[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 37 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2704-S2709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1999, 
                       2000, 2001, 2002, AND 2003

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of Calendar Order No. 330, the fiscal 
year 1999 concurrent resolution on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 86) setting forth the 
     Congress budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and revising the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the concurrent resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
presence and use of small electronic calculators be permitted on the 
floor of the Senate during consideration of the 1999 concurrent 
resolution on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that staff of 
the Senate Budget Committee, including congressional fellows and 
detailees named on the list that I send to the desk, be permitted to 
remain on the Senate floor during consideration of S. Con. Res. 86 and 
that the list be printed in the Record. Mr. President, the list is for 
both majority and minority.
  I send the list to the desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list follows:

                             Majority Staff

       Victor Block, Amy Call, Jim Capretta, Lisa Cieplak, Allen 
     R. Cutler, Kay Davies, Larry Dye, Beth Felder, Alice Grant, 
     Jim Hearn, Bill Hoagland, Carole McGuire, Anne Miller, Mieko 
     Nakabayashi, Maureen O'Neill, Brian Riley, Mike Ruffner, Amy 
     Smith, Austin Smythe, Bob Stevenson, Donald Marc Sumerlin, 
     Winslow Wheeler, Sandra Wiseman, Gary K. Ziehe.

                             Minority Staff

       Amy Peck Abraham, Phil Karsting, Daniel Katz, Bruce King, 
     Jim Klumpner, Lisa Konwinski, Diana (Javits) Meredith, Martin 
     S. Morris, Sue Nelson, Jon Rosenwasser, Paul Seltman, Scott 
     Slesinger, Barry Strumpf, Mitchell S. Warren.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 
floor access and privileges of the floor be granted to Austin Smythe 
and Anne Miller on S. Con. Res. 86.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators--Senator Lautenberg is

[[Page S2705]]

present on the floor--we have just agreed that we will relinquish 6 
hours of the debate time of the 50 hours that we are allotted under 
statute. I personally do not intend today to make an opening statement 
explaining this budget. I will do that Monday evening when I arrive 
back from a funeral in New Mexico for Representative Steve Schiff. 
Anybody who would like to come down and speak is welcome. I now yield 
the floor to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for 
initiating some movement now. We want to try to get this budget done. 
We do not, however, want to deprive any of our Members, be they 
Republican or be they Democrat, from the opportunity of offering 
amendments in accordance with the procedure as we know it, with the 
time consumed, again, according to the structure for budget resolution 
consideration. But I want to make sure for those Members who want to 
start the process that we give them the courtesy of using time in 
accordance with their need and that we don't deliberately invade the 
response time because we want to consume time to be able to get the 
process really underway.
  First of all, I ask whether or not we can start the debate on Monday 
somewhat later--if we are here late, we will be here late; we are 
willing do that--whether we can start perhaps at 1 o'clock or 12 
o'clock? We are going to consume 10 hours on Monday. I ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee whether that is a 
problem.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me respond in this way. Normally 
what time we start Monday would be up to the distinguished Republican 
leader. I strongly recommend and concur with the Senator that there is 
no real need to start early. They are going to have plenty of time. I 
concur with my colleague and want to make sure everybody knows, we are 
not going to cut off any debate as far as debate on this resolution. As 
a matter of fact, what is going to happen is unless we fix the process 
up a little bit, we are still going to have, at the end, 10 or 15 or 20 
amendments. I would like to find a way to alleviate that.
  But in the meantime, it seems to me, it would be better to start 
sometime after lunch. We will have somebody here representing me. I 
think the Senate knows I cannot be here until sometime shortly after 5. 
The distinguished Senator from New Jersey is not going to be available 
in the morning either, is he?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is true, Mr. President. And we have a designee, 
a member of the Budget Committee, who will represent us to make the 
process available, make the resolution available for laying down 
amendments. There is not going to be any problem with that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would ask the majority leader, and will do that 
immediately upon our completing here, that we not be back on this 
resolution before 1 o'clock on Monday. I cannot agree to that at this 
point, but I will ask and I think it will be agreed to.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that. At the same time, just to make 
sure that we have the appropriate, usually competent staff that we 
always have working with us when we do our committee work, I ask 
unanimous consent that Sue Nelson and Amy Abraham, who are analysts 
with the Budget Committee, be given full floor privileges for the 
duration of all debate on the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2165

