[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.
____________________