[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2890-S2928]
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 Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.
Amendment No. 2213, as modified
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am advised by the Budget Committee staff
that we have to make a modification in the terminology of the sense-of-
the-Senate language, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
modified, under the last subsection (b), to say, ``It is the sense of
the Senate that''--at that point include the following--``the levels in
this resolution assume that''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2213), as modified, is as follows:
Insert on page 53, after line 22, the following new
section, to be renumbered, accordingly:
``SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE TO MAINTAIN FULL FUNDING FOR
THE SECTION 202 ELDERLY HOUSING PROGRAM.
``(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following--
``(1) The Section 202 Elderly Housing program is the most
important housing program for elderly, low-income Americans,
providing both affordable low-income housing and supportive
services designed to meet the special needs of the elderly.
``(2) Since 1959, the Section 202 Elderly housing program
has funded some 5,400 elderly housing projects with over
330,000 housing units, with the current average tenant in
Section 202 housing being a frail, older woman in her
seventies, living alone with an income of less than $10,000
per year.
``(3) The combination of affordable housing and supportive
services under the Section 202 Elderly Housing program is
critical to promoting independent living, self-sufficiency,
and dignity for the elderly while delaying more costly
institutional care.
``(4) There are over 1.4 million elderly Americans
currently identified as having ``worst case housing needs''
and in need of affordable housing.
``(5) There are 33 million Americans aged 65 and over, some
13 percent of all Americans. The number of elderly Americans
is anticipated to grow to over 69 million by the year 2030,
which would be some 20 percent of all Americans, and continue
to increase to almost 80 million by 2050.
``(6) The President's Budget Request for fiscal year 1999
proposes reducing funding for the Section 202 Elderly Housing
program from the fiscal year 1998 level of $645,000,000 to
$109,000,000 is fiscal year 1999. This represents a reduction
of over 83 percent in funding, which will result in reducing
the construction of Section 202 housing units from some 6,000
units in fiscal year 1998 to only 1,500 units in fiscal year
1999.
``(7) The full funding of the Section 202 Elderly Housing
program as an independent federal housing program is an
investment in our elderly citizens as well as our Nation.
``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Senate that the
levels in this resolution assume that the Section 202 Elderly
Housing program, as provided under section 202 of the Housing
Act of 1959, as amended, shall be funded in fiscal years
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 at not less than the fiscal
year 1998 funding level of $645,000,000.''.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and
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. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2214
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate on the need for long-term
entitlement reforms)
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] proposes an
amendment numbered 2214.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Sec. . Sense of the Senate supporting long-term
entitlement reforms.
(a) The Senate finds that the resolution assumes the
following--
(1) entitlement spending has risen dramatically over the
last thirty-five years.
(2) in 1963, mandatory spending (i.e. entitlement spending
and interest on the debt) made up 30 percent of the budget,
this figure rose to 45 percent by 1973, to 56 percent by 1983
and to 61 percent by 1993.
(3) mandatory spending is expected to make up 68 percent of
the federal budget in 1998.
(4) absent changes, that spending is expected to take up
over 70 percent of the federal budget shortly after the year
2000 and 74 percent of the budget by the year 2008.
(5) if no action is taken, mandatory spending will consume
100 percent of the budget by the year 2030.
(3) this mandatory spending will continue to crowd out
spending for the traditional ``discretionary'' functions of
government like clean air and water, a strong national
defense, parks and recreation, education, our transportation
system, law enforcement, research and development and other
infrastructure spending.
(4) taking significant steps sooner rather than later to
reform entitlement spending will not only boost economic
growth in this country, it will also prevent the need for
drastic tax and spending decisions in the next century.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that that levels in this budget resolution assume that--
(1) Congress and the President should work to enact
structural reforms in entitlement spending in 1998 and beyond
which sufficiently restrain the growth of mandatory spending
in order to keep the budget in balance over the long term,
extend the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare Trust
Funds, avoid crowding out funding for basic government
functions and that every effort should be made to hold
mandatory spending to no more than seventy percent of the
budget.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, for the first time in a quarter century
this budget resolution is being debated in an environment, where rather
than talking about getting rid of the deficit, we are able to talk with
great enthusiasm about what to do with the surplus. We are talking
about tax cuts and various spending programs. There is no question that
the recovery of the economy of the United States of America--deficit
reduction efforts in the past in combination with tremendous changes on
the part of entrepreneurs and businesses and individuals out there--has
produced the best economic scene I have seen in my entire lifetime,
with increases in productivity, growth in the number of jobs, and a
reduction in welfare rolls. You have to look long and hard to find bad
economic news out there.
In 1990, this Congress debated a deficit reduction act that was
largely a result of President Bush's leadership. We put in place at
that time the mechanism that we still use today. It has caps on
spending that we, for the most part, have lived within. It is that
discipline that is required by the law, it seems to me, that requires
every time somebody wants to do a new program, they have to find a way
to pay for it. You just cannot come down here and throw new spending on
a budget or new tax cuts on a budget without having an offset
someplace. It is that discipline,
[[Page S2891]]
coupled with the 1993 act and the 1997 act, that I think the American
people appreciate very much. It has produced enormous benefits for the
American economy.
But we are now in a state where, unfortunately, rather than merely
talking about the easy things, we now need to start facing some very
difficult problems that are occurring inside the budget itself. One of
the things I find comforting in life is when things don't change. The
most impressive force of all in that regard is gravity. It has an
increasing impact upon me, my body, and my ability to move and so
forth. It stays constant. I am impressed with it.
One of the things that stayed constant over the last 30 or 40 years,
indeed a bit longer than that, is that the percent of the entire GDP
that we in Washington, DC, use for a variety of spending programs has
stayed relatively constant--in the 19 to 20 percent range. This does
not go all the way back to the years of the 1940s when, during the war,
we went up above that 20 percent mark; but in the 1940s, most of that
spending was for plant, for equipment, increases in the productivity of
this Nation. Indeed, many have cited that as a principal reason the
United States of America came out of the Great Depression, the
significant investments that occurred during those war years. So you
see that 20 percent figure stayed relatively constant over that lengthy
period of time.
This resolution that I have offered up requires us, the Congress,
with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, to look out in the future more
than the 10-year budget window that we currently do. You may say why,
Mr. President. The reason is that if you look out for 10 years, from
1998 to 2008, that takes you just before the baby boom generation
begins to retire. You look out to 2008 and life looks relatively good.
It doesn't look very difficult. It looks like we ought to be able to
manage relatively easily, and the reason it looks like it is going to
be relatively easy is that the number of the Americans over age 65
grows relatively steadily, from about 34 million to about 39 million in
2008. But, from 2010 to 2030, the number of people over age 65 grows by
30 million. The number of retirees will increase by 25 million while
the number of workers only increases 4 million.
What happens during that period of time is that the mandatory
programs--that is the red, or the entitlement spending; and the yellow
is the net interest, the interest on the national debt--they continue
to grow until they completely displace the entire Federal budget, until
it is 100 percent of the budget at that point. Indeed, in the year
2027, 100 percent of the budget will be mandatory spending programs.
This is a trend. I heard some--perhaps most notably former Secretary
of Labor Robert Reich, who is on from time to time--criticizing this
evaluation, saying there are going to be increases in productivity or
immigration or other things that are going to take care of it. But it
has not taken care of it yet.
In 1963, John Kennedy went to Rice University. He gave a speech in
the summer of 1963 in which he said that we were going to put a man on
the Moon. Why? He said not because it is easy but because it is hard.
In 1963, 70 percent of this budget was discretionary and only 30
percent of the budget was mandatory. In 1973, it had grown to 45
percent mandatory; in 1983, 56 percent mandatory; in 1993, 61 percent
mandatory. And in this budget, 68 percent of the budget is mandatory
and 32 percent of the budget is discretionary.
Even over the next 10 years, the amount that is available for
discretionary--and we allow it actually in the second 5 years to grow
at the rate of inflation, which is not likely unless we are going to
bust the caps in the second 5 years--at the end of that 10-year period,
the amount available for discretionary spending will be approximately
26 percent.
I ask any of my colleagues what that 26 percent figure means. If you
budget it this year and say we are going to give the Appropriations
Committee 26 percent of available revenue to appropriate, that will
force approximately $115 billion in spending cuts.
What is happening is that we are seeing our capacity to build our
Nation's defenses, I say to the distinguished occupant of the Chair,
who has talked about how our military is being spread pretty thin--it
is spread pretty thin right now. We debate from time to time new things
we want our military to do. Both our military and intelligence efforts
are stretched substantially thin at the moment. But that is not the
only area in discretionary spending where people come to the floor and
would like to spend more money, whether it is on education, on health
care, or the environment, or NASA, or Veterans Administration. On all
these things, they may come down and say, ``We have to fight the battle
against crime, we need more people on our border, we a stronger law
enforcement effort.'' All of these Federal efforts come out of
discretionary spending.
Unless we as a Congress begin to understand these trends and the fact
that they are not going to go away, it is not likely we are going to do
anything about it. I observe the reason we are not doing anything about
it, the reason we are not debating it on this floor, is we only have a
10-year view.
The law says to take a look at 10 years--what does it look like in 10
years? Life looks pretty good. It looks like we can handle it. I
challenge anybody to construct a discretionary budget with only 26
percent available revenue. Unless we believe this Congress is going to
raise taxes beyond the 20 percent mark--which I don't think it either
will or should--what we are faced with, even at 26 percent, is, it
seems to me, the unlikelihood of being able to construct a budget with
that relatively small amount.
Unless we look out to 30 years instead of 10 years, we do not see
this crisis coming, we do not see the problem coming.
So what do we do? We do nothing. We do not even debate it or talk
about it. Most of us have seen the movie ``Titanic.'' In the movie,
people were on the bow, standing watch for icebergs, and they did not
have binoculars. It is very much like us. We do not have binoculars
either. We can see 10 years, but we cannot see 30. As a consequence, we
do not see the iceberg that is out there in the form and shape of the
baby-boom generation which, from 2010 to 2030, will convert 100 percent
of the available money we will tax and collect from the American
people--100 percent of that budget is going to go to mandatory
programs.
There is a price, a big price, for delay, and the price will be paid
by the baby-boom generation, who will find themselves saying suddenly,
``Oh, my gosh, I have two choices: Either I take substantial cuts in my
current benefits or my kids have a tax increase'' that raises their
taxes beyond what is, I think, by any standard, a reasonable level. We
will see demands on this system, in short, Mr. President, that are
going to put us in a position where we are going to have to ask current
beneficiaries, if we do not make reasonable adjustments today, to pay a
rather substantial price.
I know the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has talked about
this an awful lot. In fact, he can blame himself for me caring about
entitlements. It was he and Senator Nunn who used to traipse down here
once a year and offer amendments. The first time the Senator from New
Mexico offered an amendment to control entitlement spending, I voted
against it. The second year, the light bulb went on, and I said, ``Oh,
my gosh, this guy from New Mexico might have something right.'' And,
indeed, he persuaded me the second year, and I voted with him.
In 1994, Senator Jack Danforth and I chaired a commission for an
entire year looking at the problems of entitlements, and I have not
been the same since. I annoy people; I frustrate people. They can ask
me what do I think about the weather, do I think Nebraska is going to
have a good football team, and as soon as I talk about the weather and
our great football team, I find myself immediately talking about the
problem of mandatory spending and what it is going to do to our
capacity to say that we are securing the blessings of liberty for
ourselves and posterity.
We are squandering, it seems to me, an opportunity to say we are
endowing our future, and instead we are putting ourselves in a position
of saying, ``Make certain I get my deal covered, that I get what I am
entitled to, and the heck with the future; don't worry about our
kids.''
[[Page S2892]]
Amendment No. 2215
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding passage of the
IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997)
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an additional amendment to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, the pending
amendment will be set aside. The clerk will report.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will talk for 1 minute. I see the
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee on the floor. This is
an amendment that this body ought to act on IRS reform legislation
prior to our leaving for the recess.
I believe this legislation has been considered long and hard. The
taxpayers have a deadline of April 15; 120 million of them will have to
file their taxes. We need to pass IRS legislation without delay. We
need to give taxpayers new powers. I note with considerable interest
that every single freshman in the House sent a letter yesterday to
Majority Leader Lott and to Democratic Leader Daschle asking that the
House bill, or something that can be conferenced, be taken up before we
leave.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 1, 1998.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Senate Minority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Lott and Minority Leader Daschle: As
April 15 approaches, this letter is to urge in the strongest
possible terms the United States Senate to pass sound
legislation to reform the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
As first-term Representatives of the American people from
both political parties, we agree that the Congress must give
the highest priority to reforming the IRS. Hearings conducted
in the House and Senate have made us all too aware of the
horror stories of the average American taxpayer being
harassed by rogue IRS agents. We believe it is time that the
IRS worked for American taxpayers instead of assuming they
are guilty of cheating on their taxes.
As you know, on November 5, 1997, the House overwhelmingly
passed historic legislation to reform the IRS. This bill
incorporates recommendations by the bipartisan National
Commission to Restructure the IRS chaired by Senator J.
Robert Kerrey and Representative Rob Portman. H.R. 2676, the
IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, would shift the burden of
proof from the taxpayer to the IRS, create twenty-eight new
taxpayer provisions in a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and
overhaul the management of the agency through the creation of
an eleven-member independent Oversight Board.
With your leadership, we have the opportunity to provide
the comprehensive reform of the IRS the American people
deserve. We urge the Senate to adhere to the will of the
American taxpayer, honor the work of the bipartisan
commission, and join the House in passing IRS reform without
further delay.
Sincerely,
Bob Etheridge,
John Shimkus,
Members of Congress.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the taxpayers of the United States have a
deadline of April 15. All of us know it. We hear about it when we go
home. As I said, 120 million people have to have their taxes filed by
April 15. There are 140,000 collection notices that go out every single
day of the week. Every single working day that the IRS is in operation,
140,000 collection notices go out.
There are approximately the same number of Americans who call the IRS
every day. The way it currently operates is, about 40 percent of them
cannot get through, and of those who do get through, about 25 percent
of them get the wrong answer.
There are many other reasons for to get the laws governing the IRS
changed, and get them changed soon. My hope is that the chairman of the
Finance Committee and the ranking member will meet as quickly as
possible with Mr. Archer, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Rubin. Let's get this
bill conferenced as quickly as possible so that the American taxpayers,
who have waited an awful long time for this piece of legislation, will
get the power they deserve--indeed, the power they need--in order for
them to have confidence that this is still Government of, by, and for
the people.
Mr. President, I thank you for this wonderful opportunity to speak,
and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] proposes an
amendment No. 2215.
The amendment follows:
At the end of Title III, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PASSAGE OF THE IRS
RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed IRS
Reform Legislation, (H.R. 2676), on November 5, 1997.
(2) The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act has the potential
to benefit 120 million Americans by simplifying the tax
process and making the IRS more responsive to taxpayer
concerns;
(3) The President has announced that he would sign H.R.
2676;
(4) The Senate plans to recess without considering
legislation to reform the IRS.
(5) The American people are busy preparing their taxes to
meet the April 15th deadline. They do not get to recess
before filing their returns; and
(5) Senators should keep their commitment to take up and
pass IRS reform legislation before they recess.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--
It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions
underlying the functional totals in this budget resolution
assume that the Senate shall not recess until it has
considered and voted on H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1997.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I inform the Senator that we are willing
to accept his previous sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and we have
Senator Burns' amendment. I would like to accept them now and then go
on to the Senator's second amendment. Is that satisfactory?
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will allow them merely to be accepted. I
was going to ask for a rollcall vote on mine. At some point, my fear
is, without a rollcall vote, I say to the distinguished Senator and
chairman of the committee, it doesn't necessarily focus people's
attention as much as it should. I am not sure it will by making them
vote either, for that matter.
I know the chairman of this committee is very enthusiastic about this
issue and has spent a lot of time on it as well. I just think this
whole budget deliberation occurs in a never-never land where we are
talking about surpluses and talking about how good everything is and we
literally are ignoring this enormous problem.
As I said, the people who are going to suffer the most are that baby-
boom generation, and they will find themselves in a heck of a dilemma
if we do not act sooner than later. I appreciate the Senator's
willingness to accept my amendment and Senator Burns' amendment. I
agree to allow that to go forward.
Vote on Amendment No. 2214
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment
No. 2214.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2214) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 2178
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is pending an amendment No. 2178
by Senator Burns. There is no objection on this side and, I understand,
no objection on the Democrat side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
amendment.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2178) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote on the two amendments, en
bloc.
Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Lautenberg would
join me in just a discussion of where we are. And, obviously, I will
yield the floor. I understand the distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee wants to speak. I yield myself time off the budget
resolution.
Mr. President, fellow Senators, I understand we have one vote
scheduled on or in relationship to the Kyl amendment at 12 o'clock. The
distinguished
[[Page S2893]]
Senator is here. He would like to speak for 1 minute, and there will be
1 minute in opposition. I make that request and ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to just tell Senators that we now have
about 29 amendments that are pending, for all intents and purposes. I
consider that everybody wants a vote on them, although I hope not. And
we still have about 18 hours, so there is plenty of time for more
amendments. And, frankly, I just hope everybody understands that today
is Wednesday, tomorrow is Thursday, the next day is Friday.
I think that everybody should share with me some concern about
whether we can finish this resolution unless there is some cooperation
with reference to amendments. I do not ask anything of anyone
specifically at this point, but I hope and I urge that, if there are
more amendments, you start getting them in to us. There is no time by
which you are bound, but I urge that, if you have additional amendments
or second-degree amendments, you let us see them. I am sure my friend
from New Jersey will join me in that. At some point we have to try to
make a little sense of the process on this to see if we can get this
work done in a timely manner.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The chairman of the Budget Committee neglected to
mention the fact that voting time is not included in the calculation of
the remaining hours.
Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is extra time. So if we have 29 or 30 votes, and
even if we were able by some stretch of the imagination to reduce that
to 15 minutes, you are talking about more than 7 hours added to the--
how much time do we have remaining, may I ask?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen hours remaining.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Eighteen. So we would be looking at prospectively 25
hours or more. So I say to all of our colleagues on both sides, get
them in here and let us try to get action done on them. If a rollcall
vote can be dispensed with, it will make a huge difference in what time
we conclude our business for this week, reminding everyone, all those
whose memory is bad and can't recall, the fact that the recess begins
for 2 weeks, in case anybody has forgotten, and should we want to hang
in through Friday or whatever or however long, I understand we are
going to get this done.
Mr. DOMENICI. We could stay in here very late tonight, into the
morning and that would put us on a path to where we could start voting
and we could see some daylight.
Amendment No. 2169
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor, but I
want to make a parliamentary inquiry. Would the regular order bring the
Kyl amendment now to the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Kyl amendment is
in order. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me take about 30 seconds and then see if anyone on the other side
wishes to speak to this. This is a very simple sense-of-the-Senate
resolution, and I will read you what the sense is. I cannot imagine
people would oppose this principle.
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. . .
Mr. President, there are a lot of details in legislation that might
ultimately be passed that we can argue about, but I think there is no
doubt that in expressing the principle, we can all be in agreement that
just because one turns 65 and is eligible for Medicare does not mean
they lose the right to see the physician of their own choice.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and will see if
there is anyone who wishes to speak in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I understand we have 1 minute in response.
Let me just say, this is not in any way, shape or form an amendment
designed to provide patients with more choice. This will leave seniors
totally uncertain about what their Medicare will cover and let doctors
determine the degree of Medicare coverage each beneficiary will have.
That is what this is about: Jeopardizing patients' rights, putting them
in a very uncertain set of circumstances, taking away the certainty and
the confidence they have when they are in a doctor's office or in a
hospital or in an operating room that Medicare will pay their bills.
Let us not jeopardize those patients' rights or their confidence when
they are sick that the Medicare Program is working for them.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to express my support for Senator
Kyl's amendment establishing a sense of the Congress regarding Medicare
beneficiaries freedom to privately contract with physicians. I
understand there has been a lot of misinformation about private
contracting and the Balanced Budget Act provision. But the fundamental
issue behind this debate has always been clear. What this really boils
down to is what is the appropriate role of the government. And I just
don't believe that the federal government should tell seniors how they
can or cannot spend their own hard earned money. While the Balanced
Budget Act allows private contracting on a limited basis, most
beneficiaries will not have this freedom because physicians who
privately contract will have to opt out of the Medicare program for 2
years. Most physicians won't be able to do that, and most beneficiaries
would not want their doctor to do this. Therefore, I support the Kyl
amendment to give seniors the freedom of choice to privately contract.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this past New Year rang in a harsh
reality for senior citizens of America: As of January 1, 1998, senior
citizens, for all practical purposes, have been stripped of a health
care right afforded to any other insured American--the right to pay
out-of-pocket for the doctor of their choice.
I am outraged over this provision--a provision that was added into
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in the twelfth hour of negotiations
between the White House and Congress.
The provision prohibits doctors who privately contract from treating
Medicare patients for a period of two years. Therefore, it is now
unlawful for a doctor to take a private payment from a Medicare-
eligible patient if during the previous two years he has billed
Medicare for any service rendered to a patient over the age of 65.
What is the reality of the provision? The reality is that it will be
almost impossible for a senior citizen to contract privately for
medical services because few or no physicians are going to be able to
make ends meet if they can't accept Medicare patients for two years.
The reality is that, unlike every other insured American, senior
citizens have now lost a significant right--a right of choice in who
provides their health care.