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce class 
                    size by hiring 100,000 teachers)

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2165.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CLASS SIZE 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits 
     may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation to reduce class size for students, especially in 
     the early grades, provided that, to the extent that this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the 
     costs of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation 
     will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or 
     previously-passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this 
     resolution for--
       (1) fiscal year 1999;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--
       (1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the 
     Senate appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised 
     functional levels and aggregates to carry out this section. 
     These revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment 
     under this section for legislation in furtherance of the 
     purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an 
     amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such 
     submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate 
     appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this resolution.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committees shall report appropriately-revised allocations 
     pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to carry out this section.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that we have sent to the 
desk has to do with education and class size. I ask this amendment be 
laid aside and have debate at a time to be determined by the ranking 
member.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just state, it has been our precedent around 
here that we do not have amendments for the first 4 hours we invite 
general discussion. But we are going to count 6 hours against the bill, 
and I think it is only fair, under those circumstances, rather than 
make her wait for 4 hours, that she be allowed to introduce this 
amendment now.
  I want it understood that we have not agreed as to the timing of this 
amendment in that it has usually been a Republican has an amendment, 
then a Democrat. This sequencing or chronology of her amendment, the 
amendment of the distinguished Senator, will be up to the Senator from 
New Jersey as it pertains to Democratic amendments. Is that acceptable, 
Senator?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is fine.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for 
conceding this opportunity for Senator Murray. I do not know whether 
the Senator from New Mexico has any further business. We have nothing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As modified, the unanimous consent agreement 
with respect to the Murray amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have nothing further, no further discussion, and we 
have under the unanimous consent agreement how much time is taken off 
the bill.
  Mr. President, I assume until the leadership decides otherwise, we 
will be in open session in quorum calls or other business. But if 
Senators want to speak to the budget resolution, I assume for a 
significant amount of time the floor is going to be open for them to do 
that. I have already indicated that I cannot stay here and manage under 
these circumstances, but I assume that, with the Parliamentarian, 
things will run pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement.

