[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2733-S2753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 86, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  Pending:

       Murray amendment No. 2165, to establish a deficit-neutral 
     reserve fund to reduce class size by hiring 100,000 teachers.

  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  For the information of the Senate, we will now, as indicated, begin 
consideration of the budget resolution. Although there are not any 
votes scheduled for today, it is certainly the hope of the majority 
leader and of the Budget Committee that we can begin the process of 
hearing from those who wish to bring amendments so they can be fully 
debated and discussed. I urge any colleagues who might be thinking 
about offering amendments to join us today. We have heard that a couple 
may be coming in a little bit. We will welcome them and begin this 
process of trying to sort through them in the hours ahead.
  At this time, it is my understanding that the Senator from North 
Dakota has opening comments to make. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, today is a historic day. For the first time in 30 
years, the Budget Committee is able to present a budget that is 
balanced on a unified basis. I think all of us have looked forward to 
the day when we would be able to say to our colleagues, ``The deficit 
has been erased.'' That is what we are able to come to the floor and 
say today.
  We all understand that there is more to do, because we all understand 
we are continuing to use the Social Security trust fund surpluses. So 
that is the next challenge that faces us. But on that front, we are 
making progress as well, because in this budget resolution, we are 
saving the surpluses until Social Security can be strengthened, and we 
are doing it on both sides. The Republican budget resolution and the 
alternative Democratic resolution will both be balanced on a unified 
basis and also preserve all of the surpluses generated by the 5-year 
spending plan until Social Security is strengthened.
  I thought it might be useful to recount for our colleagues and those 
who might be watching how we got to the position we are in today, what 
it took to get here, what is the history, how did it happen, because I 
think it is an important story.
  In 1993, President Clinton was inaugurated, came into office and laid 
down an economic plan to reduce the deficit. It was a controversial 
plan, one that cut spending and also raised income taxes on the 
wealthiest 1.5 percent of the people in this country. Many said that 
plan would not work. In fact, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle said it would crater the economy.
  How well I remember the debate we had on the floor of the Senate. How 
well I remember the description that came from our colleagues on the 
other side who told us, ``If you pass this plan, it will not reduce the 
deficit, it will increase the deficit.'' They said it would increase 
unemployment; that it would increase inflation; that it would increase 
the debt; that it would stifle economic growth. Mr. President, the 
record is now clear. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were 
simply wrong. They were wrong on every single count. The plan that we 
passed in 1993 not only reduced the deficit, it has done it each and 
every year since the 1993 plan was passed.
  It has also led to a remarkable economic resurgence. It has led to 
the lowest unemployment in 24 years, the lowest rate of inflation in 31 
years, the strongest business expansion in any of our memories, and put 
this country on a sound financial footing.
  But, again, I think we must all recognize the challenge is not over, 
because the next step is to stop using the Social Security trust fund 
surpluses. Again, the budget resolution offered by our friends on the 
other side of the aisle this year and the alternative that will be 
offered by our side recognize the Social Security surpluses should no 
longer be used in the calculation of the budget deficit and that we 
will preserve all budget surpluses until the time Social Security is 
strengthened.
  Mr. President, this first chart shows that the unified budget is 
balanced for the first time in 30 years. Here is the record since 1969. 
Thirty years ago is the last time we were able to achieve unified 
balance--30 long years ago. And in between, we saw deficits rising 
inexorably, until in 1992 they reached $290 billion. Then, as I 
indicated, President Clinton came into office and proposed the 1993 
budget plan, a 5-year economic blueprint that has made dramatic 
progress. You can see what has happened since: The deficit has been in 
steep decline, until this year when we anticipate we also may run a 
small unified surplus, but clearly we are on the right track.

  I thought I might also help to put in perspective what has happened 
in the last three Presidencies, what the record has been on the 
question of budget deficits, because those budget deficits weighed down 
on this economy and prevented the kind of economic growth that we have 
now enjoyed since progress has finally been made.
  This chart shows from 1981 through 1999 the budget deficit record. We 
can see during the Reagan administration, he came in and inherited a 
deficit of $79 billion. That promptly skyrocketed so that we were 
running on almost a consistent basis deficits of $200 billion a year, 
absolutely unheard of before that time.
  In the last years of the Reagan administration, some improvement was 
made. We were still running budget deficits of $150 billion a year.
  Then we had the 4 years of the Bush administration, and the deficits 
took off like a scalded cat. Deficits went up, as I indicated before, 
so that at the end of the Bush administration, the deficits were 
running $290 billion a year. And with the election of President 
Clinton, a Democratic Congress passed a budget plan in 1993 that has 
succeeded in reducing the deficits every year of that 5-

[[Page S2734]]

year plan. The deficit went down in 1993 to $255 billion; the next year 
was down to $203 billion; then $164 billion; then $107 billion; then 
down to $22 billion and, as you can see, additional progress is being 
made so that in 1999, we are now anticipating a unified budget surplus.
  As I indicated, the 1993 plan was controversial: Cut spending, raise 
taxes, income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent in this country. Some 
told the American people that all of their income taxes were going up. 
It was not true. But they were able to confuse an awful lot of people, 
make an awful lot of people believe that was what was happening.
  The fact is income taxes went up on the top 1.5 percent, but others 
actually had their taxes cut because of the expansion of the earned 
income tax credit. In fact, many more people had their taxes cut as a 
result of the 1993 plan than had their income taxes increased. The news 
media never told that story. But that is a fact. Yes, we increased the 
income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent, but we also reduced taxes 
by expanding the earned income tax credit for more modest wage earners 
in this country, and millions of them received a tax reduction.
  But this shows what has happened to both the spending and the revenue 
of the Federal Government since 1980. The blue line represents the 
spending of the Federal Government. The red line represents the 
receipts, and these are all stated as a percentage of our national 
income or, as sometimes said by the economists, our gross domestic 
product, because that is probably the most realistic way to look at the 
trends in spending and revenue.

  What you can see is that the spending, as a percent of our national 
income, has come down; the revenue has come up. And it is that 
combination--reduced spending, increased revenues--that has allowed us 
to achieve unified balance. And it is that unified balance that has 
taken the pressure off interest rates, that has improved the economic 
climate in this country, so that we now enjoy very healthy economic 
growth, low inflation, low unemployment, and all of the other benefits 
that flow from a strong national economy.
  This chart shows how we achieve a balanced unified budget. Looking 
back to 1992, looking at the savings from the 1993 deficit-reduction 
package that I have previously referenced, and looking at the 
additional savings that will be achieved as a result of the 1997 
bipartisan budget deal--I think it is very important that we be direct 
with everybody.
  In 1993, the Democrats did the heavy lifting. In 1993, there was not 
a single Republican vote for the budget plan that year--a 5-year 
economic plan to get us back on track. And we understood it was 
controversial. We did cut spending. We did raise income taxes on the 
wealthiest 1 percent. And the Republicans all voted no. Again, I think 
they were simply wrong. They were wrong in their anticipation of what 
it would mean to this economy. But in 1997, we had a bipartisan budget 
deal. That made further progress at getting our fiscal house in order.
  Now, I prepared this chart to show the relative size of the two 
plans. The 1993 budget package had $2.5 trillion of savings between 
1992 and 2002, that 10-year timeframe. The 1993 budget package will 
account for $2.5 trillion of the savings.
  The 1997 bipartisan budget deal, between 1997 and 2002, will account 
for $600 billion of budget savings. So there is no question in terms of 
the 10-year period, part of that is attributed to the bipartisan budget 
deal of 1997, $600 billion. But most of it can be attributed to the 
1993 package--$2.5 trillion of savings.
  As I have indicated, Federal spending has been declining under the 
budget agreement of 1993 and the follow-on bipartisan budget agreement 
in 1997. And if we look at Federal spending as a percentage of gross 
domestic product for national income, we can see in 1992 the Federal 
Government was spending 22.5 percent of our national income. In each 
and every year under the budget plan that was passed by Democrats in 
1993 and the follow-on plan that was a bipartisan plan in 1997, Federal 
spending has been coming down as a percentage of our national income.
  In 1993, it was down to 21.8 percent; in 1994, 21.4 percent; in 1995, 
21.1 percent; in 1996, down under 21 percent to 20.7 percent; in 1997, 
20.1 percent. In 1998 we are now anticipating Federal spending will be 
down to 20 percent of our national income--a dramatic improvement under 
the budget plan first passed in 1993, the 5-year plan passed by the 
Democrats, and the follow-on bipartisan budget plan passed last year.
  The result has been a dramatic improvement in the economic health of 
this country. Economic performance has been sustained, it has been 
strong, and it has produced the third largest postwar expansion in our 
history. You can see from 1961 to 1969, we had 106 months of economic 
expansion. From 1982 to 1990, we had 92 months of economic expansion. 
From 1991 to now, 84 months of economic expansion.
  The economy has grown at a very healthy rate. This chart shows the 
real growth of our gross domestic product, and the growth in 1997 was 
the best in a decade. The central, underlying reason is the budget plan 
passed in 1993 that led to the deficit reduction, that allowed interest 
rates to come down, that made this economy much more competitive, much 
stronger, put us in a position to be the most competitive nation in the 
world.
  Mr. President, I think this record is now becoming very clear. 
Deficit reduction, fueled by the 1993 budget plan, has led to reduced 
interest rates, stronger economic growth, and that has meant many 
positive things for the U.S. economy.
  The first, perhaps most important, is job growth. We have now seen 15 
million jobs created since the Clinton administration came into office. 
That is the first 61 months. We compare that to the first 61 months of 
the Reagan administration. We can see during that period about half as 
many jobs were created--about 7.7 million. And that is why we see such 
strong economic performance across the country.
  Well, it is not just job growth where we have seen dramatic results 
of getting our fiscal house in order. In other areas of the economy, we 
have also seen a dramatic improvement. This chart shows what has 
happened to investment in business equipment.
  One of the real strengths of the national economy, one of the reasons 
the United States is performing so well in competition with others 
around the world is because our economy is improving its productivity. 
One of the reasons we are improving our productivity is because of the 
computerization of our businesses. One of the key investments they make 
is in business equipment. That has been growing at an 11 percent annual 
rate for 4 years.
  You can see, going back to 1985, we were going along at between $300 
and $400 billion, in 1992 dollars, of business equipment investment. 
Once we got that 1993 budget plan in place, business investment took 
off, and we are now approaching $700 billion a year in business 
investment in this economy. It is one of the key reasons this economy 
is performing so well.
  Again, it is not just business investment that shows the power of the 
economic plan that was put in place in 1993 and the follow-on 
bipartisan plan of last year. We can see in unemployment--here is what 
has happened with unemployment, looking back to 1991. Our unemployment 
rate is now the lowest since 1973. In over 24 years, we have the lowest 
level of unemployment in this country.
  In my home State of North Dakota, we now see an unemployment rate of 
under 2 percent. The economists said that was not possible. The 
economists said full employment was an unemployment rate of 3 percent 
because of people changing jobs in the economy and other structural 
factors. But in my State of North Dakota, we have now an unemployment 
rate of less than 2 percent, and, of course, nationally, the lowest 
level since 1973.
  There is not only good news on the unemployment front, there is also 
good news on the inflation front. And generally those two do not go 
together. Generally, if you have good news on unemployment, you have 
bad news on inflation. That is not the case with this economy. The 
inflation rate is showing its best sustained performance since 1967--
the best rate in over 31 years--and that inflation performance is 
anticipated to continue.
  So inflation is under control, with low levels of unemployment, high 
levels of business investment, and the

[[Page S2735]]

budget deficit eliminated on a unified basis, and moving towards 
preserving the Social Security surpluses by preserving the budget 
surpluses.
  We have heard a lot of talk from some: ``Well, but you raised taxes 
in 1993. You raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent.'' Yes, 
that is true, because that was important to balancing the budget, to 
getting these deficits behind us, to putting this country on a firmer 
economic footing. We also cut spending. And it is that combination that 
has made possible the deficit reduction we enjoy today.
  But it has also translated into tax relief for many of the people in 
this country because, as I indicated before, while we have raised 
income taxes on the top 1.5 percent, we also cut income taxes for 
millions of Americans through expansion of the earned income tax 
credits. In fact, as this chart shows, the tax burden is declining for 
a family of four. When you look at the payroll taxes they pay and the 
income taxes they pay, if you take those with a family income of 
$27,450 or less, you see they have had their tax burden reduced.
  In 1984, they were paying over 13 percent of their income in income 
taxes and payroll taxes. That has been reduced for 1999, under the 
budget plan we are offering, to 6.5 percent--a 50 percent reduction in 
the effective tax rate on payroll taxes and income taxes for a family 
of four earning $27,000, in 1999 dollars.
  Now, some of our friends on the Republican side say, ``Well, the 
Democrats just want to spend money.'' And there are places that 
Democrats believe we ought to spend some more money. We have the 
agreement from Republicans that we ought to spend more money on 
highways in this country. We also think more money ought to be spent on 
education.
  We think we ought to do something about the crumbling schools. We 
think we ought to do something to reduce class sizes, to add 100,000 
teachers in this country just as we added 100,000 police in the crime 
bill in 1993 that has had such a remarkable effect in reducing the 
crime rate in the Nation over the last 5 years. Each and every year, 
the crime rate has come down once we put 100,000--the authorization, at 
least, for 100,000 additional police on the streets and took tough 
measures to strengthen the crime laws of this country. We also believe 
we ought to provide 100,000 additional teachers across America to 
improve the educational performance of our kids.
  So there are places that where think additional funds should be 
spent. The truth is, if you look at the next year or next 5 years in 
terms of spending, there is very little difference between the 
Republican plan and the Democratic plan--very little difference.
  This shows, in the 1999 budget, the red is the Republican spending 
plan, the blue is the Democratic spending plan. You will notice there 
is very little difference, indeed, hardly any. There is about a $12 
billion difference between the Republican plan and the Democratic plan, 
out of a $1.7 trillion budget. In fact, the Republicans' spending plan 
is for $1.73 trillion for 1999; the Democratic plan is for $1.74 
trillion.
  The difference is, Democrats believe we ought to put some more money 
into education. We believe we ought to put some more money into child 
care, because the vast majority of parents are both working and they 
tell us, we need some help; we are under enormous pressure.
  I just had a neighbor of mine come and tell me he is spending 
$17,000, he and his wife, this year--$17,000--for child care. Now, he 
is probably relatively highly paid, a hard-working guy. Both he and his 
wife work, have two kids. They are paying $17,000 for child care.
  All across the country, parents are coming to us and saying, ``Look, 
this is a part of our expenses that we really need some assistance on. 
Can't there be some tax relief for child care expenses that is above 
what we currently are provided?''
  The Democratic response has been, yes, we have made dramatic progress 
on getting our fiscal house in order. We are preserving the budget 
surpluses until we get Social Security secured for the long term. But 
we have some additional revenue because of the proposed tobacco 
settlement, and we could use some of that money for smoking-related 
matters, health research, smoking prevention, smoking cessation, but we 
could also use some of it to strengthen child care in this country. We 
could use some of it to improve education in this country.