Currently seniors are being prohibited from going outside of the
Medicare system for procedures that are not covered by Medicare. For
example, if a senior fell and broke his hip, Medicare only reimburses
for the lowest-cost hip prosthesis. Since seniors cannot pay extra to
upgrade, they must settle for lower quality. (Private contracting would
enable them to opt for quality.)
Why is the federal government making that decision for seniors? If a
75-year-old women in Fairbanks, Alaska, fell and broke her hip, do you
think that the government is competent enough to decide what hip
prosthesis is best for her to gain the best mobility for the rough
weather conditions of Fairbanks?
Last week I turned 65 years old. The week before--when I was still 64
years old--I could choose any doctor I wanted and pay for that doctor
in any manner I wanted. But now I'm 65, and the federal government is
suddenly telling me I can't make my own medical decisions--that I no
longer may enter into a private contract with my doctor.
Mr. President, I ask you, isn't this a form of age discrimination
against seniors? How can the Health Care Financing Administration
restrict such a fundamental liberty--the freedom to
[[Page S2894]]
choose the care and quality of health providers?
The need for a senior citizen to be able to privately contract is
magnified in Alaska. Alaska has no HMOs, physician shortages exist in
two-thirds of the state and health care costs that are on average 70
percent higher than the rest of the country.
All these factors combine to create a system where doctors can't
afford to treat Medicare patients--which means that patient choice for
Alaskan seniors is extremely limited. I've received letters from
Alaskans who have been turned down by three or four physicians--because
the doctors cannot afford new Medicare patients.
I am pleased with Senator Kyl's sense of Congress--I believe it is an
important stand for Congress to make. The body must do all it can to
ensure that Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who choose to pay out of
pocket will have an unrestricted right to health care.
Mr. President, even in the socialized medical system of Great
Britain, choice is offered to the elderly. In Great Britain, a senior
citizen has the choice to pay privately for his or her medical
services. Don't the elderly of America deserve that same choice?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to express my opposition to
Senator Kyl's sense of the Senate Amendment to the Budget Resolution.
While this amendment raises important concerns about the scope of
seniors' choices in determining their personal health care needs, this
proposal may actually restrict the health care options available to our
nation's senior citizens and undermine the quality of care afforded all
Medicare beneficiaries.
Initially, Senator Kyl's amendment simply seems to endorse the
important role of choice for seniors when making critical decisions
about their personal health. I strongly support efforts to increase the
health care options available to Medicare beneficiaries and improve the
quality of health care that seniors receive. However, this amendment
would move us in the wrong direction. With approximately 96 percent of
physicians treating Medicare patients presently, choice of physicians
does not appear to be a problem for Medicare beneficiaries. In reality,
Medicare allows seniors to choose the doctor of their choice along with
providing protections that shield Medicare beneficiaries from
unnecessarily high out-of-pocket costs. Ironically, in many ways,
Senator Kyl's amendment is a problem in search of a solution.
Senator Kyl's legislation specifically supports private contracting
between physicians and patients for services traditionally covered by
Medicare. By allowing doctor's to privately contract for these
services, this amendment could effectively remove consumer protections
designed to protect seniors' from excessive out-of-pocket costs. These
protections are critically important to the elderly who rely on the
affordable and high-quality care that Medicare provides. Private-
contracting for Medicare-covered services would cause seniors to pay
100 percent of any given health care service or benefit. Few seniors
can afford or have any desire to pay, such exorbitantly high-rates. It
is also important to note that seniors' are perfectly free to contract
privately with their doctor on health care benefits not covered by
Medicare such as routine physical exams, eye care, and prescription
drugs. However, by permitting doctors to charge their Medicare patients
whatever they wish for Medicare-covered health care services, we would
be subjecting seniors' to unnecessarily high-out of pocket costs and
would compromise the quality of care afforded to all Medicare
beneficiaries.
I am also deeply concerned that this initiative would create a two-
tiered health care system for the elderly, threatening the quality of
care afforded all Medicare beneficiaries. Private contracting could
create an incentive for wealthier and healthier beneficiaries to opt
out of the Medicare program. This could lead to a health care system
that provides high-quality coverage to those seniors' who could afford
the high out-of-pocket costs associated with private-contracting, while
leaving the majority of Medicare beneficiaries with substandard care.
Almost 70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have an annual income under
$25,000. It is simply unconscionable for these seniors of modest means
to be subject to paying 100 percent of their health care bill to
services that are normally covered under the Medicare program.
Additionally, the implementation of a private-contracting system would
provide an incentive for doctor's to give priority to those Medicare
beneficiaries who can afford to pay for it at the expense of providing
quality and affordable care to the majority of Medicare beneficiaries.
Additionally, the Kyl amendment would offer the potential for
increased fraud and abuse within the Medicare program. The Medicare
system is already fraught with staggering levels of fraud and abuse.
According to the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, $23.2 billion annually is wasted on fraud and abuse in
the Medicare program. Given the financial challenges that face the
Medicare program in the near future, this level of abuse in
unacceptable. Allowing physicians to set their own payment rates for
certain patients, while simultaneously permitting them to submit claims
to Medicare for the treatment of traditional Medicare beneficiaries for
the very same procedures, would create the opportunity for double
billing, a serious form of fraud and abuse. While we should be moving
to prevent fraud and abuse in the Medicare system, private contracting
would offer the potential for increased fraud in the Medicare system.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. I want to point out that the pending amendment
is not germane, and I raise a point of order that the amendment
violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not sustained.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Might I inquire, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has some 20 seconds.
Mr. KYL. Thank you.
I want to respond to the distinguished minority leader.
It is true that legislation that would actually change the law would
certainly have to consider all kinds of issues dealing with fraud and
abuse and similar questions that the distinguished minority leader has
raised. We can have that debate at the time such legislation might come
before us.
What is before us today is simply a sense of the Senate, an
expression of a principle that it is the sense of Congress that seniors
have the right to see the physician or health care provider of their
choice. I hope we can at least agree on that basic principle.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment
No. 2169, the Kyl amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before we call the roll, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be able to send up
two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2216 and 2217, en bloc
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask
unanimous consent that they be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes
amendments numbered 2216 and 2217.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2216
(Purpose: To increase Function 500 discretionary budget authority and
outlays to accommodate both President Clinton's investments in
education and the $2.5 billion increase assumed by the resolution for
IDEA)
On page 16, line 9, increase the amount by $2,088,000,000.
On page 16, line 10, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $1,776,000,000.
On page 16, line 14, increase the amount by $1,487,000,000.
On page 16, line 17, increase the amount by $1,437,000,000.
[[Page S2895]]
On page 16, line 18, increase the amount by $1,686,000,000.
On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $593,000,000.
On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $1,301,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000'' and insert
``-$2,388,000,000.''
On page 25, line 9, strike ``-$1,900,000,000'' and insert
``-$1,981,000,000.''
On page 25, line 12, strike ``-$1,200,000,000'' and insert
``-$2,976,000,000.''
On page 25, line 13, strike ``-$4,600,000,000'' and insert
``-$6,087,000,000.''
On page 25, line 16, strike ``-$2,700,000,000'' and insert
``-$4,137,000,000.''
On page 25, line 17, strike ``-$3,000,000,000'' and insert
``-$4,686,000,000.''
On page 25, line 20, strike ``-$3,800,000,000'' and insert
``-$4,393,000,000.''
On page 25, line 21, strike ``-$7,000,000,000'' and insert
``-$8,301,000,000.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2217
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the expansion of
Medicare benefits)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EXPANDING MEDICARE BENEFITS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) In the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, changes were
made to Medicare that extended the solvency of the Trust Fund
for 10 years.
(2) The Medicare Commission, also established in the
Balanced Budget Agreement, has just started the task of
examining the Medicare program in an effort to make sound
policy recommendations to Congress and the Administration
about what needs to be done to ensure that Medicare is
financially prepared to handle the added burden when the baby
boomers begin retiring.
(3) The problems facing Medicare are not about more
revenues. The program needs to do more to improve the health
care status of retirees and give them more choices and better
information to make wise consumer decisions when purchasing
health care services.
(4) Improving the health care status of senior citizens
would ensure additional savings for Medicare. Helping seniors
stay healthier should be a priority of any legislation aimed
at protecting Medicare.
(5) In order to keep seniors healthier, Medicare has to
become more prevention based. Currently, Medicare offers very
few prevention benefits. As a result, seniors are often
sicker when they seek care or are hospitalized.
(6) If the objective is to use tobacco revenues to save
Medicare, a portion of these new revenues must be allocated
to expanding prevention benefits.
(7) Preventing illnesses or long hospital stays or repeated
hospital stays will save Medicare dollars.
(8) Medicare cannot be saved without structural changes and
reforms. Simply using a new Federal tax to prop up Medicare
will not extend solvency much beyond a few months and will do
little to improve the health status of senior citizens and
the disabled.
(9) Congress should use these new revenues to expand
prevention benefits to ensure that seniors are healthier and
stronger. This is how we can truly save Medicare.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the functional totals underlying this resolution assume
the allocation of a portion of the Federal share of tobacco
revenues to expand prevention benefits for Medicare
beneficiaries with an emphasis on improving the health status
of Medicare beneficiaries and providing long term savings to
the program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the two amendments are laid
aside.
Vote on Amendment No. 2169
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2169, the Kyl amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerrey
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Kennedy
Kerry
The amendment (No. 2169) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is not aimed at any Senator or group of
Senators, but it is so that we will all be on notice. In order to be
able to complete this budget resolution, we are going to have to stick
to the 15 minute-votes. I realize that there are markups going on and
Senators have a lot of commitments, but for the remainder of today--
Senator Daschle and I have talked about this--we think it is important
we begin to stick to 15-minute votes or 10-minute votes if we have in a
group stacked votes, so we will start sticking pretty close to the time
that is allocated.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a
question?
Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
Mr. FORD. We are in a major markup in the Commerce Committee, and if
there is any way you could stack a vote or two to let us come over and
spend a few minutes and make several votes and then go back to the
committee, I think it might be helpful, rather than having us run back
and forth. There is hope we might be able to finish that markup, if not
late tonight, tomorrow. I am not asking to change your schedule or your
votes, just group them together sometime, if you could.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could say to the Senator from Kentucky,
they are certainly involved in very important work, and we will take
that into consideration. As a matter of fact, we are going to enter a
unanimous consent request that would allow us to stack some votes.
Senator Daschle had suggested that, and it seems like a good way to
proceed where we will have up to as many as, I think, four votes that
are stacked.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LOTT. Would the Democratic leader like to make a comment before I
make the UC?
In order to ascertain the remaining workload then ahead of us to
bring the budget resolution to conclusion, I now ask unanimous consent
that all first-degree amendments must be offered by 6 p.m. this
evening. I further ask that at 5:40 p.m. this evening the minority
manager be recognized to offer any amendments necessary for the
minority side of the aisle, and at 5:50 p.m. Senator Domenici be
recognized for up to 10 minutes to offer amendments necessary at that
point for the majority side.
I further ask that following the scheduled 2 p.m. vote today, all
first-degree amendments be limited to 30 minutes, all second-degree
amendments be limited to 20 minutes, with any votes ordered on any
remaining amendments to be stacked in a sequence to be decided by the
two managers. I further ask that the first vote in the stacked voting
sequence be limited to 15 minutes and all remaining votes in the
sequence be reduced to 10 minutes in length.
We hope they will stack as many as three and four in those groupings.
But it will be up to them, after, of course, consulting with the
leaders, to make sure we are taking into consideration other things
that may be going on.
I finally ask that all time consumed during rollcall votes be counted
against the overall statutory time limit and the new time restraints on
first- and second-degree amendments expire at the conclusion or
yielding back of the overall time limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and
[[Page S2896]]
I will not object--I just want to make certain that the time agreement
with regard to the schools amendment has been unchanged.
Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is correct.
Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, and it is so
ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I didn't want to object, and I was going
to make that clarification following the conclusion of the request, but
I would only add one clarification, which I know the majority leader
will want to do, and that is to allow 1 minute prior to each vote in a
stacked sequence, to be sure that we can explain the circumstances, as
is normally our procedure in stacked votes. I know that colleagues on
both sides of the aisle have requested that in the past.
With that understanding and also with the understanding, of course,
that Senator Moseley-Braun would then be recognized following this UC
to offer her amendment, I think this is a good plan and I commend all
of those involved, especially our Chair and ranking member. Obviously,
we won't get done with this unless we can find a way in which to manage
more efficiently the time remaining. This does it, and I appreciate the
cooperation of Members on both sides.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do amend the unanimous consent request to
include the 1 minute before each vote and ask for a ruling now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I just ask--everybody might want
to know this--if in fact we don't complete all the amendments under the
prescription we have just agreed to, then if there are remaining
amendments, this agreement does not pertain to this at all, that will
be looked at by the Senate; we will get it done one way or another?
Mr. LOTT. That is correct. I think this is a very major step forward.
We will still need to assess where we are tonight and in the morning.
Any amendments still pending at the end, we will still have to deal
with those in as orderly a fashion as we possibly can. But I think this
will help us move a number of amendments so that we won't have as many
amendments at the end of the session.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority
leader and the minority leader for helping with this. Obviously, this
is a much more orderly process, and I think it has a chance of working
to the enhancement of the Senate's ability to do this work right.
I understand that the distinguished Senator from Illinois is going to
call up an amendment, after which she is going to yield promptly so
that Senator Roth might speak for a few minutes, and then it will
return to her for control of her time and we will have time on our
side.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, I have
been asked by the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from North
Dakota as well as Senator Roth--all three have business they would like
to attend to before this amendment is taken up, and so I would suggest
to the Senator from New Mexico that might be appropriate--let all three
Senators go before this amendment is taken up.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is fine with me. I thought the minority leader had
asked me to call her amendment up and then go ahead and yield this
time. But if you want to do it another way--Senator Roth, are you
satisfied?
Mr. ROTH. I want to speak next.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would it be possible that we could agree then that if
you are going to withhold until the following events occur, that
Senator Roth be permitted to speak for 15 minutes? But he would be
preceded by two Senators who want to just offer amendments.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I need 5 seconds, 10 seconds
possibly.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is that possible?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I clarify. I would like 5 seconds as
well to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Dakota.
Amendments Nos. 2218 and 2219
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside that I may send two amendments 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 North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes
amendments numbered 2218 and 2219.
The text of the amendments follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2218
(Purpose: To strike section 301 of the concurrent resolution, which
expresses the sense of Congress regarding the sunset of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, and replace it with a section expressing the
sense of Congress that important tax incentives such as those for
encouraging home ownership and charitable giving should be retained)
Strike page 33, line 3, through page 34, line 3, and insert
the following:
SEC. 301. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE TAX TREATMENT OF HOME
MORTGAGE INTEREST AND CHARITABLE GIVING.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) current Federal income tax laws embrace a number of
fundamental tax policies including longstanding encouragement
for home ownership and charitable giving;
(2) the mortgage interest deduction is among the most
important incentives in the income tax code and promotes the
American Dream of home ownership--the single largest
investment for most families, and preserving it is critical
for the more than 20,000,000 families claiming it now and for
millions more in the future;
(3) favorable tax treatment to encourage gifts to charities
is a longstanding principle that helps charities raise funds
needed to provide services to poor families and others when
government is simply unable or unwilling to do so, and
maintaining this tax incentive will help charities raise
money to meet the challenges of their charitable missions in
the decades ahead;
(4) legislation has been proposed to repeal the entire
income tax code at the end of the year 2001 without providing
a specific replacement; and
(5) recklessly sunsetting the entire income tax code
threatens our Nation's future economic growth and unwisely
eliminates existing tax incentives that are crucial for
taxpayers who are often making the most important financial
decisions of their lives.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the levels in this resolution assume that Congress supports
the continued tax deductibility of home mortgage interest and
charitable contributions.
____
Amendment No. 2219
(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for health research at the
National Institutes of Health, funded by receipts from tobacco
legislation)
At the appropriate place in the resolution, insert the
following:
SEC. . HEALTH RESEARCH RESERVE FUND.
(a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending
aggregates may be adjusted and allocations may be adjusted
for legislation that reserves 21 percent of the Federal share
of receipts from tobacco legislation for the health research
purposes provided in subsection (b), provided that, to the
extent that this concurrent resolution on the budget does not
include the costs of that legislation, the enactment of that
legislation will not increase (by virtue of either
contemporaneous or previously-passed deficit reduction) the
deficit in this resolution for--
(1) fiscal year 1999;
(2) the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; or
(3) the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
(b) Eligible Health Research.--Of the receipts from tobacco
legislation reserved pursuant to subsection (a), the
following amounts may be used for the following purposes:
(1) 7.5 percent of such receipts to fund research into the
prevention and cure of cancer;
(2) 7.5 percent of such receipts to fund research into the
prevention and cure of heart disease, stroke, and other
cardiovascular diseases;
(3) 2 percent of such receipts, to be allocated at the
discretion of the Director of the National Institutes of
Health, to fund the responsibilities of this office and to
fund construction and acquisition of equipment or facilities
for the National Institutes of Health;
(4) 2 percent of such receipts for transfer to the National
Center for Research Resources to carry out section 1502 of
the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993;
(5) 1 percent of such receipts to fund prevention research
programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
(6) 1 percent of such receipts to fund quality and health
outcomes research at the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research; and
(7) the remainder of such receipts to fund other member
institutes and centers, including the Office of AIDS
Research, of the National Institutes of Health in the same
proportion to such remainder, as the amount of annual
appropriations under appropriations acts for each member
institute and center for a fiscal year bears to the total
amount of appropriations under appropriations acts for
[[Page S2897]]
all member institutes and centers for that fiscal year.
(c) Revised Levels, Aggregate and Allocations.--
(1) Adjustments for Legislation.--Upon the consideration of
legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the
Senate appropriately-revised allocations under Section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised
functional levels and aggregates to carry out this section.
(2) Adjustments for Amendments.--If the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment
under this section for legislation in furtherance of the
purposes described in subsection (b), upon the offering of an
amendment that would necessitate such submission, the
Chairman shall submit to the Senate appropriately-revised
allocations under Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 and revised functional levels and aggregates to
carry out this section.
(3) Rule of Construction.--Revised allocations, functional
levels and aggregates submitted or filed pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered for the purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional
levels and aggregates contained in this resolution.
(c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate
committees shall report appropriately-revised allocations
pursuant to Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to carry out this section.
(d) Applications of Section 202 of H.Con.Res. 67.--Section
202 of H.Con.Res. 67 (104th Congress) shall not apply for
purposes of this section.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent they be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Amendment No. 2220
(Purpose: To permit the use of Federal tobacco funds to reimburse the
Veterans Administration for the costs of treating smoking-related
illnesses)
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside temporarily so I may offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment
numbered 2220.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 28, line 5, before the period insert ``and Veterans
Administration health care''.
Mr. BIDEN. I further ask that my amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 2221
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting a supermajority
requirement for raising taxes)
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside for the purpose of offering an amendment, which
I send 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 Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr. Grams,
Mr. Helms, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Hagel, proposes an
amendment numbered 2221.
The text of the amendment follows:
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A SUPERMAJORITY
REQUIREMENT FOR RAISING TAXES.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Nation's current tax system is indefensible, being
overly complex, burdensome, and severely limiting to economic
opportunity for all Americans;
(2) fundamental tax reform should be undertaken as soon as
practicable to produce a tax system that--
(A) applies a low tax rate, through easily understood laws,
to all Americans;
(B) provides tax relief for working Americans;
(C) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax
collection abuses;
(D) eliminates the bias against savings and investment;
(E) promotes economic growth and job creation;
(F) does not penalize marriage or families; and
(G) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections process to
replace the Internal Revenue Service; and
(3) the stability and longevity of any new tax system
designed to achieve these goals should be guaranteed with a
supermajority vote requirement so that Congress cannot easily
raise tax rates, impose new taxes, or otherwise increase the
amount of a taxpayer's income that is subject to tax.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of Senate that the
assumptions underlying the functional totals of this
resolution assume fundamental tax reform that is accompanied
by a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States
to require a supermajority vote in each House of Congress to
approve tax increases.
Mr. KYL. I ask that the amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this budget resolution contains some
provisions that I applaud, but it falls short in several areas: first,
the proposed tax cuts are too small to provide the relief that
taxpayers need and deserve; second, it does not adequately restrain the
growth and reach of the Federal Government. Third, it is not what the
hardworking men and women of America desire nor deserve. They deserve
better.
The current economic expansion is now 84 months old, the third
longest on record. Overall growth rate has been relatively steady and
moderate. In the last three months alone, more than one million new
jobs have been created, while the unemployment rate has been reduced to
a 24-year low. In addition, inflation as measured by the CPI is only
1.6 percent.
In the midst of this prosperity our citizens are burdened by levels
of taxation that are increasingly oppressive--all to satisfy the
appetite of the Federal behemoth. This condition runs contrary to
counsel handed down from President Jefferson--counsel we would do well
to heed as we move forward with the budget debate. In his First Annual
message to the Congress, President Jefferson wrote that the object of
congressional efforts should be ``to preserve the general and State
governments in their constitutional form and equilibrium; to maintain
peace abroad, and order and obedience to the laws at home; to establish
principles and practices of administration favorable to the security of
liberty and prosperity, and to reduce expenses to what is necessary for
the useful purposes of government.''
These are among the core principles which have thus far separated our
nation from the rest of the world.
