception of tax expenditures. There 
are over $430 billion in tax expenditures this current year, and that 
number will increase as we move to enact the tax breaks. We have still 
not closed the billionaire's tax loophole that permits Americans who 
have accumulated large amounts of wealth to renounce their citizenship 
and take their wealth overseas. I think we can afford to close that 
particular loophole and pay for this particular amendment. There are 
others that are just as outrageous that, with any fair evaluation of 
those loopholes, would clearly be closed.
  It is entirely appropriate that we give favorable consideration to 
this measure.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment by Senator Moseley-
Braun to provide the $5 billion for improving America's school 
facilities.
  Good education begins with decent places to learn. Yet, in too many 
public schools across the Nation, children have to run an obstacle 
course to learn, and that is wrong.
  Schools across the country are facing enormous problems with 
crumbling facilities. Fourteen million children in one-third of the 
schools are learning in substandard school buildings. Over half of all 
schools report at least one major building in disrepair, with cracked 
foundations, leaking roofs and other major problems.
  Yet, student enrollments are at an all-time high and will continue to 
rise, causing even greater overcrowding in many schools. We cannot 
tolerate a situation in which facilities deteriorate while enrollments 
escalate.
  Massachusetts is no exception. Forty-one percent of Massachusetts 
schools report that at least one building needs extensive repair or 
should be replaced; 75 percent report serious problems, such as 
plumbing or heating defects; 80 percent have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental factor.

[[Page S4928]]

  Faulty boilers and leaky pipes are responsible for sewage leaks and 
backups at many schools in Springfield. Sixty percent of Springfield 
schools do not have power outlets and electric wiring needed to 
accommodate computers and multimedia equipment.
  At the Washington School in Springfield, windows are falling out, so 
they cannot keep the school well heated. At Chestnut school, an entire 
floor was closed due to disrepair and has not been reopened. To add to 
the problem, enrollment in Springfield schools has increased by 1,500 
students, or 6 percent, over the past 2 years. Facilities are not large 
enough to accommodate the number of students in the schools, forcing 
teachers to hold classes in storage rooms, large closets and basements.
  In Boston, nearly half the schools need major upgrades in their 
ventilation systems to meet current air quality standards.
  It is interesting, Mr. President, that over half of the schools in my 
home city of Boston are still not handicapped accessible.
  Schools in the city cannot keep their heating systems functioning 
properly. On a given day, 15 to 30 schools report that their heating 
systems are not working. Of Boston's 120 school buildings, 90 do not 
have adequate power outlets and wiring to accommodate today's 
technology. Roofs are crumbling at the Dearborn School, Hyde Park High 
School, Dickerman High School, and the Trotter School.
  Of the 50 public schools in Worcester, 10 schools need new boilers 
for their heating systems. Almost every school needs windows replaced. 
Half of Worcester's schools are not equipped with the wiring and 
infrastructure to handle new technology, and the vocational high school 
risks losing its certification because the building is in such poor 
condition. Its outdated electrical wiring is especially dangerous.
  Worcester's schools are also becoming overcrowded. Forest Grove 
Middle School is at its full capacity of 750 students. They expect 150 
additional students to enroll next year, forcing them to rent rooms at 
a local church to offset the overcrowding.
  At Holt School in Whitman, the foundation is cracked. Water damage 
has loosened the ceiling tiles in the cafeteria, and the ceiling of the 
boiler room is collapsing.
  At the Toy Town Elementary School in Winchendon, the roofs in the 
gymnasium are leaking, the window caulking is deteriorating, and there 
is asbestos in the cafeteria ceiling and floor tiles.
  It is difficult to teach or learn in dilapidated buildings and 
overcrowded classrooms. That is why this amendment is so important. It 
would provide $5 billion in funding over the next 5 years to help 
school districts meet their priorities for repair, renovation and 
modernization of their facilities, and it is fully offset by closing 
the tax loopholes and corporate subsidies in the budget resolution. The 
amendment does not bind anyone to one specific plan of how to provide 
support for school facilities. Those details will be worked out later. 
What the amendment does do is put priority on addressing the urgent 
needs of schools and the children who learn in them.
  It is preposterous to pretend that we can prepare students for the 
21st century in dilapidated 19th century classrooms. I urge my 
colleagues to support Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment.
  This chart indicates, Mr. President, exactly what the conditions are, 
as pointed out by the Senator from Illinois: Fourteen million children 
in substandard schools; 7 million attend schools with asbestos and lead 
paint. This provides for mental retardation and slow developmental 
learning; radon in the ceilings and wall; 12 million children go to 
schools under leaking roofs; and one-third of American children study 
in classrooms without enough panel outlets and electrical wiring to 
accommodate computer and multimedia equipment.
  We are going to spend $7.2 million in the title I program to help 
children to get the basic math and reading skills they need. But if 
those children are in dilapidated buildings, we are not spending that 
money wisely. We are going to be spending about $491 million in Goals 
2000, to help States and local communities establish standards so that 
they can measure the progress that children are making. If the Nation's 
classrooms are falling apart, When you have the kind of classrooms like 
this, how can we expect children to meet high academic standards?
  As the Senator from Illinois pointed out, we are going to be spending 
$1.8 billion for computers, electronics, and Internet access in the 
schools over the next 5 years. If you do not have the electrical 
outlets in which to plug in the computers, what difference will our 
technology investment make? We will spend hundreds of millions of 
dollars in upgrading professional training for teachers, but forcing 
them to teach in crumbling schools. So we are willing to get computers 
into the classroom, upgrade teaching, provide additional funding for 
literacy, and provide the additional funding for early interventions, 
but are going to ignore the deterioration of our schools? This is a 
national problem that must be addressed. GAO estimates that communities 
need $112 billion nationwide to repair their schools. It's a problem 
across the country--in urban areas, rural areas, and suburban areas. 
The places I talked about reflect a broad range of Massachusetts 
schools. Communities in every part of Massachusetts and across the 
country are facing urgent needs to repair dilapidated schools. You can 
go all over this Nation and find out this is true, and it is affecting 
the children of this Nation.

  So, Mr. President, this is not the first time that Senator Moseley-
Braun has championed this issue in the Senate. She is not a member of 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, but she made her case to us on 
this issue, and we addressed it.
  In 1994, we authorized a grant program in the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. In appropriations, we were able to appropriate 
$100 million in fiscal year 1995 for the program. But, when the 
rescissions came, the School Infrastructure Improvement Act was one of 
the first targets of the Republican leadership--they rescinded 100 
percent of the funding. Then we saw her amendment included in the 
initial budget agreement because individuals--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--understood the urgent need to repair the Nation's schools. Then 
overnight, it suddenly disappeared. It was in that proposal initially, 
and it should have been in it in the final agreement too. Now the good 
Senator is trying to just put back what was already in the initial 
draft to make a downpayment on helping to repair the Nation's schools.
  This very modest program will help school districts to develop 
funding mechanisms so that they can go ahead and meet this challenge 
themselves. There will be some help and assistance communities to 
subsidize some of the interest rates on bonds so that they can afford 
to repair their schools. We do not propose to have the Federal 
Government repair local schools. We propose to let the Federal 
Government lend a helping hand to those local communities that are hard 
pressed to do it themselves, to create decent, safe school buildings 
for their children.
  This is a national issue, Mr. President. I am strongly committed, and 
I know my other colleagues are too, to improving the quality of 
education of young people in this country. It starts right in the 
classroom and it starts by having a safe, modern classroom where a 
child can learn. Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment will move us in that 
direction. I commend her, and I hope the Senate will support her 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the 
Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquence and for his support.
  I want to yield some time to the Senator from Minnesota, but first I 
want to point out a couple of things.
  The Senator from Massachusetts talked about the classroom. It is a 
fact that in America, the rungs of the ladder of opportunity are still 
crafted in the classroom, and we now know that classrooms all across 
this country are falling apart and crumbling. The General Accounting 
Office told us in this report, ``Condition of America's Schools,'' that 
it is going to take $112 billion nationally to even bring our schools 
up to code. So this is no mistake, Mr. President. This is something 
that is documented by an exhaustive

[[Page S4929]]

study by the General Accounting Office.
  They also then went on to tell us that in addition, ``America's 
Schools Are Not Designed or Equipped for the 21st Century.'' So they 
went on to tell us what these charts say and pictures say and all of us 
know: That you cannot use computers in a classroom with a broken 
window, with falling ceilings, with peeling paint with lead in it, with 
no electrical system. This has been confirmed by the General Accounting 
Office.
  Then they went on to tell us, with ``Profiles of School Conditions by 
State,'' that this is a national problem. This is not just Illinois or 
Massachusetts or Minnesota, this is all over America, and each State 
has this problem.
  Then they went on to tell us, ``States' Financial and Technical 
Support Varies,'' that ``America's Schools Report Differing 
Conditions,'' and that ``State Efforts to Reduce Funding Gaps Between 
Poor and Wealthy Districts'' are poor and inadequate.
  I submit to you, Mr. President, that if all the States and cities, 
the local school districts, the rural communities all did their best in 
terms of property tax support for rebuilding our crumbling schools, 
they would have a hard time coming up with $112 billion without some 
assistance.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for two questions?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator saying that the Finance Committee ought 
to be able to find that $5 billion over 5 years out of $2.3 trillion--
$2.3 trillion--in tax expenditures, which include the billionaire's tax 
loophole and other egregious violations? Does the Senator think we 
ought to be able to find $5 billion out of $2.3 trillion in tax 
expenditures over the next 5 years?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
question, and he is exactly on the point. I absolutely agree. In fact, 
this is the cookbook; this is the book with the loopholes. It is called 
a loophole book instead of a cookbook. Here are the loopholes. The 
people who are billionaires can leave the country, renounce their U.S. 
citizenship and not pay a dime of taxes. In fact, they do it so they 
will not have to pay taxes on their money, and that represents more 
than we are asking for to rebuild our crumbling schools, and yet that 
is not taken out.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Am I correct that this is not a partisan issue? Senator 
McCain has been a leader in trying to close down some of the tax 
loopholes. So the idea of closing them is not just something put forth 
by the Senator from Illinois. This has been recognized across partisan 
lines that we ought to be able to close some of the tax loopholes in 
the interest of the American taxpayers.
  Finally, I ask the Senator this question, and she touched on it so 
eloquently earlier: What is the message that we send to school children 
if we do not pass this amendment? We have been talking about the 
collapsing roofs, inadequate boilers, windows that have fallen out and 
haven't been replaced, schools in Boston whose heating systems 
frequently fail. But what does this say to the schoolchildren of this 
country about our commitment to them when we are trying to, either as 
parents or as community leaders, say that continued education, the 
quality of schoolteachers, and homework is important; that we want 
young people to apply themselves and develop their own skills to 
enhance their educational opportunities so that they will have good 
jobs in the future? What do we say when we impress on them that what 
the learn is what they are going to earn in the future? What message 
does it say to them every single day when they go to school to learn in 
dilapidated classrooms?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for the 
question. And I think the message that it sends is that we are a bunch 
of hypocrites. I think the message that it sends is that everybody 
talks about education. We have an ``education everything.'' You can 
find probably an education dogcatcher somewhere in America that ran on 
a platform: I'm going to fix the schools. But we never seem to be able 
to get there.
  And so after a while the children become cynical and begin to believe 
that we do not believe education is important, that we do not really 
put our money where our mouth is, that we are prepared to send them 
into classrooms that suggest a diminished support or diminished 
importance of what they do.
  We send our children to classrooms every day in conditions that we 
would allow no worker to work in. We send our children to classrooms 
every day that we would not for a moment tolerate in our homes. And so 
if that is the case, then we say, well, we want you to go to learn 
somewhere that looks like this, that looks like the charts I have had. 
And we expect you to learn in that environment. What that says is 
learning is not really important.
  As we stand up and make our pious speeches about the globalization of 
our economy and the information age and the brave new world--again, 
that is why I thought this cartoon was so funny. ``A computer in class 
opens a whole new world for us!'' ``Look! A picture of a school with no 
leaking roof, no peeling paint, with textbooks for everyone * * *.'' 
That is a whole new world, because the world we give them is one with 
peeling paint and leaking roofs and no textbooks. I think it is just 
outrageous and shameful.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, how does the Senator address the question that 
this is going to be a budget buster, a deal breaker? We fully offset 
the amendment through corporate tax loopholes. If we pass this 
amendment of $5 billion with an offset of $5 billion, therefore making 
it revenue neutral, is it challenging to find $5 billion out of $2.3 
trillion in tax expenditures to spend on the renovation and repair of 
the Nation's crumbling schools? That looking out for the children of 
this country is a deal breaker? I do not find that as a very persuasive 
argument.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is right. Out of $2.3 trillion, $5 billion 
pales in comparison. It is just a start. It is not a budget buster by 
any means. In fact, if anything, it keeps the bottom line constant and 
just says we are going to give out a little less in tax breaks, we are 
just going to do a little less on the tax side, we are going to be a 
little more moderate in how many chickens we try to put in every pot 
and instead focus on our priorities and provide our youngsters with an 
opportunity to learn. That is all it does, I say to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I hope that the Senator's amendment is approved.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  I want to pick up with one other point the Senator made. And that is, 
there is no reason why this should be a partisan issue. Politics should 
stop at the schoolroom door. There ought to be Republican legislators 
and Democratic legislators alike standing up saying, we are prepared to 
help our States and local governments fix our crumbling schools.
  This should not come down to being: The Republicans are for crumbling 
schools and the Democrats want to fix them. This should not come down 
to being: Republicans do not care about their States having to meet 112 
billion dollars' worth of need that the General Accounting Office has 
documented State by State.
  And I suggest to my colleagues, I know your staffs all have them, but 
we have sent around copies of a State-by-State analysis. Take a look at 
what your State has in terms of the cost of bringing the schools just 
up to code.
  We are not talking about bells and whistles here. We are not talking 
about putting computers in the classrooms here. We are not talking 
about curtains. We are not even talking about new paint jobs. We are 
talking about taking care of the foundation, the electrical wiring, the 
plumbing, the roof, the windows, the basics, the floors.