  So the Democrats say, yes, we will take a little bit of that money 
and use it for those purposes. For the 5-year spending plan, from 1999 
to 2003, the Republican spending plan is in red --that is $9.16 
trillion; the Democratic plan is in blue, $9.24 trillion. A little bit 
more money, $80 million more over 5 years in the Democratic plan as 
contrasted with the Republican plan.
  Again, why the difference? Because we believe we ought to invest a 
little more money in education. Yes, we believe we ought to invest a 
little more money in child care because working parents all across 
America tell us that is a priority for them. And yes, we ought to use a 
little of that money for increasing the investment in highway funds, a 
priority that our Republican friends on an overwhelming basis have 
agreed with us on.
  There are other areas of disagreement and perhaps the big area of 
disagreement is on the question of providing for the use of the tobacco 
funds. In the budget resolution, the Republicans say all of the money 
that comes from a possible settlement of tobacco, all of that ought to 
go to Medicare. Democrats disagree. Democrats say some of the money 
ought to go to Medicare, absolutely, that is appropriate. Some of the 
money, we believe, ought to be used to strengthen Social Security. The 
Republicans say no, not a dime should be used to strengthen Social 
Security. We disagree with that. We also believe some of the money 
ought to be used to fund smoking cessation and smoking prevention and 
counter tobacco advertising, and have health research, and improve the 
funding for the National Institutes of Health. The Republicans say no, 
none of the money, none of it, not a dime, from the tobacco settlement 
should go for those purposes; all of it, every penny, should go for 
Medicare. We just disagree. We don't think that is the appropriate set 
of priorities.
  Obviously, Medicare is important. No question about that. Democrats 
are the ones who helped pass it, the ones who helped preserve it, the 
ones who helped protect it. But we also recognize there are other 
critically important priorities from a windfall that might come from a 
tobacco settlement--shouldn't spend it all; some of it should be saved. 
That is why we say some of it should be used to strengthen Social 
Security. Yes, some of it should be for Medicare. We also recognize 
that if we are really going to be protecting Medicare, then we have to 
take steps to keep young kids from getting hooked and addicted to 
tobacco, because 90 percent of those who are smokers started before age 
19; nearly half started before they were age 14. And the addiction of 
kids puts a later burden on Medicare and Medicaid and veterans' 
programs because of that addiction.
  We think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The 
Republicans just want to deal with it at the final result stage. They 
just want to deal with it once the people are addicted and diseased. We 
say let's prevent addiction and disease. Let's spend some of that money 
on smoking prevention, smoking cessation, counter tobacco advertising, 
so that we really prevent people from getting in those situations.
  The fact is the Republican plan in terms of revenue that might come 
from the tobacco settlement puts all the money into Medicare, none to 
these other purposes. They say to us, ``We are funding some of those 
tobacco control efforts other places in the budget.'' That is their 
answer. The problem with that answer, if you look at numbers what, is 
that what they have put elsewhere in the budget is nowhere adequate to 
meeting the need; it doesn't take care of the problem.
  We have had all the health experts come in and they have told us you 
need to be spending about $2 billion a year on tobacco control, smoking 
cessation, smoking prevention, counter tobacco advertising. 
Interestingly enough, every comprehensive bill introduced on this floor 
by Republicans or Democrats adopts a spending pattern on tobacco 
control efforts of about that magnitude, about $2 billion a year--some 
much more, some are as much as $4 billion a year. The proposed 
settlement itself contains $11.3 billion for these

[[Page S2736]]

purposes. The Republican budget over this next 5-year period provides 
$600 million, about \1/20\th of what the experts say is necessary in 
order to really accomplish the goals of reducing teen smoking and of 
protecting the public health.

  The budget resolution that Republicans have offered also ignores FDA 
funding for tobacco. In all of the bills that are out there--
Republicans and Democrats--every comprehensive tobacco bill that has 
been offered says we ought to expand FDA authority to control this drug 
like they were given authority and responsibility to control every 
other drug in our society. Obviously, there is a cost to that. The 
proposed settlement says that cost is $1.5 billion over 5 years. The 
Republicans haven't given a dime for that purpose. It really makes you 
wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle are at all serious 
about accomplishing the goals for the reduction of teen smoking and 
protecting our citizens from addiction, disease, and death caused by 
this industry.
  These are the matters that will be central to this debate as we go 
forward. It is important to define differences between us because those 
differences are real and we have seen the difference they have made 
over the last 5 years. We believe the record has proved the Democrats 
were right when they cast a courageous vote in 1993 to really get our 
fiscal house in order. The results are undeniable. They are just as 
clear as they can be: deficit reduction, strong economic growth, the 
best performance on inflation and unemployment in nearly a quarter of a 
century. That is the record. It is a powerful one. It is one of which 
we are proud.
  Now the question is, what do we do going forward? The Democratic 
answer is we have to maintain fiscal discipline. Yes, we have to 
achieve that unified balance in our budget, but we have to go further 
and preserve budget surpluses until we have secured the future of 
Social Security. As the President said to us, ``Save Social Security 
first.'' The Democrats agree to that position.
  In addition, we believe with the windfall that may be anticipated as 
a result of any tobacco agreement, we ought to use some of that funding 
to accomplish the goals of protecting the public health, reducing teen 
smoking, and also we ought to put some of it toward strengthening 
Social Security, we ought to use some of it for preserving Medicare, 
and yes, we ought to improve health research in this country and 
children's health care. Those are things that the American people think 
are important, and we agree. No higher priority can be attached to 
anything than improving the education of the children of our country. 
That is something we simply must do.
  If we are going to preserve the competitive position of the United 
States, we must have the best educated work force in the world. That is 
one reason we are doing well. If we are going to continue to do well, 
we must make certain that educational excellence is at the top of our 
priority list.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Alabama, Senator Sessions, will be here momentarily for the 
purpose of offering the first substantive amendment to be considered. 
In light of that, perhaps we could enter into a unanimous consent 
agreement. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Alabama 
offers and discusses his amendment, we then allow the other Senator 
from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, to seek recognition and be 
recognized following the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent Philippe Ardanaz, an American 
Association of Political Science fellow with the Budget Committee, be 
granted floor privileges during consideration of the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Alabama for the 
purpose of introducing an amendment and speaking to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2166

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal Government 
  should acknowledge the importance of at-home parents and should not 
discriminate against families who forego a second income in order for a 
          mother or father to be at home with their children)

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

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself and 
     Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 2166.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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. ____. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) studies have found that quality child care, 
     particularly for infants and young children, requires a 
     sensitive, interactive, loving, and consistent caregiver;
       (2) as most parents meet and exceed the criteria described 
     in paragraph (1), circumstances allowing, parental care is 
     the best form of child care;
       (3) a recent National Institute for Child Health and 
     Development study found that the greatest factor in the 
     development of a young child is ``what is happening at home 
     and in families'';
       (4) as a child's interaction with his or her parents has 
     the most significant impact on the development of the child, 
     any Federal child care policy should enable and encourage 
     parents to spend more time with their children;
       (5) nearly \1/2\ of preschool children have at-home mothers 
     and only \1/3\ of preschool children have mothers who are 
     employed full time;
       (6) a large number of low- and middle-income families 
     sacrifice a second full-time income so that a mother may be 
     at home with her child;
       (7) the average income of 2-parent families with a single 
     income is $20,000 less than the average income of 2-parent 
     families with 2 incomes;
       (8) only 30 percent of preschool children are in families 
     with paid child care and the remaining 70 percent of 
     preschool children are in families that do not pay for child 
     care, many of which are low- to middle-income families 
     struggling to provide child care at home;
       (9) child care proposals should not provide financial 
     assistance solely to the 30 percent of families that pay for 
     child care and should not discriminate against families in 
     which children are cared for by an at-home parent; and
       (10) any congressional proposal that increases child care 
     funding should provide financial relief to families that 
     sacrifice an entire income in order that a mother or father 
     may be at home for a young child.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the functional totals in this concurrent resolution on the 
     budget assume that--
       (1) many families in the United States make enormous 
     sacrifices to forego a second income in order to have a 
     parent care for a child at home;
       (2) there should be no bias against at-home parents;
       (3) parents choose many different forms of child care to 
     meet the needs of their families, such as child care provided 
     by an at-home parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, neighbor, 
     nanny, preschool, or child care center;
       (4) any quality child care proposal should include, as a 
     key component, financial relief for those families where 
     there is an at-home parent; and
       (5) mothers and fathers who have chosen and continue to 
     choose to be at home should be applauded for their efforts.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think the issue before the Senate as 
we debate the budget resolution is how to set our priorities as a 
nation. Where do we want to spend our resources? Are we expending our 
resources in ways that strengthen our American Republic and the people 
who make it up? Are we using resources in a way that will strengthen 
families? And are we using resources in a way that undermine families 
or at least undermine the freedom of families to make choices they 
believe are important in their lives?
  I have just introduced an amendment which expresses the sense of 
Congress

[[Page S2737]]

that the Federal Government should acknowledge the importance of stay-
at-home parents and should not discriminate against families who decide 
to forego a second income in order for a mother or father to be at home 
with their children. The resolution is nearly identical to the House 
resolution sponsored by Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the 
Education and Work Force Committee, which passed the House of 
Representatives on February 11 by a vote of 409-0.
  President Clinton has proposed spending $21.7 billion over the next 5 
years in new Federal child care programs. Although the money the 
President is proposing to spend will benefit parents who use business 
and institutional day-care providers, it will not assist the single 
largest provider of child care in this country, at-home parents. The 
President's plan does provide us with an opportunity to think seriously 
about this subject and see if we can provide a better way to help 
parents raise their children.
  I believe this resolution is critically important. It provides this 
body with an opportunity to discuss and debate our Nation's focus on 
the issue of child care: Should our Government continue to promote and 
fund child care programs designed to give middle-class parents who hire 
others to care for their children tax cuts or other benefits while at 
the same time denying relief to parents who make sacrifices so that one 
parent can remain at home to care for their young children?
  It seems unfair to me that we tax families who sacrifice outside 
earnings to ensure that one parent is home with their children while 
subsidizing families in which both parents work. In fact, the 
statistics show that when both parents work, they have a higher income. 
So in fact we are taxing those with a lower income to subsidize 
decisions of those with a higher income.
  Studies show that most parents would prefer to work less and spend 
more time with their children if they could afford to do so. By 
subsidizing only nonparental care for our children, our Government is 
pushing many families in a direction they do not wish to go. More 
parents are staying home. They are choosing to forgo extra income. 
These private, personal, and family decisions are being reached on 
long-term moral, religious, and educational considerations. Good 
decisions by parents in these matters benefit our Nation, and they 
should be affirmed by governmental policy, not undermined by 
governmental policy.
  As I traveled my State over the last recess and talked with people 
raising this issue, people would come up to me after meetings, and they 
would say: ``Jeff, we agree with you. We both used to work. Now only 
one of us works. We prayed about it and we know we are going to have to 
get by with less money. But we decided this is the best for our 
family.''
  I don't denigrate in any way families who choose for both parents to 
work. I don't ask that we diminish support for the single parent who 
works. I just say, Mr. President, it is time for this body to join the 
House and to send a message to America and a statement to the President 
and to the rest of this Government that we believe that those parents 
who stay at home to raise their children ought to be affirmed also. 
They also should receive benefits, and they ought not to be the chumps 
in this process. Because they are giving of themselves with great 
sacrifice to raise the next generation of Americans who will lead this 
country.
  Make no mistake our economy is in great shape. This Nation is strong 
and vibrant economically. The one threat I see that could undermine 
that strength is for us to undermine the values that we pass on to our 
children. That our work ethic is reduced, that our moral discipline and 
integrity as a people is undermined. These qualities are strengthened 
when families can spend those formative years with their children in a 
close relationship. Psychiatrists and psychologists refer to it as 
``bonding.'' During those first years, it is important for a parent and 
a child to bond in order for that child to develop confidence and a 
sense of self-worth that can only be gained in many instances from that 
relationship with their parents. We have many difficult societal 
problems, and none are more important than developing properly the next 
generation of leaders.
  I just say this, Mr. President: Our Nation can never rise higher than 
the individual quality of the citizens who make it up. And what are 
those qualities that make us a great people? It goes beyond mere 
education. It goes beyond how much money we make or how smart we are. 
It really depends on a willingness to cooperate, to work together, on 
whether or not we have high ideals, whether or not our children are 
raised with hope and a vision for progress, whether or not they have 
integrity, good discipline, a work ethic that will allow us to be 
competitive in the world. We need to strengthen our families as they 
endeavor to raise the next generation of leaders.
  Now, Mr. President, last year, we passed a budget that wonderfully 
provided a $500 per child tax credit to families in this country--one 
of the finest steps we have taken in many years to actually help 
families. This allows them to keep money that they could spend as they 
wish. A family of three could, in effect, have $120 extra each month, 
tax free, not taxable, a tax credit that they could use for their 
children. This extra money may mean buying shoes, textbooks, or the 
extra money it takes to go to a movie or on a school trip. These 
families are able to make their own decisions about spending. That was 
a wonderful step in the right direction. It did not discriminate 
against those families who work or those who choose not to have both 
parents work. It was an equal, across-the-board benefit, something that 
was good. I think now we need to make this additional statement by this 
body: That we expect in the future to treat all parents equally. The 
amendment makes a number of points, Mr. President, and I will share 
those briefly. I don't know what my time is, but I don't want to go 
over.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes remaining on the 
time requested.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. Mr. President, the resolution notes a number 
of things. It notes that, whereas ``a recent National Institute for 
Child Health and Development study found that the greatest factor in 
the development of a young child is `what is happening at home and in 
families.' ''
  That is something all of us have known instinctively, and we believe 
that our public policy has not affirmed that effectively. Our 
resolution would move us in the right direction.
  It goes on to note: Whereas,

       as a child's interaction with his or her parents has the 
     most significant impact on the development of the child, any 
     Federal child care policy should enable and encourage parents 
     to spend more time with their children;
       nearly \1/2\ of preschool children have at-home mothers and 
     only \1/3\ of preschool children have mothers who are 
     employed full time;
       a large number of low- and middle-income families sacrifice 
     a second full-time income [by their own decision] so that a 
     mother may be at home with her child;
       the average income of 2-parent families with a single 
     income is $20,000 less than the average income of 2-parent 
     families with 2 incomes;
       only 30 percent of preschool children are in families with 
     paid child care and the remaining 70 percent of preschool 
     children are in families that do not pay for child care, many 
     of which are low- to middle-income families struggling to 
     provide child care at home;
       child care proposals should not provide financial 
     assistance solely to the 30 percent of families that pay for 
     child care and should not discriminate against families in 
     which children are cared for by an at-home parent;
       any congressional proposal that increases child care 
     funding should provide financial relief to families that 
     sacrifice an entire income in order that a mother or father 
     may be at home with a young child.

  Therefore, it be resolved that the Congress of this United States 
recognizes that:

       many families in the United States make enormous sacrifices 
     to forego a second income in order to have a parent care for 
     a child at home;
       there should be no bias against at-home parents;
       parents choose many different forms of child care to meet 
     the needs of their families, such as child care provided by 
     an at-home parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, parent, 
     neighbor, nanny, preschool, or child care center;
       any quality child care proposal should include, as a key 
     component, financial relief for those families where there is 
     an at-home parent; and
       mothers and fathers who have chosen and continue to choose 
     to be at home [with their children] should be applauded for 
     their efforts.