It is up to this Congress to apply President Jefferson's principle to
``reduce expenses to what is necessary for the useful purposes of
government.'' All else should remain in the hands of our citizens.
Today, revenue levels are at all time highs, approaching 20 percent
of GDP in both this fiscal year and the next. Not only are these levels
high in historical terms, they are unprecedented for a peace-time
economy. In fact, the only time in this century that revenues were
higher was during World War II.
Unfortunately, this does not appear to be an anomaly; the
Congressional Budget Office projects that unusually high levels of
revenue will continue to be extracted from taxpayers for the
foreseeable future.
It is worth noting, Mr. President, that these very same revenues are
largely responsible for the budget surplus that has generated so much
excitement here in Washington. In fact, the current surplus is mainly
attributable to additional unanticipated revenues of about $72 billion
in 1997, rather than the effect of spending cuts. It is also worth
noting that these revenues have been fueled mainly by our strong
economic growth in the last year.
Yet, despite the record high level of revenues that the Federal
Government now collects to feed its appetite for spending, we are told
that we need additional Federal programs! Over the past 2 months,
President Clinton has engaged in a well orchestrated campaign to secure
approval for spending billions of dollars more on new and expanded
government programs. He has set a trap for the American people by
promising to do more for them in exchange for higher taxes on their
capital and labor.
We have balanced the Federal budget. But that is only one of the
steps to be taken to meet Jefferson's objective. We must go on to
examine whether the current size and breadth, let alone further
expansion, of the Federal Government for these purposes justifies the
taxation on the toil of our fellow citizens. Let's never forget that
the revenue collected by Washington does not
[[Page S2898]]
belong to the Federal Government; it belongs to the hard-working men
and women of this country.
Mr. President, the budget resolution should allow for immediate and
significant tax relief for American taxpayers. However, the $30 billion
of tax cuts proposed in the current resolution are not sufficient to
provide this relief.
I would like to see this budget resolution contain total tax cuts of
at least $65 billion over 5 years. These cuts could take a number of
forms, including marriage penalty reforms, family tax relief, and
savings and investment incentives.
For example, half of American families face the marriage penalty. The
Congress proposed to phase out the marriage penalty for non-itemizers
as part of the 1995 Balanced Budget Act, but the proposal was vetoed by
President Clinton. In addition to marriage penalty relief,
consideration could be given to tax relief for families such as a child
care credits for both stay-at-home parents and working
parents. Ultimately, whatever the final form that tax cuts take, the
crucial consideration is that they be substantive and immediate.
However, we are limited in the ways that we can offset these tax
cuts. While the President's Fiscal Year 1999 budget contains a number
of revenue raisers, many are rehashed, or controversial proposals that
have failed before due to opposition on both sides of the aisle.
We also cannot look to the spending programs within the jurisdiction
of the Finance Committee for savings. We are all firmly committed to
protecting the reforms we have made to the Medicare, Medicaid and
welfare programs, and should make no further changes at this time. In
my opinion, the best option is for the cuts to be offset through the
use of a portion of the tobacco settlement revenues.
While the lack of meaningful tax relief is my main objection to this
budget resolution, I am also disappointed to see that there is no
provision to make better use of the budget surplus.
We should not simply spend this surplus, or set it aside; we can do
better for our families and the future. I strongly believe that the
most productive use of thee surpluses is to fund individual Social
Security investment accounts for all workers who contribute to the
payroll tax. Therefore, Mr. president, I will be offering a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment to instruct the Finance Committee to report a
Social Security bill this year. The bill would dedicate the budget
surplus to fund Social Security personal retirement accounts. Equally
important, my bill will place the Senate on record for putting these
surpluses to work for the American taxpayers, and not simply setting
them aside to be spend on other less important priorities than social
security.
Finally, Mr. President, I must express my concern over some of the
methods for shifting funds around under the budget resolution. Budget
rules should not be invented to give authority to one committee to
achieve budget savings under the jurisdiction of another committee.
More specifically, this resolution gives control over the Medicaid
program and welfare programs to the Appropriations Committee. Moreover,
savings are to be achieved through administrative reforms which may
prove to be unfair and unworkable with our partners, the states.
Reforming Medicaid and finding program savings in the child support
enforcement system or finding other alternatives should be a task for
the committee of jurisdiction--namely the Finance Committee.
Mr. President, the American people expect more from us. And it is
incumbent upon us to see that they get it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I make a point of order a quorum is
not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from
Illinois, under the rule previously agreed to, has 2 hours for debate
on her amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two hours.
Amendment No. 2175
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois.
I call up amendment No. 2175 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] proposes an
amendment numbered 2175.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the March 30, 1998 edition
of the Record.)
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Harkin, and Murray be added as cosponsors of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I
may require, until such time as someone else comes up to speak.
This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the fiscal year
1999 budget resolution assumes that we will enact legislation creating
a partnership between State and local governments and the private
sector to rebuild and modernize our schools and classrooms for the 21st
century. The amendment calls for the enactment of legislation similar
to S. 1705, the Public School Modernization Act of 1998, which I have
introduced along with a number of my colleagues. Our bill would
establish a simple and effective means of helping communities modernize
and revitalize their schools.
The bill creates a new category of zero coupon bonds for States and
school districts to issue to finance capital improvements. States and
school districts would be able to issue $21.8 billion worth of these
bonds over the next 2 years. Purchasers of the new bonds would receive
Federal income tax credits in lieu of interest, thereby cutting the
cost of upgrading the schools by at least a third and in some cases up
to 50 percent. The bill will cost the Federal Government only $3.3
billion over five years.
This amendment to the budget resolution is the first step toward
enacting that legislation. It sends a signal that we in the Senate are
serious about improving education in America.
I call your attention to this report card for America's
infrastructure. You will notice that school buildings get a failing
grade; mass transit got a grade of C--we have taken up the
infrastructure needs for mass transit; bridges, a C-minus; solid waste,
a C-minus; waste water treatment, D-plus; roads, D-minus--but schools
get an F. We are literally sending our children to crumbling schools in
which education becomes well-nigh impossible.
Those children--14 million of them, in fact--every day attend schools
that are so deteriorated that they do not even meet basic code; 14
million children in this country every day attend schools which are
that dilapidated, Mr. President. From all indications, in failing to
provide for the modernization, renovation and repair of school
facilities, we are literally causing these children to get less
educational opportunity than they should be entitled to, but we are
also hampering our Nation's ability to be competitive in the 21st
century.
At no point in our history has education been more important to both
individual achievement or national prosperity. As H. G. Wells wrote
nearly 80 years ago: ``Human history becomes more and more a race
between education and catastrophe.''
Education in America correlates with opportunity for individuals, for
families and for our entire Nation. Indeed, the rungs on the ladder of
opportunity in America are crafted in the classroom. It is very clear
that high school graduates earn more money over the course of a
lifetime. As a matter of fact, every year they earn 46 percent more
than people who do not graduate from high school. College graduates
earn 155 percent more than those who do not complete high school. And,
of course, over the course of a lifetime, the most educated Americans
will earn
[[Page S2899]]
five times as much as the least educated Americans. That is on an
individual level.
The truth is that education correlates with every indicia of economic
and social well-being. Educational attainment can be tied directly to
income, to health, to the likelihood of being on welfare, to the
likelihood of being incarcerated, and even to the likelihood of voting
and participating in our democracy.
It is, however, more than a tool to lift people out of poverty or to
have a better standard of living. It is also the engine that will drive
America's economy into the 21st century. In a Wall Street Journal
survey last year of leading economists, 43 percent of them said the
single most important thing we could do to increase our long-term
economic growth rate would be to invest more in education, research and
development. Nothing else came even close in the survey. One economist
said:
One of the few things economists will agree upon is the
fact that economic growth is very strongly dependent on our
own abilities.
Another study, looking at the changing nature of the American work
force, said:
The crucial factor accounting for long-term success in the
work force is a basic education provided at the primary and
secondary levels.
Of course, a recent study by the Manufacturing Institute confirmed
that claim. It concluded that increasing the education level of workers
by just 1 year raises the productivity level by 8.5 percent in
manufacturing.
If we fail to invest in education, we will put our Nation's economic
future at risk. Unfortunately, too many of our schools, again, are not
in adequate physical condition to meet the educational needs of our
children. Too many of our schools are literally crumbling down around
the students.
The General Accounting Office, which did a major study, a landmark
study, on this issue found that 14 million children attend schools in
need of major renovation or outright replacement. Some 7 million
children every day attend schools with life-threatening safety code
violations. And they concluded that it will cost $112 billion just to
bring our schools up to code--$112 billion across the country just to
bring our schools up to code. That does not equip them with computers.
That is not bells and whistles. That is just to address the toll that
decades of deferred maintenance has taken. So this F relates to the
$112 billion demand on us as Americans just to get our schools up to
code in this country.
I say ``the country'' broadly, and the truth is that crumbling
schools are to be found in every corner of America. Again, according to
the GAO, some 38 percent of schools in urban areas are in this kind of
dilapidated condition; 30 percent of rural schools are in the same
condition; and 29 percent of suburban schools are in the worst
condition. Again, this is not statistically all that different between
29 percent in the suburbs, 30 percent in rural areas and 38 percent in
urban areas.
Mr. President, the problem with crumbling schools has become so
widespread that even Peppermint Patty in the Peanuts cartoon has a
leaky school roof. Take a look here. In this series of Peanuts cartoon,
Peppermint Patty and her friend Marcie express their frustration over
the fact that they cannot get anyone to repair the leaky roof. ``It's
keeping me awake.'' The roof is leaking. They still don't take it.
Marcie forgot to mention the repair of the roof as she talked about
the fact that the children were having difficulty learning. But the
truth of the matter is that we cannot forget about the fact that our
schools are dilapidated.
In my State of Illinois, school modernization and construction needs
top $13 billion. Many of Illinois' school districts have a difficult
time even buying textbooks and pencils, much less financing major
capital improvements. This legislation would free up local resources in
my State for education by providing Federal support for rebuilding the
schools.
This $112 billion national school repair price tag, as enormous as it
may sound, again, does not include the cost of wiring schools and
getting them up to speed for modern technology. One of the greatest
barriers to the incorporation of modern computers into classrooms is
that the physical condition of many school buildings will not allow for
it. You cannot very well use a computer if you cannot plug it into the
wall.
Again, to quote the General Accounting Office, almost half of all
schools lack enough electrical power for the full-scale use of
computers; 60 percent of them lack enough conduits in the school to
connect classroom computers to a network; and 60 percent of schools
lack enough phone lines for instructional use.
Last year, a teacher from Waukegan, IL, came to Washington and was
talking about the use of computers in the school and that when they
plugged in the computers, when they deployed the computers around the
school, fires started all through the school because the wiring was so
old.
That situation is replicating itself all over the country. We are
seeing situations in which the schools cannot give our children the
tools they need to learn so that they can compete in this 21st century
because the physical structures simply will not allow it.
This legislation also will give communities the power to relieve
overcrowding. Again, according to the Department of Education,
enrollment this year is at an all-time high and will continue to grow
over the next 10 years. Just to keep up with growing enrollment, we
will need to build 6,000 new schools over the next 10 years.
Again, in my State, I visited schools where study halls are held in
the hallways because there is no other space. I have seen stairway
landings converted into computer labs, cardboard partitions used to
turn one classroom into two. There is one school where the lunchroom
has been converted into two classrooms, where the students eat in the
gymnasium, and instead of gym, they have what is called ``adaptive
physical education'' while they stand next to their desks.
One youngster from Virginia talked about the fact that the congestion
in his school is so profound that the kids get into fights in the
hallway, and they call it ``hall rage,'' when there is just too much
human presence for them to walk around the hallways and they get into
disruptive behavior.
The teachers and parents know full well these conditions directly
affect the ability of their children to learn, and the research, of
course, has backed up that intuition. Two separate studies found a 10
to 11 percent achievement gap between students who attend school in
good buildings and quality surroundings and those who attend school in
poor buildings after accounting for all other factors.
Other studies have found that when the buildings are in poor
condition, again, the students are more likely to misbehave. Three
leading researchers recently concluded:
There is no doubt but that building condition affects
academic performance.
Again, if we are going to address the need to provide our youngsters
with quality education, we clearly have to look at the factors and the
environment in which they are called upon to learn.
Just last month, the results came in on a set of international math
and science tests. The results were, quite frankly, profoundly
disturbing.
The results of that study placed American students at or near the
bottom on every one of the math and science tests that were offered.
This cannot be. We cannot go into the 21st century with our children
performing below some less-industrialized countries because we do not
provide a quality educational opportunity and, frankly, consistent
educational opportunity throughout the country.
We know that we have some of the best schools in the world in this
country on the one hand. I have some that I visited in the State of
Illinois--the First in the World School. Those schools are in good
condition, and the youngsters who go there have a great opportunity for
education. They have scored above the international norm.
But at the same time we have the other instance of the crumbling
schools, the dilapidated conditions and the poor performance across the
board as well. We have this patchwork quilt of school facilities
throughout the country. Again, I point out these facilities' problems
are related to how we finance the system, how we pay for schools.
Crumbling schools are not just accidents; they are the predictable
result
[[Page S2900]]
of the way we fund education. The current system was established a
century ago when the Nation's wealth was measured in terms of
landholdings. Wealth, of course, is no longer accumulated just in land,
and the funding mechanism relying on the local property tax is just not
appropriate, nor is it adequate.
The current school finance structure works against most American
children and mitigates against most families' best efforts to improve
local schools. Again, according to the General Accounting Office, poor
and middle-class schools try the hardest to raise the revenue to get
the money together to fix up their schools. But the system works
against them.
In some 35 States, poor districts have higher tax rates than wealthy
districts, but they raise less revenue because, of course, there is
less property wealth to tax. Now, this local funding model does not
work for school infrastructure, just as it would not work for highways
or other infrastructure.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if we based our system of
roads on the same funding model that we use for schools. If every
community was responsible for the construction of and maintenance of
the roads within its borders and no one else contributed, where we did
not have a partnership, we relied on the local property tax, in all
likelihood we would have smooth, good roads in the wealthy towns, a
patchwork of mediocre roads in middle-income towns, and very few roads
at all in poor communities.
Transportation, then, Mr. President, would be hostage to the vagaries
of wealth and geography. Commerce and travel would be difficult and
navigation of such a system would not serve the interests of our whole
country.
Mr. President, unfortunately, that hypothetical situation that I have
just described in terms of roads precisely describes our school funding
system. Schools with a lot of wealth have good schools or are more
likely to have good schools, middle-class schools have a patchwork,
poor communities have little or nothing to point to.
Again, I made the point, as the GAO found, that the phenomenon of
crumbling schools, the infrastructure, finds itself in all kinds of
communities, suburban, rural and urban, but, again, it is based on the
local property tax in the main.
The American Society of Civil Engineers released a report card on
America's infrastructure, and, again, they found that the only category
to get an F was the schools.
We have just recently acted, and the ranking member, the Senator from
New Jersey, will point out that we just passed the ISTEA bill, the
highway and mass transit bill, which addresses a number of these
issues. The Senate passed that bill almost with unanimous support, and
we put an additional $214 billion into infrastructure in that
legislation.
Schools, however, do not benefit from that bill, and that is why I
believe we need to talk about a partnership to fund the redevelopment
of our school infrastructure. Our children need the same level of
commitment for school infrastructure as we have given to our highways.
I think the way we ought to look at this is not in the sense of
finger pointing, saying it is the fault of the States or it is the
fault of the local governments. I think, if anything, we need to engage
a partnership in which we all contribute and we all weigh in to try to
fix these schools and give our children an environment that is
worthwhile to learn in.
We have a situation in which States--the argument has been made that
school construction is just a State or a local responsibility. Some of
my colleagues have argued that, notwithstanding the fact that the
school districts face a maintenance backlog of $112 billion--and,
again, $73 billion in new school construction needed--the States can
meet these costs on their own and by themselves.
The truth is that this is not in the interest of our country, that we
rely on the accident of State effort and the accident of geography and
the accident of wealth in order to make certain that we address this
national problem.
We have an interest, as citizens of this great country, to see to it
that every child gets an opportunity to learn, that every child gets an
environment in which learning can take place, and that every child no
matter where they live in the United States is given a chance to take
advantage of the new technologies that school modernization would
allow.
The General Accounting Office found that only 13 of the States take a
comprehensive approach to school modernization and construction. In
1994, for example, the States spent a total of $3.5 billion on school
repair and construction--$3.5 billion. So again with $112 billion worth
of deferred maintenance, $73 billion worth of needed new construction,
the States alone will simply not be able to bear that economic burden.
Some of my colleagues have argued that because the economy is doing
so well the States are now in a position to supplement what they spend
on school facilities with funds from the surpluses that are beginning
to accumulate in the State treasuries. Most States have a surplus. All
but two States had some sort of surplus at the end of fiscal year 1997,
ranging from a $3.2 billion surplus in Alaska to a $32 million surplus
in Alabama. My own State of Illinois ended 1997 with a $108 million
surplus. But the sum total of all the surpluses put together is $28.2
billion. If we were to spend every dime of every State's surplus on
this issue, you would just begin to make a dent in it.
I think that the notion of the finger-pointing, the notion of blaming
one level of Government or another, is something that we, frankly, do
not have time for. We do not have time for that argument any longer. I
believe we have a responsibility to engage as a national community to
work together, giving the States and the local governments control,
certainly, giving them responsibility for making certain that the
schools are rebuilt, but providing the financial help that we can at
the national level in the simplest way possible.
We have the capacity, at the national level, to provide the funding
leverage that this legislation will provide that will cost us $3
billion to allow these local communities and school districts to go
into the capital markets and raise $22 billion. I think it just makes
absolute sense, and I encourage my colleagues to support this sense-of-
the-Senate amendment.
Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico,
2 minutes to the Senator from Washington, and such time to the Senator
from California as she may require.
Amendment No. 2223
(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for civilian
research and development)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before I give my few comments here in
support of the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, I ask unanimous
consent that it be in order that I send an amendment to the desk and
then have that laid aside and then return to the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] for himself and
Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 2223.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with and the amendment be set aside and we return to the
amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``SEC. . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CIVILIAN RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending
aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits
may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for
legislation to fund civilian scientific and technological
research and development, to increase research and
development for the health sciences, or to increase research
and development to improve the global environment, provided
that, to the extent that this concurrent resolution on the
budget does not include the costs of that legislation, the
enactment of that legislation will not increase (by virtue of
either contemporaneous or previously-passed deficit
reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
``(1) fiscal year 1999;
``(2) the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; or
[[Page S2901]]
``(3) the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
``(b) Revised Allocations.--
``(1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration
of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the
Senate appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised
functional levels and aggregates to carry out this section.
These revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and
aggregates contained in this resolution.
``(2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment
under this section for legislation in furtherance of the
purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an
amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such
submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate
appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional
levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These
revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall
be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates
contained in this resolution.
``(c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate
committees shall report appropriately-revised allocations
pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to carry out this section.''.
Amendment No. 2175
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I, first, say that putting together a
budget resolution is a very complex, difficult process. I commend those
who have worked on this, particularly my colleague from New Mexico for
bringing in a budget resolution that is within the constraints of the
balanced budget agreement. I think that is certainly progress and is to
be commended. I am, however, troubled by many aspects of it. One aspect
is that which is intended to be dealt with by this amendment by the
Senator from Illinois.
I fear this budget does not reflect the forward-looking perspective
that prepares us for the world that we are facing in the 21st century.
I do not think anyone would dispute the paramount importance of
education, of research, and of a safe, healthy start for our children.
The importance of those items, in my view, are not reflected in this
budget. They are not given the priority they should be given in this
budget.
Let me give a few examples. In the area of education, and, of course,
the Senator from Illinois was talking about this general area of
education, the President has proposed at least $1.6 billion more than
the Republican budget in 1999 for the budget functions that include
education, training, and social services. The Republican budget does
not increase Federal spending by 1 cent over last year's balanced
budget amendment in that regard.
More specifically, the President and the Senate Democrats have put
forth some very significant education proposals, one of which is this
amendment by the Senator from Illinois. The Republican budget does not
give the same priority to those concerns. The Democratic alternative
and this amendment propose to help communities to renovate and build
school facilities, including BIA schools, which are very important in
my home State of New Mexico. The Republican budget essentially ignores
this request. The Democratic proposal provides for the hiring and
training of 100,000 new teachers, which is projected to reduce the
average class size in grades 1 through 3 from 22 students in a class to
18 students in a class. Again, the Republican budget ignores that
proposal.
In addition, the Republicans claim they are providing an increase of
$2.5 billion over the freeze level during this 5-year period for the
Individuals with Disabilities Act. It turns out that this funding does
not keep pace with inflation.
While this resolution proposes to increase money for one type of
block grant, the simple fact is that spending is cut significantly
overall and that means that very important programs will have to be
cut. Some of those programs--we are not clear as to which ones yet, of
course, since that is not specified in the resolution--but some of
those might include title I for disadvantaged children, Head Start,
training and technology for teachers, and teacher quality.
The resolution also gives short shrift to child care, and again
Senator Dodd from Connecticut offered an amendment that I support in
that regard.
With regard to tobacco, I am tremendously concerned that the budget
as presently written precludes any meaningful consideration of programs
to reduce teen smoking. While I strongly agree with the chairman of the
Budget Committee that we must do something to fix our Medicare Program,
I believe we do not need to do so at the expense of the current and
future health needs of our children.