  There was a school in the southern part of our country where the roof 
caved in altogether, a few minutes after the children had left the 
classroom; a school in my State where the track team had to use the 
prison because the gymnasium was so rotted away. It is an outrage and a 
shame, and we have an opportunity to address this problem on a 
bipartisan basis this morning.
  The Senator from Minnesota has been kind enough to wait here.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page S4930]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me also thank Senator Moseley-Braun 
for bringing this amendment to the floor of the Senate. And I am very 
proud to support her and be an original cosponsor.
  Mr. President, I am just going to build on a few remarks that have 
been made. There are 14 million children learning in substandard 
schools; and 7 million children attending schools with asbestos, lead 
paint, or radon in the ceilings or walls.
  Mr. President, this really is a scandal. This is really 
unconscionable. And this amendment goes to the heart of the question of 
priorities. What this amendment says is that rather than continuing to 
spend the hundreds of billions of dollars in a variety of different 
loopholes and deductions, billionaire tax breaks and all, transfer $5 
billion over 5 years and put that into investing to rebuild our schools 
that are crumbling all across America.
  I suggest to my colleague from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, or 
Senator Durbin, that I really believe that in many ways this is the 
priority vote. I really do, because it is just too dear a price to pay 
to refuse to go after some of these loopholes and deductions, never 
mind the fact that behind the loopholes and deductions are the heavy 
hitters and the people who are connected and the people who have the 
clout.
  This is all about who gets represented in the Senate. It is too dear 
a price to pay to not ask for a little bit of sacrifice over here and 
plug some of these loopholes or deductions and not make this 
investment.
  As I look at this budget agreement right now--I will be speaking 
about it more this afternoon with an amendment that I have on the floor 
of the Senate; so I want to stay within the framework of Senator 
Moseley-Braun's amendment--I just ask the question, where are the funds 
to rebuild schools that are crumbling all across our Nation? There is 
not one penny.
  Where are the funds--we went through this yesterday--to get health 
care coverage to every child who lacks it? We are still not willing to 
do that.
  And I say that any budget that does not provide at least some funds 
to begin to rebuild some of the schools in our country, schools that 
are crumbling all across the Nation, is hardly a budget that represents 
a bridge to the next century. This is not a budget that represents a 
bridge to the next century. Not one penny is invested in our crumbling 
schools.
  Mr. President, this is wrong. I wish we could just do an 
instantaneous poll and get the results in, because I know that people 
in the country would say it is wrong that 14 million children learn in 
substandard schools, it is wrong that 12 million children go to school 
under leaky roofs, it is wrong that 7 million children attend schools 
with asbestos, lead paint.
  How well could we do our jobs if we were here and the toilets did not 
work and the heating systems did not work or the air-conditioning did 
not work, and we were cold during the winter, hot during the summer, if 
there was asbestos or lead paint, the ceilings and the walls were 
decrepit?
  It is not that way here. This is splendor. And thank God that it is. 
This is the Nation's Capitol. Can't we have some of this splendor for 
children in America?
  In all due respect, we are getting way ahead of the curve with $35 
billion that goes to tax credits, deductions for college. I was a 
college teacher. Fine. But we have to get our children to the point 
where they are able to attend higher education. That does not happen 
unless we make this investment.

  This is the amendment. Do we continue to just fork out lavish 
subsidies to billionaires and large multinational corporations that do 
not need them or do we at least begin to make the investment in the 
schools that are crumbling all across this country?
  This speaks to the very issue of justice and fairness. This is a 
critically important amendment. I hope we will pass it.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his 
eloquence and for his passion and support as well.
  To the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, I yield----
  Mr. GRAHAM. Five minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to rise on behalf of the 
amendment that is being offered by our distinguished colleague from 
Illinois.
  Frankly, my own criticism of her proposal is that I think it is too 
modest in relationship to the challenge that we face as a Nation. As 
she has pointed out, our own General Accounting Office has indicated 
that there is a need in this Nation to bring existing schools up to a 
standard of basic safety, health, and educational adequacy of over $100 
billion. What is not included in that number, Mr. President, is what is 
required to build the new classrooms for the exploding student 
population.
  If I could use my own State as an example, Mr. President. Last year 
we had over 55,000 new students enrolled at the public schools in the 
State of Florida. That number will continue, in terms of angle rate of 
growth, for the foreseeable future.
  Similar numbers are true in States across America, as the baby boom 
population is now having babies and those babies are reaching school 
age. So we have a crisis not only in terms of rebuilding our older 
schools, but also in assuring new schools in order to avoid overcrowded 
classrooms.
  If I could tell a personal story, my own daughter was a kindergarten 
teacher in Dade County, FL. Her last year teaching in a brand new 
elementary school she had 38 5-year-olds in her kindergarten class. My 
daughter is a wonderful teacher. I would defy anyone to truly educate 
38 5-year-olds in one classroom.
  I might say, she went on from that experience. She was married, she 
taught for a brief period in Virginia, and now is a mother. In fact she 
is not only a mother, she is a mother of triplets. And so she said she 
was the only mother of triplets who ended up with 35 fewer children to 
deal with.
  Mr. President, that personal story underscores what is happening in 
too many classrooms to too many of our young Americans. And that is, 
that because we have fallen so woefully behind in maintenance as well 
as new construction, we are not providing the educational facilities 
that students need.
  The question is asked, ``Well, that's a State and local 
responsibility. Why are you here in Washington talking about this? You, 
a former State legislator, a former Governor, you certainly understand 
where the responsibility for education lies.'' Absolutely.
  I would defend the right and the importance of maintaining our 
tradition that States and local communities especially be responsible 
for those things that happen inside the classroom, curriculum, 
personnel policy, teacher relationships. But, Mr. President, there is a 
role for the Federal Government in the physical facilities of schools.
  We have demonstrated this for a long time in higher education. There 
is probably not a major college or university in America that cannot 
point to a substantial number of its physical facilities having been 
built with totally or in part Federal funds. We have recognized that 
distinction of concrete and steel from what happens inside the 
classroom and the appropriateness of a Federal role in meeting those 
facilities challenges.

  If we are serious about the proposition that the key to a competitive 
America in the 21st century is going to be how well our Americans are 
educated, and how well they will be able to compete in the increasingly 
globalized economy, certainly the Federal Government has a role in 
seeing that the physical places in which that preparation is going to 
take place meet acceptable standards. They do not meet those standards 
in too many communities in America today.
  And we, Mr. President, are about to exacerbate that situation. One of 
the reasons that we have 55,000-plus new students in the Florida public 
schools is because of Federal immigration policy.
  The Federal Government has adopted policies which have resulted in 
tens of

[[Page S4931]]

thousands of young people who were not born in the United States now 
being in the United States and being educated in our public schools. I 
think the Federal Government has a moral responsibility to assist when 
it is the precipitator of a significant amount of the challenge that 
school districts face.
  We are about to consider some substantial enhancements in the 
opportunity for young people to go to college through credits and 
deductions toward that tuition. Mr. President, that could have a 
significant effect on college tuition.
  I have a letter from the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Treasury 
which indicates that the estimate of enrollment which will increase 
substantially in higher education as a result of the proposal for 
credits and deductions for college tuition is between 120,000 and 1.4 
million. So we are about to consider a proposal which has the potential 
not only of creating a substantial surge in additional enrollment in 
higher education but would have a spillover effect in terms of the 
number of students and the kinds of educational opportunities that 
would be expected, particularly within our secondary schools.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government has a second responsibility 
because we are a significant part of the policies which are causing the 
demands that are occurring on the physical facilities of our public 
schools.
  Finally, one of the reasons that the reports are as dire as the 
General Accounting Office report states is so many States and local 
school districts are against the wall in their capacity to finance the 
maintenance of their schools and new construction. It has not been 
people at the local level that are indefinite, it is not that they are 
blind to the problem, it is that they are in many cases out of options 
as to how to deal with the problem, either because of statutory or 
economic limitations.
  I believe there is an appropriate Federal role to be a partner, and I 
underscore the word partner, with States and local school districts in 
meeting their school construction needs. This proposal is a beginning 
toward that new very important relationship.
  I commend the Senator from Illinois for her leadership in this 
matter. I hope her voice will be heard by our colleagues. I can tell 
you it is being heard out in America. They understand the importance of 
this issue. They understand the need to have Washington respond in a 
meaningful and tangible way. The question is whether we hear those 
voices here in this Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator from Florida 
has expired.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Senator from Florida raises a very good point 
that I did not touch on but I think it is important to mention and that 
is that we at the national level do not even pay for the Federal 
mandates. We are not even paying or giving the States and local 
governments the assistance they need to pay for the things we have told 
them to do.
  Small wonder that the resources get diverted, and so we wind up with 
crumbling roofs and classrooms that look like this. Small wonder. We 
put this burden on them, and now we are saying in terms of what you 
need to do, we are not going to help.
  Well, I hope that is not the message this morning. I hope that 
Republicans and Democrats alike will come together on behalf of giving 
our children a decent environment in which they need to learn.
  Less than 1 percent of this budget, less than 1 percent goes to 
support elementary and secondary education. Less than 1 percent. So we 
stand up and we have education this, that, and the other--the education 
Senator, the education President, the education Governors, the 
education mayors, and less than 1 percent of this budget goes to 
education. None goes to fix our crumbling schools unless we pass this 
amendment.
  (At the request of Ms. Moseley-Braun, the following statement was 
ordered to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as the Bible says, ``To every thing 
there is a season, a time to break down and a time to build up.''
  The unfortunate truth is that too many of our Nation's schools have 
broken down. It is long past the time for us to build our schools back 
up--literally.
  You have heard my colleague from Illinois cite some of the details--
$112 billion is needed across this country to rebuild, repair and 
renovate schools. Some 14 million children attend school daily in 
facilities that are unsafe and inadequate. To put this in some 
perspective, this is almost five times the population of the entire 
State of Iowa.
  This as a national problem and needs a national response. A Federal 
program to assist needy communities in rebuilding schools will not and 
should not circumvent the primary local and State control of education. 
However, I firmly believe the Federal Government needs to become a 
better partner for States and local communities with respect to 
education, in general, and construction of school facilities, in 
particular.
  Senator Mosely-Braun has done a good job talking about the need 
nationally. I want to take a few moments to talk about the state of 
school facilities in my State.
  Iowans take great pride in education. Our State has a long tradition 
of placing a high value on education. In fact, Iowa students often lead 
the Nation in performance on national and even international 
assessments. This is a tribute to the teachers, families, school 
boards, administrators, and State policymakers who have made education 
a top priority for decades. I applaud the commitment that Iowa has made 
to education. However, we still have much to do.
  The General Accounting Office report found that 79 percent of Iowa 
schools report a need to repair or upgrade buildings to bring them up 
to overall good condition.
  Like many of my colleagues, I frequently visit schools in my State. I 
am often struck by the fact that many schools have not changed much 
since I was a student. We won't talk about how long ago that was.
  However, our homes, offices, shopping centers, cars and just about 
every thing else has changed radically. However, reinvestment and 
renovations have not been made to our Nation's schools. As a result, we 
are trying to prepare our children for the 21st century in facilities 
that hardly make the grade in the last one. We can certainly do better 
than that.
  In 1994, Senator Mosely-Braun secured legislation to authorize 
funding for school infrastructure. At that time, I served as chairman 
of the education appropriations subcommittee and provided $100 million 
for new school infrastructure. I was very disappointed when that modest 
downpayment was rescinded the following year.
  A problem that was a critical need then, has gotten even worse. In 
1995, Iowa State University conducted a comprehensive survey about the 
condition of school buildings in the state and estimated that $3.4 
billion is needed to repair and rebuild these facilities. This survey 
was updated a few months ago and the tab has risen to $4 billion.
  This is a problem that gets worse by the day and the impact on high 
quality learning is significant. It is long past time for the Federal 
Government to step up to the plate and help remedy this problem.
  The amendment I am offering with the Senator from Illinois is a very 
important response to this urgent national concern. We believe that 
children in a nation as rich as ours should not have to attend schools 
that look more like they belong in the third world. We implore our 
colleagues to help us provide a modest sum to rebuild our crumbling 
schools.
  Mr. President, I am fully aware that many of my colleagues will say 
that this problem is just too big for the Federal Government to handle. 
Our critics will point out that the need is enormous--$112 billion and 
we are proposing a $5 billion solution. However, this plan will 
generate $20 billion in newschool construction. To provide this 
additional funding we simply call for closing additional tax loopholes.
  Our amendment continues to build on the positive aspects of this 
budget. The underlying legislation increases funding for activities 
related to education and training by 13 percent over the next 5 years 
by calling for expanded access to Head Start and increased funding for 
Pell grants. In addition, the budget makes changes to the Tax Code to 
help Americans pay for college by providing tuition tax credits and 
deductions for postsecondary education. These investments are vital to