  Mr. President, the purpose of this resolution is not to suggest that 
we do

[[Page S2738]]

not need more relief for families. We need relief for families where 
both parents work or where the only parent works. They need relief. But 
we ought not to discriminate and be biased against those parents who 
sacrificially choose to spend the time they believe is necessary for 
their child to develop emotionally, morally, religiously, and 
ethically.
  That is a good thing for America. It is a good thing when parents can 
and are willing to spend their time with their children. Public policy 
should affirm that choice, just as it affirms other choices that 
parents make or feel compelled to make. I would suggest that this is a 
matter we ought to support aggressively. I believe it is a matter that 
will help set the tone for our budget process as we go forward. It will 
send a signal to those on the committees who will be considering 
legislation to see what we can do to strengthen our ability to care for 
children, and I believe this resolution to be quite significant and 
representative of a marked change in the direction that we have 
followed before.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as 
a cosponsor to this amendment. He called our office before I had a 
chance to add his name to the sponsors of this resolution, among whom 
are Senators Lott, Shelby, Enzi, Faircloth, Helms, Nickles, Grams, 
McConnell, Lieberman, Brownback, Inhofe, Craig, Hutchison, Frist, 
Coverdell, Ashcroft, Abraham, Mack, DeWine, and Coats, and others are 
being added as we go along.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to add those names as 
cosponsors?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The names I read, except for Senator Dodd, have already 
been listed as sponsors on the legislation.
  I ask that Senator Dodd and Senator Domenici be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator if he would allow my name to be added 
also as a cosponsor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be honored to have that.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous 
consent that the occupant of the Chair, Senator Roberts, be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you. Mr. President, I think, indeed, we are 
dealing with an important issue. I know the Chair himself, along with 
other Senators, has introduced legislation that would, in effect, 
accomplish many of the things that are called for in this amendment. I 
salute you for your concern for children and your work in that regard. 
I think it is time for us to make sure that we establish a policy in 
this body that treats parents equally who sacrifice for their children. 
I think this amendment makes that point, and I am proud to offer it.
  Mr. President, I believe we do have, by consent, 2 hours set aside 
for debate on this amendment. At this time, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of that time be reserved. I would like to speak on 
it some more, and other Senators have advised me that they would be 
speaking on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The time 
is reserved.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, under the previously agreed-to unanimous 
consent agreement, I believe that the Senator from North Dakota will be 
recognized for up to 20 minutes, and I would like to seek unanimous 
consent that following the statement of the Senator from North Dakota 
we would then recognize the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for 
up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator is correct. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                           Budget Priorities

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I may not take the entire 20 minutes. But 
I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, we are talking about the budget. This is a ritual that 
occurs here every year in the U.S. Senate. And the budget reflects our 
priorities. What do we think is important? What do we hold dear? What 
do we think are the most important issues in this country?
  I have said before that 100 years from now we will all be dead. None 
of us will be here. Historians will look at what this Congress felt was 
important, and find that out by evaluating what kind of a budget this 
Congress enacted. That will tell historians what Congress felt was 
important about the lives of the people who live in this country and 
what matters. What is the priority? That is what this budget debate is 
all about.
  The Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, spoke a bit ago about 
where we have been. I recall a few years ago, during a particularly 
aggressive debate about the economy and fiscal policy, a colleague of 
mine standing on the floor of the Senate talking about how awful things 
are in America and how we really ought to be ashamed about what has 
happened in the last 35 years in this country. I sat over here. I 
listened to that. I thought, gosh, we must be living in different 
places.
  I think this is a remarkable country. Yes; we have significant 
challenges. But I look at the last 50 years as 50 years of significant 
advancement in this country in a dozen different ways. Yet some see it 
differently.
  We find ourselves in this country today living in a country with an 
economy that is growing, more people working and fewer people 
unemployed. The inflation rate is down; the unemployment rate is down; 
economic growth is up; the crime rate is down; and the welfare rolls 
are down. Things are moving in the right direction in this country. It 
doesn't mean we don't have some challenges. But the fact is things are 
moving in the right direction.
  I suppose some have their own ideas about why this has happened, why 
is it that we have reached this intersection and why this country is 
doing quite well.
  Senator Conrad indicated that in 1993--at a time when our budget 
deficits were growing year after year and a swollen budget deficit that 
was getting worse, not better--that Congress was called upon by a new 
President to do something serious about fiscal policy and to send a 
message to the people of this country that times in the future will be 
different, that Congress and a President would no longer sit around and 
accept increasing budget deficits. He proposed a plan that was 
enormously controversial. It passed by one vote here in the Senate and 
one vote in the House of Representatives.
  For anybody who asks if one vote matters, it does. In 1993, a plan 
that was very controversial passed by one vote in both bodies. The 
result was the American people finally understood that we were going to 
put this country on the right track on reducing the Federal budget 
deficit and getting this country's fiscal policy under some kind of 
control. Yes, that bill made the right investments in the future, but 
it cut a good deal of spending, and yes, it did increase certain taxes, 
in most cases only for the wealthiest Americans. But it did. And that 
is what made it so controversial. It was hard to vote for. Some of my 
colleagues who voted for it are not here any longer. But it was the 
right thing to do, and it put this country on the right track. We find 
ourselves in a country where things are better.

  Now the question is, What should this budget provide? What is 
important now for the future--education, health care, safe food, a 
clean environment, safe workplaces, jobs? What represents the priority 
of those of us serving now today? Are we trying to move forward, or are 
we holding back?
  Let me just again remind people that we have always had in the 
Congress folks who have their dander up, saying, ``Don't go there. 
Don't do that. It won't work.'' We had that with Social Security. We 
had it with Medicare. We had it with virtually everything that was 
intended to be done to make this a better country. When we decided to 
stop employing children in this country--let

[[Page S2739]]

us stop having 12-years-olds work 12 hours a day in the mines--we will 
have child labor laws, we had people who said, ``Don't do that. It will 
ruin the economy.'' When we decided we were going to have a minimum 
wage law, we had people saying, ``Don't do that. It will ruin the 
American economy.'' When we decided to have Social Security, we had 
people who said, ``Don't do that. It is socialism.'' When we said let 
us have a Medicare program because half the senior citizens in the 
country can't afford health care, people said, ``Don't do that. It will 
ruin this country.''
  This country has been strengthened by a lot of good ideas that have 
made this a better place. Yes. Social Security. Yes. Medicare. Yes. 
Food safety standards, clean air requirements, child labor law, minimum 
wages--a whole series of things that have made a better country. This 
country has a wonderful, wonderful history, and I think a better 
future.
  We survived a civil war. We survived a depression. We won two world 
wars. We defeated Hitler. We cured polio. We put people on the Moon. We 
invented the television, the computer, and the jet airplane. This is 
quite a remarkable country. There is nothing quite like it on Earth.
  If you look at other developed nations around the world, their 
economies have slowed down and are not doing well. Yet this country--
the biggest, most successful democracy in the world, truly a country 
with significant economic might--is on the move again, on the march 
again, and doing much, much better.
  So what do we have to do now, in order to keep our country moving 
forward? We need to face several big challenges: Medicare and Social 
Security. Before I talk about the priorities in the budget, let me talk 
about Medicare and Social Security. Those are the two big entitlements 
that we have to deal with. Even though we have dealt with most of the 
fiscal policy problems, we have a demographic problem in the future 
with Medicare and Social Security. I want to make one point about that.
  The problems in Medicare and Social Security are born of success. We 
could solve Medicare and Social Security instantly if we simply go back 
to the same life expectancy that we had 30 or 60 years ago. Those who 
created the Social Security program created a program that said, by the 
way, you are expected to live, on average, to be 63 years of age and we 
will pay a retirement benefit after 65. I went to a small school. But I 
understand that adds up pretty well. If you are paying benefits at 65 
years and people are living on average 63 years, that works out pretty 
well.
  But from the turn of the century, when we were expected to live to 
age 48 in this country, to now, when you are expected to live to age 
77, nearly 78 years of age, we have increased life expectancy in this 
country by nearly three decades. Does that put some strain on Social 
Security and Medicare? Yes; it does. But, again, it is born of success. 
Just ratchet back life expectancy 30 years and you will solve the 
financing problem for Social Security and Medicare.
  So we ought not shirk from these challenges. These are not difficult 
challenges. We can solve the demographic problems confronting Social 
Security and Medicare. But let us remember that the reason these 
problems exist is because we have had significant success in this 
country. People are living longer, better, and healthier lives. That is 
what is causing the problems in these areas.

  Let me just for a moment talk about the priorities in the budget. 
Senator Conrad talked about several of them. I want to focus on a 
couple.
  Tobacco: Senator Conrad has done a lot of work on the tobacco issue 
as the chairman of the task force here in our caucus. This budget 
resolution indicates that all of the revenue that will come from a 
tobacco settlement must be used exclusively to adjust the balances of 
the Medicare trust fund. In other words, it explicitly says no money 
from any tobacco settlement can be used for the central goal of the 
tobacco legislation, and that is, preventing people from starting to 
smoke in the first place, protecting young people in this country from 
the dangers of smoking.
  Almost no one reaches 25 or 30 years of age and wonders what they can 
do to further enrich their lives and come up with the idea they ought 
to start smoking. Nobody does that because at that age they understand 
smoking can kill you. Cancer, heart diseases, and other illnesses 
persuade people who know the facts not to start smoking. The only 
future customers who exist for tobacco are kids. The targeted 
capability to try to addict our kids is something we are trying to 
attack in tobacco legislation.
  The use of the funds from the tobacco settlement must be, it seems to 
me, used for anti-smoking education initiatives all across this 
country, for smoking cessation programs, for those who are addicted, 
for FDA tobacco-control activities, to counter tobacco advertising, and 
a range of other ways. But none of them are capable of being funded in 
this budget. None of them.
  It doesn't make any sense at all to write handcuffs into this budget 
resolution that stop us from using the proceeds of the tobacco 
settlement to do the very things that we are having the tobacco 
settlement for in the first place, and that is to try to address the 
issue of teen smoking and to stop cigarette companies from addicting 
teens. Yet none of it is possible in this budget agreement. That cannot 
stand. We must have amendments and will have amendments on that issue.
  Second, education: We have had a number of people here in the U.S. 
Congress who forever have said, ``Let's just say no on education'' when 
it comes to the U.S. Congress. I understand and respect the fact that 
most of elementary and secondary education funding comes from State and 
local governments. It is that way and ever should be that way. Yet we 
in the Congress have developed some niche financing and some assistance 
in certain areas that help invest in education and make our schools 
better.
  President Clinton has made some proposals dealing with education that 
are very, very important proposals that will not be funded in this 
budget. The proposal dealing with repairing America's schools is a very 
important proposal.
  We have thousands of schools in this country that are 50 years old, 
or 60 years old, or 80 years old. They are coming apart at the seams. 
We send our children there. In the morning we tell our children good-
bye. We kiss them good-bye and send them to school. We in this country 
don't want our kids to go to unsafe schools or go to schools that are 
in disrepair. None of us want, as parents, to do that.
  I have two young children in public school. The taxes I pay to 
support their education are something that I am enormously proud of. I 
want those children, and all American children, to be the best educated 
children that they can possibly be. I want them to be able to say, ``I 
went to the best schools in the world.'' That is what I want our public 
education system to be in this country. Yet, this budget says no to 
those education initiatives. It says we can't do anything about trying 
to stimulate the repair of crumbling schools by providing just a basic 
incentive from the Federal level to State and local school districts 
and others who would be able to put up the money at reduced interest 
charges to repair crumbling schools. This budget says we can't do that. 
It just says no to fixing crumbling schools.

  Or, the question of class size. My daughter last year was in public 
school in a class of 30 students. Does anybody believe that it doesn't 
matter if your kid is in a class with 35 students or 30 students versus 
15 students or 18 students? We know better than that. All of us know 
better than that. We all know that smaller class sizes mean better 
education, particularly more teacher time for each student. President 
Clinton talks about funding 100,000 new teachers, to try to reduce 
class sizes in this country. He is proposing after-school programs for 
school-age children who don't have any place to go after school because 
both parents are working. For all of these initiatives, the response is 
the response that we have had for 50 years from some of the same 
voices. ``Just say no to these issues. It is not the Federal 
Government's job.'' Gosh, if we had relied on that advice we wouldn't 
have done much of anything that has made this a better country. A fair 
amount of what we have done in terms of public

[[Page S2740]]

investment has made this country a much, much better place in which to 
work and to live.
  When President Clinton proposes smaller class sizes with qualified 
teachers, he is talking about an initiative of over 7 years to help 
local schools provide small classes by hiring more teachers in the 
early grades. When he talks about modern school buildings, he is 
talking about Federal tax credits to pay interest on $22 billion in 
bonds to build and renovate public schools in this country.
  But this budget that came out of the Budget Committee falls far short 
on these issues. The suggestion is, Well, this isn't a priority. This 
doesn't rank with other priorities. I disagree with that. And we have 
room, obviously, to disagree on these issues.

  But if one doesn't believe that education is the first priority in 
this country--that our future is our children and the education of our 
children will determine what kind of country we have in the future, how 
we compete in the global economy, whether this country grows--if we 
don't believe that, we are not going to do well in the future. We must 
do as those who came before us have done and say that education is a 
priority. It represents the first priority for this country.
  There is another little part of this budget we are considering that I 
find highly troubling, and I know at first blush it will be very, very 
interesting to some people. It is a piece that says let us sunset the 
Tax Code. In other words, it is saying that the Congress should sunset 
and get rid of the existing income tax system we have in this country. 
It includes a sense of the Senate provision providing for repealing the 
entire Internal Revenue Code at the end of 2001. Notice that it doesn't 
say what they would replace it with. It just says repeal the Tax Code.
  Well, what that says to somebody who just bought a home yesterday or 
is considering buying a home tomorrow or next month or did 6 months 
ago, it says, ``By the way, don't count on your interest deduction on 
your mortgage being deductible, because there may not be a tax system 
that allows you to deduct interest on your mortgage.'' Can you imagine 
that coming from this Congress?--this Congress saying, ``Don't count on 
that?''
  By the way, are you contributing to an IRA? This budget says, ``Don't 
count on that being treated as it is now for tax purposes.'' Are you 
making a charitable contribution? ``Don't count on that being 
deductible.'' Are you a business person about to make an investment, or 
a business about to make an acquisition of another company, and it 
hinges on the question of, How will this be handled from the Tax Code 
standpoint?'' What this says is, ``Don't count on it. Don't count on 
this Tax Code, because we have other ideas.''
  We have billionaires walking around saying, ``We want a flat tax.'' 
Only in Washington, DC, would it be a new idea to hear a billionaire 
talking about a flat tax plan that cuts his own taxes. Only here could 
someone call that a stroke of genius. Flat tax, VAT tax, sales tax--
these are the alternatives that are being proposed to the current 
system. What is behind this proposal to abolish the current Tax Code at 
2001 without providing for an alternative? The stimulus behind this is 
that some people want to create a national sales tax, a national VAT 
tax, or some sort of national flat tax, all of which will cut taxes for 
the wealthiest Americans and increase taxes for working Americans.
  Let me say that again, because it is important. This budget bill does 
not tell us what people have in mind as a replacement for the current 
system, because the majority can't agree on that. But all the plans 
that are being discussed to replace the current IRS Code--all of them 
would essentially say we are going to tax work and we are going to 
exempt investment.
  I ask people this: Why is the income from work any less worthy than 
the income from investment? Why this romance with a plan that says, if 
you are a worker, we tax you; if you are an investor, we don't? If you 
get your money by working all day and you are bone tired at night after 
10 hours going out working for a wage, trying to provide for your 
family, you pay a tax. But if you sit in a chair and clip your coupons 
and make your $10 million a year from interest and dividends, this 
Congress likes you so much that you don't have to pay any tax. It is 
just the work that is taxed, the investment is not. We will have an 
amendment to strike this provision.
  Get rid of the Tax Code? I don't particularly like the Tax Code. I 
think we could substantially improve it, dramatically simplify it. But 
get rid of it and replace it with a plan that says the upper-income 
people pay less taxes and lower- and middle-income people pay more 
taxes? I don't know who came up with this approach, but I hope they are 
prepared to defend it on the floor in discussing this amendment that I 
will offer at some point during the debate.