I commend our colleagues for the hard work that has gone into this
resolution, but I do differ with my Republican colleagues about the
ways in which we allocate spending in this bill. We are entering the
21st century as a strong and vibrant and growing economy, but we will
only remain that way if we invest in the future and ensure that every
American has the opportunity to take advantage of that growth. The way
we do this is to focus on these areas of priority--education, training,
and the needs of working families.
I hope we can adopt some amendments to this resolution that will
allow us to do that more effectively.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise in strong support of this amendment and offer my
congratulations to the Senator from Illinois for bringing this critical
issue to the attention of the Senate and to the attention of the
Nation. Certainly it is an issue of safety and health for many children
across our country. For all of us who go out and visit schools on a
regular basis, we see classrooms that are in cafeterias, in gymnasiums,
and in closet space--of all things--all across this country, and that
is wrong. This is an issue that has to be addressed.
Let me also bring to the attention of my colleagues the issue that
many of us hear about--the high number of jobs that are available today
in the area of technology. The ITEA recently put out a study showing
there are 200,000 job openings today. These are $40,000- to $60,000-a-
year jobs available in technology, yet we don't have the skills or
students with the skills available to go into these jobs because they
haven't had the education and the experience in their schools.
I have worked very hard to bring technology to the floor of the
Senate as an issue. We have put computers into our schools, technology
into our schools. In a few minutes, the Labor Committee will be working
on the Reauthorization Act that includes my language to train teachers
in technology throughout our schools, but if we don't pass the issue of
school construction, far too many of our children will never have
access to these skills because they are in classrooms where you cannot
plug in a computer.
This issue is critical and I urge my colleagues to support it. I,
again, thank my colleague from Illinois for bringing it to our
attention and appreciate her long concern and work on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this
amendment, and in particular to thank my friend and colleague, the
senior Senator from Illinois, for her hard work. I am aware that there
is another school construction amendment. It is known as the Roth
amendment. It is part of the Coverdell tax bill. These amendments, in
my view, complement one another.
What the Senator from Illinois has done is structure an amendment so
it really benefits some of the older, more stressed urban school
districts in America. What the other amendment would do is stress the
smaller, suburban rural areas where there is substantial growth going
on. So between the two of them, they provide to the States and the
cities and the counties of America a truly major, major commitment to
new school construction.
This is a $21.8 billion authority for State and local governments to
issue bonds to construct and rehabilitate schools. For California
alone, this would mean $2.2 billion in bonds. It is the most of any
State. Thirty-five percent of these bonds would be used by
[[Page S2902]]
the 100 largest school districts based on their ESEA title I funding
which assists disadvantaged children; 65 percent would be distributed
by States based on their own criteria; in addition, the Secretary of
Education could designate 25 additional districts based on the State's
share of Elementary and Secondary Education Act title I grants,
excluding the 100 largest districts.
Under this amendment, California school districts are really helped.
Bakersfield would get $19 million; Compton, $30 million; Fresno, $56
million; Long Beach, $48 million; Los Angeles, deeply troubled, and I
will show you why in a moment, $488 million; Montebello, $22 million;
Oakland, $35 million; Pomona, $18 million; Sacramento, $31 million; San
Bernardino, $32 million; San Diego, $69 million; San Francisco, $28
million; Santa Ana, $27 million; and Stockton Unified, $24 million.
This proposal, again, helps the large urban poor districts.
California's public school enrollment, much of it in these districts
alone, between 1997 and the year 2007, is going to grow by almost 16
percent. That is triple the national projected rate of growth of 4.1
percent. California schools will grow three times faster than schools
in the rest of the United States.
Each year, between 160,000 and 190,000 new students will come into
California schools. The high school enrollment is projected to increase
by 35 percent by 2007. Approximately 920,000 students--that is almost 1
million--are to be admitted to schools in the State during that period,
boosting total enrollment from 5.6 million to 6.8 million.
Our school population is bigger than the population of most of the
States. That is how important this bill is to California. California
needs to build 7 classrooms a day, at 25 students per class, just to
keep up with the average growth that is going to take place. We need to
build 327 schools over the next 3 years just to keep pace with the
growth that is going to take place. We have the largest class sizes in
the Nation. Students are crammed into every available hallway, assembly
room, and many of them in temporary buildings. Los Angeles--and this is
staggering--Unified School District has 560,000 seats for 681,000
students. That means they don't even have seats for 120,000 students.
So the absence of seats in Los Angeles is bigger than most of the
school districts in a State. And this is just one city in the State.
I could go on and on with examples. But of 60 percent of the schools
over 30 years old, most do not have modern infrastructure. Eighty-seven
percent of the schools need to upgrade and repair buildings. The
California Department of Education estimates that this State--one State
alone--just to stay even, needs $22 billion during the next decade to
modernize public schools and an additional $8 billion just to meet
enrollment growth. That is $30 billion in the next decade just to stay
even.
I have heard a lot of talk on this floor about education, and I can
say only one thing: If you talk education and you have crowded and
dilapidated schools and you don't have seats for the children in the
schools, there is only one thing you can really do, and that is put
your money where your mouth is. This is the first step toward ``putting
your money where your mouth is'' amendment.
I am so proud of the Senator from Illinois. There is no single piece
of legislation, there is no single amendment on any bill, that will
help the school system of the great State of California more than the
Moseley-Braun amendment. I want to make that crystal clear.
Here is what it costs. I mentioned the cost and that we need $30
billion just to stay even. Here is what it costs to build a school in
California: An elementary school, $5.2 million; a middle school, $12
million; a high school, $27 million.
Our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes, floods, El Nino,
and myriad other natural disasters. The cost of building a high school
in California is almost twice the national cost. The U.S. average is
$15 million; in California, it is $27 million. We have the largest
pupil-per-teacher ratio in the country. And thanks to the Governor and
the legislature, we are now beginning to reduce class size. K-3 is now
limited to 20 students per teacher.
In conclusion, studies show that test scores of students in schools
in poor condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points below scores
of students in good buildings. I think this amendment is important. I
really hope that no one in this body would not vote for this amendment
because of the Coverdell bill. The Coverdell bill and the Roth
amendment cover very different school districts than does this
amendment. If you want to help the big urban school districts of
America, where the dilapidated schools are, where the learning really
needs improvement, there is only one game in town, and it is Carol
Moseley-Braun's school construction amendment. I am proud to support
it.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from California for her
eloquence. I did, however, want to take issue with one little part.
This is just a sense of the Senate, but the underlying legislation does
relate to suburban and rural schools as well as city schools. The
Senator is right about the urban schools. It does a lot more for urban
schools than the alternative legislation, but it also covers suburban
and rural, because in my State, of course, just outside of Chicago is a
place called Illinois, so I have to make sure that is covered.
In fact, if I may, for a moment, pick up where the Senator from
California left off, this is a picture from a suburban school. This is
outside of Chicago. You can see it is a portable classroom. The doors
are falling off, and the gutters are down on the ground. It is in a
dilapidated condition. So we see it all over.
Senator Feinstein was exactly right to point out how much will be
required for new construction, in addition to fixing the crumbling
schools we have already. The GAO points out that we need $112 billion
just to repair the schools that are falling down. They also found,
however, that we have about $73 billion worth of need for new schools.
So what we are really looking at is not just the $112 billion price
tag, but a $185 billion price tag.
If you take the argument that somehow this is a local responsibility,
it should come out of local property taxes, then what you are really
saying is that the local property taxpayers should cough up an
additional $185 billion--$185 billion. When you consider that property
taxes around the country have been increasing, frankly, at a greater
rate than the taxes at the national level have increased, State and
local taxes, as a share of income, have risen nearly 10 percent in the
last decade. In the last 10 years alone, in my State of Illinois, the
property taxes have more than doubled. All across the country, voters
reject the property tax hikes to pay for schools and other municipal
improvements.
Again, we cannot continue to rely on the property tax alone to build
the schools that we need for the next century. I think what is called
for here is a partnership--a partnership in which we come together and
work together at the Federal, State, and local government level to
provide the funding that will be required to help rebuild our crumbling
schools.
Mr. President, just yesterday a Manhattan State Supreme Court justice
ordered New York City and the New York Board of Education to eliminate
hazardous school conditions and to begin regular inspections and
maintenance of its 1,200 school buildings. That decision came out of a
lawsuit brought on the issue of the crumbling schools. According to
that report that was commissioned by the New York board, 40 percent of
the schools in New York lack functioning or accessible bathrooms and
water fountains with clean water; 760 buildings had serious heating and
ventilation problems; an average of 47 percent of the schools in New
York are falling into unacceptable disrepair.
Again, this is the kind of dilapidation we are seeing all over. In
fact, there is litigation pending in another 16 States on this point. I
think this amendment we are considering today expressing the sense of
the Senate will go in the right direction.
The point I believe we have to make is that it is appropriate for us
at the national level to stop pointing fingers, to stop the divisive
blame game that stalls Federal support for school improvements, and
that we all have a responsibility to come together and work on this. I
am pleased that Senator Feinstein came to the floor to discuss
[[Page S2903]]
this matter. It was my understanding that the Senator from New Jersey
wanted to speak on this matter. I yield to him.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I do want to say
something about this important piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I stand to support the amendment presented by the
distinguished Senator from Illinois. Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment
is a critical issue in terms of how we deal with the educational
requirements of our young people.
The Senator from Illinois has had a long record--certainly since she
has been here, and I understand before she arrived to the U.S. Senate--
of interest and involvement in children, particularly focused on
education in the early years. I am delighted to join with her and
others here who are supporting an investment in bringing our school
facilities up to date, making sure that the place in which children are
expected to learn invites the process of learning and doesn't distract
them, because it is either too cold, too hot, or too dangerous, or
because of water leaking through the roof, or perhaps asbestos in the
building, or insufficient facilities to attend to the children's needs.
The condition is so outrageous that the GAO says that there are more
than 14 million children attending schools that are in need of
extensive repair or replacement. Several million attend schools with
safety code violations, and, as I mentioned, leaky roofs are in schools
that house 12 million students.
The GAO found the problem of crumbling schools transcends demographic
and geographic boundaries. Roughly one-third of urban rural and
suburban schools report that at least one building is in need of
extensive repair, or to be completely replaced. Furthermore, the GAO
reports that most schools are not prepared to incorporate modern
technology in the classroom. Forty-six percent of schools lack adequate
electrical wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. More
than a third of the schools lack the requisite electrical power. And 56
percent of schools have insufficient phone lines for modems.
When we talk about percentages of 56 percent here and 12 percent
there, it kind of escapes into an amorphous condition that prevents us
from really analyzing what the effects of these inadequate facilities
represent. It takes a real toll on students, on children.
I came out of the computer business. I arrived here some years ago
from the city of Paterson, NJ, where my company was founded and where I
was born. We had a population, I would say, of somewhere around 150,000
people with a commensurate number of students. I have been back there
many times. I have a fondness of that place of my birth. I know a lot
of the people who live in the town. One of my schoolmates was a fellow
named Larry Doby, who was just admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I visit the city regularly. Until recently, I used to go to the same
barbershop every couple of weeks since I was a college student. I
return there and very often bring people around my old neighborhood to
kind of give them a sense of what kind of beginning and opportunity I
had. They were amazed at the dilapidated condition of the facility. I
met children there and told them I lived in the building. They asked me
what floor. I said, ``The second floor.'' The number of the building
was 310 Hamilton Avenue. They asked me, ``What floor?'' I lived on the
second floor. ``Yes. What apartment?'' I said, ``In the back
apartment.'' They said, ``You lived there?'' ``Yes. I lived there.''
So it established a particular attachment.
I was called on by the board of education at Paterson a year or two
ago to see if I could get them some help so they could get the schools
wired in preparation for connection into the Internet. They couldn't
raise the money within the city. People wanted it; they couldn't afford
to pay the taxes necessary. The city was in arrearages all over the
place. I arranged for some people I knew in my old company to pay for
the facility to be wired. We went down there, and we stood with the
people from the telephone company and pulled wire. What a pitiful
condition. Can you imagine that you have to depend on someone's
goodness, or some company's willingness to step forward so a school can
be affixed to the Internet so the kids can learn that there is
something besides pens and pencils and pads that are going to be
required in the lives that they expect and hope to lead one day? It is
pretty discouraging if kids don't know what it is that the outside
world holds for them.
I once visited a school in Newark earlier in my days in the Senate.
It caused me to write a piece of legislation called ``computers in
schools'' to try to make sure that there was a computer available in
classrooms with a reasonable population-to-computer ratio so that the
children there would have a chance to learn the applications.
One of the things that we saw in a visit to a school in a very poor
neighborhood with high crime in a broken-down neighborhood was that one
child I was introduced to was sitting at a computer terminal. They told
me that he was in about the third or fourth grade. They told me that
this child had such a bad deportment record that they were looking for
a way perhaps to expel him from the school. Then they brought in a
couple of computers. This child couldn't keep up academically. His
behavior, as I say, was bad. They sat him in front of a computer. They
taught him a couple of basic exercises that children learn. He was so
proficient in such a short time that he began to outdistance the other
children.
I tell you this story only because to me it established the fact that
children have to be given a chance to learn and develop based on their
own ability, based on their own capacity to learn, and not be
restricted to staying with a class where perhaps there is some
maladjustment to it.
So I fully support this amendment.
Broken-down schools have a negative effect on the ability of students
to learn. They see this grim surrounding, and they begin to believe
that is the way the world around them exists and will exist for them.
Academic research has proven that there is a direct correlation between
the condition of school facilities and student achievement.
Georgetown researchers found that test scores of students assigned to
schools in poor condition can be expected to fall 11 percentage points
below the test scores of students in buildings in adequate condition.
Unfortunately, many local educational agencies have difficulty securing
financing for school facility improvements. The proposal called for in
this amendment would really help. The zero interest school
modernization bond and the Federal income tax credits to purchase those
bonds in lieu of interest payments would be an important step toward
rebuilding and modernizing our Nation's schools.
Mr. President, I say to those who criticize test scores, who intimate
that our children are inadequate to the task that they are assigned to,
I ask those people to look to where the problem is. It is not simply
looking at students' surroundings. We should provide facilities through
our Government. Why is it that we encourage this feeling of being
forlorn, or outside of the mainstream? It is because the condition of
the facility says that these children are not worth the effort that it
takes to have them in a better learning condition.
Mr. President, if we want our kids to learn, if we want our children
to be competitive in the years ahead, if we expect them to be leaders
in the true sense of the word, where we are not just making speeches
but we want to do something about it, then this is an excellent
opportunity to register our support.
Again, my commendation goes to the distinguished Senator from
Illinois for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Moseley-
Braun's amendment to the budget resolution to help modernize and repair
the nation's public school facilities for the 21st century.
Schools across the nation face serious problems of overcrowding.
Antiquated facilities are suffering from physical decay, and are not
equipped to handle the needs of modern education.
Across the country, 14 million children in a third of the nation's
schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half the schools have at
least one unsatisfactory environmental condition.
[[Page S2904]]
It will take over $110 billion just to repair existing facilities
nationwide.
Massachusetts is no exception. 41% of our schools across the state
report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be
replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems in buildings, such as
plumbing or heating defects. 80% have at least one unsatisfactory
environmental factor.
In Boston, many schools cannot keep their heating systems functioning
properly. On a given day, 15 to 30 schools complain that their heat is
not working.
Faulty boilers and leaky pipes are responsible for sewage leaks and
backups at many schools in Springfield, Massachusetts.
The leaking roof at Revere High School is so serious that the new
fire system is threatened. School Committee members estimate that
fixing the roof will cost an additional $1 million, and they don't know
where to get the money.
It is difficult enough to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms.
But now, because of escalating enrollments, classrooms are increasingly
overcrowded. The nation will need 6,000 new schools in the next few
years, just to maintain current class sizes.
The student population in Pomona, California has increased 37% in the
last ten years, and most students are now forced to study in poorly
ventilated and dimly lit portable classrooms. To accommodate the large
number of students using the cafeteria, school officials have had to
schedule five different lunch periods every day.
Malden, Massachusetts is in the process of building five new
elementary schools to accommodate increases in student enrollment. The
estimated cost for constructing these schools will exceed $100 million.
The Senate recently heard testimony from a student in Clifton,
Virginia whose high school is so overcrowded that fights often break
out in the overflowing halls. The problem is called ``Hall Rage,'' and
it's analogous to ``Road Rage'' on crowded highways. The violence in
the hallways is bad enough. But it's even worse, because it's difficult
for teachers to teach when students are distracted by the chaos in the
hallways and outside their classrooms.
State governments and local communities are working to meet these
challenges. In Massachusetts, under the School Building Assistance Act,
the state will pay 50-90% of the most severe needs. 124 schools now
have approved projects, and are on a waiting list for funding. The
state share should be $91 million this year, but only $35 million is
available. More than 50 other projects are awaiting approval. With that
kind of deficit at the state and local level, it is clear that the
federal government has a responsibility to act.
Incredibly, the Republican budget proposal ignores these pressing
needs. The Republican plan cuts funding for education. It refuses to
provide needed new investments to improve public education, including
school modernization and construction.
Democrats have made it a top priority to see that America has the
best education system in the world. Providing safe and adequate school
facilities is an important step towards meeting that goal.
I urge the Senate to approve this amendment. Investing in education
is one of the best investments America can possibly make. For schools
across America, help is truly on the way--and it can't come a minute
too soon.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I do not know, before I relinquish the
floor, what the expectation is for Senator Conrad, who has a vote
coming up. What is the order of business, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is expected to occur with respect to
Senator Conrad's amendment 2174 at 2 p.m.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Has the unanimous consent order been propounded that
would give Senator Conrad an opportunity to discuss his amendment
before the vote takes place?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. It has not. How much time remains on the side of the
proponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Illinois has a question?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I was
just going to ask if this colloquy was being charged to time on this
side because the junior Senator from New Jersey wanted to speak, and I
wanted to have an opportunity to close. We are 10 minutes from the hour
of 2 o'clock, and I understand there is a vote scheduled by unanimous
consent for that time. In just trying to accommodate the time, I was
wondering if it was being charged to the time of the proponents of this
amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. With all due respect, I thought the Senator from
Illinois had suggested that she was wrapped up with her commentary, and
in consideration of accepting that condition, it was my understanding
we were going to provide Senator Conrad with time to address his
amendment before the vote takes place.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Senator is correct. In the meantime, the
Senator from New Jersey came in the Chamber and asked for time to
speak, and, again, I would take a minute to close and if the Senator
could take 2 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be happy to yield the floor.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, if Senator Conrad, indeed, desires to
speak for 5 minutes and the Senator from Illinois desires to speak for
5 minutes, I would ask unanimous consent that this Senator have 5
minutes, the Senator from Illinois have 5 minutes, and Senator Conrad
have 5 minutes, which would mean that the vote would take place at
approximately 2:10.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will have to raise an objection because there is an
understanding being proposed that would include some time for Senator
Coverdell. And I will ask unanimous consent, before there be any
further discussion about this, that at 2 o'clock the floor be returned
to me so that I can engage in a UC with my Republican counterpart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the situation is the vote is at 2
o'clock and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and I will speak until then?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, there is a significant chance that this Senate will
one day be remembered for having finally begun to address the problems
of educational quality in America. President Clinton in his State of
the Union Address challenged this Congress to deal with the problems of
school construction, class size, and competence. We are now taking up
that challenge, and, indeed, in the last few weeks in dealing with the
Coverdell-Torricelli proposal, we also address the problem of access to
private schools and the rights of families to save money privately to
deal with the costs of public and private education.
Today we return to the subject again. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of
Illinois, as she has on many occasions, is now bringing forward
consistently and repeatedly a message to deal with the plight--the
construction of our schools.
I recognize that in this Senate almost everyone has an idea to deal
with the problems of education in America. Almost everyone is right
except those who think they have the only idea. This problem is so
serious in quality and in access that it will require not just this
Senate but Congresses to come, not just this idea but many ideas. The
quality of education in this country is the most serious threat to the
maintenance of not only social order but our quality of life. We
recognize it has many components but probably none more difficult than
rebuilding our Nation's schools.
It is estimated that it could cost $112 billion to rebuild crumbling
schools in America.
Having toured many of these schools in my own State of New Jersey, I
have seen students sitting in hallways because there was not enough
room. I have seen students with buckets next to their desks to catch
the rain, students who did not have restrooms in
[[Page S2905]]
their own school facilities but were sent to other buildings. Our
parents and their parents before them worked and saved and sacrificed
to build a system of public education in this country and an
infrastructure that was without equal in the world. They met that
challenge. The simple and regrettable truth is we have not.
This system of education, which more than anything else in the Nation
is the foundation for our country's prosperity, is crumbling around us.
One-third of the students in the Nation face exactly the plight that I
have outlined, and more will join them unless we stand up to this
challenge.
To all of you who are part of the efforts to assure there is access
to the Internet, who joined with us in the fight to help private and
public savings through Coverdell-Torricelli, who believe in testing,
who join any of these fights, join this fight because there is no one
front in the war dealing with educational quality in America. It must
be fought on all fronts at the same time.
I am very proud to be part of the efforts of the Senator from
Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, who more than anyone else has brought
this fight forward and will be principally responsible when we
ultimately do succeed.
I thank the Senator for yielding the time.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
In summation, Mr. President, we have heard some of the stories. There
are many other anecdotal stories, stories even in my State about
faucets and drains in science labs that don't work and electrical
wiring that can't support the computers, a school in Alabama where the
water leaks collapsed the ceiling 40 minutes after the children left
for the day.