[[Page S4932]]

the future of the United States and our ability to remain competitive 
in the international marketplace.
  The problems facing school facilities across our Nation are enormous 
and will not be solved overnight. However, as they say, Rome wasn't 
built in a day. Further, if we had that attitude in the 1950's we would 
not have built the Interstate Highway system or put a man on the Moon 
in 1969. As we know, every journey begins with one step.
  This is a very important step for us to take. One that will help 
provide safe, sound learning environments for millions of children. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, to help rebuild 
our Nation's schools.
  This amendment would ensure that any budget agreement that we reach 
will include funding for school construction. I believe that we must 
ensure that we meet the needs of our local communities to help them 
upgrade the Nation's schools.
  I am an original cosponsor of S. 456, the Partnership to Rebuild 
America's Schools Act. This bill would provide $5 billion over 4 years 
to subsidize up to 50 percent of the interest or other financing costs 
for school construction.
  These funds would help States and localities leverage scarce 
resources to help upgrade, repair, and build new schools.
  In my State of Maryland, school enrollment is at an all time high. 
Many of the counties in Maryland like Prince Georges and Montgomery are 
rapidly expanding and the school districts are struggling to keep pace.
  I hear from parents, students, and teachers about the need to upgrade 
the schools. Our children must be in environments which are conducive 
to learning. Over one-third of the schools in Maryland are in desperate 
need of repair.
  Under S. 456, Maryland would receive approximately $57.9 million in 
Federal funds to support $231.6 million for school construction. 
Baltimore public schools would receive $31.4 million.
  I believe that funding school construction has to be a priority for 
our Nation. Children cannot learn in schools with leaky roofs, poor 
ventilation, crumbling walls, and other problems. This problem is 
especially acute in rural areas and inner cities. Many of these schools 
fail to meet even minimum local health and safety codes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Our Nation's school 
children deserve no less.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
the amendment offered by Senator Moseley-Braun to begin a vital 
undertaking--the rebuilding of America's crumbling schools.
  Mr. President, we all talk a good game here about children. We say 
time and time again that America's children are at the center of our 
efforts--be it education, job training, or tax policy. However, this 
amendment asks us to support more than rhetoric, it asks us to support 
the actual foundations of our schools.
  Unfortunately, our schools are in desperate need of help in this 
area. In the richest Nation in the world, we have schools without 
adequate heat or plumbing and leaky roofs. One-third of all students in 
this country go to school in buildings that are considered inadequate, 
and 60 percent of American students attend school in buildings that are 
in need of repair. There are schools just minutes from us here today, 
where whole sections of the school are unusable because they are too 
dangerous for children to be in. Beyond basic repairs, schools are also 
lacking electrical and telephone capabilities necessary to install 
computers in the classrooms.
  These problems are everywhere, but here are a few examples from my 
State. Seventy-seven percent of Connecticut's schools report a need to 
upgrade or repair on-site buildings to reach a good overall condition. 
Sixty-eight percent of schools report at least one unsatisfactory 
environmental factor, 32 percent inadequate roofs, 23 percent 
inadequate exterior walls or windows, and 29 percent inadequate 
electrical systems. One of the stated goals of our national education 
policy is to connect every school in the country to the Internet and 
teach every student to use the Internet by the age of 12. Well, I have 
heard from principals in my State who can only dream of computers in 
the classroom, and they simply hope to obtain a few telephones with 
voice mail capacity to improve communications with parents.
  Mr. President, this is a national travesty. We expect children to be 
ready for the 21st century, and we encourage them to stay in school, go 
to college, and work hard. But we are not keeping up our side of the 
bargain. Schools with no heat, plumbing that doesn't work, windows that 
don't open, and no capacity for technology--these are schools that fall 
short of anyone's expectations, particularly the expectations of our 
students.
  The amendment we are debating here today takes a modest step to begin 
to address this serious challenge. The General Accounting Office has 
estimated that over $110 billion is needed to repair our schools. This 
amendment would dedicate an additional $5 billion that would be 
significantly leveraged at the State and local level to $20 billion to 
begin this task and lead the way in this effort. I am pleased to be an 
original cosponsor of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting it.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun. I want to thank her for 
her tireless efforts to educate the Senate and the American people 
about the tremendous problems in our nation's school facilities.
  People talk about the role of the Federal Government in local school 
policy. By championing this issue, Senator Moseley-Braun has pointed 
out quite accurately that the Federal Government does have a role in K-
12 education in this country. That role is not in passing down 
curriculum or trying to tell teachers how to teach. The role is 
guaranteeing certain minimum standards for health, safety, and 
quality--and that is what this proposal is all about.
  There are schools in our Nation that are rundown, have falling 
plaster or open holes in floors or ceilings, schools with water leaks 
or no air-conditioning in hot climates. There are schools, like Lewis 
and Clark High School in Spokane, WA, an 85-year-old urban high school, 
that are badly in need of improvements. There are school districts in 
places like the small town of Raymond, WA, which the General Accounting 
Office has previously identified as needing help with school 
construction funding--which cannot renovate all their schools due to 
local economic factors. This amendment could have as much as a $40 
million cumulative impact on my State.
  This amendment is absolutely critical to the students, parents, and 
families in our country who think education is of primary national 
priority. How can we say that we truly care about public education, 
when our school rooms smell of mildew, or are far too cold or hot or 
crowded? How can we say that we care about students learning that all 
Americans are equal under law, if their track meet across town is at a 
much nicer school?
  Senator Moseley-Braun showed a cartoon on the Senate floor, in which 
students were using computers to look at other student's much nicer 
school buildings. This problem is symbolic. Students in this country 
deserve decent places to learn. We must make sure that the Moseley-
Braun school construction amendment is included in this budget.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my 
time. I understand that Senators Torricelli and Durbin will speak with 
time yielded from the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. What hour are we supposed to 
vote on the amendment of the Senator from Illinois?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that there is no 
agreed upon time to vote. The Senator from New Mexico has 9 minutes and 
43 seconds, the Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes and 30 seconds, and 
the vote will occur after that time expires pending any other 
agreements reached on the Senate floor.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

[[Page S4933]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would very much appreciate it and I 
will do the same for you if we could keep the debate on amendments to a 
minimum--not taking away the prerogatives but not adding to the time. I 
assume that you all could live with that.
  If you need, on this particular amendment, an extra 5 minutes off the 
bill--but after that we ought to try and stick to a limited amount.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree, Senator Domenici, that we have to start 
constraining time because the list is long and unless we get after it 
we will not have a chance for everybody to be heard on the amendments 
that they care about.
  I suggest, however, we give 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey 
and after that, 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, who has 
requested time, as well, and we will try to button it up. I know the 
sponsor of the amendment has a few minutes that she will complete.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time, then, would the Senator desire?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes and 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So that means three Senators with essentially 5 minutes 
each, and then you are finished on your side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Five minutes each from the resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. She will use hers off of the bill. She has 5 minutes 
left.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will that be enough time to finish your remarks, the 
5 minutes you have remaining?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes, it will.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, there is no precedent for 
Federal involvement in the construction of elementary and secondary 
institutions except the Education Infrastructure Act of 1994.
  It has an interesting history. The program had a total appropriation 
of $100 million and that was rescinded in 1995, no funding was provided 
in 1996, and no funding was requested by the President of the United 
States in his 1997 budget. No funding was provided in 1997. In fact, it 
is very interesting, the President, in his fiscal year 1996 Department 
of Education budget said the following: ``The construction and 
renovation of school facilities has traditionally been the 
responsibility of State and local governments financed primarily by 
local taxpayers. We are opposed to the creation of a new Federal grant 
program for school construction.'' That was the President of the United 
States speaking not too long ago.
  The justification for this initiative is a 1995 GAO report which was 
based on a national sample of schools and school officials who were 
surveyed about construction and renovation needs. These schools 
estimated the Nation needed about $112 billion to repair and upgrade 
America's schools. The GAO concluded that if that is the case, if that 
is their conclusion, I say this money will not even make a ripple of 
positive effect on the horizon on the difficulties that are out there.
  Scarce resources would be better spent on clear-cut Federal 
priorities, clear-cut education priorities, clear-cut issues like 
children with disabilities. This budget resolution assumes $5 billion 
increase for special education and for programs which there is a very 
clear Federal role.
  Now, from what I understand of this amendment, the amendment would be 
paid for by, once again, reducing the level of net tax reductions 
allowable for the American people. It seems to me that every time we 
turn around somebody wants to say, ``We want to give the American 
people less of a tax cut.'' We have this great need for something so we 
will just take it out of the tax-cut package that was going to 
Americans, including a $500 child care credit to American families who 
are raising children and having a difficult time getting them through 
school.