  Mr. President, those are some of the difference I have with this 
budget. But I don't want people to believe that there is nothing in 
common among Senators. There are things in the budget resolution to 
which we will all agree.
  I just stood and asked the Senator who was introducing the child care 
amendment to add my name as a cosponsor. He is a Republican; I am a 
Democrat. I happen to think what he has said on the floor and what he 
has written on that amendment make good sense. It is right to say to 
those who need to find good child care, when both parents have to go 
off to work because they must make ends meet, and they have child care 
problems--can we and should we help them? Yes, I think we could and we 
should. Does it also imply that those who make sacrifices to have one 
spouse stay at home to take care of those children, should they have 
some opportunity to see us reach out to try to provide some help to 
them? Absolutely.
  There are a number of things--this being just one example--where we 
agree on public policy issues. I have mentioned a few where we don't 
agree. Where we don't agree, from time to time we have significant 
debate about that, and then we vote, and when the vote is over, we 
count the votes. The winner is the one with the most votes. We 
understand that. My party here in this Chamber has fewer votes than the 
other party. Hopefully, a number of these amendments will not be party 
line votes. The child care issue, which I just mentioned, is a good 
example of that.
  I hope the first issue I mentioned will be another example. On 
tobacco, there is a big difference, I mean a huge difference. There are 
billions of dollars coming from a tobacco settlement that the majority 
says cannot be used under any circumstance to deal with teenage 
addiction. But the whole purpose of this settlement is to say to 
tobacco companies, ``We won't allow you to addict our kids anymore. It 
is wrong.'' And we want to use some of the money from a tobacco 
settlement to fund smoking prevention, smoking cessation, addiction 
treatment and other public health work to deal with smoking. But the 
majority's budget says ``No, you can't do it.'' Well, this budget has 
to be changed, and we are going to have a big debate about that.
  The last item I mentioned, the Tax Code, do we want a budget to go 
through the Congress that says: ``By the way, American people, we are 
going to sunset the Tax Code; we are going to get rid of the Tax Code 
at the end of 2001. So now, if you have your house, and you sit out 
there and wonder whether you are going to be able to deduct the 
interest on your mortgage? Just go ahead and wonder, because we are 
going to get rid of the Tax Code that allows to you do that and we are 
not going to tell you what we are going to put in its place. We may put 
a national sales tax in its place,'' they would say. ``We will not tell 
you that yet, because we know that is controversial and we know how you 
will react when you find out what a national sales tax would do.''
  Well, we know what a national sales tax does because all the studies 
show it. There is no dispute about it. We know it will cut taxes for 
upper-income folks and raise taxes on working people. But the majority 
says, ``We are not going tell you what we are going to replace it with, 
but all we are going to do is serve notice on you today that your home 
mortgage interest may not be deductible tomorrow or in 2001.'' So we 
are going to have an amendment on that. We need to change that 
provision in this budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I have used my time. There are several other items 
that I

[[Page S2741]]

will talk about later in this debate. I have mentioned a couple of 
amendments I intend to offer. I thank Senator Conrad for giving me the 
time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, a number of points have been made by the 
Senator from North Dakota. He always makes them well. Even when I 
disagree with him, I enjoy listening to him.
  Let me point out a few things that I want to talk about initially 
relative to this budget that, if you were to listen to the other side, 
you might not fully understand, because there appears to be an 
incomplete explanation.
  For example, on the issue of education, the Senator from North Dakota 
used the term: ``The Federal Government has niches which it is 
responsible for in the area of funding education.'' I think that is a 
good term, ``niches.'' The Federal Government does not have 
responsibility for the overall funding of elementary and secondary 
school education. In fact, that has always been reserved to the local 
community, and should be reserved to the local community. It should be 
parents and teachers who are empowered, controlling their schools by 
controlling their local dollars.
  But yes, we do have some niches that we are interested in as the 
Federal Government. Probably the primary niche we are interested in is 
taking care of the special-needs child. In fact, we have a law called 
94-142, otherwise known as IDEA, the purpose of which is to make sure 
the special-needs children get adequate funding as they try to get 
decent schooling. When this law was passed, the Federal Government said 
it would pay 40 percent of the cost. Regrettably, the Federal 
Government, as of 2 years ago, was only paying about 6 percent of the 
cost. But as a result of the leadership of people on our side of the 
aisle, myself included, and Senator Lott and a number of other people--
Senator Collins from Maine--we have aggressively pursued trying to 
increase the funding for special education, and we have gotten it up to 
about 9.5 percent of the local cost. But it still remains the single 
largest unfunded mandate the Federal Government puts on local school 
districts and basically has the effect of saying to the local school 
district: You must educate these children. The Federal Government said 
it will pay 40 percent. We are not going to pay our 40 percent. 
Therefore, you must use your local tax dollars to pay the Federal 
share, and therefore you have very little flexibility in how you use 
your local tax dollars, because the Federal Government is requiring you 
to use them to educate children to pay for costs which the Federal 
Government was supposed to pay for in the first place.
  Well, the administration has been grotesquely lax in its fulfillment 
of this obligation also. When the Senator from North Dakota says the 
administration has all these wonderful new education initiatives--they 
are going to go out and build schools and reduce class sizes, they are 
going to add proposals and programs for after-school education--what 
they do not mention--what they do not mention--is the administration, 
the White House, the President, and the Democratic Members of this 
Congress, in their own budget as proposed, failed to increase at all, 
for all intents and purposes, funding for special-ed kids. They failed 
to even make a minor attempt to try to fulfill the obligation of the 
special-ed child, something that we are by law required to do.
  So, yes, the Federal Government has niches in education. One of those 
primary niches, which we have cited, by law, is that we will pay 40 
percent of the cost of the special-needs child. We don't do it. The 
Democratic Membership is unwilling to do it. The White House is 
unwilling to do it. Why? They want to take all kinds of new programs to 
take care of new constituencies to generate new press releases. It is 
about time they lived up to the obligation on the books. Our budget, 
the Republican budget, does that. It moves one more time aggressively--
in fact, outlines $2.5 billion of new spending for special education 
over the next 5 years--with a strong, firm commitment to try to get to 
that 40 percent, something that is totally ignored on the other side.
  So, when you wanted to talk education, the Republican budget lives up 
to the obligation of the Congress, the Federal Government, in the area 
of education. The Democratic proposals just put out press releases and 
try to buy new constituencies and do nothing for the special-needs 
child. Basically, they failed in that arena.
  Now we go to the issue of the tobacco settlement, and that is what I 
want to talk about primarily here today. The tobacco settlement is 
obviously a very complex and intricate piece of process. But there 
should be some black-letter rules that guide us in this settlement. The 
Senator in the chair has been a leader on identifying one of these 
black-letter rules, which is that attorneys should not get an 
outrageous amount of income out of these settlements. The billions of 
dollars in attorney's fees that are being awarded in Texas and Florida 
are just obscene, obscene. They are going out of the pockets of the 
taxpayer into the attorneys' pockets, and they are not doing anything 
for anybody. Clearly, there should be some action taken in that arena. 
That should be a black-letter law addressing this issue, and I 
congratulate the Senator in the chair for his leadership on that count.

  Equally, we ought to recognize what the problems are that are created 
for the Federal Government as a result of tobacco smoking. The single 
biggest problem we have as a Federal Government as a result of tobacco 
smoking from a health standpoint is that senior citizens are 
disproportionately impacted by the health impacts of smoking all their 
life, and that impact on senior citizens flows directly back to the 
cost being on the Federal Treasury in the Medicare system. So it is 
perfectly reasonable and appropriate and right, to the extent that the 
Federal Government receives revenues as a result of this tobacco 
settlement, that those revenues should go to support the primary cost 
which the Federal Government incurs as a result of tobacco smoking in 
this country, which is the cost to take care of our senior citizens.
  I point out, the other side of the aisle suddenly has decided to 
spend this tobacco settlement money on all sorts of new initiatives for 
a panoply of new constituencies and programs, the purpose of which 
appears to be once again to create press releases rather than create 
substantive progress. I point out to the other side, it was just a year 
ago we saw from the other side such crocodile tears, it now appears--
because they wouldn't be genuine tears or they would be supporting us 
in this matter--crocodile tears about their concern for the trust fund, 
Medicare trust fund, and how it was being raided, they alleged, by the 
Republican side of the aisle.
  We made a firm, unalterable commitment to Medicare. We recognize on 
our side that Medicare remains probably the single most difficult 
entitlement program, from the standpoint of fiscal solvency, that we 
have on the books. Social Security is a tough one, but Medicare is even 
tougher. If we are going to address it effectively, we do need those 
revenues from the tobacco settlement in order to make sure that our 
seniors have a legitimate health insurance program.
  So this proposal that we have in this budget to put the money into 
Medicare is the most logical place that it should go. It should not go 
to some new program that the President announces. Every day, he seems 
to announce a new program on the basis of the tobacco settlement. There 
was a week where I think literally every day of the week he announced a 
new program.
  Let's support the programs we have on the books, both in education 
and in health care.
  The tobacco settlement raises other issues, issues that I am 
concerned about. I read in the papers about the movement toward an 
agreement on the tobacco settlement. From my standpoint, I find the 
issue of immunity to be really the core issue of how this settlement 
comes down. Of course, it is the issue of immunity which the tobacco 
companies are trying to buy as they try to settle this lawsuit--this 
situation; it is not a lawsuit. It is a lawsuit in some areas but not a 
lawsuit at the Federal level. They are trying to buy immunity, and I 
have a lot of problems with that, and I should think any thinking 
Americans would have a lot of problems with that.

[[Page S2742]]

  Basically, what we would be doing if we give the tobacco companies 
immunity--remember that we as a Congress have been unwilling to give 
product liability protection, not immunity, just plain little old 
protection to company after company that functions across this country 
producing legitimate products that make sense for the American people, 
that they use regularly and that they need, whether it happens to be 
your toaster oven, or whether it happens to be some gadget in your car, 
or whether it happens to be some other item--your computer screen. 
Company after company which has sought product liability reform in this 
Congress has met with a stone wall. The only product liability we have 
given in this Congress over the last 10 years has been for the small 
plane producer, which was a very good decision, and it has worked great 
for them.
  For every other industry in this country, legitimate industries 
producing legitimate products that are used daily by Americans and that 
benefit Americans--benefit Americans--we have said no, absolutely no 
product liability protection.
  Yet, the tobacco companies come to us--the producers of a product 
which, by its very nature, causes an addiction which it appears the 
tobacco companies knew caused an addiction, the purpose of which was to 
not only addict Americans generally but specifically targeted at our 
kids to addict them to something that will kill them--when the tobacco 
companies come to us, we say, ``Oh, maybe we should give them 
immunity.''
  What great irony. What incredible irony. We won't give immunity to 
the person who is making the toaster oven or the person who is making 
the computer or the person who is maybe making the device that allows 
somebody to live longer and live a better life, but we will give 
immunity to companies which are producing a product the purpose of 
which is to kill people, addict people and specifically targeted on our 
kids. I just find it incredible--incredible--that we would be 
considering that.
  What is the argument for giving immunity? ``Well, if we don't give 
them immunity, the tobacco companies won't agree to advertising 
restraints.'' That is the only thing they give us for their immunity. 
We allow them to continue to produce a product which is inherently 
deadly, which is addictive, and what do we get? We get a little less of 
Joe Camel. What a great deal that is for the American people and for 
this Congress. It is absurd. Yes, we can't put limitations on their 
advertising without their agreeing to it because of the first 
amendment, in many ways, but there are limitations we can put on that 
are within the first amendment.
  More importantly, we could act unilaterally as a Congress in all the 
other areas of this tobacco settlement, whether it has to be raising 
the cost of cigarettes so they become less marketable--which is exactly 
what we should do--whether it happens to be addressing the issues of 
immunity, or whether it happens to be initiating our own 
counteradvertising campaign, and certainly the Government of the United 
States has the capacity, the will and the dollars to do that without 
any question in a manner that will be equally effective. I will be 
happy to go into the arena of advertising and debate the issue.
  We can do everything in this tobacco settlement without granting 
immunity, but by granting immunity, we get virtually nothing. All we 
get is the tobacco companies agreeing to advertising limits. To me, it 
is inherently inconsistent and affronts the logic of the institution 
for us to be having our first major product liability protection flow 
to companies, flow to an industry which is producing a product the 
purpose of which is to addict people, specifically children, with the 
knowledge that it will kill them. It makes no sense.

  For that reason, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on the 
issue of immunity.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and 
I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2167.

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

     SEC. 3  . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING IMMUNITY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that no immunity will be provided to any 
     tobacco product manufacturer with respect to any health-
     related civil action commenced by a State or local 
     governmental entity or an individual prior to or after the 
     date of the adoption of this resolution.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what this amendment says is it is the sense 
of the Senate that we won't grant immunity. Really this is a very 
simple vote for people. You can either come down on the side of setting 
the worst precedent I can imagine, which would be that the first major 
product liability reform in this country would be immunity, total 
absolute immunity, for all intents and purposes, granted to tobacco 
companies in exchange for their paying us money which we could obtain, 
if we decided to go that route, through some other policy without 
having to grant immunity.
  The same amount of revenue can be generated a number of other ways 
without their agreement for advertising restraints, which means little 
to us, because we can address the advertising in other forums. For 
those two reasons, we grant immunity and, in the process, give a 
product which, as I mentioned a number of times, is inherently harmful, 
addictive, and aimed at our children and kills you, protection from 
lawsuits. It makes no sense.
  Thus, I think the Congress should speak on this. I know a number of 
committees in the Congress are addressing this issue right now. They 
are negotiating through the process. But I believe we should as a 
Congress, as a Senate, speak on it early so that we lay out the 
framework of this debate early. If Members feel there is some value 
from giving immunity, let them vote that way. From my point of view, 
there is no value in giving this type of immunity. I just don't think 
the pluses outweigh the minuses in any sense of the word.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask that that request be withheld.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a reservation of a right to object.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply don't want to yield back the time 
on my amendment. I will be happy to have the Senator proceed----
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the bill, on our time.
  Mr. GREGG. Right.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Massachusetts proceed under the bill and not under the time on my 
amendment which is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, over the next few days, we will cast important votes 
on the budget resolution, including some of the most important votes 
this year on education priorities. We will also address issues 
affecting children, health care, enforcement of our antidiscriminatory 
laws, and on the proposed tobacco legislation.
  I look forward to those debates. We will be having virtually all of 
them within a relatively short period of time. We will be debating many 
public policy questions. I want to take a few moments this afternoon to 
address some of those issues that I believe deserve the attention and 
support of the Members of the Senate.
  We will consider a very important amendment by the Senator from the 
State of Washington, Senator Murray, on reducing class size. The 
President proposed to help ensure high academic achievement by all 
students by reducing the ratio of the number of teachers per student. 
It would help increase effective communication between the

[[Page S2743]]

teacher and the students, and give students more individual attention. 
The President's proposal will help reduce class size by increasing the 
total number of teachers for students in K through 12. We are going to 
have to actually increase the number of teachers by 50,000 a year just 
to maintain the current ratio of teachers to students, and this doesn't 
take into consideration the fact that in many parts of the country, we 
have an aging teaching population, as well as current shortages of 
teachers.

  There was a request by the President of the United States to 
recognize that need and to also commit resources to that effort, and 
that was turned down by the Republican Budget Committee. The Budget 
Committee did not address the need to modernize our schools, even 
though a General Accounting Office study showed that we need over $110 
billion to ensure that students in our schools are safe and secure, 
free from environmental hazards, and in an atmosphere and climate where 
students can grow and learn. That effort, led by Senator Carol Moseley-
Braun, would provide $22 billion in bonding authority to States and 
communities--and they would get the bonds interest-free.
  The President has also advanced a concept called education 
opportunity zones. We should help school districts and communities 
address the challenges that they are facing, whether it is academic 
failure or significant problems in school dropouts or other kinds of 
difficulties giving them needed resources to implement creative and 
innovative reforms that work for their communities.
  Chicago, for example, seems to be having success with its reforms. 
This city is tackling school reform head on, and it's working. We 
should help more communities that are attempting to do that. But the 
Republican budget ignores those needs, and turned down the Education 
Opportunity Zones proposal as well.