[[Page S2706]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will run pursuant to the unanimous consent 
agreement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to such time as I 
might use from the Democratic side on the budget debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Nation's students deserve modern 
schools with world class teachers, but too many students in too many 
schools in too many communities across the country fail to achieve that 
standard.
  The latest international survey of math and science achievement 
confirms the urgent need to raise standards of performance for schools, 
teachers and students alike. It is shameful that America's 12th graders 
rank among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in this 
international survey of math and science.
  Schools across the Nation face serious problems of overcrowding. 
Antiquated facilities are suffering from physical decay, and are not 
equipped to handle the needs of modern education.
  Across the country, 14 million children in a third of the Nation's 
schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half the schools have at 
least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. It will take over 
$100 billion just to repair the existing facilities nationwide.
  This chart is a good summation as to what the current conditions are. 
This year, K-12 enrollment reached an all-time high and will continue 
to rise over the next 7 years. 6,000 new public schools will be needed 
by the year 2006 just to maintain current class sizes. We will also 
need to hire 2 million teachers over the next decade to accommodate 
rising student enrollments and massive teacher requirements. And 
because of the overcrowding, schools are using trailers for classrooms 
and teaching students in former hallways, closets, and bathrooms. 
Overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease student 
morale.
  This chart reflects, again, the kind of crisis we are facing for our 
52 million American students: 14 million children learn in substandard 
schools; 7 million children attend schools with asbestos, lead paint, 
or radon in their ceilings or walls; 12 million children go to school 
under leaky roofs; a third of America's children study in classrooms 
without enough outlets and electrical wiring to accommodate computers 
and multimedia equipment.
  The General Accounting Office has determined that it will take in 
excess of $100 billion just to repair existing facilities nationwide. 
We send a very powerful message to the children in this Nation when 
they are going to substandard schools. The message is this: The 
parents, or the older generation, don't give education the priority 
which it deserves.
  Politicians of both parties are out there talking about our 
responsibility to education and to our children and our future, but we 
fail to have decent facilities with enough classrooms and well-trained 
teachers and fail to care for children both before they get into school 
and in the after school hours. Putting children first--when we fail to 
do that, we send a very powerful message to children that it really 
doesn't make an awful lot of difference how they perform in school and 
whether they conform to various rules and regulations. We send a 
message to children every single day that they go to dilapidated 
schools or overcrowded schools that education for the children of this 
country is not our first priority.
  We have to ask ourselves as we begin the budget debate, How does this 
budget reflect our Nation's priorities? This budget, which we are 
beginning a debate on today and will continue to debate through the 
course of next week, how is that really going to reflect our Nation's 
priorities? What are we prepared to do to try to work with States and 
local communities to improve the schools in our country?
  Just throwing money at a problem is not the answer; we have all 
learned that. But I tell you that the amount of resources you allocate 
to a particular purpose or policy is a pretty clear reflection about 
what kind of priority the Nation is going to place on it.
  If we are not going to provide the resources that are necessary to 
reduce class size and enhance educational achievement, if we are not 
going to try to address the problems of dilapidated and decaying 
schools, not only in urban areas but in rural areas, if we are not 
prepared to help recruit additional schoolteachers who are well trained 
and certified to teach the courses which they are instructing, if we 
are not going to help provide education opportunity zones to assist 
communities that are trying to innovate and be imaginative and work 
with teachers and parents to enhance academic achievement--all of which 
have been proposed by the President--if we are not going to say we care 
sufficiently about children when they leave school in the afternoon, 
the 5 million children that go home to empty houses every single day, 
we don't care about them--if we don't care enough about children before 
they go to school in Head Start programs, if we are not prepared to 
invest in children, then we are sending a very powerful message.
  Those speeches that Members are making in here are empty. We are 
challenging our Republican leadership and Republican colleagues to 
invest in children, reject what the Budget Committee has done in 
turning its back on children--and I say ``turning their back on 
children.'' We will get into the particular details of the budget 
resolution later.
  Now, incredibly, the Republican budget proposal ignores the pressing 
needs that I have outlined here. The Republican plan cuts funding for 
education. It refuses to provide key new investments to improve public 
education. If that anti-education plan is passed, schools and students 
will get even less help next year than they are getting this year. Let 
me repeat that: If this budget that is before the Senate now is not 
altered and changed, then the help and assistance for public schools 
will be less next year than it was this year. That is the end result, 
because even if the Appropriations Committee increases funding later on 
during the course of this Congress, it will violate the budget 
resolution.
  This budget resolution is the time to debate the allocations of 
resources to enhance the public schools in this country. Under the 
resolution that is before the Senate this afternoon, there is a real 
cut, a real cut in support for public education. That is what I find so 
incredibly offensive in terms of the budget proposal that is before the 
Senate. The Republican anti-education budget cuts discretionary 
spending by $1.6 billion below the President's budget. It cuts funding 
for education and Head Start programs by $1 billion below the level 
needed to maintain current services.
  The Head Start Program had bipartisan support. We have expanded Head 
Start programs for Early Start on the basis of the Carnegie Commission 
Report and the wide range of different testimony that has been before 
our Education Committees: The earlier the kind of contact, as the 
child's brain is developing, and building confidence and helping and 
assisting that child through a nurturing experience and expanding their 
horizons, has a very, very important impact in the ability of that 
child to expand their academic achievement in the growing years of 
education. That has been proven. We saw a small allocation--about 4 
percent--in the early education programs in the Head Start Program, and 
it has been successful. We have been trying to expand it. But all of 
those resources are being cut back in the Republican budget proposal 
that is out here before the Senate.
  As I said, it cuts the Head Start Program. The Republican anti-
education budget denies 3.7 million students the opportunity to benefit 
from smaller class size. It denies 900,000 disadvantaged students the 
extra help they need to improve their reading and math skills. It 
denies 400,000 students the opportunity to attend after-school 
programs, those programs which are so essential.
  We know that the best teacher that any child has is the parent--the 
parent; second, it is the schoolteacher. But we

[[Page S2707]]