  So when the time is up, while I laud my colleague for her efforts 
here on the floor, I will move to table this amendment. I hope there 
would be broad support to go along with the conclusions which the 
President of the United States so brilliantly stated in 1996 when he 
said that the Federal Government should not be involved in the 
construction and repair of public school facilities, that that was the 
responsibility of local government. I paraphrase, but nonetheless I do 
state accurately what the President of the United States thought just 
about 18 months ago.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
  Mr. President, in my brief tenure in this institution I have never 
felt more motivated on an individual amendment and in addressing a 
higher national priority than endorsing and speaking today on the 
amendment of Carol Moseley-Braun regarding school finance. She has made 
an enormous contribution to this institution.
  Mr. President, like every Member of this Senate, I share the priority 
of balancing the Federal budget. It is due, it is required, and it is 
essential.
  We do no service to the country, however, if in our desire to balance 
the Federal budget we also lose sight of all other Federal priorities. 
Balancing the Federal budget is important, but it is not the only 
business of this country. It is noteworthy that the principle 
contribution in reducing the Federal debt in recent years has come from 
neither reducing spending nor raising taxes. It is the unmistakable 
result of a growing, expanding economy.
  The amendment before the Senate is relevant and not an obstacle to 
reducing the debt of the U.S. Government because education is the 
foundation of an expanding economy. My goal is not simply to see us 
balance the Federal budget for the next few years but for the next 
generation. That is unachievable in a Nation with a $100 billion 
inventory of crumbling schools, schools which cannot teach modern 
technology, where children cannot even sit safely in a classroom.
  The GAO has reported that 14 million of our own children are in 
schools with extensive need of repair or requiring total replacement. 
Half of our schools are unable to take advantage of the latest 
technology because of inadequate wiring. Mr. President, 74 percent have 
outlived their usefulness.
  Recently, I toured some of the most troubled schools of my own State 
of New Jersey. In Perth Amboy, Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson, I saw 
students sitting in classrooms trying to learn the latest of 
mathematics and science with buckets next to their desk to collect the 
rain, classrooms that were being held in school corridors because 
science classes were not safe, gymnasiums used for lecture halls 
because of inadequate space.
  It may be that what we do today involving the Federal Government and 
the rebuilding of our schools is a precedent. So be it. There was a 
time when the Federal Government had no role in the building of roads. 
It was local. Then we built a national economy. There was a time the 
Federal Government was not involved in transportation. Then we saw the 
need for expanded interstate commerce.
  Today there can be no misstating that this country will go no further 
and no farther in the education of our children and their preparation 
for the future.
  I respect my colleagues who may have a different view. But I would 
ask this: If you believe that this is not a crisis, that there is no 
Federal role, and that we can build a modern economy, pay our bills and 
balance our budget into the future without rebuilding these schools, 
come to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, or Camden and stand in 
those schools. Look those children in the eyes. Tell them they have a 
future and they can play a role in expanding the American economy 
competitive with other students around the world without rebuilding 
these schools. Tell them and convince yourselves that there is a strong 
and stable American economy without this effort.
  Mr. President, only a few months ago the President of the United 
States came to this Congress with a single new domestic initiative. He 
too recognized that we live in times of limits. The budget must be 
balanced. He provided the leadership that got us to this

[[Page S4934]]

day in sight of a balanced budget. But his single new initiative, his 
single promise to this country for the next year, was the rebuilding of 
these schools.
  There is a $5 billion program represented today by the Senator from 
Illinois that will allow $20 billion worth of construction across 
America by reducing the local costs of borrowing; $20 billion will not 
solve the problem with a $100 billion inventory. But it is a real 
contribution. It is a real beginning by having this country address 
this extraordinary and deep problem.
  Mr. President, I, too, support the tax cut provisions of the balanced 
budget plan. I do not want to see it lessened or diminished in any way. 
That is why it is significant.
  The provisions by the Senator from Illinois will allow the Finance 
Committee to either eliminate some tax loopholes or provisions of 
corporate welfare to compensate so that we can reach a balanced budget 
and keep the current tax reduction plan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 5 minutes. The time 
allotted to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, very much. I urge support for Carol 
Moseley-Braun's amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to myself to speak in 
behalf of the Moseley-Braun amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday we had a vote that was very 
important about health care for children. I thought it was a watershed 
vote, because it is an issue which very few American families would 
quarrel with. Children were not insured. They weren't receiving 
adequate health care. A suggestion was made by Senators Hatch and 
Kennedy that we have a bipartisan response and raise the cigarette tax, 
take the money and ensure the children. We lost. We called it for a 
vote and we lost. Health care for children failed yesterday.
  So we start this morning with another challenge. If you won't provide 
health care for children, how about education? Let's test that question 
before the U.S. Senate. Have we provided in this great Nation the 
resources for education for our children?
  Senator Moseley-Braun of Illinois brings that challenge to the floor 
this morning. She says to the U.S. Senate, let's test this theory. If 
we are committed as a nation to education, are we committed enough to 
cut tax loopholes that some of wealthiest Americans enjoy, take the 
money and put it into building our crumbling schools? She is not 
talking about carpeting schools in America. Senator Moseley-Braun is 
not talking about air conditioning for every school in America. She is 
talking about the basics: safety in the schools and a learning 
environment so that our children can walk into a clean classroom, 
heated in the winter, cool in the hot days of summer, and have the 
ability to learn.
  If you go to your State, whatever it is, and look around, you know 
what you are going to find. The Government is spending money today for 
that very type of room: A clean, comfortable room for young people. Is 
it a classroom? No. It is a prison cell. It is a juvenile detention 
center. We are building them in Illinois at a record pace. And I will 
bet you that in every State of the country you will find the same is 
true.

  As juvenile crime increases, we are building more boot camps, more 
detention centers and more prisons. If you visit them, many of them are 
not luxurious. But they are a heck of a lot better than the school 
building just a few blocks away.
  Should we have clean and adequate facilities for the detention of 
young people? Of course. But think about it for a second. We drive past 
a high school that is falling down, a junior high school that is 
totally inadequate, an elementary school where they don't have heating, 
where the windows are busted out and the ceilings are falling down, 
and, a few blocks beyond that, see a detention center all brand new and 
shiny and modern. What is the lesson there for the children, or for us 
as taxpayers? Where is the priority? Wouldn't we say that we would have 
at least as high a priority in providing a school building that is good 
for children? That is what Senator Carol Moseley-Braun has proposed.
  Let me add another element that is very important as far as I am 
concerned. In the old days, a school building opened up at 7:30 or 8 
o'clock in the morning and closed up at 2:30 or 3 in the afternoon, and 
that was it. Kids went home to mom and dad in the ``Ozzie and Harriet'' 
setting of cookies and milk, or ``The Partridge Family,'' whatever, you 
name it--good, old American values. That isn't what the American family 
looks like today. Those kids coming home at 2:30 or 3 in the afternoon 
are lucky to find anybody at home. The parent or parents are usually 
out working. And they sit around for 2 or 3 hours waiting for an adult 
to show up. Their choices in life at that point are television or 
trouble. Sad choices.
  So we are expanding the concept of schools beyond just learning, to 
be community centers so that at the end of the ordinary schoolday the 
kids stay there in a safe learning environment. They would stay there 
until the parents were home in the evening, and they would have a 
positive experience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. If we are going to use our schools so that kids have a 
better chance in life, don't we want them to be decent, safe buildings? 
Honest to goodness, if we fail, if these kids go out in the street, get 
in trouble at the malls, or wherever it happens to be, and get 
arrested, they are going to head off to a public facility that is 
better than the school they left. Does that make sense? What does it 
say about America?
  So, today, we are going to test a new premise. If we cannot afford, 
as America, health care for children, which we voted yesterday, we will 
have a chance today on Senator Carol Moseley-Braun's amendment to see 
whether or not we can afford adequate schools for our children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time--hopefully, within the 
appropriated time by the Chair?
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes and 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I reserve my time until 5 minutes of 11.
  Is the vote scheduled to start at 11 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that the Senator does 
not have a right to specify the time in regard to 5 minutes and 30 
seconds. The time will run equally between the two managers of the 
bill. But the Senator from Illinois does have 5 minutes and 30 seconds 
remaining on her time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will count equally between the 
managers of the bill.

  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to know why the Senator wants to do this. 
This is not the normal way. She has to get consent from the Senate. Her 
time is running right now. As soon as I sit down, it is running. I 
don't understand.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yielded the floor. And my time is not running if 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to ask, why does the Senator want to break up 
the time? We don't break up time. People use their hour. I am asking. 
It isn't normal.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. At the outset, I ask: Is this conversation on my 
time or not?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let the Senator speak on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is being utilized by the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I say to the Senator from New Mexico that I would 
just as soon have a slot at the close of the debate. Is my 
understanding that the vote was scheduled at 11 o'clock? If we can use 
the intervening time--you have not. No? I would like at the moment to 
consult with the Senator from

[[Page S4935]]

New Mexico, because it is my understanding the vote was scheduled for 
11.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am so sorry. We had a misunderstanding. There is no 
time set. So we will vote as soon as the time of the Senator from 
Illinois has been used.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is wonderful. Then I would like to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator would let us to do something for about 2 
minutes, then we will get back to her and the Senator can use her time, 
I will use mine, and then I will move to table.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. And then we will vote. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 355

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, last night Senator Boxer introduced an 
amendment. We agreed that we would accept that amendment without a 
rollcall vote.
  I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Moseley-Braun 
amendment be set aside temporarily while we move back to the Boxer 
amendment, at which time Senator Durbin would like to speak for a 
couple of minutes, and then we will accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question pending is Boxer amendment No. 355.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am happy to sponsor this amendment with 
Senator Boxer. I am happy that the chairman of the committee has agreed 
to accept the amendment and make it part of this budget resolution. I 
would like to speak for a very brief period about this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of 
amendment No. 355, and that Senator Kennedy be added as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. This amendment, so it is understood by the membership, is 
very straightforward. I can read it in two sentences and describe it as 
well with these words.
  ``A substantial majority of the tax cut benefits provided in the tax 
reconciliation bill''--which is a part of this agreement--``will go to 
middle-class working families earning less than approximately $100,000 
per year, and the tax cuts in the tax reconciliation bill will not 
cause revenue losses to increase significantly in years after 2007.''
  Senator Boxer and I are trying to establish as basic principles that 
the tax cut package that will emerge from this budget agreement will do 
one thing and avoid another. The thing that it will do is to gear more 
than a majority--a substantial majority--of the benefits to middle-
income families. We think, if this ends up becoming a tax cut for 
wealthy people, that it is not in the best interests of sparking this 
economy and helping working families cope with the expenses of life 
that they face every day.

  Second, we want to make certain in this resolution that we make it 
clear that any tax cut package will be measured not only to the year 
2002, when we hope the budget will be in balance, and 5 years beyond to 
2007. We have great fear and concern by reports that have come out 
recently from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that some of 
the tax cut provisions that are being debated will literally explode in 
cost in the outyears, causing great dislocation in terms of the Federal 
budget and a great burden to Federal taxpayers.
  Let us make sure these tax cuts are affordable and they are targeted 
to families that need them. Then, I think we can say to the American 
people that we have not only balanced the budget, but we have given you 
a tax cut that is responsible for the future of our economy.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield any time that I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Boxer amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 355) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 336

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to return quickly to 
Senator Moseley-Braun for her wrap-up. I have a couple of minutes, then 
we are going to ask Senator Warner--we are notifying him now--if he 
would be ready for his highway bill. That would occur after the vote. 
Obviously, if the motion to table is not agreed to, then Senator Warner 
will have a little more of a wait. But, other than that, that is the 
sequence we have asked for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on amendment 336.
  The Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes remaining on her time and is 
recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to respond at the 
outset to my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, who says this is the 
first time we have ever been involved in trying to repair our Nation's 
schools, that it is a new initiative, that we have never done this 
before. In fact, between 1933 and 1939, the Federal Government aided 70 
percent of all new school construction. Mr. President, a lot of our 
children are attending those very same schools.
  In fact, in America today, 74 percent of the schools are over 25 
years old and a third of the schools are over 50 years old. So there is 
no question that if you do not repair a 50-year-old building, it is 
going to begin to look like this. This is one of the reasons why we 
have the troubled-school phenomenon.
  The second issue that has been raised has to do with the 
contributions of State and local governments. Again, I would point out 
this is not looking to take over anything. We just want to have a 
partnership to help State and local governments meet the $112 billion 
amount it is going to take to repair their crumbling schools.
  The President did, in fact, support this in his State of the Union 
Address. He said our children cannot raise themselves up in schools 
that are literally falling down around them. Similarly, the Department 
of Education has a long letter talking about the leveraging and the 
financing assistance that we will give the States should this amendment 
be approved.
  But let me say to my colleague, in the final analysis, really, this 
modest contribution is not about setting a precedent. It is about 
whether or not we will allow for elementary and secondary education to 
get up to 1 percent of our total budget we are voting on here to help 
begin to tackle 112 billion dollars' worth of rot in our schools. We 
are asking that it come out of the tax breaks that we are giving in 
this budget, in some instances to the very wealthy.
  I thought it was kind of ironic; in yesterday's New York Times there 
was a headline talking about ``Tax Breaks Costly for Schools in 
Cleveland.'' I want to point out that tax breaks are going to be costly 
for schools all over America because we are giving tax breaks at a time 
when we are saying we do not have the wherewithal to provide a modest 
amount to help States and help local communities meet the challenge of 
repairing their crumbling schools.
  I hope that on both sides of this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats 
alike will send a message that we are willing to help, we are willing 
to help States and local communities provide an environment that is 
suitable for learning by our children. They are, after all, the 
children of all. They are America's children. Just as the generation 
before us stepped up to build new schools and provide environments for 
learning for our time, I believe our generation has an obligation to 
step up to the plate to assist in meeting this $112 billion challenge 
and help rebuild the crumbling schools which we ask our children to 
attend.
  I have already made the point it is a national issue. It is in every 
kind of community--urban, suburban and rural. It is all over America. 
Mr. President, $5 billion is just a contribution, a contribution to the 
States and local governments so they can borrow the money they need to 
meet what is a national challenge.
  Senator Durbin actually hit the nail on the head when he made the 
analogy to our roads. If we just built roads based on what a local 
community could do, you could not get from one end of this great Nation 
to the other. But we cooperate and collaborate with each