  The Republican Budget ignores the fact that 5 million children were 
going home to empty homes or empty apartments, unattended, 
unsupervised, after school. Their only friend was a television set--
with all of the problems and challenges that exist out there for young 
students, creating temptations for misbehaving. After-school programs 
have been so successful in this country, and they have had a dramatic 
impact in reducing violent crimes, reducing teenage pregnancy, and 
increasing academic achievement. Some of the programs I have seen in 
Boston help students develop skills that might eventually develop into 
job skills in photography or in cooking.
  Parents and students alike support after-school programs. Parents 
know their children are safe and engaging in productive activities, and 
when they get home, the children have done their homework and are able 
to spend quality time with their parents.
  It is clear that the Republicans do not want to address these issues. 
Perhaps we will have a chance later on in the Congress to resurrect 
these measures. But the way that the procedures work here, they will 
need what we call a supermajority, not just a bare majority, to get 
approval--we will need more than 60 in order to be successful.
  So these debates will be very, very important in these next few days. 
We also should support efforts to increase funding for the IDEA 
program, for children with disabilities. There was some increase in 
those funds, but not nearly to the degree that they should be. We ought 
to at least have an opportunity to debate those issues and make a 
judgment on them.
  We are effectively cut into a short period of time as a result of the 
Budget Act. And then when we return after the Easter break, we are 
restricted further on debate on the Coverdell bill. So it is obviously 
frustrating, when we know that the American people put the question 
about education front and foremost, but we are not being able to give 
the kind of full attention and support that we think these issues 
require.
  Nonetheless, I wanted to say why I support the proposal that Senator 
Murray will be advancing and we will have an opportunity to debate on 
tomorrow, on the question of reducing the class size in grades K 
through 3 across the country.
  And I say, Mr. President, I hope that all of our Members will pay 
special attention to Senator Murray as a former schoolteacher, former 
member of a school board, someone who has been active in the local life 
of a community, in the school policy issues. She brings enormous, 
refreshing insight and awareness and understanding of what really works 
in local communities, and I congratulate her on her leadership on this 
particular issue. I think all of us who listen to her benefit immensely 
from her range of knowledge, her understanding, and her real insight 
into education issues, and particularly when she speaks to the 
importance of reducing class size in grades K through 3 across the 
country.
  A necessary foundation for success in school is a qualified teacher 
in every classroom to make sure that young children receive individual 
attention. That is why it is so important we help bring the 100,000 new 
qualified teachers into the public schools and reduce class size in the 
elementary schools. Research has shown that students attending small 
classes in the early grades make more rapid progress than students in 
larger classes. The benefits are greatest for low-achieving, minority, 
and low-income children. Smaller classes also enable teachers to 
identify and work effectively with students who have learning 
disabilities and reduce the need for special education in later grades.
  A national study of 10,000 fourth-graders in 203 school districts 
across the country and 10,000 eighth-graders in 182 school districts 
across the country found that students in small classes perform better 
than students in large classes for both grade levels. Gains were larger 
for fourth-graders than eighth-graders. Gains were largest of all for 
inner-city students in small classes. They were likely to advance 75 
percent more quickly than students in large classes.

  Another significant analysis, called Project STAR, studied 7,000 
students in grades K through 3 in 80 schools in Tennessee. Again, 
students in small classes performed better than students in large 
classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. The gains 
were larger for minority students.
  We also know that overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and 
decrease student morale. Many States and communities are considering 
proposals to reduce class size, but you cannot reduce class size 
without the ability to hire additional qualified teachers to fill the 
additional classrooms. And the Federal Government should lend a helping 
hand.
  This year, California Governor Wilson proposed to spend $1.5 billion 
to reduce fourth-grade classes to 20 students or less, after having 
reduced class sizes for students in grades K through 3 last year.
  In Pennsylvania, a recent report by the bipartisan legislative 
commission on urban school restructuring recommended capping class 
sizes in kindergarten through grade 3 in urban districts at 20 students 
per teacher.
  In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee In Education Program 
is helping to reduce class size in grades K through 3 in low-income 
communities.
  In Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in 
grades K through 3 have led to a 44 percent increase in reading scores 
and an 18 percent increase in math scores.
  Congress can do more to encourage all of these State and local 
efforts. We've tested the effects of reducing class sizes, and we are 
seeing positive results. But it is only taking place in a handful of 
places across the country. The Murray amendment will take the success 
of those particular impressive outcomes and make them available to 
other communities across the country so that when the demonstrated 
success is out there, it will be replicated and duplicated all across 
the Nation.
  This is a concept whose time is overdue. We have an excellent 
opportunity to make a very, very important contribution to helping 
local communities. This is a partnership between the local, State, and 
the Federal Government. We have all acknowledged that our participation 
at the Federal level is extremely small, about 7 cents out of every 
dollar. This is a modest program but one that can demonstrate very, 
very significant. We can help lead the way in reducing class size. I 
certainly urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment and 
to

[[Page S2744]]

increase our investment in education. The Nation deserves our support.


                          Tobacco Legislation

  Mr. President, on another subject, while I have great respect for the 
time and the effort which the chairman of the Commerce Committee has 
devoted to tobacco legislation in recent weeks, the proposal he 
announced over the weekend is inadequate to address the public health 
crisis of youth smoking.
  The seriousness of the threat to our children requires a much 
stronger response. The chairman's mark does too little to protect 
children from smoking, and it does far too much to protect the tobacco 
industry from its victims. On each of the key issues, this proposal 
falls short of what comprehensive tobacco control legislation should 
be.
  First, the significant price increase of $1.10 per pack over 5 years, 
which the Commerce bill proposes, is not substantial enough to produce 
the dramatic reduction in youth smoking which all of us desire. Public 
health experts have concluded that an increase of $1.50 per pack 
swiftly instituted and indexed for inflation is necessary to achieve 
our youth-smoking-reduction goals.
  Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler, the National Academy of Sciences, the ENACT 
Coalition, and the Save Lives, the Not Tobacco Coalition have all 
stressed the importance of a price increase of at least $1.50 per pack. 
Nearly half the Members of the Senate have already cosponsored bills 
proposing a $1.50 per pack increase within 3 years. The Budget 
Committee also endorsed a $1.50 increase on a bipartisan vote of 14-8.

  According to Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, every 10 
cents in price will reduce youth smoking by 270,000 children over 5 
years. Thus, the difference between $1.10 and $1.50 will be more then 
one million additional kids smoking in the year 2003.
  Only an increase of at least $1.50 a pack can reduce youth smoking to 
the targets outlined in the June 20 settlement, which is 60 percent in 
10 years, and prevent these additional children from a lifetime of 
nicotine addiction and tobacco-induced diseases.
  One million young people between the ages of 12 and 17 take up this 
deadly habit every year--3,000 smokers a day. In fact, the average 
smoker begins smoking at the age of 13 and becomes a daily smoker 
before the age of 15.
  These facts are bad enough, but the problem is growing worse. 
According to a spring 1996 survey conducted by the University of 
Michigan Institute for Social Research, the prevalence of teenage 
smoking in America has been on the increase over the last 5 years. It 
rose by nearly one-half among 8th graders and 10th graders, and nearly 
a fifth among high school seniors between 1991 and 1996.
  I point out on the floor that we have seen a dramatic difference in 
our own State of Massachusetts where we have reduced the consumption by 
a third of the national average. It is very interesting. We had a very 
modest increase in the cost of tobacco in my State, but we also had a 
counteradvertising campaign. And lo and behold, the tobacco industry 
reduced the prices to absorb all of the increase that had been required 
by the State. But with the tobacco education campaign, we saw a 
reduction of a third as measured to other kinds of nationwide figures.
  So the point that we are making here is that with the additional 
$1.50 to $2, which virtually every one of the public health authorities 
have mentioned to be essential within the short period of time of 3 
years, and the attendant kind of counteradvertising campaign and the 
cessation programs to help to assist kids to stop smoking and the 
support for antismoking campaign efforts by nonprofit and community-
based organizations--all of those programs can have a dramatic impact.
  Now we know that there will be those who say--$1.12 at least is where 
the President's request would have been in terms of his budget 
submission. But the fact is the President and the Vice President, the 
administration, have basically supported the $1.50 in the shorter 
period of time. I hope that we are not looking for what is the least we 
can do for the young people of this country. I hope what we would be 
saying as a test is that we are looking for what is in the best 
interest of the young people of this country. How are we going to set 
that standard? Rather than what is the least we can penalize the 
tobacco companies in order to please them, we ought to be looking for 
what is in the best interest of these young people in order to meet 
that particular responsibility.
  Mr. President, I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on that 
during the course of the consideration of the budget. I know we have 
inclusion in the budget of $1.50 per pack, but I hope that we will, or 
I expect we will, have a chance to vote on $1.50 as well and put the 
Members on record on this particular issue, and I welcome the chance to 
support that if our leaders, Senator Conrad and Senator Daschle, offer 
that.
  We have a very simple way of doing this, making sure the FDA is going 
to have the kind of legislative authority to be able to deal with the 
problems of addiction. And it is very clear what words have to be added 
to the authority of the FDA to be able to do that. We know the FDA will 
have the authority and the power to do so. However, the Commerce 
Committee refused to accept this regulatory approach, and they have 
other language in there which I am very much concerned may create 
endless litigation opportunities for America's most litigious industry, 
big tobacco.
  We will look forward to seeing the details of the language. Again, I 
wonder why we don't try and do it right, do what is in the public 
health's interest, but that is the standard rather than what is more 
acceptable to the tobacco industry.
  I know our friend and colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, 
will go into considerable detail. The fact is that these look-back 
provisions in the Commerce Committee draft are fundamentally flawed, 
and I think all of us in this body understand if we don't have adequate 
penalties, then we really don't have adequate protections. Penalties 
have to be effective, at least have an effective action in discouraging 
youth from smoking. As designed in the Commerce Committee proposals, I 
believe they are woefully lacking.
  Once children are hooked into cigarette smoking at a young age, it 
becomes increasingly hard for them to quit. Ninety percent of current 
adult smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. Ninety-
five percent of teenage smokers say they intend to quit in the near 
future--but only a quarter of them will actually do so within the first 
eight years of lighting up.
  If nothing is done to reverse this trend in adolescent smoking, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that five million 
of today's children will die prematurely from smoking-caused illnesses.
  Increasing cigarette prices is one of the most effective ways to stem 
this tide. Study after study has shown that it is the most powerful 
weapon in reducing cigarette use among children, since they have less 
income to spend on tobacco and many are not already addicted.
  An increase of $1.50 per pack in cigarette prices is also realistic. 
It will not bankrupt the industry, which will pass it on in the form of 
higher prices. If we increase the pack by $1.50, the total cost will be 
$3.45 a pack--still lower than the cost in many European countries --
$3.47 in France, $4.94 in Ireland, and $5.27 in England.
  Secondly, I am concerned about the FDA provision in the Commerce 
Committee draft. It will not allow FDA to regulate nicotine as a 
``drug'' and cigarettes as ``drug delivery devices.'' Public health 
experts strongly believe that this is the most effective way to 
regulate tobacco products. When the Commerce Committee refused to 
accept this regulatory approach, compromise language was drafted to 
create a new FDA chapter for tobacco products. I am concerned that this 
approach will create endless litigation opportunities for America's 
most litigious industry--Big Tobacco. Why not provide the public health 
advocates with the legal tools which they believe will be the most 
effective in regulating tobacco products? Why place unnecessary hurdles 
in their path?
  Third, the lookback provisions in the Commerce Committee draft are 
fundamentally flawed. The penalties for the tobacco industry's failure 
to meet the youth smoking reduction targets are arbitrarily capped at 
$3.5 billion, which is the equivalent of only 15 cents

[[Page S2745]]

a pack. An increase this small will hardly give tobacco companies a 
strong economic incentive to stop marketing its products to children. 
It will just become a cost of doing business. This proposed cap will 
destroy the effectiveness of the lookback penalties as a meaningful 
deterrent.
  In addition, the penalties are imposed on an industry-wide basis, 
which removes the incentive for an individual company to stop marketing 
its products to children. In fact, the Commerce Committee draft will 
create a perverse incentive for a company to increase its marketing to 
children. Each company knows that if it captures a greater youth market 
share, its own costs will rise by no greater an amount than its 
competitors, while its future profits will be increased and its 
competitors will bear a portion of the cost associated with gaining 
that long-term competitive advantage. It is critically important that 
the penalties are assigned on a company-specific basis to give each 
individual company a strong economic incentive to discourage children 
from beginning to smoke.
  The targets for the reduction in smokeless tobacco use among children 
are also not in parity with the targets for cigarette use reduction.
  The use of oral snuff and chewing tobacco is a serious public health 
problem. It causes cancer, gum disease, tooth loss, as well as nicotine 
addiction and death.
  The Committee should not let smokeless tobacco products become a 
cheaper substitute for children if the price of cigarettes increases 
due to the lookback penalties. In Massachusetts, once the price of oral 
snuff and chewing tobacco was brought into parity with cigarettes, its 
use among adolescents fell by over two-thirds between 1993 and 1996. 
Smokeless tobacco deserves equal attention, and we should expect 
similar reductions in use among children.
  Fourth, the environmental tobacco smoke provisions are clearly 
unacceptable. States will be allowed to opt out of providing 
protections from exposure to secondhand smoke to workers and their 
families. This means there will be no national minimum standard to 
protect non-smokers, particularly children, from exposure. The Commerce 
Committee draft also exempts restaurants from smoke-free requirements, 
despite the fact that the Journal of the American Medical Association 
has reported that environmental tobacco smoke exposure for restaurant 
workers are estimated to be two times higher than for office workers, 
and at least 1.5 times higher than for persons who live with a smoker.
  Fifth, the provisions on document disclosure in the Commerce mark are 
grossly inadequate. It would not require disclosure of many of the most 
significant documents. It would allow the industry to hide behind a 
``trade secret" privilege no matter how significant the information 
concealed was to advancing the public health.
  Sixth, while the Chairman has not yet publicly disclosed the full 
extent of the litigation protection he intends to offer the industry, 
the proposals being promoted in private discussions are truly 
draconian. They would prohibit all class actions for past misconduct, 
prohibit punitive damages for past misconduct, prohibit all third party 
claims and impose other serious restrictions on aggregation of claims. 
Collectively, these restrictions would make it practically impossible 
for the victims of smoking induced illness to recover from the industry 
whose product is killing them. We must not bar the courthouse doors to 
the victims of the tobacco industry. I hope these extreme and grossly 
unfair proposals are never put before the Commerce Committee.
  One litigation protection for the tobacco industry is already in the 
Commerce Chairman's mark. It is really the ultimate protection any 
industry could be given. On page 96 of the draft, tobacco companies are 
granted an 80 percent tax credit for money paid in judgments or 
settlements for lawsuits. In plain language, this means that the 
American taxpayers will pay 80 cents of every dollar the industry is 
ever required to pay to its victims. Instead of using the money raised 
by the $1.10 per pack cigarette price increase to deter youth smoking, 
to conduct anti-smoking education and counter-advertising campaigns, to 
assist smokers who want to quit, and to conduct medical research into 
smoking related diseases, this legislation proposes to give it back to 
the tobacco industry to cover its litigation losses. This outrageous 
idea should be rejected by all one hundred Senators. Congress was 
embarrassed last summer by the $50 billion tobacco industry tax credit 
snuck into the Balanced Budget Act. Enactment of the tobacco company 
tax credit in the Chairman's mark would be an even greater 
embarrassment.
  The legislation which the Commerce Committee is scheduled to consider 
this week is seriously flawed. It should be sent back to the drawing 
board for a major redesign. Congress has an extraordinary opportunity 
this year to protect generations of children from a lifetime of 
addiction and premature death. To accomplish that great goal will 
require a much stronger bill than the one currently before the Commerce 
Committee.
  I want to next address the child care challenges that we are facing 
in the budget. President Clinton is right in giving it a high priority. 
Cutting-edge research is giving us a greater understanding of the great 
significance of the early childhood years and development. Obviously, 
the best possible care should be available and affordable, and it 
should be quality. That is central to what this issue is really all 
about.
  We know we need more child care and child development programs. We 
know we need money to pay for those programs. The Senate Democrats have 
proposed increasing our commitment to child care improvements by at 
least $14 billion in mandatory spending over the next 5 years. This was 
immediately attacked as ``big government spending'' on new programs. 
Why is it only when the investment is in our children that it is 
considered ``big government spending''?
  The Republican budget would preclude the possibility of child care 
legislation beyond their proposed increase of $5 billion in 
discretionary authority for the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
and $9 billion in tax cuts. Both of these approaches are problematic. 
We know we will never see discretionary money for child care, given the 
discretionary spending squeeze.
  Obviously, these child care dollars would only become available if 
offsets were made in other discretionary programs, and programs for 
low-income children and families are always most vulnerable. In 
addition, the proposed tax cuts are unlikely to help the very families 
who most need assistance in paying for child care--low-income working 
families. As long as the dependent child care tax credit remains 
nonrefundable, expanding it does nothing to assist low-income working 
families, who have no tax liability. In effect, the child care 
proposals in the Republican budget are empty promises that simply give 
Republicans a chance to say that they have done something for child 
care. Our children and families need guarantees. We must have real, 
mandatory money for children and their families.
  On another issue, employment discrimination takes many forms, whether 
based on gender, age, race, or national origin. Bigotry in the 
workplace undermines the fabric of our country and society.
  When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed over 30 years ago, 
Congress intended that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
serve as a national watchdog against workplace discrimination. The 
Agency's mission is laudable. It has been an important force in curbing 
real and widespread problems of work force bias.
  For example, the EEOC was able to reach a settlement with Del 
Laboratories after 15 women brought charges alleging several decades of 
egregious sexual harassment. The Agency was also able to end 15 years 
of discrimination against African Americans and women at Estwing 
Manufacturing Company. Estwing had a policy of race-coding applications 
to prevent the hiring of African Americans and refusing to hire women 
to perform certain jobs.
  Who can forget the outrageous incidents of gender discrimination 
taking place at Mitsubishi Motor Company. The EEOC is currently 
representing over 300 women in that Mitsubishi legislation.
  In recent years, the Agency has ``reinvented'' itself, and, without 
additional resources, managed to decrease the number of cases waiting 
for investigation and resolution. There is a