These stories, frankly, are news to no one. I hope that this Senate
will take a good look at the sense of the Senate and not let this vote
come down on truly partisan grounds. I have a sense that it will, and
that in my opinion is tragic because, if anything, our children are not
Republican or Democrat or Independent. Our children require an
education, and politics should stop at the schoolroom door. This should
be something that would engage nonpartisan support based on the policy
objective of the sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
That is what this vote is about. It is about policy. I hope it is not
about politics. I hope we will send a signal that we are prepared,
because, again, it is only a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, that we
will send a signal to the country that this Congress is prepared to
take up the challenge of rebuilding our crumbling schools; that we are
prepared to do it in partnership with our State and local governments;
we are not looking to local property taxpayers alone to carry the
burden of the $185 billion it will take to build and repair schools;
that we are not going to try to pass the buck to the States and have
them raise State taxes to do it; that we can work together to provide a
bureaucracy free of raising the capital.
That is all this amendment does. It doesn't tell anybody which school
to fix. All it says is here is a way to raise the money, and Uncle Sam
is going to give you a tax credit in lieu of interest on these bonds
that the local school districts will issue. I think it makes absolute
sense. It is a very straightforward way of doing it. It will provide
support for all kinds of schools in rural and suburban districts as
well as in urban districts where the needs, of course, are the most
pronounced, but certainly they are pronounced all over the country.
I encourage my colleagues to support the sense-of-the-Senate
amendment, and I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. We
are ready to proceed with the next piece of business. I think the
manager, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has something he wants
to put down.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire, where are we on the
amendment of the distinguished Senator from Illinois?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). All time of the
proponents on the amendment has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have not used any time in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Amendment No. 2174
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered
by Senators Conrad and Lautenberg, which will ensure that any revenues
generated from an increase in the price of cigarettes is directed first
and foremost to protecting the nation's children from nicotine
addiction and smoking-induced diseases.
The Republican budget creates a number of serious barriers to these
efforts by prohibiting tobacco revenues from being used for anti-
smoking initiatives.
In fact, the budget uses Medicare as a smokescreen to make funding
more difficult for important smoking cessation programs, counter-
advertising to deglamorize tobacco use among children, biomedical
research to cure smoking-caused illnesses, and public education to
inform the American people more fully about the dangers of tobacco use.
If the current restrictive resolution is adopted, a vote of sixty
Senators would be required to waive the restrictions. The result is
that millions of Americans who want to quit smoking will have a much
more difficult time achieving their goal. Anti-smoking programs are
central to any effective measure to reduce tobacco use, and they should
be the first priority for the dollars raised by a cigarette price
increase.
If these anti-tobacco initiatives are not funded, the problem of
teenage smoking in the United States will only increase. According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a million youngsters
start smoking each year--almost 3,000 a day. One third of them will die
prematurely from smoking-induced illnesses. The average smoker begins
at age 13, and becomes a daily smoker by age 15.
These facts are serious enough. But the crisis is growing worse. A
Spring 1996 survey by the University of Michigan Institute for Social
Research found that teenage smoking has continued to rise since 1991.
It climbed by nearly fifty percent among eighth and tenth graders, and
by nearly twenty percent among high school seniors between 1991 and
1996.
The industry strategy is obvious. The tobacco companies target
children, because once children are hooked on cigarette smoking, they
become customers for life. Ninety percent of current adult smokers
began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. By contrast, if young
men and women reach that age without beginning to smoke, they are
unlikely to take up the habit in later years.
The tobacco companies know these facts. They are fully aware that if
they do not persuade children to start smoking, the industry may
collapse within a generation. That's why Big Tobacco has targeted
children with billions of dollars in advertising and promotional
giveaways that promise popularity and success for those who take up
smoking.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the
average 14-year-old is exposed to $20 billion in advertising--$20
billion--beginning at age 6. In fact, the name ``Joe Camel'' is as
familiar to children as ``Mickey Mouse.''
Two recently disclosed industry documents illustrate the blatant
marketing to youths. In a 1981 Philip Morris memo entitled ``Young
Smokers--Prevalence, Implications, and Related Demographic Trends,''
the authors wrote that:
It is important to know as much as possible about teenage
smoking patterns and attitudes. Today's teenager is
tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming
majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their
teens. . . The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly
important to Philip Morris. . . Furthermore, it is during the
teenage years that the initial choice is made.
A marketing report by R.J. Reynolds researcher Diane Burrows, written
prior to launching the Joe Camel advertising campaign, stated:
Younger adult smokers are critical to R.J. Reynolds' long-
term profitability. Therefore, RJR must make a substantial
long-term commitment of manpower and money dedicated to
younger adult smoking programs.
A related RJR document states that ``young adult'' refers to the 14-24
age group.
It is no coincidence that shortly after R.J. Reynolds launched the
Joe Camel campaign in 1988, Camel's share of the youth market soared
from 0.5% to 32.8%.
[[Page S2906]]
Unless Congress takes action to reverse this disturbing trend in
adolescent smoking, five million of today's children will die
prematurely from smoking-caused illness. That's unacceptable.
Although all of us agree that Medicare should be protected for future
generations, one of the best ways to keep Medicare strong is to invest
in important public health and tobacco control programs that prevent
children from beginning to smoke, and that help current smokers to quit
smoking. Americans will lead healthier lives, and the burden of
tobacco-induced diseases will be greatly reduced.
Unfortunately, the Republican budget earmarks all of the tobacco
revenues for Medicare. It prohibits using even one dollar of the
tobacco revenues to deter youth from smoking.
Smoking has inflicted great damage on people's health. It is the
leading preventable cause of death and disability in the nation.
Tobacco products are responsible for a third of all cancers, and 90% of
all lung cancers.
Smoking also causes great harm to nonsmokers. A recent study by the
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research reports that second-hand
smoke is responsible for as many as 60% of cases of asthma, bronchitis,
and wheezing among young children. It makes sense to use tobacco
revenues to discourage children from beginning to smoke.
These programs work. Smoking cessation programs are among the most
effective means to reduce health care costs. At the same time, they
save and improve the lives of millions of Americans.
They are also cost-effective. Every dollar invested in a smoking
cessation program for a pregnant woman saves $6 in costs for neonatal
intensive care and long-term care for low birthweight babies.
Dr. Michael Fiore, Director of the Center for Tobacco Research and
Intervention at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, noted that:
smoking cessation programs are the most cost-effective
prevention intervention a physician can engage in. . . It is
a paradox in America that virtually every health insurance
policy pays for the outcomes of smoking, whether it is a
heart attack, stroke, or cancer, but only half of them pay
the $100 to $200 it would take to prevent these very
expensive illnesses.
The Republican budget offers no help in cases like this, and that
makes no sense. The Republican budget offers no help to states and
communities for public health advertising to counteract the $5 billion
a year that the tobacco industry pours into advertising to encourage
people to start smoking and keep smoking.
Paid counter-advertising is extremely effective in reducing tobacco
consumption. Both Massachusetts and California have demonstrated that
counter-advertising can discourage children from beginning to smoke and
encourage smokers to quit. It helped reduce cigarette use in
Massachusetts by 17% between 1992 and 1996, or three times the national
average. Smoking by junior high school students dropped 8%, while the
rest of the nation has seen an increase.
In California, a counter-advertising campaign reduced smoking rates
by 15% over the last three years.
A soon-to-be-published study by Professor Frank Chaloupka of the
University of Illinois found that tobacco counter-advertising can also
reduce illegal drugs use among youth.
The Republican budget, however, will provide no funding for these
important efforts.
The Republican budget offers no help to the Food and Drug
Administration to enforce the laws against the sale of tobacco products
to minors, even though young people spend $1 billion a year to buy
tobacco products illegally.
Last year, Congress tried to get away with underfunding the FDA's
tobacco regulations by providing only $5 million of the $34 million
President Clinton requested to begin enforcement of the youth access
rule. An amendment by Senator Harkin to the Agriculture Appropriations
bill to restore the funding was defeated on the Senate floor.
Two months later, as public outrage grew, Congress reversed itself
and overwhelmingly approved the full amount. A similar outcry from our
constituents and the public health community is likely if we do not
provide funding for these important enforcement efforts.
Finally, the Republican budget offers no help for medical research on
tobacco-related diseases, even though such research can lead to
enormous savings for Medicare.
Funding for tobacco-related medical research is vital to fulfilling
our hopes for healthy lives for all citizens. The promise of new
medical research is boundless. As impressive as the progress of the
past has been, it pales in comparison to the opportunities of the
future.
In addition, a recent study by researchers at Duke University
indicates that expanded funding for medical research can help keep
Medicare and other federal health care programs solvent for the long-
term.
If the goal of this budget resolution is to protect Medicare, it
makes no sense to prevent tobacco revenues from being used to support
anti-smoking programs that will reduce future costs for Medicare.
Currently, smoking-induced diseases cost the federal government over
$20 billion a year. If we invest in medical research to make Americans
healthier, we can save enormous sums, protect these programs for future
generations, and prevent many of the illnesses caused by smoking.
The country supports these fundamental priorities, and the Senate
should support them too. They have been endorsed by the public health
community, and by Doctor Koop and Doctor Kessler. They are included in
virtually all of the tobacco bills introduced in Congress by
Republicans as well as Democrats. I urge my colleagues to support the
Conrad/Lautenberg amendment.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m.
the Senate resume consideration of the Coverdell amendment and there be
5 minutes equally divided for debate on the Coverdell amendment;
following that, there be 5 minutes equally divided for closing debate
on the Conrad amendment.
I further ask a vote occur on or in relation to the Conrad amendment
at 2:10, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Coverdell
amendment, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the second vote would be
limited to a 10-minute vote so Senators who come down here should know
that they cannot go back and expect to spend 15 or 20 minutes back in
the office and still be able to vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is the current unanimous consent situation in the
Senate, is it not, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for reminding us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Georgia.
Amendment No. 2199
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we now have
5 minutes equally divided on my amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, my amendment is the middle-class tax
relief proposal. It calls on the Government to cut nondefense
discretionary spending by 6.9 percent over the next 5 years. It would
return discretionary spending to a level of 1996. That does not seem
too distant a reach for us. It would produce $200 billion in new tax
relief to American workers and it would do it by taking 10 million
American taxpayers who, simply because they now make over $25,000 a
year, have had their taxes increased from 15 percent to 28 percent. In
other words, if they got a single raise, or because of inflation, that
has taken these very modest income families and doubled their taxes.
So we are saying we are going to lift the bar and we are going to
allow those families, 10 million of them, to be pushed back down into
the 15 percent tax bracket, remembering that American workers today are
keeping less than half their paychecks by the time the Government romps
through their checking account. No wonder we have so much trouble in
our country in terms of families trying to make ends meet. We don't
leave them enough resources to do the job we have always
[[Page S2907]]
asked them to do. This is a major step to correct that problem. I might
add--how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 45 seconds.
Mr. COVERDELL. I might add that one of the functional components of
American liberty was and remains the right of workers to have their
resources come to them so they can live out their dreams and their
lives. We have changed this over the years.
I pointed out this morning, my father kept 80 percent of his lifetime
wages, he was born in 1912, and his granddaughter will be lucky if she
keeps 40 percent of her lifetime wages. That will functionally change
the way this country governs itself and lives. We must restore economic
liberty to American workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have 2\1/2\ minutes to respond. I
won't take 2\1/2\ minutes because I want to yield some time to Senator
Conrad. But I want to tell you something. My father kept 100 percent of
his wages. They were so meager he couldn't pay taxes on them. But he
had an opportunity to work whenever he could, and he held his head high
and he loved America every day that he lived here, and that is what we
are talking about. We can beat ourselves to death about how terrible
conditions are here when people are living longer, living better, and
enjoying life better than ever before in the history of mankind--
including in America. I am proud of this country and, as I said
earlier: America, America the beautiful.
I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Conrad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 2174
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my amendment is designed to allow the
reserve fund for possible tobacco revenues to be used for more than
just Medicare. My amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator
from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico,
and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. While we acknowledge Medicare is an
important priority, we understand it is not the only priority. We all
understand if tobacco legislation passes, there are other things that
are necessary for a national tobacco policy. The health community has
told us very clearly we need to fund smoking cessation, smoking
prevention. We need to promote and support additional health research.
We also need to be able to fund counteradvertising and also ease the
transition for farmers. All of those are things that need to be funded
by a possible tobacco settlement.
Unfortunately, under the terms of the budget resolution, none of
those things are possible, none of them, even though every bill that
has been introduced on the floor, every comprehensive piece of
legislation, by Republicans and Democrats, has said that these other
priorities also need to be funded.
Here are the priorities in each of the comprehensive bills that have
been introduced: Tobacco revenue should be provided for smoking
education initiatives, to educate our young people. The Republican
budget resolution says no, not one dime.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute. I ask for
an additional 1 minute. I would go on to the amendment itself, that
gives me an additional 2\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, there is a unanimous consent agreement, so we
will not disagree. We will give you the minute. I am not objecting.
Mr. CONRAD. We are saying, in addition, tobacco revenues need to be
used for counteradvertising. The resolution says no, none of the money
can be used for that purpose.
We say some of the money needs to be used for tobacco-related
research. The resolution says no, none of the money can be used for
that purpose.
We think some of the money needs to be used to fund smoking
prevention and cessation programs. The resolution says no, none of the
money can be used for that purpose.
We think some of it should be used to assist farmers in the
transition. The resolution says no, none of the money.
We will be told that, in fact, there is money in other parts of the
budget, but all of us who are budgeteers understand that those are
assumptions. There is no assurance whatever that 1 penny will be
available for these purposes from these other funds. And even if they
were available, under the assumptions of the Budget Committee, they are
woefully inadequate. They only provide about $100 million a year when
the health community tells us we need at least $2 billion a year if we
are really going to have a chance to reduce youth smoking and protect
the public health.
We have an opportunity now to respond and broaden the use of the
reserve fund so we can have comprehensive tobacco legislation pass in
this Chamber. The only way any of the bills that are before us now will
be in order on the floor of the Senate is if my amendment passes.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I gather I have 5 minutes to respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have 2\1/2\ minutes--it was 5 minutes equally
divided.
Mr. President, this is a very simple proposition. Do you want to
start and create five new entitlement programs or do you want to save
Medicare? It is a very simple proposition. We suggested, as
Republicans, that Social Security and Medicare are the two most
important American programs to save, reform, and make available well
into the next century.
We put our money where our mouth is, and we put whatever is left of
the cigarette settlement on the highest priority health expenditure of
this Nation: the salvaging and reforming of the Medicare system.
In contrast, my good friend who offers this amendment says, ``Let's
create five new entitlement programs.'' Even though the money will run
out someday, we will have some permanent programs.
Everyone knows this Nation should not have new entitlement programs,
and everyone knows that there are many high-priority items in the
American budget. We have said in our budget that we have made room for
high-priority expenditures, and I will tell you quickly what they are:
$15.5 billion increase in the National Institutes of Health. We have
taken Presidential reductions and said we will spend them here;
$825 million for a smoking cessation program, twice the size of the
President's;
And then we have said in our settlement of the tobacco fund, if it
ever occurs, we pay the States their share and the rest of it goes to
the program most in need--Medicare.
Let me tell you, there is no relationship between some of the new
entitlement programs that some want to create out of this tobacco
settlement, but there is a direct relationship between the insolvency
of the Medicare fund and tobacco smoking. As a matter of fact, in 1995
there was $25 billion of costs in the Medicare system that came from
smoking. So if you are going to get money from the tobacco settlement,
put it where the damage to the senior citizens is occurring, and it is
occurring by virtue of their fund for medical care going bankrupt.
I believe the issue is very simple--very simple: Do you want a budget
that begins to help with Medicare, or do you want a budget that says
not one nickel for Medicare; let's take care of that later with money
from somewhere else.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from North Dakota has 44 seconds remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this issue is simple. The question is, Are
we going to have a reserve fund so that there is a solution to the
tobacco controversy, that we can use the money in a way that
accommodates every comprehensive bill that is before this body,
introduced by Republicans or Democrats?
Unfortunately, under the budget resolution, the money can only go for
one purpose: Medicare. While that is an important priority, there are
other priorities as well--smoking cessation, smoking prevention, health
research, countertobacco advertising, easing the transition for
farmers. We should not
[[Page S2908]]
be creating supermajority hurdles in the way of tobacco legislation,
and the only way we avoid that is to pass this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane to
provisions of the Budget Act. Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the
Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the pending amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act, and I ask
for the yeas and nays on the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 2174. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--54
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
54.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2199
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, what is the next order of business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided
before the vote on the Coverdell amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who want
us to tender amendments on their behalf. We will start to accumulate
them. When the next vote is over, we will get them in.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coverdell for his
leadership on this issue. It is one that is important to American
families. It represents an important step toward a flatter, fairer tax
system, and it also provides immediate tax relief for hard-working
Americans and their families. The amendment provides broad-based middle
class tax relief by increasing the number of individuals who pay the
lowest tax rates of 15 percent and significantly lessening the impact
of one of the Tax Code's most inequitable provisions, the marriage
penalty. An estimated 28 percent of Americans would reap some benefit
from the broad-based tax relief provisions in the bill, according to
the Tax Foundation.
Again, I thank Senator Coverdell for his leadership on this issue in
the ongoing efforts to reduce the tax burden on the American citizens.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first I make the point that the
pending amendment is not germane, and therefore I will raise a point of
order. Also, Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the McCain-
Coverdell amendment. The amendment would cut domestic programs like
education, child care, law enforcement, veterans, environmental
protection, and would violate current budget rules. I think it is
fiscally dangerous and irresponsible, and I hope we will marshal a vote
against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c), I move to
waive the Budget Act for the consideration of this amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that this
amendment is nongermane.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act with respect to Coverdell Amendment No. 2199.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--38
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coverdell
Craig
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--62
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are
62. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey yield 2 minutes?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, using that 2 minutes, I ask unanimous
consent to speak for the purpose of introducing legislation, if it
would be appropriate to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 1901
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Amendment No. 2174
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I wish to offer a few remarks to make
clear my vote on the Conrad amendment. I don't want to see a potential
tobacco settlement degenerate into just a piggy bank for the Clinton
Administration's plans to expand social programs. Certainly, the
revenues need to go to health care, but I will not let the Senate
forget about tobacco farmers. I voted for this amendment today
[[Page S2909]]
because it included the tobacco farmers, and the Smith amendment does
not. I do not want my vote to imply an endorsement of other programs in
this amendment, however, and I do not want to see public health
programs turned into politicized slush funds. I think that this
scenario poses a real danger. However, I want to see the Senate on
record in support of farmers, and this amendment recognizes the need to
protect them from the impact of tobacco legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 2175 by
the Senator from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be
temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin
who just wants to make an introduction. I give him 1 minute of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 1
minute.
Amendment No. 2224
(Purpose: To establish a disability reserve fund)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 2224.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title II, add the following:
SEC. __. DISABILITY RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEARS 1999-2003.
(a) In General.--If legislation generates revenue increases
or direct spending reductions to finance disability programs
designed to allow persons with a disability to become
employed and remain independent and to the extent that such
increases or reductions are not included in this concurrent
resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary levels,
allocations, and limits may be adjusted (but by amounts not
to exceed $2,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1999
through 2003) if such adjustments do not cause an increase in
the deficit in the resolution.
(b) Adjustment for Budget Authority.--After the reporting
of legislation (the offering of an amendment thereto or
conference report thereon) that reduces nondisability direct
spending or increases revenue for a fiscal year or years, the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall submit
appropriately revised allocations and aggregates by an amount
that equals the amount such legislation reduces direct
spending or increases revenues for a fiscal year or years.
(c) Establishing a Reserve.--
(1) Revisions.--After the enactment of legislation
described in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget shall submit revisions to the appropriate
allocations and aggregates by the amount that provisions in
such legislation generates revenue increases or direct
nondisability-related spending reductions.
(2) Revenue increases or direct spending reductions.--After
the submission of revisions under paragraph (1), the Chairman
of the Committee on the Budget shall also submit the amount
of revenue increases or nondisability related direct spending
reductions such legislation generates and the maximum amount
available each year for adjustments pursuant to subsection
(d).
(d) Effect of Revised Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates submitted under subsection (c)
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(e) Reporting Revised Subdivisions.--The appropriate
committee may report appropriately revised subdivisions of
allocations pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment be
laid aside at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 2225
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding the quality of
teachers)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator DeWine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. DeWine,
proposes an amendment numbered 2225.