also know what children do before they come to school in the morning is 
important, and we know what happens to children in the afternoon is 
very important. We won't take the time to elaborate on the after-school 
programs and what it means in terms of helping and assisting a child, 
working with that child, to help them with their homework, help them 
with auxiliary programs as I have seen out in Dorchester, MA, just 3 
weeks ago in an excellent program. I saw the liveliness of those 
children in the after-school programs.
  You would think a child, after going through a full day of education, 
would be pretty tired, but the light in those children's eyes as they 
are involved in doing their homework and involved in artwork, involved 
in photography, and even in cooking so that they would be of help and 
assistance in the home--the idea of helping those children get their 
homework done in the afternoon with help and assistance, so when their 
parents are at home at nighttime after a full day of work, they can 
enjoy some common time together and the parents are not going to the 
child saying, ``You better go off and do your homework.''
  These are pretty commonsense recommendations, after school programs. 
I won't take the time, at least now, to go through the excellent 
presentations of Paul Evans, our police commissioner in Boston, who 
talks about the importance of after-school programs in order to reduce 
crime and violence in a community--eloquent, eloquent testimony. I 
daresay that we have had a better record in Boston in reducing youth 
homicide than any city in the country. We went over 2 years without a 
single youth homicide--over 2 years without a single youth homicide.
  If you had Paul Evans here on the floor of the U.S. Senate this 
afternoon, he would say there are three elements. You need to have a 
tough kind of action in dealing with the violent youth that are 
involved in gangs, you have to have an effective program to police the 
proliferation of weapons, and you have to have an effective after-
school program. How many times I have listened to his eloquence. Those 
three elements are the key.
  But an after-school program is key if we are serious in terms of 
trying to do something about violence in our society, and that case is 
so powerful. The President has an after-school program. It has been a 
modest program for the last year. It has been tried and tested. It 
recognizes that the increase in crime among juveniles rises about 60 
percent between the hours of 3 and 4 every single day, just when kids 
get out. And 70 percent of the illegitimate births among teenagers are 
caused during the time of between 3 and 6 in the afternoon. It is a key 
time, Mr. President, when too many of our young people are cast loose 
out into society, or just into their own homes with a television set, 
or if they are older, to a street corner. This is an important 
ingredient in terms of the education component.
  Now the President requested that program, and it is effectively 
zeroed out in the Republican program. So you are going to deny some 
400,000 students the opportunity to attend after-school programs.
  The Republican budget denies 6,500 middle schools, serving 5 million 
students, extra help to ensure that they are safe and drug free. It 
denies 1 million students in failing schools the opportunity to benefit 
from innovative reforms. It denies 3.9 million needy college students 
an increase in their Pell grants.
  The President requested a very modest increase in Pell grants, which 
would have a significant impact on students such as those who attend 
UMASS-Boston. Their tuition may be up now to $1,350 a year. Eighty-five 
percent of those kids' parents never went to college. Eighty-five 
percent of them are working 25 hours a week or more. When the tuition 
is up $100 at UMASS-Boston, they see a 10 percent decline in admissions 
requests. That $100 makes a difference to those kids. That $100 is a 
life-and-death thing to those kids. And the President had recommended 
some $300 on it. The way it works out, in terms of the formula, it 
would be a little over $100 per kid in the Pell grant program that was 
lost dramatically in purchasing power over the past years. That is 
eliminated, Mr. President.
  All of these are paid for in the President's program. These aren't 
add-ons to the budget. They are all paid for under the President's 
program that moves us to a balanced budget. But no, no, we have to cut 
those programs investing in kids and provide a $30 billion tax cut for 
wealthy individuals. Take that money that is going to after school, 
take that money away from Pell grants, take that money away from 
children for math and science, take that money away from smaller 
classrooms and take that money away from strengthening teacher 
training, and put it where? In a tax break. Now, that is the issue. It 
is an issue of priorities. It is an issue of priorities. It is who is 
on whose side? If you want to cut to the meat of it, who is on the side 
of working families and their kids, and who is on the side of those 
that need another tax break? It isn't the working families that get a 
tax break, because the Republicans have opposed any increase in the 
minimum wage. This isn't even a tax break. These are men and women who 
are working hard, playing by the rules, and want to provide their 
kids with food on the table and, after working two jobs, to be able to 
spend some time with them.

  You would think they would at least say that if we are not going to 
give them a tax break--because they don't benefit from a tax break--at 
least say let's give them an increase in the minimum wage. No, no, no. 
That is what we heard last year, but we were eventually able to win it. 
But we haven't got one single Republican cosponsor of an increase in 
the minimum wage for this year--not one--when we have seen the most 
expanding, growing economy, with 320,000 jobs added in the job market 
last month, and 12,000 in the restaurant industry; they are always 
complaining about any increase and how it is going to be devastating to 
the restaurant industry, but they grew 12,000 jobs just last month.
  So, Mr. President, these are some of the issues that are in this 
budget and what we have to address. We must test students early so that 
we know where they need help in time to make that help effective. We 
must provide better training for current and new teachers so that they 
are well prepared to teach to high standards. We must reduce class size 
to help students obtain the individual attention they need. We must 
provide after-school programs to make constructive alternatives 
available to students. We must provide greater resources to modernize 
and expand the Nation's school buildings to meet the urgent needs of 
schools for up-to-date facilities.
  I hope that during the consideration of the budget resolution next 
week, we will give education the high priority that it deserves.