[[Page S2746]]

limit, however, to what the EEOC can do without a budget that reflects 
its responsibilities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the President's request for $279 
million for the EEOC. The Senate must earmark these funds for the 
Agency. It is the right thing to do and this is the time to do it.


                                Medicare

  Too many Americans nearing age 65 face a crisis in health care. They 
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.
  Three million Americans aged 55 to 64 are uninsured today, but 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.
  The consequences of being uninsured at this age 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 even the routine care that can prevent 
minor health problems from turning into serious disabilities or even 
life-threatening illness.
  If we do not act to stem this trend, the problem will only get worse. 
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 others who have counted on an employer's 
commitment found themselves with only a broken promise. Their coverage 
was canceled after they retired.
  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.
  Democrats have already introduced legislation to address these 
issues--and 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.


                              Managed Care

  A week ago, Helen Hunt received an Oscar for her role as the mother 
of a severely asthmatic child in the movie ``As Good As It Gets.'' In 
the movie, she delivers a line of unrepeatable insults aimed at her 
son's HMO. And audiences across the nation burst into applause and 
hoots of knowing laughter. In some cases, life imitates art. In this 
case, however, art imitates life.
  We face a crisis of confidence in health care. A recent survey found 
that an astonishing 80 percent of Americans now believe that their 
quality of care is often compromised by their insurance plan to save 
money. Another survey found that 90 percent of Americans--men and 
women, across the political spectrum--say a Patients' Bill of Rights is 
needed to regulate health insurance plans. And they report that they 
are willing to pay for it, despite a campaign of disinformation from 
the business community and insurance industry.
  One reason for this concern is the explosive growth in managed care. 
In 1987, only 13 percent of privately insured Americans were enrolled 
in HMOs. Today 75 percent are in some form of managed care.
  At its best, managed care offers the opportunity to achieve both 
greater efficiency and higher quality in health care. In too many 
cases, however, the priority has become higher profits, not better 
health.
  The list of those victimized by insurance company abuse grows every 
day.
  These abuses are not typical of most insurance companies. But they 
are common enough that Congress needs to act to protect the American 
public. A recent report in California found that 17 percent of managed 
care enrollees developed permanent disabilities as a result of plan 
denials. The Clinton Administration is prepared to support legislation 
to address these issues. Members on both sides of the aisle in both 
chambers are prepared to act. And the time to act is now.
  We need to ensure access to appropriate specialty care--care that 
people pay for through their premiums, deductibles and copayments. We 
need to ensure that patients have the rights to appeal plan denials, 
especially those that threaten the life, health or future potential of 
those in need of services. We need to take action to monitor and 
improve the quality of care for everyone. We need to make plans 
accountable for their decisions, and provide all patients, regardless 
of whether they receive their insurance in the individual market, from 
a public program or through an employer, with the right for redress 
when plan denials result in injury or death. We need to simply make 
sure that people are aware of their rights and able to compare their 
options--when they are fortunate enough to have a choice of plans.
  Legislation must be carefully crafted, so that it curbs abuse without 
stifling innovation and appropriate measures to control costs, but 
action is essential. The American people know that the current system 
is out of control, and they want protection. This can be the Congress 
that finally enacts a health insurance bill of rights to assure that 
patients receive the protection their insurance company promises but 
too often fails to deliver. Our national bottom line must be patient 
needs, not industry profits.


                           Children's Health

  Last year, we created a new children's health program designed to 
reach uninsured children in working families whose income is too high 
for Medicaid but too low to afford private health insurance. We made an 
unprecedented investment of 24 billion dollars over the next five 
years. More than 10 million children are uninsured, and approximately 
one-third of those children are already eligible for, but not 
participating in, Medicaid. We need to do more to enroll children in 
the programs for which they qualify. And we need to ensure that the 
proper resources and options are available to states to encourage 
enrollment in the new program.
  The President included proposals in his budget to expand the outreach 
opportunities available to states. They were paid for by other 
administrative savings in Medicaid. But they have mysteriously 
disappeared in this Republican budget. Instead, it appears that the 
savings extracted from a program that serves primarily low-income women 
and children are being used to buy bridges and roads. Gone are the 
provisions, scored by CBO at only $400 million, that would help states 
fulfill our goal of enrolling every eligible child in the health 
insurance program for which they qualify. Why? They could have included 
the outreach provisions and still had a billion dollars to spend on 
other priorities.
  Mr. President, these games have to stop. When the Congress acts to 
provide its citizens with opportunities, we should make every effort to 
follow-through with policies that address implementation concerns. If 
we really want children to receive the health insurance we extended to 
them last year, we need to fully fund outreach activities. This budget 
fails to deliver the funds necessary to ensure uninsured children 
receive the care to which they are entitled.


                            disabled persons

  Mr. President, I want to reinforce an issue of great importance to 
every American in this country that Senator Jeffords will be speaking 
about later today--the need for accessible and affordable health care 
for disabled persons, so they can work and live independently.

[[Page S2747]]

  Disability does not pick its owner--it can happen to any of us here 
today, and we have seen many of our own colleagues and Members of this 
Congress struggle with the unexpected consequences of disability in 
their lives. Yet disability policies in this country continue to 
impoverish disabled persons and disregard their ability to be 
productive members of their community.
  The lack of accessible and affordable health care is the reason that 
only one half of 1 percent of disabled persons ever go to, or return to 
work. There are 54 million disabled people in this country who may have 
the capacity to work but cannot because they are afraid of losing their 
health care.
  This Congress needs to put in place health care options that support 
disabled persons to work, live independently, and be productive and 
contributing members of their community. I encourage your support in 
funding these options during this budget process.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the leadership of 
Senator Kennedy on the critical issue of protecting the public health 
and the tobacco legislation. He has been one of the most valued members 
of the task force on tobacco in the Democratic Caucus. No one has 
worked harder to make certain that we keep our eye on the ball of what 
are the important priorities. Over and over, he has reminded our 
colleagues that the priority is to protect the public health and to 
reduce teen smoking. Those are the things that I think all of us want 
to accomplish. I thank him publicly for the extraordinary leadership he 
has brought to the cause.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North Dakota 
is willing to yield back the time remaining on my amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. We are prepared to yield back, and the Senator is 
prepared to yield back.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent we both be allowed to yield back--
I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.


                amendment no. 2168 to amendment no. 2167

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that this resolution 
    assumes that no immunity from liability will be provided to any 
                   manufacturer of a tobacco product)

  Mr. GREGG. I send to the desk an amendment in the nature of a second 
degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and 
     Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 2168 to amendment 
     No. 2167.

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

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

     3  . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING IMMUNITY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that no immunity will be provided to any 
     tobacco product manufacturer with respect to any health-
     related civil action commenced by a State or local 
     governmental entity or an individual or class of individuals 
     prior to or after the date of the adoption of this 
     resolution.

  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor to the 
amendment that has been sent by the Senator to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I understand Senator Sessions would like to get the yeas 
and nays on his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment No. 2166 offered previously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to it being in order at 
this time for the yeas and nays?
  Without objection, the Senator may request the yeas and nays.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I request the yeas and nays of my amendment No. 2166.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Now we go to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 2169

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding freedom of health 
                   care choice for medicare seniors)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2169.

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FREEDOM OF HEALTH CARE 
                   CHOICE FOR MEDICARE SENIORS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Medicare beneficiaries should have the same right to 
     obtain health care from the physician or provider of their 
     choice as do Members of Congress and virtually all other 
     Americans.
       (2) Most seniors are denied this right by current 
     restrictions on their health care choices.
       (3) Affording seniors this option would create greater 
     health-care choices and result in fewer claims being paid out 
     of the near-bankrupt medicare trust funds.
       (4) Legislation to uphold this right of health care choice 
     for seniors must protect beneficiaries and medicare from 
     fraud and abuse. Such legislation must include provisions 
     that--
       (A) require that such contracts providing this right be in 
     writing, be signed by the medicare beneficiary, and provide 
     that no claim be submitted to the Health Care Financing 
     Administration;
       (B) preclude such contracts when the beneficiary is 
     experiencing a medical emergency;
       (C) allow for the medicare beneficiary to modify or 
     terminate the contract prospectively at any time and to 
     return to medicare; and
       (D) are subject to stringent fraud and abuse law, including 
     the medicare anti-fraud provisions in the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     seniors have the right to see the physician or health care 
     provider of their choice, and not be limited in such right by 
     the imposition of unreasonable conditions on providers who 
     are willing to treat seniors on a private basis, and that the 
     assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that legislation will be enacted to ensure 
     this right.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate 
entitled ``Freedom of Health Care Choice for Medicare Seniors.'' The 
purpose of this amendment is for Members of the Senate to go on record 
as supporting the eventual adoption of legislation that will ensure 
that all seniors have freedom of choice in obtaining health care 
services for themselves and members of their families.
  As a result of the balanced budget amendment of last year, an 
amendment went into effect on January 1 that precludes most seniors 
from having this freedom to contract. While it establishes the 
principle that they may do so, it puts forth a condition that is 
virtually impossible for them to satisfy; namely, to find a physician 
who is willing to dump all of his Medicare patients for a period of 2 
years prior to the time that their services are sought. As a result, it 
is impossible for most seniors to exercise a choice that is 
theoretically theirs in the law today.
  This proposal to be amended into the Balanced Budget Act is to 
express our sense that we intend to adopt legislation later that will 
provide for this right. As a matter of fact, I have introduced 
legislation, as has Congressman Bill Archer from Texas in the House of 
Representatives, that would fulfill this commitment. Mine is Senate 
bill 1194, the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act. We have 
49 cosponsors for this at the moment, and I think number 50 is on the 
way. Clearly, it is a popular idea because of the expressions of 
concerns by our senior citizens that they would like to have the 
freedom to contract for the services they desire. In the House of 
Representatives, Representative Archer, chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, has over 190 cosponsors.
  What is this sense of the Senate, and why do we need it? We believe 
the sense-of-the-Senate amendment here provides that Medicare 
beneficiaries should have the same right to obtain health care from the 
physician or provider of their choice as do Members of Congress and 
virtually all other Americans, and that there should be no unreasonable 
provisions or unreasonable

[[Page S2748]]

conditions that prevent them from obtaining this care. Moreover, we 
specifically provide that the assumptions underlying the budget 
resolutions assume that this legislation will be enacted.
  So what is the problem here? Prior to January 1 of this year, and for 
all of the time that Medicare has been in effect, Americans have had 
the ability to go to the physician of their choice, and if that 
physician did not feel he could treat them under Medicare, or chose not 
to do so, or they chose not to be treated under Medicare, they would 
have the choice to contract outside of Medicare. Obviously, they had to 
pay the bill themselves.
  For most Americans, Medicare is such a good deal that this was rarely 
taken advantage of. However, there are situations in which a senior 
citizen might want to take advantage of this requirement. It had always 
existed. For example, a constituent of mine wrote to me and pointed out 
that in her community there was only one specialist that she felt could 
take care of her particular kind of diabetic condition. She went to see 
that physician, and he said that since she was 65 years of age, she was 
a Medicare beneficiary, she was Medicare eligible, and since she was 
Medicare eligible, he would have to submit the bill to Medicare if he 
treated her, but that he could not take on any more new Medicare 
patients, that he had as many as he could afford to continue to provide 
care to. She said, ``No problem, I'll pay you. You bill me directly, 
and we will save Medicare the money.'' He pointed out--and verified 
this with the Health Care Financing Administration--that they would 
assume he had committed fraud if he took care of her, submitted the 
bill to her, and had her pay him directly.

  Unless the bill is sent to Medicare, the care can't be provided. In 
effect, it is Medicare or no care. As of January 1 of this year, that 
is the law of the United States of America, believe it or not. Once you 
turn 65, you lose a right that all other Americans have, which is to go 
to the physician of your choice. It is Medicare or no care. You cannot 
contract outside of Medicare for Medicare-covered benefits. That is 
fundamentally un-American.
  If you have saved all of your life to provide for health care for 
yourself, your spouse, and your family, you are going to do anything 
within your power to help your spouse, let's say, who is ill, and if 
she wants to go to someone who is not treating new Medicare patients, 
for example, or is a non-Medicare-treating physician, you are going to 
spare no expense to save her life. I had this happen to a friend of 
mine. I was able to get a compassionate release from FDA to get an 
experimental drug so she could use it in the last few months of her 
life. Unfortunately, she passed on anyway. Her husband was willing to 
do anything to preserve her life, go to any lengths.
  Are we going to tell senior citizens in the United States they can't 
do that, they can't go to the doctor of their choice, that they have to 
go through Medicare or they can't be cared for at all? If they can't 
find somebody willing to treat their particular condition under 
Medicare, that is it, sorry, this is the United States of America, but 
they don't have that right anymore?
  If you are 64 and a half, of course, you have that right. If you are 
a Member of Congress, you have that right. If you are in Great Britain, 
under a socialized medicine system, you have that right. Even in Great 
Britain, which has socialized medicine, you can either go to that 
program or contract privately, so long as you pay the bill yourself. 
That is all we are asking for the United States of America. Yet, under 
an amendment that the President insisted be part of the Balanced Budget 
Act of last year, that right has been taken away from seniors in this 
country.
  All over the country, seniors are beginning to complain because they 
have figured out what has been taken away. This is one of the first 
things being brought up in town hall meetings. They ask me, ``Why are 
you taking away the Medicare rights?'' I have said, ``Look, I didn't do 
it. I didn't know that agreement had been struck in the middle of the 
night and snuck into the Balanced Budget Act. Everyone voted for it, 
and we knew nothing about it. A couple of days later, it was revealed 
that the President had insisted that this provision go into the law.''
  So, Madam President, I think it is important for the Members of the 
Senate to go on record in the Budget Act here as supporting the 
principle of freedom to contract. The measure I have introduced has all 
kinds of safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse. We can have a good 
discussion about exactly what those should be. If you have a suggestion 
on how to make it better, fine with me, let's talk that out. At some 
point, we will actually bring that legislation to the floor and have 
that debate.