The amendment (No. 2225), is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) while it is important to study the effects of class
size on learning and study the need to hire more teachers,
each type of study must be carried out in conjunction with an
effort to ensure that there will be quality teachers in every
classroom;
(2) all children deserve well-educated teachers;
(3) there is a teacher quality crisis in the United States;
(4) individuals entering a classroom as teachers should
have a sound grasp on the subject the individuals intend to
teach, and the individuals should know how to teach;
(5) less than 40 percent of the individuals teaching core
subjects (consisting of English, mathematics, science, social
studies, and foreign languages) majored or minored in the
core subjects;
(6) the quality of teachers impacts student achievement;
(7) the measure of a good teacher is how much and how well
the teacher's students learn;
(8) teachers should have the opportunity to learn new
technology and teaching methods through the establishment of
teacher training facilities so that teachers can share their
new knowledge and experiences with children in the classroom;
(9) school officials should have the flexibility the
officials need to have teachers in their schools adequately
trained to meet strenuous teacher standards;
(10) knowledgeable and eager individuals of sound character
and various professional backgrounds should be encouraged to
enter kindergarten through grade 12 classrooms as teachers;
and
(11) States should have maximum flexibility and incentives
to create alternative teacher certification and licensure
programs in order to recruit well-educated people into the
teaching profession.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the functional totals in this concurrent resolution on
the budget assume--
(1) the enactment of legislation to provide assistance for
programs that--
(A) focus on teacher training delivered through local
partnerships, with private and public partners, to ensure
that current and future teachers possess necessary teaching
skills and knowledge of subject areas; and
(B) focus on alternative certification to recruit
knowledgeable and eager individuals of sound character to
enter kindergarten through grade 12 classrooms as teachers;
(2) that the quality of teachers can be strengthened by
improving the academic knowledge of teachers in the subject
areas in which the teachers teach;
(3) that institutions of higher education should be held
accountable to prepare teachers who are highly competent in
the subject areas in which the teachers teach, including
preparing teachers by providing training in the effective
uses of technologies in classrooms; and
(4) that there should be recruitment into teaching of high
quality individuals, including individuals from other
occupations.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that amendment will be put
in the process whereby it will be assigned an opportunity to be voted
on, if that is the case, in due course.
Mr. President, I might discuss with the distinguished Senator from
New Jersey where we are now. Senator Tim Johnson has an amendment that
he would like not only to call up but to take 3 or 4 minutes on. I am a
cosponsor. I think we should accept it. We might be able to get that
one done today.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the fact the manager is going to yield
to our friend from South Dakota.
Amendment No. 2210, as modified
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding repair and
construction needs of Indian schools)
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modified version of the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his
amendment.
The amendment (No. 2210) as modified, is as follows:
At the end of Title III, insert the following:
SEC . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION
NEEDS OF INDIAN SCHOOLS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) many of our nation's tribal schools are in a state of
serious disrepair. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
operates 187 school facilities nationwide. Enrollment in
these schools, which presently numbers 47,214 students, has
been growing rapidly. A recent General Accounting Office
report indicates that the repair backlog in these schools
totals $754 million, and that the BIA schools are in
generally worse condition than all schools nationally;
[[Page S2910]]
(2) approximately 60 of these schools are in need of
complete replacement or serious renovation. Many of the
renovations include basic structural repair for the safety of
children, new heating components to keep students warm, and
roofing replacement to keep the snow and rain out of the
classroom. In addition to failing to provide adequate
learning environments for Indian children, these repair and
replacement needs pose a serious liability issue for the
Federal government;
(3) sixty-three percent of the BIA schools are over 30
years old, and twenty-six percent are over 50 years old.
Approximately forty percent of all students in BIA schools
are in portable classrooms. Originally intended as temporary
facilities while tribes awaited new construction funds, these
``portables'' have a maximum 10 year life-span. Because of
the construction backlog, children have been shuffling
between classrooms in the harsh climates of the Northern
plains and Western states for ten to fifteen years;
(4) annual appropriations for BIA education facilities
replacement and repair combined have averaged $20-$30 million
annually, meeting only 4% of total need. At the present rate,
one deteriorating BIA school can be replaced each year, with
estimates of completion of nine schools in the next seven
years. Since the new construction and repair backlog is so
great and growing, the current focus at BIA construction must
remain on emergency and safety needs only, without
prioritizing program needs such as increasing enrollment or
technology in the classroom; and
(5) unlike most schools, the BIA schools are a
responsibility of the federal government. Unfortunately, the
failure of the federal government to live up to this
responsibility has come at the expense of quality education
for some of this nation's poorest children with the fewest
existing opportunities to better themselves.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
budget resolution assume that the repair and construction
backlog affecting Bureau of Indian Affairs school facilities
should be eliminated over a period of no more than five years
beginning with Fiscal Year 1999, and that the President
should submit to Congress a plan for the orderly elimination
of this backlog.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I believe he is calling up an amendment and he has time
on the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the amendment that is being offered is
with the cooperation of Chairman Domenici. It is cosponsored by
Senators Daschle, Dorgan, Bingaman, Wellstone, McCain, Kohl, Conrad and
Murray, and it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which is designed
to reflect on the crisis that we have with Indian school funding in the
United States today. This is an issue that Chairman Domenici has shared
with me as a matter of great concern on the Senate Budget Committee.
We recognize the budget resolution assumes $166 million will be
allocated for Indian school repair work and replacement work. However,
we recognize this is part of the budget resolution and is not binding
on the Appropriations Committee.
There is a need to raise the visibility of the very real crisis that
exists in terms of BIA school funding and replacement needs. That is
the purpose of this sense of the Senate. The BIA manages some 143
schools within the United States. It is a Federal responsibility. This
is not a question of whether the Federal Government ought to be
involved in these schools or not. In this instance, these schools are
Federal property and it is a Federal responsibility.
We have a repair and replacement backlog now of about $754 million.
The rate at which we have been replacing some 60 schools that currently
are in need of replacement has been at about one per year. So obviously
the backlog is getting larger and larger as we go about this kind of
underfunded replacement and renovation.
Mr. President, 40 percent of the BIA students attending class are
attending class in portable classrooms. We have a fast-growing
population attending these schools, and it is clear that something far
different from what we have been doing in the past is absolutely
essential if, in fact, we are going to meaningfully address this
backlog.
It is our concern that we have to infuse more resources into the
backlog problem, and that we have greater direction from the White
House itself, from the BIA itself, relative to a concrete plan to get
this done over a relatively modest timeframe, over the next 5 years.
So this resolution calls on the administration to work with us in
arriving at a plan that is infused with sufficient funds to make
significant progress over these coming years on this backlog. This
resolution will send a signal, and I think an important signal, to the
appropriators and to the administration that this is a crisis that we
recognize and we acknowledge, and for which there is a bipartisan
concern.
So that is the thrust of this resolution. I commend Chairman Domenici
for working with me, and for the work of his staff, working with my
staff, trying to arrive at a strategy that is constructive and is
meaningful on this problem. The Senator represents a State with a
significant Indian population, suffering many of the same problems that
the Native American population in my State of South Dakota suffer. So
this is a problem about which we jointly share a great concern.
The chairman is commended for a longstanding commitment to trying to
enhance opportunities and the quality of life for the Native American
population of his State and around the United States in general. This
is one area where we both agree; I believe that higher visibility and a
higher level of commitment is badly needed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. JOHNSON. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I want to ask, did the Senator name me as a
cosponsor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I did.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if Senator Bingaman of New Mexico has been
asked about being a cosponsor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Bingaman was also named. We are very proud to
have both Senators from New Mexico on this amendment as cosponsors.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is Senator Campbell, the chairman of the Indian Affairs
Committee, on it?
Mr. JOHNSON. We do not have Senator Campbell on it. Senator Campbell
held a hearing and a mark-up today at his committee, and we have not
been able to reach him on this amendment as yet.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if you would mind having him called and we
will modify it by adding him on it. I think we should ask to have the
chairman on it.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is a good idea.
Mr. DOMENICI. What has been amazing to the Senator from New Mexico is
the way the U.S. Government fails to recognize its sole and singular
responsibility. We are busy all the time, every year, with budgets that
try to do new things. Frankly, the President of the United States had a
very long list of new things, new programs. In fact, he had a
suggestion that we use a lot of the money for helping classroom size,
helping build public schools. But the real problem here is that if we
do not rebuild the Indian schools that are run by the Government and
put them under some management and maintenance, nobody will. They don't
belong to anybody else. They are not being run by the State of Georgia,
or the school board of Bernalillo County, Albuquerque. It is either we
do it or the Indian young people go to school in buildings that are not
fit for occupancy, much less for Indian education.
I don't know what to do about it. The Senator from New Mexico doesn't
know what to do about it. I work at it every year. We need to get some
proposal to get this huge backlog taken care of and get on with being
able to say to our Indian young people and the teachers who are in
those schools, ``We think enough of you to give you a school that
offers you an opportunity like the rest of Americans to get educated.''
The school building doesn't make the child, but I tell you, you can
have a bad enough school building that the child can hardly learn.
So I have asked that this resolution contain another provision, just
in an effort to see if we can get there, and that provision, which was
in the modification that Senator Johnson sent to the desk, asked the
President of the United States--if I am not correct--it asked the
President to submit to us by a date certain a 5-year plan to see to it
that, regarding the Indian schools the Government owns, the Government
must maintain them or they will not get maintained, and those where we
have to build a new one because the old one is decrepit, that entire
package be put in a 5-year plan and the President
[[Page S2911]]
recommend to us how we might get that done.
Frankly, I believe unless and until that shows up in a Presidential
budget, we are not going to find the resources in the Senate or the
House to do what we must do. This is not a little $50 million problem;
this is a hundreds-of-million-dollar problem. So I believe we are on to
something here in this resolution. It is not just a hollow one; it is
one that is to get something back from the Chief Executive of America,
and it is going to tell us whether we agree on this problem, and if
they do, how do we take care of it in a given number of years.
I anxiously await, and I will see to it that we hold this in
conference, because I think it is the kind of thing that should be in
the budget. Some sense-of-the-Senates don't belong in, but this belongs
in because this is a problem we can't fix in a budget resolution. We
can hardly fix it in appropriations, as you know. So, Senator, thanks
for your leadership. I am glad to be on board. This will be welcome
news in Indian country.
Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the chairman for his supportive remarks here.
The chairman has a great understanding, profound understanding, of the
immensity of the problem that this country faces relative to Indian
schools and the need for White House leadership on this issue. We will
work with the White House in that regard, but it is going to require a
cooperative effort if we are going to have any success on a problem of
this immensity.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kohl, Conrad,
Inouye, and Murray be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. And the
Senator from North Dakota?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be proud to be made a cosponsor of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me just take 30 seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support fully the comments made by the
Senators from South Dakota and New Mexico, and in fact I hope in just a
moment to be able to speak off the bill on the Moseley-Braun amendment,
and I intend to address a few of these issues with respect to that as
well. And I am pleased the Senator offered the amendment and pleased to
hear the comments of the Senator from New Mexico as a cosponsor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Johnson
amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate about the need to
address the Bureau of Indian Affairs school construction backlog.
The conditions at the schools on America's Indian reservations are
some of the worst in the nation. They are truly deplorable. In January,
I accompanied the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs on a tour of
the Standing Rock Community School at Fort Yates, North Dakota. I wish
every one of my colleagues in the Senate could see the conditions at
this school. The school was built in an open-classroom design, without
walls between the classrooms. The noise at the school can be deafening
at times, and this is not an environment in which students can learn.
How is it that we can have a school in which the physical conditions
actually prohibit learning from happening? In addition, the heating and
cooling system at the school is grossly inadequate, so it can be 50
degrees in one wing of the school, and 80 degrees in another.
As bad as this is, things have recently gotten worse: the lights at
this school and the local elementary school have begun to leak an oily
substance that has been found to contain PCBs. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs is in the process of removing these lights and conducting
additional testing for further contamination. They are also testing the
ceiling tiles, which preliminary tests show may contain dioxin. To
protect the health of the students, the schools were shut down for
weeks. The BIA is in the process of reopening the schools' classrooms
and other facilities, as clean-up is completed. These conditions pose
serious threats to the health of the children of the Standing Rock
Reservation. How can we ask families to sent their children to be
educated in such deplorable conditions?
In looking at conditions at schools throughout Indian Country, the
Standing Rock Community is not an anomaly. In January, the GAO released
a report on conditions at BIA schools and the costs to repair these
schools. The BIA estimates that the costs of total inventory repair
need for BIA education facilities is $754 million.
Data from a 1994 National Schools Facilities Survey conducted by GAO
show that BIA schools are generally in poorer physical condition, have
more unsatisfactory environmental factors, more often lack key
facilities requirements for educational reform, and are less able to
support computer and communications technology, compared to other
schools nationwide.
Of the conditions found at BIA schools:
62 percent had at least one building in less than adequate condition,
compared with 33 percent of all schools.
79 percent had at least one inadequate building feature (such as
roofs, floors, foundations, plumbing, heating, electrical power, and
life safety codes). Nationwide, 57 percent of all schools had at least
one inadequate building feature.
94 percent had at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition,
compared with 50 percent of schools nationwide. Environmental
conditions include lighting, heating, ventilation, indoor air quality,
acoustics, flexibility of instructional space, energy efficiency, and
physical security of building.
These are serious school construction needs--about $754 million
worth--that should be addressed, and should be addressed quickly. The
Johnson amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the BIA school
construction backlog should be eliminated within five years. We need a
serious, sustained effort to get the job done and provide a safe
environment in which Native American children can get an education.
The Johnson amendment also requires the Administration to submit to
Congress a plan for how this construction backlog will be addressed. As
a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I intend to work
closely with Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, to
ensure that the job gets done. Assistant Secretary Gover visited North
Dakota and quickly grasped the magnitude of the school construction
problem. He has made a commitment to me and other members of the
Committee to take action on this school construction backlog.
We cannot let these conditions persist. We cannot let the BIA school
construction backlog continue to grow out of control. And we cannot
continue to ask parents to send their children to school where learning
cannot take place and where serious health hazards exist. I hope that
all of my colleagues will vote for the Johnson amendment and show their
support for the will-being of Native American children.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today there is a $1.5 billion backlog of
repairs, renovation, and replacement for all federally owned and
operated BIA schools, including elementary, secondary, and post-
secondary schools.
A December, 1997 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
concluded that ``the cost of the total inventory of repairs needed for
BIA education facilities (elementary and secondary only) is $754
million. This includes $693 million for repairs to school buildings,
including dormitories for students. It also includes $61.7 million in
repairs needed for education quarters such as employee housing.
The footnote to this estimate notes that $754 million ``does not
include the costs of replacing school buildings. BIA's priority list
for constructing education facilities includes eight unfunded school
replacement projects with a total estimated cost of $112 million.''
The BIA Construction Priority List
Mr. President, we in the Senate who pay close attention to this BIA
priority list for school construction are well aware that this list has
been frozen for several years now. This means that the eight school
scheduled for replacement are the ones on this frozen priority list. I
am attaching this list of 16 total BIA schools from the
Administration's FY 1999 budget request for the Record.
[[Page S2912]]
Obviously, a school that is replaced would be deleted from the list
of school needing repair. The GAO report includes the costs of schools
scheduled for replacement. In short, the GAO estimate does not fully
estimate the costs of replacement schools.
To get a rough idea of the costs of replacing these schools,
including those that are not on the frozen priority list, I have
checked with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover.
His office informs me that 50% of the 185 BIA schools are over 30 years
old and fail to meet current codes and standards.
The GAO, has noted that 25% of BIA schools are over 50 years old,
and, of course fail to meet the same standards for safety and teaching.
Total BIA Schools Needing Replacement and Repair
There are 93 BIA schools that should be replaced--well beyond the
current priority list of 16. At an average cost of $180 per square
foot, these 93 schools would cost one billion dollars to replace.
Replacing these 93 oldest BIA schools would leave about $200 million
in repair and renovation costs for the remaining 92 BIA schools.
This simple arithmetic gives us a current estimate of about $1.2
billion to bring all federally operated BIA schools up to par.
Indian Community Colleges
These Indian community colleges fall into two categories: those run
by the BIA and those that are tribally controlled community colleges.
In the first category, those run by the BIA, Haskell (Kansas) and
SIPI (Albuquerque) are the only two that are fully federally operated
by the BIA. The BIA now has 26 tribally controlled community colleges
eligible to receive funds through the Tribally Controlled Community
Colleges Act, and one more, United Tribes Technical College, funded
through the BIA's Community Development funds.
In total, then, there are 29 Indian Community Colleges with direct
BIA funding, and one, Crownpoint Institute of Technology, that is
funded primarily through the Carl Perkins Vocational Education program
of the U.S. Department of Education.
These Indian community colleges have an estimated repair and
renovation cost of about $310 million. Replacement costs, such as the
Shiprock branch of Navajo Community College, are not included. The
Shiprock branch is estimating the costs for a new campus at about $28
million. The need for married student housing at Crownpoint Institute
of Technology is also not included.
Total BIA Schools and Indian Community Colleges
For the sake of simplicity, we can easily estimate that total repair,
renovation, and replacement costs for all elementary, secondary, and
post-secondary BIA schools and tribal schools eligible for BIA funds,
exceed $1.5 billion.
GAO Report on BIA Schools
For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to submit an edited
version of the GAO study on Indian school repair needs. Please keep in
mind that this report is focused on elementary and secondary schools
only.
The GAO finds that 47,200 Indian students are served by 173 schools.
The BIA count is 185 schools and over 50,000 students. The BIA schools
range in size from 15 to 1,144 students, with about half of these
schools enrolling fewer than 200 pupils.
Growth is very high in these schools with an increase in student
enrollment of 25 percent since 1987. Most of this growth has occurred
in the last 5 years.
About 10 percent of all Indian students attend BIA schools, funded or
operated by the BIA. The vast majority or 90% of Indian students in
America attend regular public schools.
BIA schools are located in 23 states, but are highly concentrated in
5 states--North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico, and
Washington.
BIA schools are generally in poorer physical condition that even
central city schools and lack more key facility requirements than
typical American schools.
The BIA schools are older and less able to support computer and
communications technology than average American schools.
Conclusion (S. Res. 100 on Education of American Indians)
In addition to the physical needs of our federally operated Indian
schools and colleges, there is a parallel crisis in operating funds for
Indian schools nationwide.
American Indian students have the highest dropout rate of any racial
ethnic group (36%) and the lowest high school completion and college
attendance rates of any minority group.
Average annual funding for Indian college students is $2,900 compared
to $6,200 for Americans as a whole.
Senate Resolution 100, introduced in the First Session of this
Congress which I introduced with the cosponsorship of Senators
Campbell, Inouye, Johnson, Dorgan, and Wellstone, discusses the overall
situation of Indian education and calls upon the 105th Congress to
address these issues through major education bills under consideration.
I urge my colleagues to review Senate Resolution 100, and support its
passage by this body in order to draw more needed attention to the
major problems we face today in Indian education.
I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 100 be printed in the Record,
along with the BIA school construction priority list, and my summary of
the GAO report on Indian school repairs.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
replacement school construction
Program Description ($19,200,000: During fiscal years 1991
thru 1997, $117.2 million was appropriated to complete
construction of schools at Laguna, Choctaw, Dunseith, Pine
Ridge, and the Haskell Dormitory, as well as the first eight
schools on the Replacement School Construction Priority List
(List). Funds appropriated in FY 1998 were used to start
construction of the Many Farms School complex. This school is
ranked no. 4 on the Replacement School Priority List (List).
Funds appropriated in FY 1998 will be used to accomplish site
work at both the Sac & Fox Settlement School and the Pyramid
Lake High School. These schools are ranked 10 and 11,
respectively, on the List. Congress also funded this
rebuilding of the Wa-He-Lut School which was completed in
seven months and is occupied. The status of each school
project on the List is presented below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement school project Project status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pinon Community School Dorms.................................. Funded, Construction is Complete, except
Employee Quarters for which Public Law 93-
638 construction contract due for completion
March, 1998.
2. Eastern Cheyenne River Consol. School......................... Funded, Construction is Complete; school is
occupied.
3. Rock Point Community School................................... Funded, Construction is Complete; school is
occupied.
4. Many Farms High School........................................ Funded, Construction anticipated to start in
summer of 1998.
5. Tucker Day School............................................. Funded, Construction is Complete; school is
occupied.
6. Shoshone Bannock School....................................... Funded, Construction is Complete; school is
occupied.
7. Standing Pine Day School...................................... Funded, Construction is Complete; school is
occupied.
8. Chief Leschi School........................................... Funded, Construction is Complete; school is
occupied.
9. Seba Dalkai School............................................ Design scheduled for completion July 1998;
construction funds requested in 1999.
10. Sac & Fox Settlement School.................................. Design 70% complete; requesting construction
funding in FY 1999.
11. Pyramid Lake High School..................................... Design completed; requesting construction
funding in FY 1999.
12. Shiprock Alternative School.................................. Planning is nearly complete; funded for
design; not funded for construction.
13. Tuba City Boarding School.................................... Planning to begin Spring of 1998; funded for
design; not funded for construction.
14. Fond Du Lac Ojibway School................................... Design is underway; not funded for
construction.
15. Second Mesa Day School....................................... Design to 40% is underway; not funded for
construction.
16. Zia Day School............................................... Planning completion is anticipate in second
quarter of 1998; funded for design; not
funded for construction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of GAO Report on Condition of BIA Schools
(1) BIA reports that the cost of the total inventory of
repairs needed for BIA education facilities is $754 million;
(2) this includes the cost of repairs to all school
buildings, including dormitories for students and employee
housing; and (3) data from GAO's 1994 National School
Facilities Survey show that, compared to other schools
nationally, responding BIA schools: (a) are generally in
poorer physical condition; (b) have more unsatisfactory
environmental factors; (c) more often lack key facilities
requirements for education reform; and (d) are less able to
[[Page S2913]]
support computer and communications technology.
Percent of Indian Children in BIA Schools
While most Native American children attend regular public
schools, about 10 percent attend BIA schools, which are
funded by BIA and operated either by BIA or by various tribes
through grants or contracts from BIA.
BIA schools are found in 23 states but are highly
concentrated in 5--North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Washington.