[[Page S4936]]

other to build a highway system so that we can have transportation that 
serves our national interests.
  Mr. President, crumbling schools are not in our national interest. 
Crumbling schools hurt our country. Crumbling schools hurt our 
children. If we are going to give our country the ability to be 
competitive in this global economy, if we are going to give our 
children the capacity to command information technologies that are so 
much a part of their time, we cannot expect them to learn in 
environments like this.
  We can make this modest contribution, recognizing that it is an 
appropriate Federal role to provide this kind of support and help. I 
hope that when this vote happens, we do have bipartisan support; that 
this does not become a matter of Republicans saying they are not 
willing to provide this assistance to State and local governments to 
help provide children, our children, with an environment suitable for 
their education. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will see that this is something we can do within the context of this 
budget; that we can do this without causing harm to anyone. We ought to 
be able to close a few tax loopholes so we can provide modest support 
for our children and for State and local government efforts to repair 
our crumbling schools.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Nickles 
of Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, with great respect for my colleague from 
Illinois, I urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  This amendment basically says, taxpayers, you pay $5 billion more in 
taxes and now we are going to have a new Federal program designed to 
build new schools or to renovate schools.
  Is that really a Federal responsibility? I do not think so. We 
already have the Federal Government involved in education in many 
areas; as a matter of fact, a lot more than I was quite aware of. I 
asked my staff to find out, and they told me. I heard originally the 
House said there were 760 programs. We find out now there are 788 
programs. I asked my staff, how much does it cost? And they said about 
$100 billion, and I sent them an E-mail and said, ``That can't be 
right.''
  It is right. I will insert it into the Record. It is $96.8 billion 
that we spend on these 788 programs. We have a little program for 
construction. The total cost of it is $627 million, I might mention. I 
am going to guess that is for military schools and Indian schools, and 
so on. But this says, well, let us have a $5 billion education building 
program, a new program, one that would have to comply with Federal 
rules, like Davis-Bacon. In other words, if a school is going to be 
built in South Dakota--they may have to build a new school in South 
Dakota because of the floods--they would have to build according to 
Federal rules, and that includes Davis-Bacon. That means the Federal 
Government is going to determine what the wage rates are. In all 
likelihood the wage rates might be 30 percent more than they are in 
South Dakota. So you get a lot less school built for the same amount of 
money.
  My point is that this really is not a Federal responsibility, and $5 
billion cannot come close to scratching the surface of the need. I do 
not doubt that you could have a lot of pictures of dilapidated school 
buildings. Is that really the Federal Government's responsibility? I do 
not think it is. Even if we had a surplus, I do not think that is a 
Federal Government responsibility.
  How in the world could we in Washington, DC, decide which State, 
which school, which local area should have their schools fixed or 
renovated? If we made this available, I could see just for the District 
of Columbia or just for any State--New Mexico, Oklahoma, Illinois, any 
State--a lot of schools. A lot of cities have real needs. Are we going 
to be the superintendent? Are we going to be deciding who should get 
the renovation and who should not? We will not come close; $5 billion 
would not scratch the surface. I am sure $5 billion could not take care 
of all the public school needs in the State of Illinois or in the State 
of New York.
  So, my point being this is not a Federal responsibility. It is not a 
Federal obligation, and I think it would be a serious mistake for us to 
start down this line of new spending which would have an ever-growing 
demand that we would never be able to fill, so I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I just make an announcement off the bill because 
I want to discuss something with the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. A short while ago, when the Senator wanted to reserve 
the time until 11, I said there is no agreement to vote at 11, and 
there is none. But I have understood now that the Republican leadership 
had agreed with the Democratic leadership that because of a conflict on 
the other side we would not vote until 11. So we have about 3 minutes 
of a hiatus here. I was speaking what I knew and the Senator was 
speaking about something she had understood, and I apologize for 
whatever discomfort I might have caused.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. It is very 
nice of him to mention that, but I was prepared to take his word that 
he knew what the agreement would be.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I will use time off the amendment 
which I understand is just a couple minutes. I want to quote--yes, 
Senator Nickles.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent a couple of charts be inserted 
in the Record accompanying my statement.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Reserving the right to object, charts having to do 
with this issue?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am going to insert a couple documents in conjunction 
with my statement.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I think that is inappropriate if we have not seen 
them. I think it is appropriate for us to see them, and obviously, 
then, there would not be an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Chair asks that the Senators 
address the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I 
would like to ask unanimous-consent three pieces of paper, a chart 
showing the 788 Federal school programs, and the $98.1 billion that we 
currently spend on educational programs, be inserted in the Record 
accompanying my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. No objection.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS BY CATEGORY                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of                 
                  Category                    programs       Funding    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction...............................           9     $627,096,000
Education Research.........................          14      841,534,000
General Education..........................          52      684,250,501
K12........................................         181   25,920,623,342
Libraries..................................           9      249,869,103
OMB 1&2....................................          33      577,929,000
Professional Development/Teacher Training..          60      731,528,342
Postsecondary..............................         259   44,765,196,759
Preschool..................................          17    5,770,992,000
Research...................................          27    1,711,255,000
Social Services............................          42    6,790,978,287
Training...................................          79    8,178,372,048
Set Asides.................................           6      19,719,038.
                                            ----------------------------
      Total................................         788   96,869,343,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS AND FUNDING                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of                 
                 Department                   programs   Federal funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian Regional Commission............           2       $2,000,000
Barry Goldwater Scholarship Program........           1        2,900,000
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Program....           1                0
Corporation for National Service...........          11      501,130,000
Department of Education....................         307   59,045,043,938
Department of Commerce.....................          20      156,455,000
Department of Defense......................          15    2,815,320,854
Department of Energy.......................          22       36,700,000
Department of Health and Human Services....         172    8,661,006,166
Department of Housing and Urban Development           9       81,800,000
Department of Interior.....................          27      555,565,000
Department of Justice......................          21      755,447,149
Department of the Treasury.................           1       11,000,000
Department of Labor........................          21    5,474,039,000
Department of Transportation...............          19      121,672,000
Department of Veterans' Affairs............           6    1,436,074,000
Environmental Protection Agency............           4       11,103,800
Federal Emergency Management Administration           6      118,512,000
General Services Administration............           1                0
Government Printing Office.................           2       24,756,000
Harry Truman Scholarship Foundation........           1        3,187,000
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Program..           1        2,000,000
Library of Congress........................           5      194,822,103
National Aeronautics and Space                                          
 Administration............................          12      153,300,000

[[Page S4937]]

                                                                        
National Archives..........................           2        5,000,000
National Institute for Literacy............           1        4,491,000
National Council on Disability.............           1          200,000
National Endowment for the Arts/Humanities.          13      103,219,000
National Science Foundation................          15    2,939,230,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission..............           3        6,944,000
National Gallery of Art....................           1          750,000
Office of Personnel Management.............           1                0
Small Business Administration..............           2       73,540,000
Smithsonian................................          14        3,276,000
Social Security Administration.............           1       85,700,000
State Department...........................           1                0
United States Information Agency...........           8      125,558,000
United States Institute for Peace..........           4        3,371,000
United States Department of Agriculture....          33   13,339,630,410
U.S. Agency for International Development..           1       14,600,000
                                            ----------------------------
    Total..................................         788   96,869,343,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. DOMENICI. Did you get that resolved, Mr. President?
  Mr. President, I just want to end this debate by saying that the 
President's thinking in 1996 was much better than his thinking in 1997, 
because in 1996 in submitting his budget, the President made the 
following statement:

       The construction and renovation of school facilities has 
     traditionally been the responsibility of State and local 
     governments financed primarily by local taxpayers. We are 
     opposed--

  Continues the President in 1996--

     to the creation of a new Federal grant program for school 
     construction.

  Now, I understand the President has the right to change his mind in 
12 months, but I submit his thinking was much, much better in 1996.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I only have 30 seconds remaining.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Is it not a fact that that statement was 
associated with the rescissions of the appropriation for a grant 
program, whereas this amendment relates to a leveraging approach to 
give States and school districts assistance--different approaches to 
the issue?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is obvious that it is about a different program, but 
I am merely mentioning that the President was firm of mind in 1996 when 
he quite appropriately said that this is not a responsibility of the 
Federal Government, and I just quoted the President. Now, he has a 
right to change his mind about another way to help build schools, but I 
submit that we also should share with the American people that that 
change occurred over a 12-month period and, frankly, I believe we ought 
to agree with the President in 1996, not the President in 1997.
  Now, having said that, has my time been used up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority managers' time is 50 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Since we have until 11 to vote and time is finished on 
this amendment, my colleague from New Mexico desires to speak, if 
Senator Lautenberg would concur, for the remainder of the time until 11 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that I be permitted to speak for 
up to 4 minutes, if that is possible, the time yielded off the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first say that I am an original 
cosponsor of the amendment by the Senator from Illinois for funding for 
school construction. There is a great need in this country for this. In 
my view, one failure, one defect of the budget resolution before us is 
that we give great emphasis to higher education and very little 
emphasize to elementary and secondary education. The needs are great in 
my State for school construction funding, and I think this is a 
beginning. I grant it is a modest beginning, but it is a step in the 
right direction. I commend the Senator from Illinois for offering this 
amendment, and I intend to support it.
  I rise as an original cosponsor of the Mosely-Braun amendment to 
restore funding for school construction to the resolution.
  The lack of school construction funding is one of the many ways that 
this resolution reveals its strong emphasis on higher education rather 
than improving elementary and secondary schools.
  In fact, the lack of funding for the repair and construction of 
schools is perhaps the most obvious and compelling gap in this 
resolution.
  I believe this is especially true since New Mexico is facing such a 
serious problem with its schools:
  As of 1994, 94 percent of our schools needed to upgrade or repair 
onsite buildings, and 29 percent had crumbling roofs.
  In 1996, 44 percent of districts in New Mexico had at least one 
building in need of serious repair or replacement--much higher than the 
33-percent average nationwide.
  Over 70 percent of high school students in my State attend schools of 
900 or more students, a size that is too large to be an effective 
learning environment, some studies say.
  There is a $475 million backlog in school construction and repair for 
BIA schools, of which there are 45 in New Mexico.
  Meeting the demand to repair and build schools is difficult because 
New Mexico is one of the fastest growing States in the Nation, and 47 
percent of its student population attends school in rural areas.
  Small and isolated communities such as these simply cannot generate 
sufficient funding to pay for repairing and building new schools 
required by skyrocketing enrollments.
  Over the last 10 years, student enrollment in New Mexico has jumped 
by 57,000 students, 23.7 percent.
  In just 3 years, enrollment will grow by another 20,000 students--the 
same number of students as are in Las Cruces, the State's second 
largest district.
  Having visited and heard about schools that are crumbling, incapable 
of handling modern computers, and overcrowded, I know
  Let me also say on the resolution more generally that clearly a 
balanced budget is an important component of the fiscal health for the 
Nation. It is very important that we pursue this. I do believe, 
however, that before we complete the process, before we complete a 
reconciliation bill and tax legislation, we need to look at the details 
as they will impact on the lives of average citizens in our country.
  Obviously, in my State, we have a very high rate of poverty, a high 
rate of inadequate health care coverage, great needs in education, 
great problems with unemployment. I want to be sure that the 
implementing legislation, particularly the tax provisions that we wind 
up adopting, is consistent with the needs of average citizens in my 
State.
  I intend to support passage of the budget resolution. I do believe it 
is extremely important that we are closing in on a balanced budget. 
That has been a goal that many have pursued, myself included, for a 
long time here in the Congress, and we need that type of fiscal 
responsibility. But I am concerned that when we get into implementing 
legislation, if we are not careful, we could adopt some tax provisions 
which would institutionalize in the next century, in the first and 
second decades of the next century, a new and increasing disparity 
between what we raise and what we spend.
  I pledge my best efforts to work with the leadership here in the 
Congress and in the Senate to see that that implementing legislation is 
acceptable and is fairly balanced. I hope that is the case, and I hope 
I am able to support the reconciliation bill as I intend to support 
this budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the managers for the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now on the motion to table 
the amendment (No. 336) offered by the Senator from Illinois. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Harkin] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[[Page S4938]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 336) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Can we have order?
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have talked with Senator Lautenberg 
about this. I ask unanimous consent that we permit Senator Coats of 
Indiana to proceed for 10 minutes to speak on the bill. He has a 
conflict this evening and would like to explain that to us, along with 
his words about the effort. Then, if Senator Lautenberg has a Senator 
who wants to speak on the bill rather than on an amendment, if they are 
here before the end of that 10 minutes, that they be allowed up to 10 
minutes, and then at the expiration of that, we proceed to the Warner 
amendment immediately thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with reference to the Warner amendment, 
Senator Warner has agreed that the time that we use on his amendment 
will be 1 hour equally divided. He will control the time on his side, 
and I will control the time in opposition.
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to thank the distinguished chairman and the 
distinguished ranking member. This is an amendment on behalf of the 
distinguished Senator from Montana and myself. While the control will 
be under the Senator from Virginia, it will be jointly shared with the 
distinguished Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus]. We will control 30 
minutes under our time jointly. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Senator from New 
Mexico for his courtesy.
  I regret that I probably will not likely be in the Chamber when the 
final vote comes on the resolution, though the schedule has been 
changed so much, I do not think anybody is sure when that vote will 
come. If I am not, it is because of a priority of mine, the only 
priority I think, that would exceed voting for something as important 
as the budget resolution.
  My good wife, who has supported my efforts in Congress for 17 years 
now, who has missed many events, and has done a lot of waiting for me 
to vote and to come home, is graduating this evening with a master's 
degree from Johns Hopkins University. It is the result of 3 years of 
strenuous effort. She is a star student. It is something that I very 
much want to attend.
  I had thought and had been told that we would be finalizing the 
budget agreement last evening. We were not able to do that, and it 
looks like action on the resolution will go through the day.
  This is a priority I want to keep, and I think that, as important as 
the budget agreement is, I want to be there and honor this important 
date, and celebrate her achievement. As I said, she has done a lot of 
waiting around for me, made many sacrifices, and missed a lot of things 
because of our uncertain schedule here. There are times, however, when 
I think we have to establish priorities in life, and this is a 
priority.
  [Applause.]
  Mr. WARNER. Hear, hear.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also want to use this opportunity to 
explain why I would have, if I am to miss the vote, opposed the budget 
resolution. I have examined this very, very carefully. In fact, I have 
tried to come up with sufficient reasons to support the budget.
  I know that the leader, Senator Lott, the leadership of our Congress, 
of the Senate, the work of Senator Domenici has been honest, it has 
been an honest effort at finding a true balanced budget. They have 
toiled for hours. There have been compromises that have had to be made 
as a consequence of not controlling the executive branch and the 
turmoil that will result for the rest of the year if a budget agreement 
is not reached. This budget clearly makes some important steps in the 
right direction, and there is much to commend about the efforts of 
those who have put this together.