  I think all of us can agree on the basic principle that, A, we should 
have the freedom of choice to contract with the physician of our choice 
in this country; B, there should be adequate provisions to prevent 
fraud and abuse; and, C, we need to get this done as soon as possible. 
That is what our sense of the Senate calls for, Madam President. I hope 
that those people who have expressed opposition to this legislation 
will come forward and debate the issue. Let's have an open public 
debate, because the people of America need to understand what the 
Congress and the President did to them last year when it took away this 
fundamental right. Those of us who believe in the principle of doing 
everything you can for your loved ones need to support this.
  One final thought before I sit down. This law that is currently in 
effect is just like saying to seniors on Social Security that the only 
way you can provide for your retirement, your financial needs, is 
through the Government's Social Security system; you can't save any 
money, you can't have any stocks and bonds, you can't have any pension, 
you can't have any insurance annuities--none of that; it is either the 
Social Security system, the Government program, or no system. That is 
what we have said with regard to health care--you either take the 
Medicare health care program or nothing; you cannot contract outside of 
Medicare for covered benefits. As I said, it is ludicrous when you 
present it that way.
  Opponents say that there might be some fraud and abuse here. I think 
that sells the physicians in this country and our senior citizens very 
short. I know of nobody more careful about their bills than seniors. I 
know my mom and dad are. They can tell you whether they were 
overcharged. We can put provisions in this to ensure that there is no 
fraud and abuse. I think it is fundamentally wrong for us to deny this 
right to citizens just because we feel there may be some physician out 
there who would abuse the system.
  So I conclude by urging colleagues, when we have an opportunity to 
vote on this, to support this principle again in the Budget Act--and at 
this point it can only be a principle; it cannot be the effective 
legislation. We will propose that later. Surely we can support this 
principle through the sense of the Senate and, at a later time, 
actually support the legislation that would accomplish the principle.
  Madam President, at this time I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KYL. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, earlier, Senator Kennedy raised concerns 
about the tobacco legislation that is moving through Congress. 
Obviously, tobacco legislation is part of the budget resolution as 
well. The budget resolution provides a special reserve fund so that, in 
fact, if the tobacco legislation moves, it will be possible to use 
those funds for a number of purposes.
  Senator Kennedy had indicated that at the same time there is 
legislation moving through the Commerce Committee. He raised a number 
of concerns about the legislation as it has been described in the 
press. Madam President, just let me add my voice of concern to what we 
have heard about that legislation moving through the Commerce 
Committee. One of the major issues on comprehensive tobacco legislation 
is, Will this industry be given special, unprecedented protection--
protection that has never been granted any other industry at any time? 
That is, special protection against suits by victims of the industry, 
whether they be individuals or third parties who have had

[[Page S2749]]

costs imposed on them by the use of tobacco products.

  Madam President, the bill going through the Commerce Committee at 
this point is silent on the question of liability--liability for the 
tobacco industry. Being silent on liability in tobacco legislation is 
like having a discussion of the Titanic and failing to mention the 
iceberg. This is central to any discussion that anybody can have about 
tobacco legislation. How can you be silent on the question of 
liability?
  Many of us believe that there should be no special protection granted 
this industry. Many of us believe it is inappropriate to give this 
industry, of all industries, the kind of unprecedented protection that 
they seek. It is troubling that we saw this industry come before 
Congress and swear under oath that their products caused no health 
problems, swore under oath that they had never targeted our kids for 
marketing and advertising, swore under oath they had never manipulated 
nicotine levels in order to make their products more addictive, and 
that their products were not addictive.
  Now the documents have come out. The documents show that, without 
question, in fact, these products cause the health problems that they 
have sworn they do not cause. We know, based on the release of the 
documents, that they have targeted our kids for marketing and 
advertising. In fact, they have targeted kids as young as 12 years old 
in their marketing and advertising. The documents disclose it. The 
documents also disclose that they knew their products were addictive. 
The documents disclose that they knew they were engaged in these 
efforts, which they absolutely denied when they were before Congress. 
And now they come to us and they say, well, look, if we are going to be 
involved in this, you have to give us special protection.
  The Senator from New Hampshire sent an amendment to the desk that 
says we ought not to give this industry immunity, we ought not to give 
them special protection, and we ought to deal with this industry the 
way we have dealt with every other industry; we ought to address head-
on the problems that they create and do it without giving them some 
kind of special deal. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans 
would say that is exactly the right thing to do. We should not be 
giving them special protection. They don't deserve it. They don't need 
it. It is not necessary in order to accomplish the result.
  So at some point very soon we are going to have a chance to debate 
and discuss the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. I just 
want to commend him this afternoon for offering that amendment. I look 
forward to the debate. I want to hear on the floor of the Senate the 
argument advanced that this industry should be given special 
protection. I want to hear people in public defend the position that 
this industry should be given special treatment. I want to hear on the 
floor of the Senate how somebody rationalizes and defends this 
industry. I don't think it is possible. I don't think it will stand the 
light of day.
  Out here in the back room someplace when nobody is around and nobody 
is reporting, all of a sudden there is a lot of grave talk about, oh, 
we have to give this industry special protection. I want to hear those 
arguments made out here in the cold light of day. I want to see our 
colleagues have a chance to vote on the question of whether we are 
going to give special protection to this industry or not.
  Madam President, I very much look forward to our debate and 
discussion on that question. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for 
offering that amendment.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I certainly appreciate the support of the 
Senator from North Dakota on this amendment. I believe he has 
summarized the concern which I have as well. The fact is you can't 
defend immunity. It is just inconsistent with the policies of discovery 
to give immunity to a business which has basically targeted young 
people with an addictive product which was intended to kill them. The 
idea that we would start by giving immunity to that industry is not 
only ironic but totally wrong.
  So I certainly appreciate the support of the Senator from North 
Dakota in this effort.
  Madam President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I seek the floor for purposes of 
speaking in regard to the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution is the pending business. The 
Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you very much.
  Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to the budget 
resolution.
  More than just being an accountant's ledger, the Federal budget 
should embody our Nation's values. Yet, from looking through the 
budget, the values that are transmitted here seem to be nothing more 
than an inflated sense of Washington's self-arrogance. The budget 
represents Washington's arrogance, Washington's belief that the 
interests of the individual and individual taxpayers are second, if not 
third, fourth, or fifth, as compared to the bureaucrat and the 
bureaucratic appetite to consume resources at the Federal Government 
level.
  I think it is a slap in the face of Americans who thought they sent 
individuals to Washington to curtail the size of Government, those who 
have worked to make sure that they sent individuals here to guard their 
freedoms. It is a challenge to them when they see the House and the 
Senate march steadily forward on bigger and bigger budgets consuming 
more and more of the resources of an average family. I believe that I 
was sent to Washington to cut taxes to make it possible for people to 
retain more of what they earn to spend on their own families rather 
than have Washington somehow come to the conclusion that Washington 
could spend the money more effectively on America's families than 
America's families could.
  I oppose this budget based on the fact that it is designed to grow 
Government substantially and it is designed to take more and more of 
what people earn. I have prepared a series of proposals of $1 trillion 
in tax cuts and debt and tax limitation measures. I would like to see 
us put those in our public policy. But, frankly, there is really not a 
chance to do that because this budget and the budget rules that are 
proposed are designed to block such measures, ensuring that the 
priorities and judgments of the Budget Committee remain inviolable. I 
would like to explain in detail my opposition to this budget.
  First, it increases the size of the Government. The budget resolution 
recommends that the Federal Government spend $9.15 trillion over the 
next 5 years. That represents a 17.3 percent increase over the previous 
5 years. The past 5 years as compared to the next 5 years, a 17.3 
percent increase. Five years from now the Federal Government would 
spend $276.5 billion more than it will spend this year. That is an 
increase of 16.5 percent.

  So this massive growth of Government I don't believe is consistent 
with the mandate of the American people. Even President Clinton intoned 
in his State of the Union Message a little over a year ago that the era 
of big Government was over. He could hear the footsteps of the 
electorate in their steady march demanding that we have smaller 
Government--meaning greater capacity for our families. And, yet, here 
we go again. We have growth that amounts in the next 5 years to 16.5 
percent.
  Second, I oppose the budget because it takes far more tax revenue 
from the American people than ever before. The budget resolution 
recommends that the Federal Government collect $9.3 trillion in tax 
revenue over the next 5 years. That is a 27.5 percent increase over the 
previous 5 years. Five years from now the Federal Government would 
collect $327.9 billion more than it will collect this year. That is an 
increase of 19.5 percent.
  Now that we know what the budget resolution does, we should address 
the one thing that the resolution does not do. This budget resolution 
does not cut taxes.

[[Page S2750]]

  As a recent report by the Senate Republican Policy Committee reads, 
``The fiscal year 1999 budget resolution provides for no reconciliation 
bill. It, therefore, contains no specific tax-cut instruction.''
  Year by year, the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
revenues should be changed are as follows: Zero, zero, zero, zero, 
zero, zero.
  The numbers in this resolution do not reflect that the report 
accompanying the resolution holds out the hope that Congress might pass 
a $30 billion tax cut over 5 years. $30 billion over 5 years is a 
number which might be hard for folks to anticipate. But here is what it 
amounts to. It amounts to $1.83 per person per month in terms of tax 
relief--$1.83 per person per month. Inflation may be tame. But even the 
most frugal consumer would be hard pressed to stretch $1.83 very far.
  Looking at this another way, $30 billion in tax relief out of the 
$9.3 trillion in tax revenue represents a cut of three-tenths of 1 
percent over 5 years. That is the equivalent of getting a 30-cent 
discount on a $100 order of groceries. And if that weren't bad enough, 
this budget resolution would consider offsetting those cuts with tax 
increases.
  Page 70 of the committee report accompanying the budget resolution 
reads:

       This ``reserve fund'' would permit tax relief to be offset 
     by reductions in mandatory spending or revenue increases.

  This is no idle threat. The last page of the chairman's mark lists 
illustrative examples of taxes that could be raised, including taxes on 
vacation and severance pay, and adopting some of President Clinton's 
proposed tax increases.
  I believe it is wrong for us to be considering tax increases, 
especially at a time when the average American is still working for the 
Government this year. I say ``still working for the Government this 
year'' because, according to authorities, we all work until May 9 now 
in order to pay for Government. It is only after we have worked all the 
way until the second week in May that we begin to pay ourselves instead 
of to pay our Government.
  Compared to last year's resolution, this budget resolution recommends 
that the Federal Government collect $212 billion more in tax revenue 
than was recommended for the same period last year.
  Whose interest does this resolution serve? As I mentioned earlier, 
this budget has its priorities upside down. They are inverted. They are 
skewed. My clear understanding of Government is that it exists to serve 
the people. But this budget has that backwards. This has people 
existing to serve the interests of Government.

  Let me read a disturbing line from page 52 of the committee report 
accompanying the budget resolution:

       The tax writing committees will be required to balance the 
     interests and desires of many parties while protecting the 
     interests of taxpayers generally in drafting the tax cut.

  Why did the Budget Committee feel a need to include a reminder in 
this report to keep the interests of the taxpayers in mind? Taxpayers 
should have been in the forefront of our mind. It read as if the 
interests of the taxpayers are secondary. That said, the American 
taxpayers deserve more consideration than this budget allows.
  Relief for taxpayers cannot come a moment too soon, and we should 
have a budget which reflects our ability to constrict Government and to 
enlarge the capacity of individuals.
  Allow me to place this budget package within the context of the 
overtaxed worker.
  For the past 5 consecutive years, the growth in personal tax payments 
has outstripped that of wages and salaries. This is an important point. 
People have had their taxes going up faster than their salaries and 
wages have been going up. Not since 1980-1981 have there been more than 
2 consecutive years in which tax growth had exceeded wage growth. Well, 
not until the past 5 years.
  The average American now works until May 9, as I mentioned, a full 
week longer than the average American worked for the Government when 
Bill Clinton assumed the Presidency. The average American now is 
working to May 9 to pay Federal, State, and local taxes. Some 
individuals think that includes State and local taxes. What do we have 
to do with that? Frankly, a significant share of what State and local 
governments charge in terms of taxes is being charged because we have 
mandated programs on the State and local governments.
  I can't help but think of President Reagan's definition of a 
taxpayer: ``Someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't 
have to take a civil service exam.''
  Frankly, all of us have been working for the Federal Government. We 
will all be working for the Federal Government until May 9 this year--
for the government at least.
  The last year that the Federal Government collected less tax revenue 
than it did the year before was 1983. That was 16 fiscal years ago. If 
you define a ``tax cut'' as when the Government collects less in taxes, 
we have not had a true tax cut since 1983.
  Because of the tax increases of 1990 and 1993, taxpayers will give 
the Federal Government $600 billion more over the next 5 years than 
they would have otherwise.
  Why are taxes so high? Taxes are high because Government is too big 
and because Government spends too much. Taxes are high because our 
budgets reflect that we believe that the bureaucracy is better at 
spending money on American families than American families are. I 
believe that is a mistaken belief.
  This year the $1.7 trillion that Washington will spend is more, in 
inflation-adjusted dollars, than the Federal Government spent 
cumulatively from 1800 to 1940. Over the past 20 years, Congress has 
allowed Federal spending to increase 291.3 percent. Adjusted for 
inflation, that represents a real spending increase of nearly 60 
percent. In the past 10 years nondefense Federal outlays adjusted for 
inflation have increased by one-third.
  The last year that the Federal Government spent less than it did the 
year before was in 1965, 34 fiscal years ago.
  When I entered the Senate in 1995, I hoped that the new Republican 
majority in Congress would pursue a general downsizing of the Federal 
Government, allocating to States and local governments, and, yes, to 
the best government of all, the family, which obviously finds the best 
department of social services and the best department of education, the 
best department of health when it spends its own resources fostering 
the needs, ambitions, aspirations, hopes, and achievements of the 
family, I had hoped that we would reduce the size of the Federal 
Government to make the resource allocation of this culture more 
effective and more efficient by placing it in the family and close to 
the family, where good decisions could best be made.
  Despite our efforts, the Federal establishment is growing more costly 
and more intrusive than ever before. Federal spending has grown by $200 
billion just since 1995. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman observed, 
``Congress will spend whatever revenue it receives plus as much more as 
it collectively believes it can get away with.'' Another way folks say 
that, back in Missouri, is, ``We live by the `they send it, we spend 
it' motto.''
  Frankly, it is time to say to the American people ``You earned it, we 
returned it.'' We need to give to the American people some of their 
money back so they can make good judgments and good decisions of how to 
deploy their own resources on themselves and their families and in 
their own communities without sending it through the shrinking process 
of the bureaucracy in Washington, DC.
  This budget resolution assumes a cumulative surplus of $149 billion 
before any tax cuts over the next 5 years. As each week passes, the 
call for new spending seems to grow. The Senate spent last week 
debating whether to pass emergency legislation that would breach the 
discretionary spending caps, including $4.48 million for maple syrup 
producers to replace taps and tubing damaged by ice storms in the 
Northeast.
  Before closing, let me just reiterate my opposition to the resolution 
for these reasons:
  No. 1, the budget increases the size of Government. It is time for us 
to increase the size of opportunity for American families.
  No. 2, the budget resolution does not instruct Congress to cut taxes. 
We were