BIA funded 173 schools (including boarding schools) in
school year 1996-97, with a total enrollment of 47,214. The
schools ranged in size from 15 to 1,144 students, with about
one-half enrolling fewer than 200 pupils.
Enrollment in BIA schools is growing and overall has
increased 25 percent since 1987. Most of this growth has
occurred in the last 5 years.
GAO Estimates on Nation's Schools
We estimated that the nation's schools needed about $112
billion (+/- 6.6% sampling error) to repair or upgrade
facilities to good overall condition. Responses to our survey
indicated that about 33 percent of America's schools reported
needing extensive repair or replacement of one or more
buildings; almost 60 percent reported problems with at least
one major building feature, such as plumbing; and about 50
percent reported unsatisfactory environmental conditions.
Furthermore, many reported lacking critical physical
capabilities to meet the functional requirements of education
reform and key technology elements to support computers and
communications technology.
Isolation of BIA Schools
BIA officials told us that BIA schools are often located in
isolated areas and have to provide and maintain extensive
campus infrastructures because they are too far from
population centers to have access to town or city services.
For example, one school we visited had to house and maintain
a fire truck on campus because it is too far from the nearest
city to use its fire department.
In addition, some schools must provide dormitory space for
students and/or housing for faculty and staff because they
are so distant from population centers. BIA officials told us
that this isolation may also contribute to maintenance
difficulties and costs when materials have to be shipped long
distances and construction/repair staff have to be housed
while on site.
Age of BIA Schools
Officials also told us that about 25 percent of BIA school
buildings are at least 50 years old, and many of these
buildings are on the National Historic Register. BIA
officials told us that this listing often restricts the
ability to make education-related renovations and
improvements.
BIA to Update Repair Inventory
BIA reports that, as of October 1997, the cost of the total inventory
of repairs needed for education facilities at all BIA schools is $754
million. This includes $693 million for repairs to school buildings,
including dormitories for students. It also includes $61.7 million in
repairs needed for education quarters such as employee housing.
BIA's inventory of repairs needed--the facilities backlog--is an
amalgam of information collected by architects, engineers, and BIA
staff over the years. The inventory describes in detail individual work
items required by national standards and codes such as the Uniform
Building Code, National Fire Codes, and National Electrical Codes to
repair the facilities. The facilities backlog contains the repair cost
for deficiencies identified in a building or at a site.
The deficiencies may involve safety and health, access for persons
with disabilities, or noncompliance with other building codes. BIA is
currently developing a new Facilities Management Information System and
will be validating and reassessing the entire facilities backlog and
inventory. The validation will include professional estimates of the
cost of all backlog repair items and a determination of the relative
economic values of repair versus replacement. The system development
and validation projects are scheduled for completion in fiscal year
1999.
Our 1994 survey asked school officials to estimate the total cost of
all repairs, renovations, and modernizations required to put their
school buildings in good overall condition. The amounts reported by the
71 BIA schools responding to our survey were generally in agreement
with BIA's estimates of the costs required to address the inventory of
repairs needed at these schools.
S. Res. 100
Whereas there exists a unique legal and political
relationship between the United States and tribal governments
and a unique Federal responsibility to American Indians and
Alaska Natives;
Whereas, under law and practice, the United States has
undertaken a trust responsibility to protect and preserve
Indian tribes, Indians, and tribal assets and resources;
Whereas the Federal Government's commitment to Indian
education has been recognized, reinforced, and carried out
through most treaties with Indian tribes, Congressional
legislation, numerous court decisions and Presidential
executive orders;
Whereas this Federal responsibility includes working with
tribal governments and their members to improve the education
of tribal members;
Whereas the 1990 census shows the poverty rate for American
Indians and Alaska Natives was nearly twice the national
average--31 percent of Indians live below the poverty level,
compared to 13 percent of the total population. Nearly 38
percent of Indian children above the age of 5 were living
below the poverty level in 1990, compared with 11 percent of
non-minority children;
Whereas the development of tribal economies is dependent on
physical infrastructure, capital investment, and highly
developed human capital and an educated labor force;
Whereas excellence in educational facilities and services
is a key to building the skills necessary for Indian people
to develop vibrant tribal economies;
Whereas ever-increasing regional, national, and
international economic competition demands that Indians have
every competitive advantage accruing from achieving
excellence in education;
Whereas there are approximately 600,000 American Indian and
Alaska Native children attending schools in this country. An
estimated 87 percent of these children attend public schools
located on or near reservations and in urban areas; another
10 percent attend schools funded by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and an estimated 3 percent attend private
schools;
Whereas these schools have experienced an increase in
student population of 3-4 percent in the past 5 years,
however, annual funding for the education of Indian children
has not increased proportionately;
Whereas United States census data shows that the Indian and
Alaska Native population has increased significantly in the
past three decades. Primary growth concentrations are at ages
5 through 19;
Whereas the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) showed over 50 percent of American Indian fourth
graders scored below the basic level in reading proficiency,
compared with 42 percent of all students;
Whereas American Indian students have the highest dropout
rate of any racial ethnic group (36 percent) and the lowest
high school completion and college attendance rates of any
minority group. As of 1990, only 66 percent of American
Indians aged 25 years or older were high school graduates,
compared to 78 percent of the general population;
Whereas the demonstrated need for improvements to Indian
schools and colleges is acute as reflected in the great
disparity between average annual college funding per student
of $2,900 for Indian students, and $6,200 for non-Indians in
America, and the Federal Government should assist in bringing
the Indian schools and colleges up to parity with the rest of
America;
Whereas tribal scholarship programs nationally are only
able to serve an estimated 40 percent of the eligible college
student population and funding for graduate scholarships has
been cut in half in the past 2 years;
Whereas there is a major backlog of $680 million in funding
need for facilities constructions, maintenance and repair for
the 185 BIA-funded schools as well as for public schools
located on and near Indian reservations;
Whereas there exists an alarming decline in the use of
Native languages indigenous to the United States. A 1969
Senate Committee report stated that in 1969 there were 300
separate languages still being spoken. In 1996, the number
had dropped to 206 still being spoken. These languages are
spoken nowhere else in the world; and
Whereas, despite these alarming statistics, funding for the
education of American Indian and Alaska Native students has
been reduced substantially in the past 3 years. The United
States Congress in fiscal year 1996 eliminated discretionary
education programs in the Office of Indian Education budget
which had funded adult education, research and demonstration
programs, the Indian Fellowship Program and teacher training
and professional development projects. At the same time,
funding for reservation-based education programs in the BIA
budget was reduced by more than $100 million in the fiscal
year 1996 budget: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the United States
Senate--
(1) that the Senate recognizes and supports the Federal
Government's legal and moral commitment to the education of
American Indian and Alaska Native children, which is a part
of treaties, Executive orders, court decisions and public
laws which have been enacted by the House and Senate of the
United States Government;
(2) that funding for all bills, including reauthorizing
legislation in the 105th Congress with specific programs for
American Indians and Alaska Natives be funded at levels
sufficient to meet the ever-increasing educational and
economic demands facing Indian people on reservations, urban
communities and Alaska Native villages;
(3) that the Senate recognizes the adult literacy needs of
American Indians and Alaska Natives through the inclusion of
tribal provisions in the administration's proposal to
reauthorize the Adult Education Act;
[[Page S2914]]
(4) that the administration's bill for reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 102-325,
preserve the original purpose and intent of the Tribally-
Controlled Community Colleges Act and promote access to
higher education opportunities for American Indians and
Alaska Natives;
(5) that during the 105th Congress' reauthorization of
agricultural research programs, the needs of tribal colleges
as designated land-grant institutions must be given close
attention, through amendments to the Educational Equity in
Land-Grant Status Act of 1994;
(6) that early childhood programs such as Head Start
(Public Law 103-252) and Healthy Start contain resources
needed to meet a growing number of American Indian and Alaska
Native children whose rate of growth exceeds the national
average; and
(7) that the Senate recognizes the need for development and
implementation of a Government-wide policy on Indian
education which addresses the needs of American Indian and
Alaska Native people.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, from what I understand, we have no
objection on this side, and I understand there are no objections on the
Democratic side. Therefore, I believe if we yield back our respective
times, we can accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JOHNSON. I yield back my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. If there was time in opposition--I don't know what it
is--we yield it back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Johnson amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2210), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes, or such time as
may be needed, to the Senator from North Dakota. The time is to come
off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized
for such time as he may consume.
Amendment No. 2175
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate Senator Lautenberg
yielding me the time. I am going to visit a bit some of the items that
were just discussed about Indian schools and schools generally. I
wanted to come and talk about the Moseley-Braun amendment.
We talk a lot about family values in this Chamber. It seems to me
that every family that sits around in the evening and talks about their
lives must certainly talk about the schools their kids are going to. We
have 14 million students who attend schools in this country now,
schools that are in need of extensive repair--extensive repair.
This afternoon, we sit in a nice Chamber. We have people here who
enjoy their lives, and they are well dressed. We talk about education
and theory in the abstract. In Cannonball, ND, today there is some
little kid sitting in school, and I bet you that child is smelling
sewer gas backed up from the pipes, because that is the way the school
is down in Cannonball. That school is 70 years old. There are 150 kids
attending that school with two bathrooms and one water fountain, and
that school is in serious disrepair.
I just mention that one, but I could mention thousands of schools
across this country that are in desperate need of repair. Senator
Moseley-Braun has proposed an amendment that says in this Budget Act
let us make room for school construction, for the Federal Government to
provide some incentive, some small incentive to State and local
governments to help repair and rebuild our schools.
I have two children in public school this afternoon. Last year in
public school, one of those children was in a classroom with 30
students. That is too big. This year, one of them is in a temporary
classroom or an expanded mobile home. That is too bad. It is a good
school, and both of them are getting a good education. The fact is, we
can do better in all of these areas, especially with respect to school
construction. We know what the problem is and we know how to fix it.
The issue of the budget on the floor of the Senate is a matter of
priorities. What do each of us think is important for this country.
I watched last week during consideration of the supplemental
appropriations bill someone come into this Chamber and offered an
amendment that went just like that, just that quick, for $170 million
for missile defense. It wasn't debated, it wasn't discussed, it was
just added. And there it was, $170 million.
Let me talk about these schools for a moment, and let me talk
specifically about the Indian schools, because while we are talking
about the 14 million students who are in school today in schools that
need extensive repair, let me talk just for a moment about the students
in the Indian schools run by the BIA. These are schools owned by the
Federal Government. They are owned by us. We have no one else to blame
if we don't fix those schools, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to figure out how to fix it. You can look at the school, find out what
is wrong and spend the money to invest in that school to help those
children.
Let me tell you about the Ojibwa school. That is up on the Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation. Those children walk between portable
classrooms in the middle of the winter up to six times a day in bone-
chilling weather. A health and safety inspection of that school and
temporary classrooms in 1995 found 156 violations--fire hazards, broken
windows, roof leaking, wooden stairs and landings for portable
classrooms had deteriorated so much to the point they were no longer
safe, wires hanging exposed from some classrooms.
The Cannonball School is a public school. It is not a BIA school. It
is on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation for grades K through five.
The school is 70 years old. It has been condemned as a fire hazard, but
the local tax base cannot support building a new school. The second
level of the school isn't used because the stairs are unsafe. The water
and sewer systems are old and regularly back up.
Last week, when we talked to the Cannonball School superintendent,
she said two classes had to be moved in with other classes because the
smell of sewage got so bad in the classrooms of these young children.
One wing of the school doesn't have running water. Mr. President, 145
students and 40 staff share two bathrooms and one water fountain. The
electric wiring is so old that it cannot support computers in the
classrooms, but it doesn't matter, because there can't be computers in
these classrooms. The classrooms are 8 foot by 12 foot. The music
classes take place in what used to be the janitor's closet, 8 foot by
10 foot.
Standing Rock Reservation: Standing Rock School has PCBs leaking from
the light fixtures. PCB, as we know, is a carcinogen. It is very
dangerous. Federal law says that PCB levels over 50 parts per million
are unsafe. In the Fort Yates school, the PCBs leaking from the light
fixtures measured not 50 parts per million, which is unsafe, but
143,000 parts per million. That is in our school. That is with kids
attending school.
What happened? They shut the school. The took the kids out of the
school and placed them around town in portable classrooms, some in a
home. Six classes have been meeting in the school gymnasium. The others
have been meeting in portable trailers and a private home. The extra
classes, like physical education, music and art, of course, have been
suspended, and the school officials don't yet know when the students
will return to their classrooms.
PCBs leaking from light fixtures in a school that is in disrepair--
this happens to be on an Indian reservation where, incidentally, in 9
months, 48 teenagers attempted suicide. In the last 9 months, 48
attempted suicides, 6 of which were successful.
If I sound a little angry about this, I am. Every single year I have
come to the floor of the Senate to talk about this problem, and these
kids go to school in conditions for which we ought to be ashamed. This
Congress can do something about it, and the
[[Page S2915]]
budget process is a process in which we make decisions. If someone
stands up here and says, ``No, school construction doesn't count
because we have other priorities,'' I ask them, ``What is your priority
if it is not your children?'' By ``your children,'' I mean this
country's children.
All across this country, when our kids go to school, I hope every
parent wants their child to walk into a school that is safe, secure,
and in good repair. I defy anybody in this Chamber to stand up and say
to me that kids who go to school where sewer gas leaks into the
classrooms and they have to move kids out of those classrooms because
of the stench of sewer gas, I defy anybody to say it is a good thing
for kids. If it is not a good thing for kids, and we know it is going
on around this country--and anecdotically we see it in a GAO report and
other investigations--then let's decide we want to do something about
it. The question isn't whether, the question is what.
Senator Moseley-Braun has made a proposal. Her proposal is modest. I
suspect it will be voted down. It will be voted down because we have
people who construct the budget and say, ``Here are our priorities;
this is what we want to spend money on, and it doesn't include this.''
The amount of school repairs necessary in this country last year--3
percent of the funds available to meet the needs of school repairs was
allocated to the State and local governments last year. If this
Congress doesn't have the nerve and the will to say on behalf of our
kids that you matter, this is a problem we know we can fix and we are
going to put in our budget the provisions that allow us to say to kids,
``We're going to invest in your young lives,'' if this Congress doesn't
have the capability to do that, then there is something, in my
judgment, fundamentally wrong with the priorities we have established
for public spending.
I said yesterday that everybody in this Chamber will be dead in 100
years. Everybody. Nobody will be around here feeling good, working.
They will all be dead. We will all be dead. Only historians will
evaluate through our budget, by looking back at the budget process in
this Congress, the 105th Congress, what were our values; what did we
think was important; what did we decide to invest in; what did we think
would improve this country.
I hope historians will not look back at us and say, ``Well, oh, they
had discussions about a terrible deplorable condition in some schools
in their country, but they decided not to invest in schools, because,
somehow, schools took a backseat, schools were in second place to a
range of other priorities, some of them very strange priorities.''
I hope historians will say that this Congress, yes, in tight fiscal
times decided that one of the most important investments they could
make in America was to make a good investment in the education of our
kids.
No kid in this country can go to school and learn the way we expect
children to be able to learn unless those schools are in decent repair.
They must be safe, in decent repair, good places of learning. You have
to have a teacher who knows how to teach, a student who is willing to
learn, and a parent involved in that education. When you have that at
work and have invested in good school facilities that are necessary to
make that take place, then we will have done our job as a country.
I wanted to come and say Senator Moseley-Braun has offered an
amendment that is very, very important. I can think of a thousand
reasons why people will stand up and say they are against it. None of
them are good. Mark Twain was once asked to debate--I have told my
colleagues this before. He said, ``Of course.''
``We've not told you the subject.''
He said, ``Doesn't matter, as long as I can take the negative side;
that takes no preparation.''
It takes very little preparation to oppose. The Senator from Illinois
has proposed something that ought to rank right at the top of the list
of what is important for this country. When we vote today, I hope the
American people who listen to this debate will call the offices and
say, ``We agree that this represents the first priority for the
Congress, the first priority for this country, to invest in the lives
and education of the American children.''
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield such time as needed to my
colleague from Illinois so that she may discuss her amendment. And
until such time as my colleague is ready----
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I am. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for
such time as she may consume.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his
indulgence, for allowing additional time to talk about this issue
because it is such an important issue and we were limited by virtue of
the agreement on this budget discussion so we did not get the time to
really go through all the details. But I did want to pick up on a
couple points that were made while the Senator from North Dakota spoke.
He was so eloquent in his support of the legislation. But he touched on
two themes that I would like to touch on or respond to now.
The first one goes to, whose job is it? Whose responsibility is it to
see to it that our children go to school in environments that are
suitable for learning? Whose fault is it? Whose fault is it that we
have crumbling schools, that we have schools that fall below building
codes? We have schools where the ceilings are falling in because of
faulty plumbing. We have schools where the wiring is insufficient to
maintain a computer. We have schools with broken windows in this
country.
Almost fully a third of the schools, according to the General
Accounting Office, fall below the code standards, decent environments
for learning, just basic kinds of facilities requirements. This is not
bells and whistles. This is not anything exceptional, just the basic
level of facilities and infrastructure. Almost a third of the schools
in this country fall below that level.
So as you go through the debate, a lot of this debate really comes
down to, whose fault is it that it is this way? And what the sense-of-
the-Senate amendment proposes is that we stop playing the game, the
blame game, that we stop trying to pass the buck, that we stop trying
to point the finger to assess the blame, to make it somebody else's
problem, because, indeed, the children of this country are all of our
problem.
We will not be able to maintain the standard of living that we all
talk about and maintain as the American dream, we will not be able to
maintain that American dream into the next century if we do not give
every one of our children an opportunity to learn, if we do not give
every child the best access to education that we can possibly make
available to them. Quite frankly, we cannot give quality education to
children in school buildings that are literally falling down.
It should be intuitive to everybody in this Chamber, but beyond
intuition, the fact is that the studies actually have confirmed that
performance is directly related to the condition of the environment in
which learning is supposed to take place.
Children who go to schools that are falling down consistently score
below children in quality facilities, across the board, on all the
tests. We should have gotten a warning call as a nation just a couple
weeks ago when the results came in on the international tests in math
and science. What those results said to us was that the United States
has fallen behind most industrialized countries.
The United States scored below Slovenia. I do not mean to disparage
Slovenia, but we scored below Slovenia in math and in science. How can
we possibly expect to compete in this global economy with this kind of
laissez faire attitude, this kind of neglect, this kind of, I would
even suggest, triage of our children, that leaves their education up to
how much their parents happen to be able to afford?
That gets to the point of--there was a chart over there, and it has
kind of fallen. I do not know where it went. I actually would like to
use it for a second. It was on the opponents' side. It
[[Page S2916]]
was a quote from one of the White House assistants in 1996 when this
proposal got cut out of the budget. In spite of the fact that the White
House said at the time they were in support, the fact is--and everybody
in this room knows; and I am not embarrassed about it anymore--that the
White House said, ``Well, we have some other priorities. We can't
afford to do this now.'' So they punted on the school construction
proposal. They essentially let it get cut out at the table because
there was opposition on the other side of the aisle, and the majority
objected to it. The White House said, ``OK, fine. We'll let it go.'' So
the proposal fell once again that time just under the circumstances of
that debate.
But that loss, in my opinion, should have just been temporary
because, if nothing else has happened, I think in the ensuing years
people have had a chance to take a look at the whole question of whose
fault it is and whose responsibility it is. The truth is, we cannot
just expect to pay for rebuilding our crumbling schools based on the
local property tax.
Right now our school finance structure proceeds from the local
property tax. That is one of the reasons why we have this patchwork of
schools across the country. In much the same way General Eisenhower,
when he set up the Interstate Highway System, concluded that the only
way we were going to serve the national interest in transportation from
one end of the country to the other was to have a system that had some
congruence and some core communication and some networking, if you
will, to it. So we were able then to get around the wealth of a
specific community by saying we are going to have one good road that
takes us from one end of this country to the other.
Well, so it is with facilities. If we just rely on the local property
tax, we will be forced then to have a school system where in wealthy
communities there will be good faculties, in middle class communities
there will be a patchwork of full school facilities, and in poor
communities there will be school facilities with broken windows and
falling bricks and leaky roofs. That is the situation we are in. And
that is the situation we have come to.
Let me suggest this debate and this sense of the Senate does not say
that State and local governments do not have a role to play or that we
should take this up as a new program for the Federal Government.
Indeed, we should not. If anything, this calls on all levels of
government to go into a partnership, to work together, to collaborate,
to get beyond the blame game and the finger pointing and the skirting
of responsibility, to say let us work together to make this happen, to
fix these crumbling schools.
The property taxes have already--already--been rising. In fact, State
and local taxes as a share of income have risen nearly 10 percent--
nearly 10 percent. And the increase in State and local taxes has been
greater than the increase in Federal taxes. It is stunning. People
think, ``Oh, taxes are terrible.'' Well, most of the tax hikes have
come at the State and local level. This is going to dawn in the general
conversation fairly soon, I suspect, because the problem is not coming
from here, it is coming because we are pushing off to State and local
governments a lot of responsibility that we could help them with. That
is the point, not that we are going to take it over; we can help them.
Indeed, if we do not create a more equitable partnership to modernize
our schools, the local property taxpayers will have to come up with an
additional $153 billion--$153 billion. This sense of the Senate
suggests that we have that partnership, that we work together, that we
provide some financial assistance to local governments, that we provide
an opportunity for them to give some relief of the local property
taxes, that we support State efforts to rebuild the schools, that we
work together for our children, because they are all our children and
we have a stake as citizens of this great country in the education of
each and every one of them.