                        Cigarette Price Increase

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's 
time to talk about another decision and another priority that was made 
in the Budget Committee in the past 10 days.
  The Republican budget would also prohibit using the money raised by a 
cigarette price increase from being directed to programs that prevent 
children from starting to smoke and help those who are already addicted 
to quit smoking. These programs are essential to any effective 
antismoking effort.
  What you have to have, if you are going to be serious about trying to 
stop the youth from smoking, is a dramatic increase in costs in a short 
period of time. That is the record. We have examples of it. We can 
spend some time in going through those various reports. You need to 
have that. It also has to be accompanied by an effective 
counteradvertising campaign. If you only rely on an increase, what 
happens is the tobacco industry goes out and increases their 
advertising, and that overwhelms the discouraging aspect of a price 
increase. That is the record of it. We have seen that, and we will have 
a chance at another time when we go through the whole debate on 
tobacco.
  So you have to find a corresponding action. What the public health 
community, who studied this for years, says is that you not only have 
to have counteradvertising of tobacco, which amounts to $5 billion a 
year--you don't expect to match it with $5 billion a year, but under 
the Republican proposal it talks about $125 million that they are 
prepared to authorize but won't even guarantee. Even the last spring 
settlement, which was deficient in some important areas, provided for 
the mandatory spending for

[[Page S2708]]

counteradvertising. But not this Republican budget, not this Republican 
budget. No. They said, effectively, no, we won't require that moneys 
that come in as a result of an increase in price--sure there should be 
some moneys for the Medicare Program, but let me depart for a moment.
  The best way to help the Medicare Program is to get kids to stop 
smoking. The costs of the Medicare Program are $9 billion a year, 
approximately. When you stop kids from smoking, you are going to save 
Medicare billions of dollars. So we allocate, under the Conrad 
proposal, some resources on Medicare. But we are talking now about the 
public health measures that have been turned down by the Budget 
Committee. These public health measures had been included in the first 
McCain proposal that was offered last fall. He knew they were 
important. They were included in the Hatch proposal, which also 
includes these measures, funds to try to deal with the public health 
aspects of children. They were included in a bipartisan program on 
Harkin-Chafee. They included that. But not the Budget Committee, not 
the Budget Committee, well-known protectors of the public health; not 
the Budget Committee, no, sir.

  Zero in terms of counteradvertising; zero in support of local 
communities for cessation programs to stop kids from smoking in the 
schools, to try to help local communities, work in local schools, 
nonprofit agencies, groups that have been working with cessation 
programs for years, zero for them, no way; zero for studying the 
problems of addiction to narcotics, and to study the problems with 
health-related issues that are attached to tobacco, such as lung 
cancer; effectively zero for any kind of a review, study, or investment 
in those particular programs; and zero with regard to looking out after 
farmers who are going to be impacted by this program. I may have my 
differences on the public policy issue on tobacco, but I am not 
prepared, like the tobacco industry has done it, to do it on the backs 
of those tobacco farmers.
  If you look back over what those tobacco farmers' increase has been 
over the past 10 years, when you have had record profits by the tobacco 
industry, it was pittance for those tobacco farmers. The first thing 
that happens, if the tobacco industry gets in any problem, they rent 
those big buses and park them on the mall and let them come up here and 
ask us why we are against those individuals and their families. How 
many times have we done that, Mr. President? We will have a chance to 
go on through that.
  But the point that we are making, Mr. President, is that these 
programs are essential to any effective antismoking effort and 
education on the dangers of tobacco use, counteradvertising, 
deglamorizing smoking among children, smoke cessation programs, and 
medical research to cure tobacco-induced diseases. They should be the 
first priority for the dollars produced by a cigarette price increase.