[[Page S2751]]

sent here to limit the size of Government, to cut the burden on the 
American people. The American people are paying more in taxes than ever 
before in history. It is time--we are not at war--to understand if we 
are at war, that we are at war with ourselves and we should stop taking 
so much of the resource of American families. We should make it 
available to them.
  No. 3, when spoken about, the so-called predicted tax relief would be 
a proverbial slap in the face, or at least in the wallets, of the 
American people: $1.83 per person per month. You can't get a cup of 
gourmet coffee--I couldn't get it if I drank it--at that price.
  No. 4, it would allow Congress to offset the tax cut with a tax 
increase rather than with spending cuts.
  And, No. 5, it would have the Federal Government collect $212 billion 
more than the budget resolution agreed to just last year.
  The Senate should reject this budget resolution and adopt a 
resolution that reflects the values of those who sent us here, one that 
curtails spending, one that provides tax relief, and one that further 
limits the Federal debt. I encourage my fellow Senators to vote no on 
this backwards budget, this budget that really believes and sets a 
value on the idea that Washington knows best.
  It is pretty obvious to me that you let the person spend the money 
who you think can make the best investment. And it is pretty clear to 
me that Washington thinks it can make better investments and better 
judgments about our family and our culture than can people in their 
families and businesses in their institutions. I do not believe that 
Washington knows best. The genius of America is not that the values of 
Washington would be imposed on the people; the genius of America is 
that the values of people would be imposed on Washington. But this 
budget gathers to the bosom of the bureaucracy the capacity to 
confiscate the resources of the people and to spend them in an arrogant 
sense that we know better how to spend resources on America and her 
families than America's families do. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman 
observed Congress will spend whatever revenue it receives plus as much 
as they can get away with, and this is one of those settings where it 
looks to me like we are making that kind of commitment to expenditure.
  I believe Members of this body should look carefully at this budget 
and should understand it does not reflect the values of the American 
people. It fails, for instance, to obliterate or to curtail or to 
remove the marriage penalty. If we want a system which would reflect 
the values of America, understanding that this country is most likely 
to succeed in the next century if we have strong families, then we 
would endow the family with strength and the finances to do what 
families ought to do. Instead, this budget resolution provides the 
basis for continuing the marriage penalty, which is really a way of 
fining people for being married and saying to individuals who are 
married in this culture: We will charge you $29 billion a year. That is 
the freight for being married in America.

  It is time for us to abandon that and say what we want in this 
culture is lasting, durable marriages and families that will provide 
the basis for a culture in the next century which will allow America to 
continue to prosper and to lead. We cannot do that if we have a value 
system reflected in a budget which attacks America's principle of 
strong families rather than reinforces that principle.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to reject this budget and to call 
for a budget which would reduce the impact and size and onerous burden 
of the Federal Government and to empower the people to make decisions 
that will foster families and institutions at the local level with the 
requisite strength to preserve and protect America's greatness.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I am here today to discuss aspects of 
the budget. Today we continue the discussion on our 1999 budget, and I 
am generally pleased with the work that the committee has done. I am 
generally optimistic about our country as we progress, but today I wish 
to place an emphasis on education with a special emphasis on the 
congressional responsibility for the education of the children of the 
District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital.
  In 1995, when the Republicans took over the leadership role in 
Congress, I became chairman of the subcommittee responsible for 
education on the Labor and Human Resources Committee. I also, as No. 13 
in seniority on the Appropriations Committee, became the subcommittee 
chairman on the DC Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Although I left the Appropriations Committee in 1997 to go to the 
Finance Committee, I vowed to continue my work for the schoolchildren 
of the District. I did so to follow through with the work I helped 
start in 1996, with the writing of the new education plan for the 
District.
  Also, when I became chairman of the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, I believed I had a special obligation for education in the 
District of Columbia. The Constitution, through the District clause, 
confirmed by the Supreme Court, endows in Congress the same powers over 
the District of Columbia that a State has--not only powers but 
responsibilities. Thus, Congress is responsible under the Constitution 
for the District's education. We must not forget that.
  As Republicans, we believe strongly that State and local governments 
are the key players in establishing education policy. This conviction 
works beautifully for every State in the Nation except for the Nation's 
Capital. What an irony. We, as Republicans in leadership of this 
Congress, have not fully recognized that under the Constitution we must 
act as both the State entity for the District and the local governing 
entity for education.
  In 1996, Congress did recognize that the District's educational 
system was indeed in trouble; in fact, the whole city was in deep 
trouble.
  The control board was established to help the District's education 
crisis. The present DC education reform plan was written in the 1996 
appropriations bill with assistance from Congressman Steve Gunderson, 
who had strong support from the Speaker, and also with the help of the 
then-Senate majority leader, Bob Dole. The implementation of this plan 
began in earnest under the leadership of General Becton and continues 
under Chief Academic Officer Arlene Ackerman. They recently gave a 
nationally known student achievement test to evaluate basic student 
performance in the District. It clearly established a severe problem. 
The Nation's Capital, for which we are constitutionally responsible, 
has the worst educational results in the country, including the worst 
student dropout rate of close to 40 percent.
  In addition, through decades of neglect, the District of Columbia has 
one of the worst school infrastructure problems in the Nation. GSA 
found that $2 billion of repairs and improvements are needed.
  When I took the chairmanship of the DC Appropriations Subcommittee in 
1995, I immediately met with the superintendent, then-Superintendent 
Franklin Smith, who was a member of the DC school board.
  They all had great intentions and great plans. And, in fact, they had 
great plans and great intentions for many years, but evaluation results 
got worse, not better. This was true even though teachers were teaching 
to the same tests they had been using since 1978. They told them what 
the tests were going to be. It was obvious that the superintendent of 
the school board had no control over the system.
  The control board had been established realizing the dimension of the 
problem. This is back in 1996. They knew that the firm leadership with 
appropriate authority had to be established. In my mind, the board very 
wisely chose two generals to answer that challenge--General Williams as 
financial officer and General Becton as superintendent. In my opinion, 
the generals, with considerable personal sacrifice, performed 
admirably, and ably. We are indebted.
  In particular, General Becton is a unique individual. He is 70-plus, 
but

[[Page S2752]]

looks 50, and has the energy of a 40-year-old. He is personable and 
tough. Although not primarily an educator, his accomplishments as 
president of Prairie View A&M University proved his ability in this 
field. He got the job done. They both got the job done. The generals 
had to kick a lot of butts. Friends are not made that way, wounded 
critics are. But they got results.
  Per-pupil costs are down to within the average in the Washington 
metropolitan region, a constant source of irritation with many Members 
who claim they add all this money. They do not anymore. Personnel 
numbers had been reduced. Many inefficient managers were replaced. The 
congressionally enacted school reforms are being implemented. Tough 
decisions, such as ending social promotion, have been made; and that is 
a tough one. This, of course, has created a great need for remedial 
help for tens of thousands of kids who must improve to warrant 
graduation.
  A most qualified chief academic officer, soon to be superintendent, 
Arlene Ackerman, has been hired. The challenges before her are 
daunting. The dimension of the remedial help required for ending social 
promotion, not only in Washington but nationwide, has not yet been 
fully appreciated. She will need our help. She must have our help.
  As mentioned above, the education infrastructure is in a shameful 
condition after decades of neglect, requiring $2 billion worth of 
improvements. Fortunately, Parents United had been formed some time ago 
and has brought a lawsuit to enforce corrective action.
  Unfortunately, after Generals Williams and Becton had initiated their 
plans for school repairs, and finally having funding available in a 
manner that would not have required any closing of the schools, the 
judge, in her frustration, ordered the schools closed anyway. This 
caused emergency actions in contracting to get the schools opened and 
raised the costs considerably. I was present with the control board 
education trustees the night this happened. They did what they had to 
do. In fairness to the judge, her frustration, expressed in her ruling, 
raised the public's awareness to the deplorable condition of the 
schools.
  But where will the $2 billion needed for repairs come from? Congress 
is responsible for making it available. This may require money from the 
budget, it may not, but it has to be found. Bonding is obvious, but how 
is it to be paid for?
  This January, I held hearings on the DC school situation. I have 
attached Professor Raskin's applicable testimony that the Constitution 
requires us to find the funds.

  At the beginning of 1997, I left the Appropriations Committee and 
went to the Finance Committee. I vowed to continue to fight for funds 
for DC. During reconciliation, I nearly got an amendment for $1 billion 
passed in the committee. The Senate did provide $50 million for the 
repairs of the Washington, DC, schools--a small amount, relatively, to 
the $2 billion.
  In conference with the House, at the House's insistence, the $50 
million was cut. But OMB Director Frank Raines agreed to work with me 
to find the money. He asked me to put together a working group. This 
has been done. To help prepare material for the working group, I held 
three days of hearings in January. Material from these hearings has 
been forwarded to the members of the working group.
  I have also outlined several options for the working group's 
consideration. Some require no Federal funds; others are completely 
Federally funded. Somewhere we have to find the answer. I hope we can 
furnish guidance soon. I have attached materials showing the need for 
congressional action, as the DC financial system under present 
circumstances cannot provide a sufficient revenue stream to pay for 
bonds.
  Let us end on a positive note. Progress is being made to improve the 
DC school system. I recently traveled to Chicago with General Becton. I 
also traveled to Long Beach, CA, with Arlene Ackerman. These school 
systems are examples of sound reform where corrective action is being 
taken. We learned a great deal on these trips. And work is starting 
here.
  First, we must make sure children can read and comprehend. Programs 
such as Everybody Wins!, a literacy-mentoring program I am deeply 
involved with, have been started, helping thousands of youngsters. 
Hundreds of our volunteers come from the Senate, and they have been 
doing a wonderful job in bringing the reading situation in that school 
under control, but thousands more are needed to help. The flow of 
nonreaders to upper grades must stop. Substantial growth here is 
expected by next year in these programs. There are two others called 
the President's Program for Reading and also another one called the 
Everybody Reads Program started by the District.
  To help the students ``in the pipeline,'' summer schools will be 
held. The second thing: A group to find remedial solutions through 
information technology has been formed. Much needs to be done.
  No. 3, legislation has been introduced, S. 1070--my bill--to form 
regional efforts in skill training, giving an opportunity for those 
young people to be able to get those $30,000 to $50,000 jobs, high-
paying jobs, that are available and can be filled.
  No. 4, I also met with the presidents of regional universities and 
colleges to work together with the business community to form a 
cohesive, seamless educational system, for which the comprehensive 
framework should be established by the end of May. And that is 
critical. We have the resources in this region, we have the people in 
this region, but we must work together to all do what we can for the 
school system.
  No. 5, the critical needs for in-service training of teachers must be 
met. The Department of Education and the local teacher colleges are 
pledged to help. I just met with some from the Department of Education. 
The Higher Education Act soon will be out on the Senate floor, and that 
will help, also across the Nation, to assist us with respect to the 
serious problems we have with our schools not having the professional 
development necessary.

  Let me close by emphasizing that our problems in education will end 
only when the classrooms provide the appropriate education. This is a 
primary responsibility of the States and local school districts. Just 
remember, as for DC, under the Constitution, DC is our ``State.'' And 
we are responsible for our local schools, those in the Nation's 
Capital. Right now, we have the worst schools in the Nation. They must 
and they should be the best.
  Madam President, at this time I would like to turn to another 
education issue dealing with the budget also, and I just alert the 
Budget Committee as to what is being done.
  (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1882 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Finally, I will talk to another matter which will have 
an impact upon the budget also. Hopefully, CBO comes up with figures 
you like; these figures are so small in terms of what the good is we 
should find no cause for alarm here.
  I rise to discuss an issue that is critically important to this 
Nation. Today there are millions of people with disabilities who want 
to work but just cannot. Why? Because the day they start work they lose 
access to affordable health insurance. These bright, intelligent, and 
very willing individuals are denied the right that every other citizen 
in this Nation has--the right to work. We have the responsibility to 
reverse this desperate situation and grant people with disabilities the 
right to become productive, taxpaying workers.
  Last week, I introduced legislation with Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Harkin entitled the Work Incentives Improvement Act. This bill will 
reform Social Security's work incentive programs and remove employment 
barriers for people with a disability. This legislation was developed 
over many months with the help of the disability community, the Social 
Security Administration, the Health Care Financing Administration and 
other congressional offices. This bill will end the insurmountable 
health barriers to individuals who wish to work.
  Our friends with disabilities do not need an incentive to work. They 
want to work. In fact, they are so desperate to obtain gainful 
employment that they are pushing this Congress to complete action on 
this legislation this year. And we must. These citizens are trapped by 
a system that penalizes their attempts to be productive. Social

[[Page S2753]]

Security's current work incentive system has had limited success. Out 
of 7.5 million people who are social security disability beneficiaries, 
less than one percent can take advantage of these work incentives and 
actually are employed. The benefits offered are too expensive, time 
limited, and offer too few health care services for the many persons 
with disabilities who wish to work.
  For many years I have assessed why so few disabled social security 
beneficiaries return to work. The primary barriers relate to their 
inability to obtain or keep adequate and affordable health care 
coverage. For example, disabled social security beneficiaries who 
return to work are covered through Medicare, but after 39 months they 
must pay full fare for their health benefits--more than $370 every 
month. I seriously doubt that even a well-off person can afford to pay 
this rate every month over the course of their working life. In fact, 
out of more than 3.5 million beneficiaries, only 114 have chosen to 
take advantage of this Medicare coverage, preferring the alternative--
staying at home and receiving it for free. I don't know whether they 
prefer it; that is probably not right.
  Another barrier to work is the inability to get coverage for certain 
medical services. These services are usually unavailable in the private 
markets. If they are available, they are unaffordable. Necessities like 
personal assistance services and prescription drug coverage are offered 
through some state Medicaid plans, but disabled social security 
beneficiaries who need access to these Medicaid services must 
impoverish themselves to get them. Many are doing just that. These 
disabled social security individuals who have coverage for low-income 
Medicaid, called ``dual eligibles,'' are the fastest growing 
entitlement population in the government.
  The Work Incentives Improvement Act will provide access to 
appropriate health insurance for those persons with disabilities who 
wish to return to work. Many of these beneficiaries will be eligible 
for affordable Medicare. Beneficiaries will have access to limited 
Medicaid services through State Work Options Programs. They will be 
able to access critical services like Personal Assistance and 
prescription drugs in states that chose to offer them. Such incentives 
will allow people to return to work, confident in the knowledge that 
they will both keep their health care and get coverage for other needed 
services.
  No one in this body can disagree with the idea that work is a central 
part of the American dream. This budget resolution should provide 
funding for these and other initiatives designed to allow people with 
disabilities to work. Providing cost-effective assistance for people to 
work is both fiscally responsible and morally right. Those who work 
will become fully contributing members of society by paying for their 
own insurance coverage, and as taxpaying citizens of our nation, paying 
for these government programs as a whole.
  Inaction by this body will ensure that our Government continues to 
deny a person's dream to get back to work to help himself, to help 
herself, to pay taxes, to be able to participate in our society in a 
meaningful way. I hope the Senate will move ahead to resolve this 
problem and help persons with disabilities realize their dream to work.
  I wish everyone had a chance to be at the press conference we held 
with former leader Bob Dole and Justin Dart and other leaders in this 
field to see the expression on their faces and the joy that came when 
we announced what we would do to help those who were assembled to be 
able to participate in the workplace. I can assure Members that this 
bill--we have had CBO estimates much lower than previous estimates. It 
is hard to conceive why it costs money because all you are doing is 
allowing people benefits to work and to start paying taxes and to 
contribute to the cost.
  It is very difficult for me to see how there is any cost whatever. I 
yield the floor.

                          ____________________