  However, I have been here since 1981, and there have been a lot of 
promises about balancing the budget. When I first ran for Congress, one 
of my top three priorities was to balance the budget. I felt that it 
was unconscionable, immoral to pass on to future generations a debt 
burden so that this present generation could enjoy benefits without 
having to pay for them. I have toiled now for 17 years to attempt to 
achieve a balanced budget in the Congress and have not been able to do 
so.
  My greatest disappointment is, probably, our failure on two occasions 
by one vote to pass a constitutional amendment in this body and send it 
to the people of the United States to let them determine whether or not 
they think we should be held constitutionally responsible for balancing 
the budget. We were not able to do that.
  This budget, like all the previous six budgets, promises a balanced 
budget in 5 years. I have gone home after the passage of these budgets, 
spoken to my constituents and said, ``We balanced the budget.''
  And they said, ``We're skeptical of that.''
  ``No, no, no, we have put in place a mechanism to balance the 
budget.''
  Well, six times we promised that, and six times we failed. This is 
the seventh. Our Policy Committee, which I support, tries to put the 
best light on this budget. I have here a report published by the 
committee, it says, ``Balanced Honestly by 2002, First Time Balance 
Will Be Achieved Since 1969.'' I have seen that phrase written over and 
over again. I have uttered it myself. It has not come true. It will not 
come true this time.
  People need to understand that 5-year, 7-year agreements really only 
commit us to the first year, and even with that, with supplementals, 
failure to enact rescissions, contingencies that come up--in fact, we 
have already seen a proliferation of attempts to change this budget, to 
add money to this budget, to change the spending priorities--Congress 
has the right to waive this agreement any time it chooses.
  We actually increase the deficit in this budget in the next 2 years 
from the current level estimated at $67 to $90 billion in fiscal year 
1998 and 1999, and like all of our budget gimmicks in the past, all of 
the deficit reduction comes in the outyears, in 2001 and 2002.
  All of the tough decisions come after the next midyear election, 
after the next Presidential election. I have announced my resignation, 
so I will not be here. I will not be here to protest that ``Here we are 
again. Remember back in 1997 when we promised a balanced budget?''
  Here we are at 2001 putting together the next promised balanced 
budget which pushes us out now to 2006 or 2007.
  All the rosy scenarios about the assumptions of no economic decline 
in the next 6 years, I hope and pray it happens. I doubt very much that 
it will.

[[Page S4939]]

  The other thing that distresses me is that in this budget we had the 
opportunity for meaningful entitlement reform and we once again took a 
pass on it. It seemed to me that everything was lined up in order for 
us to do this.
  We had a Republican Congress that had gone on record as supporting 
meaningful structural changes in entitlements, changes that we know we 
are going to have to face for if we don't, we are going to find 
ourselves in severe economic distress in the future. We had a President 
who had just been re-elected and was not going to run again. He did not 
have to worry about getting reelected or pleasing certain 
constituencies. And we thought he would step forward and provide real 
leadership on this. And he took a pass.
  Congress took a pass because somehow we materialized some additional 
revenue because of the economy, not because of anything we have done to 
hold down spending, but because of the good economy that we have in 
this country. And revenues were flowing in. And at the last minute we 
came up with $250 billion and said we can take a pass again.
  So when we say we have averted the crisis of Medicare's imminent 
bankruptcy until 2007, yeah, we have done that. We have done that with 
a gimmick of shifting home health care from part A to part B and 
applying more revenues to cover the deficit that is coming instead of 
implementing reform and giving the windfall in revenues back to the 
American people to whom it belongs.
  We have had to narrow our tax cut because we have not exercised the 
discipline on spending. I can go on and on. But I am going to 
abbreviate my remarks here so we can keep moving on this.
  It is worth pointing out that, rather than taking the $255 billion in 
unanticipated revenues and using it for deficit reduction or tax 
reduction, we have used it to increase spending. Rather than capitalize 
on the momentum that we had for meaningful entitlement reform, we used 
budget gimmicks and price controls to delay the crisis and postpone the 
tough decisions once again. Rather than reduce the size of the 
Government, baseline budget tactics are used, tactics which Republicans 
used to criticize--assuming automatic increases in the baseline and 
then making reductions in that baseline and calling it a cut when it is 
not a cut, it is an increase. This deceptive practice is continued in 
this resolution, and now Republicans have bought into that practice.
  In the end, this resolution simply postpones deficit reduction into 
the next millennium and lets everybody off the hook on tough decisions 
that ought to be made now.
  As stated in an article in the May 10 issue of the National Journal 
called ``The Easy Way Out'':

       Historic the deal may be, but not so much because of what 
     it includes as because of what fell out: just about anything 
     unpleasant for incumbents of either party. From a political 
     point of view, it may indeed be a triumph; certainly, at a 
     minimum, it is clever. From a reformer's point of view, 
     however, it is a washout.

  We need reformer practices. We have said that; many have, since I 
have been here. I am now in my 17th year. We have not used reformer 
practices. Once again, we have used tricks and unexpected revenues to 
postpone the tough decisions.
  I have said from the beginning, and will continue to say it, we will 
not make the tough decisions until we are constitutionally forced to do 
so. We will not achieve meaningful reform in our budget until we are 
constitutionally required, by raising our hand and pledging to support 
that Constitution, that we will honestly balance the budget and not 
create deficits and not pass on debt to future generations.
  I am ashamed of the fact that during my watch, while I was here, the 
national debt has grown from less than $1 trillion to approaching $6 
trillion. That is a national disgrace. And it has happened on my watch. 
I tried everything I could to keep that from happening. I think my 
voting record indicates that. Nevertheless, it happened on my watch.
  So for me, someone who will not be here to protest in future years, I 
cannot in good conscience support this budget. Is it an improvement? 
Yes. Is it probably everything that the Budget chairman could have 
achieved under the circumstances? With divided Government and an 
administration bent on spending more and making a mockery of their 
statement that the era of big Government is over, I think the Budget 
chairman did everything he could under the circumstances. I commend him 
for his work and commend the leadership for their work.
  But let us not pretend. Let us not pretend. And let us not pass on to 
the American people that we are giving them an honest balanced budget 
by the year 2002. I do not believe that is going to happen any more 
than the previous six promises on balanced budgets in the last 15 years 
have proven to be true to the American people.
  I regret that I have to vote against this, but I, in all honesty, 
cannot support this budget resolution.
  The most glaring problem with this budget resolution is that the 
deficit actually increases dramatically next year, from an estimated 
$67 billion for fiscal year 1997 to over $90 billion in fiscal year 
1998, and does not begin to come down until 2001. The deficit then 
drops precipitously by nearly $84 billion between 2001 and the end of 
2002.
  This rosy scenario is hard to believe. In fact, the only years that 
really count in this budget agreement are the next 2, when Members and 
the President can be held accountable to abide by their commitment. The 
heavy work of deficit reduction is postponed, and becomes someone 
else's problem. Even then, 97 percent of deficit reduction included in 
this package is based upon economic assumptions that seem implausible 
at best. They are based on sustaining the current state of the economy 
for another 6 years.
  This resolution fails to address the looming crisis in entitlements. 
Rather, it delays dealing with the issue through budget gimmickry.
  The resolution purports to secure $115 billion in Medicare savings. 
However, the overwhelming majority of this savings is secured through 
price control gimmicks that have failed in the past. Even then, the 
preponderant majority of this savings comes after the year 2000, when 
there is no guarantee of enforcement.
  The plan calls for further reducing payments to health care 
providers. We have tried this many times before with no success. In 
fact, costs have continued to rise while the quality of health care for 
our seniors has continued to be diminished.
  In addition, the current proposal shifts the Home Health Care 
Program, the fastest growing Medicare program, from the Medicare part A 
fund, to part B. This trick postpones the collapse of the Medicare 
trust fund from 2001 to around 2008, and serves to delay having to 
confront the long-term Medicare crisis.
  Failure to implement meaningful reform in Medicare represents the 
greatest single missed opportunity in a budget proposal rife with 
deferment and missed opportunity. In fact, the resolution creates a $16 
billion health care entitlement for low-income children. It is 
important to note that this entitlement goes beyond covering poor 
children already covered under Medicaid.
  The key to busting the logjam in negotiations on this budget 
agreement was a midnight-hour $255 billion windfall from the 
Congressional Budget Office. This money came from larger than 
anticipated revenues from a robust economy. However, rather than using 
this money to both reduce the deficit and reduce the tax burden on the 
American people, negotiators went on a spending binge.
  The result of this is that the budget resolution actually increases, 
not decreases the size of the Government. For fiscal year 1998, 
spending is increased over fiscal year 1997 projected spending levels 
by an estimated 4.32 percent, or $70 billion above the freeze. This is 
the largest increase of the Clinton Presidency, $5 billion more than 
the President requested in his original budget proposal, and outpaces 
inflation by nearly 1.5 percent.
  This dramatic increase in domestic spending is based upon the concept 
that spending on these programs has been limited in recent years. In 
fact, according to economist Stephen Moore, over the past 10 years, 
1988-97, Federal domestic spending has soared from $622 billion to 
$1.116 trillion. After adjustments for inflation, this is an increase