  All of us agree that Medicare should be protected for future 
generations. All of us recognize that tobacco imposes a heavy cost 
exceeding $9 billion a year on Medicare, and that a share of any 
tobacco revenues should be used for Medicare.
  But one of the best ways to keep Medicare strong for the future is to 
invest in important public health and tobacco control programs that 
prevent children from beginning to smoke and help current smokers to 
quit smoking.
  But not this budget. Every public health official that has appeared 
before Republicans and Democrats alike in the House and in the Senate 
has said these are essential. But not the Budget Committee. But we will 
have a chance to address that. That is an important priority. Americans 
will lead healthier lives, and the burden of tobacco-induced diseases 
will be greatly reduced.

  Obviously, it makes good sense to earmark funds for Medicare and 
smoking cessation programs, for tobacco counter-advertising campaigns, 
for tobacco-related research and education programs, and for FDA 
enforcement of provisions to reduce smoking by children.
  Unfortunately, the Republican budget earmarks all of the tobacco 
revenues for Medicare. It prohibits using even one dollar of the 
tobacco revenues to deter youth from smoking. That's unacceptable.
  Smoking has inflicted great damage on people's health. It makes sense 
to use tobacco revenues for these important anti-tobacco initiatives 
too.
  These programs work. Every dollar invested in a smoking cessation 
program for a pregnant woman saves $6 in costs for neonatal intensive 
care and long-term care for low birthweight babies.
  Listen to this. Every $1 invested in a smoking cessation program for 
a pregnant woman saves $6 in costs for neonatal intensive care and 
long-term care for low-birthweight babies. But there is nothing in this 
program for that.
  The Republican budget offers no help in cases like this, and that 
makes no sense.
  The Republican budget offers no help to states and communities for 
public health advertising to counteract the $5 billion a year--$5 
billion--that the tobacco industry pours into advertising to encourage 
people to start smoking and keep smoking.
  The Republican budget offers no help to the Food and Drug 
Administration to enforce the laws against the sale of tobacco products 
to minors, even though young people spend $1 billion a year to buy 
tobacco products illegally.
  You would think that we would want to try to do something about that 
as well. Talk to any serious official in the public health community, 
and they will say that we need a multidisciplined approach if we are 
going to have an impact in reducing tobacco use among young people. We 
have to do all of these things. But not the Budget Committee. And the 
Republican budget offers no help for medical research on tobacco-
related diseases, even though such research can lead to enormous 
savings for Medicare. The country supports, I believe, these 
fundamental, sound public health proposals, and the Senate should as 
well.


                     Medicare Buy-In and The Budget

  Finally, Mr. President, I want to mention just two other areas. One 
is the area of the Medicare buy-in and the budget.
  Mr. President, the President has advanced a proposal to permit those 
near the age of 65 and those 62 years old to be able to buy into 
Medicare and do it in a fiscally sound way that will not interfere with 
the financial integrity of Medicare. These individuals in their early 
sixties are too young for Medicare but too old for affordable private 
coverage. Many of them face serious health problems that threaten to 
destroy the savings of a lifetime and prevent them from finding or 
keeping a job. Many are victims of corporate down-sizing or a company's 
decision to cancel the health insurance protection they relied on. No 
American nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance 
they have today will protect them until they are 65 and are eligible 
for Medicare.

  Three million Americans aged 55 to 64 have no health insurance today. 
The consequences are often tragic. As a group, they are in relatively 
poor health, and their condition is more likely to worsen the longer 
they remain uninsured. They have little or no savings to protect 
against the cost of serious illness. Often, they are unable to afford 
the routine care that can prevent minor health problems from turning 
into serious disabilities or even life-threatening illness.
  The number of uninsured is growing every day. Between 1991 and 1995, 
the number of workers whose employers promise them benefits if they 
retire early dropped twelve percent. Barely a third of all workers now 
have such a promise. In recent years, many who have counted on an 
employer's commitment found themselves with only a broken promise. 
Their coverage was canceled after they retired.
  The plight of older workers who lose their jobs through layoffs or 
downsizing is also grim. It is hard to find a new job at age 55 or 60--
and even harder to find a job that provides health insurance. For these 
older Americans left out and left behind through no fault of their own 
after decades of hard work, it is time to provide a helping hand.
  And finally, significant numbers of retired workers and their 
families have found themselves left high and dry when their employers 
cut back their coverage or canceled it altogether.
  Democrats have already addressed legislation to address these 
issues--and