[[Page S4940]]

of 40 percent. And now, under this agreement, we will be increasing 
this spending by a rate of 1.5 percent above inflation.
  There are no spending reductions in the budget. The savings are 
actually reductions in projected baseline spending. This type of 
baseline gimmickry is something that conservatives have long rejected. 
However now, for political expediency, this plan is based entirely upon 
it.
  James Glassman writes in his column entitled ``Bad for Everyone'': 
``The reason that the Federal deficit is projected at zero under the 
new budget is not that Government will be smaller, but that revenues 
from taxpayers will be larger--much larger.'' Mr. Glassman goes on to 
point out: ``According to the President's February budget, the Treasury 
was expected to collect $1.5 trillion from citizens and businesses in 
1997. According to the new bipartisan budget, that figure will rise to 
$1.9 trillion in 2002. Meanwhile, spending will rise from $1.6 trillion 
to $1.9 trillion. And there you have it: A balanced budget.''
  Is this what reform is all about? Rather than use windfall tax 
revenues as an opportunity to decrease spending and accelerate the path 
to a balanced budget, this resolution gobbles up taxpayer money with 
substantial spending increases and postpones the tough decisions for 
another day.
  If there is anything hopeful in this budget resolution, it is some 
progress toward tax reduction. There is roughly $135 billion set aside 
for tax cuts. However, $50 billion of that number is offset by tax 
increases elsewhere in the budget, leaving a beginning net tax cut of 
$85 billion. This represents just 1 percent of the $8.5 trillion in 
estimated tax revenues over the next 5 years.
  Even then, the President's tax priorities for education, totaling $35 
billion, is locked in, leaving Congress to spread the remaining benefit 
between a $500 child tax credit, capital gains reduction, expanded 
IRAs, and estate tax relief. The $85 billion net tax cut comprises 
about one-third of the money needed to offset all of these tax cuts 
fully. In fact, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the full cost of 
the $500 dollar-per-child tax credit alone is $105 billion over 5 
years.
  However, the game doesn't stop there. A key aspect of the agreement 
is the assumption that the Bureau of Labor Statistics will adjust the 
CPI downward by approximately .3 percent. The result would be a hike in 
income taxes by approximately $6 billion dollars. Thus, the real total 
net tax cut under the agreement is $79 billion or less. Again, 
according to Heritage Foundation estimates, Americans will receive a 
grand total of 67 cents in tax relief for every new dollar of spending 
on Government programs contained in the agreement, or less than one 
cent on every tax dollar sent to the Federal Government.
  In fact, the entire net tax cut contained in the Resolution is less 
than one-fifth of this $255 billion dollar windfall discovered by CBO, 
and used to blow the ceiling on spending. The result is that much 
needed tax relief will have to be phased in, with the bulk of it 
falling, once again, in the out years. The child tax credit, touted as 
middle class tax relief, will likely have to be limited to low income 
families.
  Already, discussions regarding a capital gains tax cut have gone from 
an early 50 percent reduction proposal, to a cut of 10 percent, and is 
now moving toward a limited maximum rate of 21 percent. This is hardly 
the type of capital gains tax cut needed to free the hundreds of 
billions of dollars in encumbered capital in our economy.
  I do not believe that this is what the American people have in mind. 
And I have no confidence that future Congresses, faced with the 
skyrocketing spending and rosy economic assumptions contained in this 
agreement, will follow through on fully implementing tax relief.
  This budget is full of missed opportunities. Rather than taking the 
$255 billion in unanticipated revenues and using it for direct deficit 
and tax reductions, it has been used to increase spending. Rather than 
capitalize on momentum for meaningful entitlement reform, budget 
gimmicks and price controls are used to delay the crisis and postpone 
the tough decisions. Rather than reduce the size of Government, 
baseline budget tactics are used to simulate smaller Government.
  In the end, this resolution simply postpones any deficit reduction 
into the next millennium and lets everyone off the hook on the tough 
decisions. As stated in the May 10 National Journal article entitled, 
``The Easy Way Out'':

       Historic the deal may be, but not so much because of what 
     it includes as because of what fell out: just about anything 
     unpleasant for incumbents of either party. From a political 
     point of view, it may indeed be a triumph; certainly, at a 
     minimum, it is clever. From a reformer's point of view, 
     however, it is a washout.

  I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for allowing me this 
opportunity to speak. I regret that I might not be here this evening. 
But I think I identified the right priority in my life. And I am 
looking forward to being, for once, not the person in the limelight in 
our family but the person applauding the one that is in the limelight, 
which is my wife who will be receiving the degree which she worked so 
hard for.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. KERREY. Pursuant to the previous unanimous-consent request, I ask 
unanimous consent that 10 minutes be taken off the resolution so I can 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, before I talk about the resolution itself, 
what it does, what it does not do, I do want to go back to 1993, as 
many of my colleagues have done, and discuss the Deficit-Reduction Act 
of 1993.
  Since I only have 10 minutes, I will not go into detail about the one 
that happened in 1990 under President Bush's watch. Both of those were 
very unpopular budget resolutions. I noticed when I went home, in both 
cases, there was substantial criticism from people who did not like 
various aspects of it.
  One of the unique things about this particular budget resolution 
compared to those is that I do not expect to find a similar sort of 
outcry against it. I think it tells us a lot about what is in this one 
as well as the progress that we have made toward reduction over the 
last 4 years.
  That resolution, Mr. President, that act, OBRA, 1993, brought the 
deficit down by 77 percent, a substantial reduction in the deficit. It 
occurred, it must be said, as a consequence of the economic recovery 
that had begun in 1992. It did not produce all of the growth by any 
measure. I do not argue that the economy turned around as a result of 
that Deficit-Reduction Act, but there is no question that we had 
demonstrated in 1993 that there was a connection between growth and 
deficit reduction, that it is possible for us to take action with our 
budget to produce good things out in the private sector.
  I would argue that the greatest victor in this Deficit-Reduction Act 
of 1997, the Deficit Elimination Act of 1997, the greatest victor is 
economic growth. Four percent real growth in the first quarter is what 
has really enabled us relatively easily to take the last step.
  There were a lot of terrible things that were said were going to 
happen as a result of the 1993 OBRA. People said it would result in 
lost jobs. We stood here on the floor and said, if we voted for OBRA 
1993 there were going to be higher deficits and there was going to be 
higher national debt, so on and so on. About the only dire prediction 
that turned out to be true was that people who voted for it were not 
reelected because, as I said, it was very unpopular. It was very 
difficult deficit reduction, very substantial deficit reduction.
  We have evidence, in short, that if we are willing to cast a tough 
vote, if we are willing to reduce spending and reduce our deficit, that 
not only is there economic gain coming as a consequence, but that that 
political risk can pay off long term. We can stand and say that though 
we have asked people to take a bit less, there will be benefits coming 
as a consequence of this reduction in the rate of growth of spending 
that is contained in this budget resolution.
  So I stand here today to say, where do we go from here? And I have to 
confess, there is a part of me, Mr. President, that says, ``Well, now 
that we've gone from a Democratic majority to Republican majority,'' in 
part, if not in large part, as a result of the unpopularity of the 1993 
Deficit-Reduction Act, ``maybe we ought to hold our

[[Page S4941]]

breath on this side and let you all figure it out on the other side, 
let the distinguished occupant of the chair and the other guys on that 
side of the aisle, let you all address it and cast the tough votes this 
time around.'' I do not think that would be responsible of us, Mr. 
President.

  There is a lot I do not like in the budget resolution. There is a lot 
I did not like in 1993 and in 1990. But given the benefits that occur 
as a consequence, I do not think that it is good for the country for me 
to stand here in a petulant fashion and say I am not going to 
participate as a consequence of what happened politically in November 
1994.
  I do believe that the budget resolution in front of us today will, on 
balance, produce economic growth, and I do believe that it will balance 
the budget in the year 2002, if Congress keeps its eye on the ball and 
keeps its attention focused on what is going on outside of these Halls, 
and that is to say what is going on in the private sector, and what is 
going on with our economy.
  If our tax, our regulatory, and spending policies produce economic 
growth, all the rest of it gets relatively easy, as we are learning 
indeed with OBRA 1997.
  We need to start thinking about economic growth. We need to start 
asking ourselves the question, what do we do, not only to produce the 
growth, but when is the growth good for us and when are we willing to 
step in and say the growth is not good?
  I mean, all of us, I suspect, universally would say, I do not care if 
it does produce jobs, I am not in favor of pornography, and I am not in 
favor of spoiling our environment, and I am not in favor of making our 
streets unsafe. There are lots of examples where we would step in and 
put a law in place even though it might prevent somebody freely from 
being able to produce jobs. We will say that those particular jobs are 
not good for us and thus we are going to put a law in place to prevent 
that activity from happening.
  There is a larger problem as well, Mr. President. I do think, though, 
growth lifts all boats, that a rising tide will tend to lift all boats. 
As we have seen with the dramatic narrowing of economic inequality and 
income inequality that has occurred in the last 4 years, that there is 
still going to be large sectors of our economy, large sectors of our 
population, individuals and their families that are going to be left 
out of the benefit of that growth.
  That is especially true if you take the position, as I do, that we 
ought to put in place laws that say the United States of America is 
going to lead the effort to lower trade barriers, that we believe that 
generally speaking we are better off competing in a global economy. In 
that global economy with technology, with immigration, with the 
welfare-to-work programs that are going on, people at the lower end of 
the wage scale are going to suffer. They are going to be under a lot of 
pressure.
  People making $5.15 an hour, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10 an hour are going to 
be under a great deal of pressure. They are going to be working more 
than one job. They are going to be paying child care. They are going to 
have lots of other problems they are going to face.
  It is important for us to pay attention to our capacity to give them 
the opportunity to get a good education, get retrained, go to college, 
if they choose to. We have to look at those sorts of things, and keep 
our eyes open to special problems that exist today that did not exist 
30 years ago.
  Perhaps the most dramatic difference is that in the 1990's the amount 
of debt accumulated to go to college exceeds all the debt that was 
accumulated in the 1980's, 1970's, 1960's combined. By the end of the 
century $50 billion of new debt will be acquired by American youth who 
are trying to go to college; graduating today with an average of 
$10,000 debt, growing by some 14 percent a year.
  The President's response to try to direct some additional resources 
for education, I believe, is good. I also think it is important for us 
to try to come up with mechanisms and enable Americans, using the laws 
of the land, to acquire the wealth that they need to make those kinds 
of purchases not just for education, but for retirement as well.

  This balanced budget will produce, in short, economic growth. But I 
do not believe that this balanced budget will take us in every single 
instance in directions that we need to go.
  I think that we are still going to have problems with our schools. I 
think we still have problems with fighting the war on drugs. I think we 
still have problems in a number of other areas where our current 
policies are inadequate to the task. They are going to require us to 
reach down and look for different ways of doing things if we want to 
change our future.
  The three areas that I would like to address here this morning, Mr. 
President, where this law does not change our future adequately is the 
percentage of our budget that is going for entitlements versus 
discretionary, the amount of wealth that individuals have in order to 
be able to plan for their retirement, and, Mr. President, I also 
believe we need to look at the mix of people over the age of 65 versus 
under the age of 20. I still do not believe we adequately adjusted to 
the problem that we are going to face when that baby-boom generation 
begins to retire.
  I would like, Mr. President, just to run through a couple of charts 
here very quickly. You all probably have seen them before. It is what 
everybody wants to do--look at another chart here on the floor of the 
Senate.
  This is a line that shows the births in the United States from 1910 
through 1920. I bring this to the floor because it is a demographic 
problem that we face, not a problem that was caused by Ronald Reagan or 
George McGovern or Phyllis Schlafly, or secular humanists. This is a 
problem that was created as a consequence of 77 million Americans who 
were born between the years of 1945 and 1965. And then the birthrate 
dropped for about 15 years afterward.
  Thus, what that has produced is a relatively small number of people 
who will be supporting a much larger number of people who will be 
retired out there in the future.
  This is a dramatic change, Mr. President, that Congress needs to 
factor into our thinking because this is our future. This is where we 
are going. As I said, I am confident 5 years from now, 1997, we will 
have a balanced budget, but we have not addressed this problem. This is 
the future for America:
  In 1997, 29 percent of our population is under the age of 20; 13 
percent is over the age of 65; 79 million in one group, 34 million in 
the other group. In 2030--all the speeches we give about children, 4 
million babies born in America this year, those babies will be 33 years 
of age in 2030, and all of us understand how quickly 33 years go by. In 
2030, when those babies are now out there working, there will be 24 
percent of our population, down from 29 percent, under the age of 20. 
The under-20 population will only have grown by 4 million. But the 
over-65 population, Mr. President, will have doubled, going from 34 
million to 68 million. If you look at the number of workers per 
retirees, it is even more dramatic, a doubling of the population over 
the age of 65 and a 20 percent increase in the size of the American 
work force.
  Mr. President, we have simply got to address this problem. The only 
way for us to do it, in my judgment, is to look at the mix of our 
budget that is going to mandatory versus discretionary. In 1963, 30 
percent of our budget went to mandatory spending, 70 percent went to 
discretionary spending. At the end of this budget resolution it will be 
exactly reversed, 70 percent mandatory, 30 percent discretionary. Mr. 
President, in about 10 or 12 years after that it will be 100 percent 
mandatory and 30 percent discretionary.
  A much bigger and more difficult problem for us to face as a Congress 
than balancing the budget is balancing the mix of mandatory and 
discretionary spending. It is not a mathematical formula, Mr. 
President. If we do not take action on this, people who will retire 15, 
20 years from now--and again, this is a problem for the baby-boom 
generation; this is not a problem for the current generation. There are 
enough workers in the workplace today to support current retirees. But 
those people who will be retiring out in the future, Mr. President, 
they are not going to like that future as a consequence of the kinds of 
choices that will be forced upon them later, unless we take action 
earlier to accommodate.
  Mr. President, I would like to see this budget resolution changed. I 
am hopeful we can build some bipartisan

[[Page S4942]]

consensus to change it. Senator Lieberman and I, Senator Breaux, and a 
number of others have been working on a proposal called Kids Save that 
would alter the child care credit in this resolution that would enable 
us to help working families acquire wealth. Unless you expect to hit 
the lottery, unless you expect to inherit the wealth, the only and the 
best and most reliable way to generate wealth is to save a little bit 
of money over a long period of time. Kids Save enables us to do that. 
It enables working families to have that wealth. If they want to use it 
for education, if they want to use it, preferably, for retirement, they 
will have it when they get there.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Warner of 
Virginia is recognized at this time.