[[Page S2709]]

the budget must provide for its enactment. The legislation allows 
uninsured Americans age 62-64 to buy in to Medicare coverage and spread 
part of the cost throughout their years of eligibility through the 
regular Medicare program. It allows displaced workers aged 55-62 to buy 
into Medicare to help them bridge the period until they can find a new 
job with health insurance or until they qualify for Medicare. It 
requires companies that drop retirement coverage to allow their 
retirees to extend their coverage through COBRA until they qualify for 
Medicare.
  This legislation is a lifeline for millions of older Americans. It 
provides a bridge to help them through the years before they qualify 
for full Medicare eligibility. It is a constructive next step toward 
the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to 
health care. It will impose no additional burden on Medicare, because 
it is fully paid for by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves.
  In the budget there ought be the opportunity for us to debate this 
issue, and if judgment is made that we are going to move forward on it 
to ensure that we are going to have the votes and not be blocked from 
moving forward on it because of the failure of the Budget Act, to at 
least consider that possibility.


                         Investment in Children

  Mr. President, everyone knows that investments in children pay off, 
and focusing the attention of the Nation on a central priority for vast 
numbers of American parents--the availability and affordability and 
quality of child care and after-school programs--I believe is 
essential. There is a shocking lack of child care that meets these 
three basic tests: Affordability, availability, and quality. It is a 
dramatic fact of life for millions of families across the Nation. 
Thirteen million children spend all or part of their day in child care. 
Five million are left unsupervised after school. Their parents are 
working parents and deserve to know that their children are not just 
safe but well cared for.
  We must make sure that we take care of our children and have child 
care development programs. We need to expand the child care development 
block grant and ensure there is mandatory money to invest in our kids. 
And we have failed to do so in this budget.


                            EEOC Enforcement

  Mr. President, this year, Congress must commit greater resources to 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Although many of my 
Republican colleagues want to eliminate all forms of affirmative action 
that have benefited women and minorities, shouldn't everyone--
Republicans and Democrats alike--support strong enforcement of our 
civil rights laws? To do otherwise undermines the promise of equal 
justice and equal opportunity for all.

  The EEOC is the only government agency solely devoted to enforcing 
our great civil rights laws--the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Equal Pay Act. But, while the 
agency has received greater enforcement responsibilities, including the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 
1991--its congressionally appropriated resources have decreased.
  The Republican leadership must support its anti-discrimination 
rhetoric and support the work of this agency. The EEOC needs the tools 
necessary to quickly investigate charges of discrimination against 
individuals, as well as patterns of discrimination found in the 
workplace. I hope my Republican colleagues agree with the sentiment of 
our former majority leader, Bob Dole. Senator Dole said,

       [W]e must conscientiously enforce our antidiscrimination 
     laws. Those who violate the law ought to be punished, and 
     those who are the victims of discrimination must be made 
     whole. Unfortunately, our nation's top civil-rights law 
     enforcer, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is 
     burdened with an unacceptably high . . . case backlog. We 
     must give the EEOC the tools it needs to do its job properly.

  The budget must include President Clinton's request for $270 million 
for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It is the right thing 
to do for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, am I correct that we are in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering the 
concurrent Senate budget resolution.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak in morning business for not more than 7 or 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first let me say in response to the recent statement 
by my good friend from Massachusetts about the degree of compassion 
associated with the Republican Members of the Senate that I disagree. I 
am sure that the Budget Committee and its able chairman, Senator 
Domenici, will respond in detail to the generalizations that have been 
expressed by my friend from Massachusetts. But let me just make one 
specific point.
  We have heard that the Republicans and the Republican budget do not 
invest enough in education; that they have not adopted the two key 
plans of the President's budget: $5 billion for school construction, 
and $7.3 billion to hire 100,000 more teachers over the next 5 years.
  The facts show that, indeed, the Republicans have kept their word. We 
have increased education spending by exactly what the President and the 
Congress agreed to do last year in the balanced budget agreement. We 
have provided $8 billion in additional discretionary education funding 
over the 5-year period, and in total we will provide close to $20 
billion in kindergarten-through-grade 12 education funding this year. 
That is a 98-percent increase over the last 10 years.
  I would not take criticism relative to the Republicans' commitment to 
education. It supports exactly what the President has asked for. Again, 
that is $20 billion for kindergarten through grade 12 education funding 
and a 98-percent increase over the last 10 years.
  I am sure others on the Budget Committee will address other 
generalizations in more detail.

                          ____________________