                           Amendment No. 311

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up an amendment at the desk by the 
Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  (The text of the amendment is located in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we ask now for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia, throughout my 
career in the U.S. Senate, has fought for the balanced budget as hard 
as anyone. I say that with humility. I am sure the distinguished 
Senator from Montana has a like record and a like commitment.
  We are also entrusted with the responsibility, in my case as chairman 
and the Senator from Montana as the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Public Works and Environment, to see that our Nation's 
infrastructure of highways, and to a certain extent mass transit--
although that is primarily in another committee--constantly is 
administered in such a way as to promote growth in this country.
  Talk about a balanced budget. That balanced budget is dependent on 
the ability of Americans to get to their place of work, to return 
safely, to provide for their families, and every Member of this body 
knows that we are falling behind every minute in our ability to keep in 
place the infrastructure of roads and bridges, much less modernize it 
to make it safer and more efficient. We are steadily falling behind. 
But as we fall behind in providing the necessary dollars, the dollars 
that they are paying in the tank are accumulating in the Treasury in an 
account called the highway trust fund.
  Now, Mr. President, I like to do homework. I learned it as a child 
under the supervision of two good, strong parents. So I went back to 
1955 when in this very Chamber resonated the voices of the chairman of 
the Environment Committee, Mr. Chavez, and incidentally, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, Albert Gore, Sr., the father of our distinguished 
Vice President. When they came forth with the legislation to establish 
the highway trust fund, they picked the name ``trust.'' They could have 
called it the highway fund. They could have said there is a line in the 
Treasury for just where to put the tax dollars, but they called it a 
trust fund.
  Today the Congress, together with the executive branch, are using it 
as an escrow account--not a trust fund, but an escrow account--to hold 
these dollars almost as if they were poker chips to play with them as 
we see fit, not in keeping with the intention of the founders of this 
piece of legislation.
  I read from the 1955 Congressional Record, page 6716, of May 20--is 
that not interesting, May 20, coincidental in time, Mr. President, 42 
years ago--in which Senator Gore concluded by saying, ``Had the 
committee thought it advisable to recommend a more vigorous program 
than that which is contained in S. 1048, I am sure it would have done 
so. The sentiment in the committee, if I interpret it correctly, was to 
act as fast and as energetically as we could while still ensuring that 
the taxpayer received a dollar's worth of road for his [and I insert 
her] tax dollars.'' There it is, a commitment by the U.S. Senate, right 
in this Chamber, the origin of that legislation, and we are breaking 
that trust, that fiduciary relationship today.
  Mr. President, 18.3 cents is paid by every American and all those 
using petroleum at the local gas station; 4.3 is taken out for the 
deficit. That is another argument. We are not dealing with that today. 
Fourteen cents remains, of which 12 cents is for the highway and 2 
cents for mass transit.
  We have another piece of legislation under the auspices of Senator 
Bond and Senator Chafee, which I support, saying a dollar in, a dollar 
out. That is what this does. This amendment is designed to put every 
Member of this body on record when he or she goes back home that, ``I 
fought to see that your tax dollars that you pay are returned to you 
and you can apply them to improve that infrastructure to strengthen 
America's economy.''
  Critics say, well, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, you did not 
provide offsets. Well, we did not have to provide offsets, I say to my 
colleagues, because the offset is there in the word ``trust.'' That is 
what it means--trust means exactly that. The people of this country 
trust the Congress of the United States, and in this instance, more 
specifically, the Senate, trust them to find the necessary means to 
balance the budget without a breach of trust to those who contribute at 
the gas tank, consistent for 42 years, given by the U.S. Senate.

  I say to my colleagues, weigh heavily when you cast this vote. Put 
this amendment on. Let it go to conference. Let the distinguished 
chairman and the distinguished ranking member in the context of a 
conference decide how to continue the preservation of the balanced 
budget but at the same time keeping trust with the American people to 
return their dollars, their hard-earned dollars, submitted at the gas 
tank.
  I yield such time as my distinguished colleague desires with the 
caveat that I would like to reserve for the Senator from Virginia 2 
minutes at the end and 2 minutes for the distinguished Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to first commend the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, the ranking member, the President, and 
negotiators for putting together a bipartisan agreement. I know it was 
not easy. It was difficult. But I think the American people are very 
gratified that the President and the Congress put together the outlines 
of a budget agreement which brings the budget deficit down to zero.
  One of the provisions in that agreement is the amount we will spend 
on highways and transit for the next 5 years. Under the budget 
agreement, the highway and transit programs will receive funding levels 
equal to the estimated revenue collected each year.
  But Mr. President, I would suggest we need to do better.
  That is why the Senator from Virginia and myself are offering this 
very simple amendment. Under the amendment, whatever comes into the 
trust fund through gasoline taxes and diesel fuels, et cetera, plus 
interest on what is earned on the balances in the trust fund, is 
available to be spent. In otherwords, whatever revenue comes in, will 
go out. This is truth in budgeting. It is a very modest amendment.
  Mr. President, current balances in the highway account of the highway 
trust fund is $14.3 billion. If you look at this chart, you will see 
that the balances in the highway account will almost double by the end 
of the 5 years covered by the budget resolution. Under the resolution, 
the balance in the highway trust fund will grow to almost $27 billion. 
It just seems to me, Mr. President, and to all of us who are concerned 
about the balances in the highway trust fund, that it is wrong for that 
balance to continue to grow or double when those are dollars being 
contributed by motorists who expect to see transportation benefits.
  I might add, Mr. President, that motorists are already paying 4.3 
cents a gallon which goes to deficit reduction. Over the 5 years of the 
budget resolution will amount to about $35 billion.
  If our amendment does not pass, there are serious consequences. If 
our amendment does not pass, I must tell

[[Page S4943]]

Senators that they are not going to receive funding levels close to the 
highway funds or the mass transit funds that their States expect. That 
is what is shown in this chart. I apologize for the small print on this 
chart, but we have after all 50 States and it is difficult to get every 
State on the single chart.
  This chart shows what will happen to a State's anticipated funding 
under the various highway bills that have been introduced, such as 
STARS 2000, STEP 21, NEXTEA and ISTEA Works. Senators have signed onto 
those bills anticipating certain funding levels. If the Warner-Baucus 
amendment does not pass, each State will receive a reduction in 
funding.
  I look at the Presiding Officer. New Hampshire--as an example, New 
Hampshire signed up for the ISTEA reauthorization bill. If New 
Hampshire thinks it is going to get $142 million a year, that is wrong. 
If my amendment does not pass, New Hampshire is going to receive $30 
million less. If my amendment passes, New Hampshire will get the $142 
million.
  That same example holds for every single State.
  So it is very clear that Senators are not going to get the money they 
think they are going to get if this amendment does not pass.
  I want to also add that there are other reasons to increase 
transportation spending.
  Our Department of Transportation says that we need about $50 billion 
dollars annually to maintain our highway system. The $26 billion 
provided for under this amendment is a little more than half of that. 
That is all.
  Think of the competition in the world. The Japanese spend four times 
what we do as a percentage of GDP than the United States. The European 
Union, spends twice as much.
  We are hurting ourselves in not keeping our transportation system up 
to snuff.
  In addition, if the budget resolution becomes the law, areas that are 
experiencing growth or areas with an aging infrastructure will not get 
the money they need. And programs that mean a lot to Members, such as 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, or enhancements and 
bike trails, will not have the money they need.
  Our proposal is very simple: That we pass this amendment, which will 
increase the deficit in the last year from a $1 billion surplus to 
about a $2 billion deficit. That is all. Over all 5 years, $12 billion. 
It does not go to the core of the agreement. It does not touch Medicare 
or Medicaid and does not touch taxes. It does not touch any of the 
provisions that Senators have been arguing about over the past few 
months as to what should or should not be in the bipartisan agreement. 
It doesn't touch those at all. It just says let's spend the interest, 
plus what comes into the trust fund as revenue each year. That way we 
can prevent further deterioration of our highways and bridges.
  If this amendment should pass,--the Senator from Virginia and I will 
work with the managers of the Budget Committee and with the 
administration to try to find some way to accommodate this $12 billion 
increase in conference.
  I want a balanced budget. I think every Senator wants a balanced 
budget. Fifty-seven Senators have written the Budget Committee asking 
for more money in transportation. In fact, what they asked for was a 
full $26 billion every year for 5 years. We are only asking for a ramp 
up to the $26 billion level over the 5 years. This is very modest and 
nowhere close to the request made by 57 Senators who have asked for a 
full $26 billion to be included in transportation for every year.
  This is a very small change in the agreement which the budget and 
administration negotiators put together. It can very easily be 
accommodated in conference.
  I might add, to those Senators from the Northeast who are concerned 
about mass transit, this amendment also--the $12 billion increase in 
outlays I mentioned--includes increases in mass transit.
  So, Mr. President, it is really very simple. I grant that it is 
technically an increase in the deficit by $12 billion. I am also saying 
that we as Senators should not be caught in a box. We should not be 
rigid. We should not be knee-jerked. We are elected to be thoughtful. 
We are elected to do what is right. We are elected to be creative.
  What do the American people think is right? First, balance the 
budget; second, do it in a way which is fair to our country and our 
country's needs.
  It is clear that we can balance the budget, including the framework 
agreed to by the budget negotiators, the administration, and the 
leadership, and still meet our States' infrastructure needs.
  It is a very modest amendment. Again, it just says spend what comes 
in, plus interest, to the trust fund. In fact, even under our amendment 
we end up with a $17 billion balance in the trust fund. So under our 
amendment, we are not spending anywhere near the amounts the trust fund 
could sustain. But the Senator from Virginia and I are trying to be 
modest.
  So, I again urge Senators, just go the extra mile. Vote for this. We 
will all work together to balance the budget in a way which also does 
not hurt the core provisions of the agreement but addresses the very 
serious transportation needs of this country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I commend my distinguished 
colleague. We worked together as a team on this. He has spent a good 
deal of his career in the U.S. Senate fighting to improve America's 
infrastructure and transportation.
  I am going to place at the desk at the time of the vote a letter 
signed by 66 Members of this body supporting precisely what it is we 
have before them today in this amendment, together with letters from 
each of the Governors. All 50 Governors support a higher level of 
funding for our highways.
  Senator Baucus and I, as we worked on this amendment, decided not to 
take the top dollar. As Senator Baucus clearly said, $17 billion 
remains in the trust fund. We tried to take a reasonable amount of 
increase.
  This chart shows the green line of what this budget resolution does 
in terms of highways--flat. Our amendment takes this up at a gradual 
increase to where we reach the $26 billion, that figure subscribed to 
by 66 Senators, that figure subscribed to by all 50 Governors.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we 
temporarily set aside the amendment that is pending and permit Senator 
Pat Roberts to speak for up to 10 minutes on the bill, after which we 
return to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object. I am sorry. I did not hear 
the request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I had checked with Senator Lautenberg. All we did was 
ask that the Senator set aside his amendment for 10 minutes and return 
immediately to it after Pat Roberts speaks for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time is remaining on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes on Senator Domenici's side 
and 12 minutes on Senator Warner's side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you. No objection.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise on a point of personal privilege.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 2 minutes to count 
against either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________