It seems to me that if we form this partnership, we will be able to
meet this challenge, we will be able to provide our children with
decent facilities, we will be able to give them the tools they need to
take up the challenges of this technological age of their time.
I thank the ranking member for giving me this time. It appears that
the majority is prepared to take the floor. But I yield back to the
Senator from New Jersey. I thank the Senator so much for his support of
this. He has been a builder. I have to say one thing about the Senator
from New Jersey. He likes and he understands the importance of
infrastructure; of the basics; of making certain that our roads are
good in this country, because that is how business gets done; of making
certain that we have infrastructure with the bridges so we do not have
accidents, so that people can get from one place to the other, can get
to work; of making certain that our children have the quality education
and that the infrastructure is adequate to that end.
It seems to me that there can be no more fundamental priority for us.
And this is an opportunity for us to provide for educational
excellence, again, in collaboration and cooperation and in partnership
with State and local governments on ways in which they retain control.
There is not a lot of bureaucracy with the proposal. Actually, this is
not a proposal. The sense of the Senate is so general, I would expect
it to have unanimous--it could very well, if it were not so partisan an
issue, it could very well have unanimous support in this Senate. It
should have. It should have.
The politics, frankly, should stop at the schoolroom door, and it
should stop on something like a sense of the Senate that just says,
look, this makes sense for us to do. It does not legislate, it does not
mandate, it does not dictate anything. A sense-of-the-Senate amendment,
as the Presiding Officer knows, is just a statement of what we think is
the right thing to do.
And I hope that we could have unanimous support for the right thing
to do by our children, by our school facilities. I hope to have 99, if
not 100, votes. It would be very nice. But I am a realist in this
matter. I know that it is going to fall prey to partisan politics. I
think that is a shame too, because I really think the time when we have
to just have these partisan divides on these kinds of issues, that time
has passed.
I think the American people have gotten to the point where they are
tired of the blame game, they are tired of the finger pointing, they
are tired of the argument, the argument of, ``This is what's wrong with
America, and isn't this a shame?'' Let us move to the constructive, to
the positive, and talk about what is right with America, what is right
with our generation. Our generation is as capable as any of the
generations that have gone before us of meeting the challenges of our
times. I submit to you that this crumbling school initiative is
precisely such a challenge.
When I went to school, we were in schools largely my parents'
generation built, my grandparents' generation built. What is our
generation going to leave as its legacy to the kids? Schools based on
whether or not your parents are wealthy? Schools based on whether or
not you live in a community that has a big shopping center so there are
a lot of property taxes? Are we going to just leave it to an accident
of geography whether or not a youngster has a chance to be educated in
a decent facility? I hope not.
I hope we take advantage of this opportunity and see this sense-of-
the-Senate amendment as an opportunity--as an opportunity--for us to
come together as Americans for something that we all believe is the
right thing to do.
I want to again thank the Senator from New Jersey. I yield to the
Senator from New Jersey and thank him again for his indulgence and for
all of his great support in this matter.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I might ask a couple questions.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much is the program that you envision going to cost
the Federal Treasury?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. $3.3 billion.
Mr. DOMENICI. $3.3 billion?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can you explain how we will get so much for so little?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. In the first instance, this sense of the Senate
does not prescribe a level. The sense-of-the-
[[Page S2917]]
Senate amendment is conceptual; it does not go to $3.3 billion. That is
the underlying legislation that has that figure in it.
How do we get so much for so little? That is a very good question. I
will tell you how. What we do is provide the issuers of the zero coupon
bonds with the ability to give, basically, a tax break to purchasers of
the bonds. So instead of having even an interest rate buydown, an
individual will get a tax credit when they buy one of these
instruments. They will get a tax credit instead of interest. That will
allow for the leveraging to the $22 billion or thereabouts of the bond
issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me make sure I understand a couple more things.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. $21.8 billion. The $3 billion I mentioned will
leverage into $21.8 billion worth of these bonds over the next 2 years.
Again, it is calling for a partnership. It calls for private-sector
investment--private-sector investment--in helping to rebuild these
schools. It is not all out of the Treasury. It is largely the private
sector stepping forward and saying, ``As purchasers of these
instruments, we want to help achieve a national goal.''
Mr. DOMENICI. In a sense, if this sense of the Senate is ever carried
out, the Finance Committee would have to find room on the tax side for
$3.3 billion of tax cuts; is that correct?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. We have the tradition of paying for those things
that are authorized out of the Finance Committee.
We passed a bill last night that wasn't fully paid for, as I know the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico is aware. However, yes, we would
have to find the ``pay for.'' There is no question about it. Whether or
not that would come out of some of the various revenue streams
mentioned in connection with the bill we passed out last night or some
other--we can be innovative. The chairman of the Finance Committee is
sitting here, and he is one of the most innovative persons I know in
coming up with things like that. We can work together to find the
revenue stream to support the $3.3 billion. It is a small price to
leverage $21 billion of private-sector investment to achieve the goal
of helping to start down the path of meeting this $112 billion worth of
deferred maintenance.
Mr. DOMENICI. I don't have any further questions. I think there are
some other Senators on our side that do, and in due course they will
come down. I have nothing further.
Are you finished on your side?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yielded for the Senator from New Jersey.
amendment no. 2209
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I ask for the immediate consideration of
amendment No. 2209.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the pending question.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment deals with a vital national
issue--Social Security reform. This amendment is cosponsored by
Senators Breaux, Gregg, Robb, Hatch, Nickles, Gramm, Gordon, Smith, and
Santorum.
Let me say first that as the chairman of the Finance Committee I am
acutely aware of Social Security's future financial problems. I am sure
these problems are familiar to most members, but nonetheless they bear
repeating.
In just 14 years, in 2012, revenues to the Social Security trust
funds will no longer cover benefits. Social Security will then cash in
Treasury bonds that are now accumulating in the trust funds. This will
place major pressure on the Federal budget and crowd out other
important spending.
By 2029 the bonds will be gone. Social Security will then be able to
cover only 75 percent of benefits directly from revenues. The long-term
debt of the Social Security system--the difference between revenues and
benefit through 2075--is estimated to be an astounding $121 trillion.
The purpose of my amendment is simple. Nevertheless, it is important
and urgent. The amendment instructs the Finance Committee to dedicate
the budget surplus to establishing Social Security personal retirement
accounts.
Despite its simplicity, I know that many of my colleagues will have
at least two questions about this amendment. First: ``Why establish
personal retirement accounts this year, rather than wait until next
year?'' And second: ``Why not begin with comprehensive Social Security
reform, rather than start with personal retirement accounts?''
Mr. President, the easy course would be to wait until next year to
begin Social Security reform. But the fact is, Social Security reform
will be a big job. I am very concerned that trying to do it all in one
year--in 1999--will simply not be possible.
Americans have learned that big, comprehensive proposals, with many
parts, often run into problems in Congress and can easily take several
years to enact. Particularly proposals that deal with an important,
sensitive program like Social Security.
The place to start with Social Security reform is to establish a
program of personal retirement accounts--funded by the budget
surpluses. Dedicating the surplus to personal retirement accounts
allows us to get started on reform without running into controversies
over changes to the traditional program.
Personal retirement accounts themselves would be a big, new feature
of Social Security. We will need to explain these accounts to the
American people, and writing a bill will require thoughtful action by
the Finance Committee.
Mr. President, let me note for the record that there is a growing
bipartisan consensus that personal retirement accounts must be an
essential feature of Social Security reform. And I want to emphasize
the word ``bipartisan.''
In the Senate, Senator Bob Kerrey, another member of the Finance
Committee, was an early and vocal advocate of personal retirement
accounts. In the last Congress, he and Senator Alan Simpson, now
retired, introduced a ground-breaking Social Security reform bill with
personal retirement accounts that grew out of their experience on the
1994 Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform.
Other Democrats support this concept. For example, Senator Robb,
another cosponsor of my amendment, proposed a sense-of-the-Senate to
last year's budget resolution that would have funded Social Security
retirement accounts.
And just two weeks ago, Senator Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the
Finance Committee and a recognized expert on Social Security,
introduced a comprehensive Social Security reform package that included
personal retirement accounts.
On the Republican side of the aisle, there is strong support as well.
Senators Judd Gregg, Don Nickles, Phil Gramm, Rick Santorum, and Rod
Grams, among others, have been enthusiastic advocates of Social
Security personal retirement accounts.
Let me explain why Social Security personal retirement accounts find
so much support--not only in Congress, but among the American people.
While proposals differ, the basic objective of this program is to
provide each working American with funds to be deposited into personal
retirement accounts.
With even conservative investment, such accounts have the potential
to grow to provide a secure and generous retirement nest egg. Indeed,
for the first time Americans could look forward to having real personal
wealth in old age, not just enough to keep body and soul together.
A recent report by the Congressional Research Service provides many
illustrations of what Social Security personal accounts may offer. For
example, for an individual who is 28 years old today and earns an
average wage--about $27,000, just 1 percent of an amount equal to his
or her wages invested over the next 37 years in the S&P 500 would grow
to $132,000, which would be worth about 20 percent of his or her Social
Security benefits. By the way, CRS assumed a 10-percent rate of return
for the S&P 500. In fact, over the past 10 years, the compounded annual
return on the S&P 500 has been 18 percent.
Mr. President, using the budget surpluses to create retirement
accounts represents an opportunity to get these accounts up and
running. Once in place, we can then begin looking at Social Security
benefits for the long run. It will help insure that Social Security
benefits continue to provide a secure foundation of retirement income.
Establishing these accounts this year--as a new program in addition to
the current Social Security program--would allow us to demonstrate
their value in
[[Page S2918]]
providing retirement benefits for working Americans in the years to
come.
Creating these accounts would also give the majority of Americans who
do not own any investment assets a new stake in America's economic
growth, because that growth will be returned directly to their benefit.
More Americans will be the owners of capital--not just workers.
Creating these accounts will help Americans to better be prepared for
retirement, generally. According to the Congressional Research Service,
60 percent of Americans are not actively participating in a retirement
program other than Social Security; this, in spite of the fact that
Social Security was never intended to be the sole source of retirement
income.
Mr. President, could there be a more important use of the budget
surplus? Some may believe that the budget surplus should be used to
reduce the debt, not dedicated to personal retirement accounts. That is
exactly what we will do by using the surplus to create these accounts.
Social Security, a $121 billion unfunded liability over the next 75
years, is a huge debt and we need to recognize it as such.
Retirement accounts and other solvency proposals would be a critical
first step in reform. At the same time, it would tackle that debt and
protect benefits. Most observers expect a surplus upwards of $60
billion this fiscal year, enough to get started on retirement accounts
and to begin reducing the Federal debt. Some may be concerned that the
President and others have called for a year-long national dialog on
Social Security reform. They may be erroneously believing that doing
reform this year might undermine the national dialog. On the contrary,
I can think of no better way to focus it than with specific proposals
and action by a U.S. Senate committee.
Mr. President, Congress has talked for a long time about the need to
do something to shore up Social Security. The time has come for action.
It is indeed a blessing that we have a surplus to work with. Now let's
put that surplus to work. The Finance Committee must get started on
Social Security reform this year. The place to start is by dedicating
the budget surplus to fund personal retirement accounts. This amendment
will get the ball rolling. I urge Members to support it.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Roth amendment.
Clearly, there is a long way to go before we have rendered Social
Security solvent way into the next century. But it is even more obvious
that this is the era when part of what a citizen who is working should
have for retirement should be a personalized savings account or an
annuity that comes from that personalized savings account. There can be
no doubt that it can be structured in such a way that it will turn out
to be better for the senior citizen. They will be assured of the
benefits that they are getting now and, in most cases, will come out
far, far ahead.
In the meantime, if it works right, the surpluses of the U.S.
Government, if used partially for this, will be invested in a safe way,
not solely in IOU's from the Federal Government, which is where they go
now, which is the law now; rather, they will be invested where they
can, without much risk, yield significantly more and, when compounded,
the power of compounding is enormous.
So in a very real sense I come here today saying to the distinguished
Senator, Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, that the time
has come for some significant reforms that will not put in jeopardy the
Social Security system, but rather in the long run make sure that it is
not short of money, that its liabilities will not be there to destroy
the system, but rather that in years to come, it will be more solvent,
and that ultimately, with part of it being compounded because of
the annual return that will come from safe investments, it is clear
that everyone gains. The seniors gain, the 21-year-old paying into the
system today gains, and the American economy is the beneficiary of
individuals investing in this economy across the board so that the
working people of the United States will own an interest in the
American companies that produce our wealth.
Frankly, I am delighted that we are going to discuss this today. If
we discuss it for a long time, that is fine with me. If we discuss it
for a short time and it passes, that is fine with me. But clearly, we
discuss a lot of things that are not nearly as important to our future,
and we adopt sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that are, in many
instances, not even important to the fiscal policy of our Nation and
the future well-being of our people.
This is moving in the direction of reform and personalized accounts,
and is a very appropriate thing to be doing on a budget resolution. It
has everything to do with what we do with our surpluses, if we have
them, what we do with capital needs in the future, and how we assure
senior citizens that they are going to be guaranteed a Social Security
check or better, because they will have invested some portion of it in
personalized accounts.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, may I have some time under the bill?
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want?
Mr. SANTORUM. Fifteen minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield Senator Santorum 15 minutes, and then Senator
Nickles needs 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of
Chairman Roth's amendment. There is nobody in this Chamber who has done
more to look out for the retirement security of Americans than Senator
Roth from Delaware. It is with his Roth IRA and other kinds of
innovation in his work on the Finance Committee that he has helped to
provide for retirement security for millions of Americans, which is
legendary. I commend him for that and for firing, if you will, here on
the floor of the Senate, the first salvo in what I believe will be a
long debate, and I hope will not be a hostile debate, on the issue of
transitioning Social Security.
What we have seen is now a bipartisan agreement that personal savings
accounts must have a very significant role in transitioning Social
Security. Why is that? Social Security is in trouble. It is not in
trouble next year or the year after, but Social Security, which was
``saved'' back in 1983 with the most recent revision--it was supposed
to save it for generations to come, but it is now scheduled to go
bankrupt some 30 years sooner than originally expected. That number is
not set in stone either. It is now 2029 when the system goes bankrupt.
In the year 2013, the system starts running a deficit, paying out more
than it takes in. Now is the time, before that bulk of the population,
the baby boom generation, goes into retirement, to begin to look at how
we can begin to solve this problem. Well, there are things you can do
within the current structure, like changing benefits--when I say
``changing,'' I don't mean raising them, I mean cutting benefits--
increasing taxes, and do a whole lot of things to try to preserve a
pay-as-you-go system that will not work over time because of very
simple demographics, the most important of which is that people are
living much longer, which is a good thing, and also we have very low
birth rates in this country. You have people living longer and fewer
people to pay for them. So you are looking at dramatic increases in
taxes or cuts in benefits, and that is a mindset of a finite, fixed
pie.
What Senator Roth is suggesting here is, let's grow the pie. So when
he says let's grow the pie, let's invest this money, not, as Senator
Domenici said, in Treasury bonds that earn a very small rate of
return--in fact, if you are entering the work force now, the rate of
return on Social Security taxes you are going to pay is below zero.
That is not a good deal for young people in this country. But what we
have to do is transition the system using the ideas of growth in
producing more retirement income for people who are just entering the
work force, or who have been in the work force a relatively short
period of time, but at the same time, make sure that we do not change
what has been promised to those at or near retirement.
That is our challenge. But with challenge comes tremendous
opportunity; in crisis comes a tremendous will to be innovative in
using the private market
[[Page S2919]]
systems that work so well in this country to provide wealth. As the
Senator from Delaware said, our modest amount of money being paid on
Social Security was never intended to be the sole source of retirement.
As a result, it is a very modest amount. People living on Social
Security today will tell you that if that is their only income and they
have no other pension income or savings income, they are hard pressed
to make a living. This is not an adequate savings system. What we need
to do is enhance that, create an opportunity for more growth in
people's wealth and, at the same time, protect those who are in the
system or have been in the system such a long period of time, so that
they will keep at least what we have promised in the past.
We can do that, but we must use the power of the marketplace, the
power of investment and savings. In so doing, we will not only open up
the opportunity for wealth and a better retirement income for
generations to come, but open up huge economic benefits for this
country with the amount of money that is going to be poured into the
capital markets and the debt markets, to be able to finance future
economic expansion and growth, better jobs, and higher standards of
living and real wage growth. I heard earlier today from Jose Pinero,
who was the Secretary of Labor during the time Chile went to a private
personal saving system there, some 17 years ago. He said that 30 years
prior to Chile going to that system, they had a real wage growth of 1
percent a year, on average. Since they passed the personal savings
accounts in Chile, they have had a real wage growth of 7 percent a
year, for almost 15 years, in that country.
What they have done is dramatically increase--over double; two and a
half times--their savings rate. People now understood. Senator Roth
said a very important thing, that only 40 percent of the people in this
country have some investment in the marketplace and understand the
dynamics of how the market works, how our economy works. That is a
disability, if you will, for millions of Americans who don't have that
advantage. The average, ordinary Chilean has that knowledge now and
understands the marketplace and uses that knowledge to their own
benefit--and not only their own benefit in their personal savings
account, but in their life and in their savings and other skills of
interacting in the economic marketplace. It creates such synergy that
it will have a dramatically positive impact on the future of this
country.
This is the opportunity that is before us, and what I am so excited
about is what I see is a real chance for a bipartisan solution to this
problem. With Senator Moynihan's proposal of putting 2 percent aside in
private savings, I think that is a very healthy initiative. We want to
build, in my opinion, from that as to how we can transform this system
to provide the security for those at or near retirement, put it in the
law, which is not the case today, so that those benefits will be there
as long as they are alive, that we will not change the benefit
structure as long as they are alive--there is no law that says that
right now--guarantee it. Then we can create opportunities for those,
frankly, who have very little expectation that Social Security will be
there.
I talk to a lot of young people. I have been to over 110 high schools
in my State since I have been in office. I can tell you, when I ask the
question, ``How many believe Social Security will be there when you
retire?'' if anybody raises their hand, the other kids in the crowd
look at them and laugh at them. They have no expectation that Social
Security will be there. They think it is, in fact, a pyramid scheme, a
ponzi scheme, some sort of thing that the folks who are in power right
now are just going to make them pay and then slash the heck out of
Social Security when it comes their time.
Well, what we are going to do here is create hope. One of the things
I hear so much about is how young people are cynical in this country
and they don't believe in our institutions and our culture, and what we
are doing here is, in fact, giving them something they can hold, they
can have a passbook with their money in it so they can track it every
day and see how it grows, and they can say, ``This is my money,'' from
the first day they worked flipping that first hamburger at a fast food
restaurant. That money goes into their account and is building for
their retirement security. They can see that happening with them at
work. They can see hope. They can see the potential for wealth and for
a good life. They will understand the dynamics that are so important
for all of us to understand that have to survive economically in this
country and in the world that is out in front. This is truly not
something we should be looking at and saying, how are we going to fix
Social Security? Such a problem, such a crisis. What are we going to do
and have money? But to walk hand in hand and jump at the opportunity to
create a whole new way of looking at providing opportunities for
millions of Americans upon their retirement and energizing and
uplifting an economy through that process, this is a great opportunity
for all of us.
What the chairman of the Finance Committee has done today is to lay
down the first mark on the budget where it should be laid down, because
what we will be doing by allowing private investment is dramatically
lower--not everyone talks about how we are going to use the surplus in
transition. That is a big concern we have to worry about--how we
transition these costs. That is the big nut we have to crunch. But at
the end, what will happen is that budget deficits and the huge
unemployment liability in $7 trillion or $8 trillion of unfunded
liability in the Social Security trust fund today will in effect over
time vanish because of the dynamics of allowing private savings to
occur.
This is in fact a multifaceted solution to many problems that are out
there, one of which is the long-term problems of the budget deficit in
the outyears when the baby boomers are beginning to take retirement--
not only Social Security but Medicare as well--when the budget deficit
comes back again. You hear so much about surplus. It comes back again.
That is the era, that is the time that we can, by acting now, keep
surpluses coming long into the future and grow the economy, create
stability, create hope for those who now do not have it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from
Pennsylvania for his statement. I also compliment Senator Roth for his
resolution. I am happy to cosponsor this resolution. I hope we will
have overwhelming bipartisan support for it, and hopefully everyone can
understand what we are talking about doing. We are talking about saving
Social Security.
The President during his State of the Union speech says we want to
save Social Security; we don't want to spend one dime of the surplus.
Senator Roth is trying to save Social Security. Because we do not just
save Social Security by not spending the surplus either in the form of
additional outlays--frankly, the President is violating that as we
speak because he wants to have a supplemental appropriations bill and
doesn't want to pay for it. He is already violating what he said in the
State of the Union Address.
But I agree. We should save Social Security. This resolution says
that we should take the surplus and allow individuals to set up
personal savings accounts. I think that is the way to save Social
Security. I think that is the way to fund Social Security. Right now we
don't fund Social Security. It is an unfunded paying system. One
generation pays for retired generations, or working employees today pay
the Social Security tax. Social Security taxes are enormous. They
have grown, and they have exploded in cost.
As a matter of fact, somebody paying Social Security today is paying
a total--if you look at Social Security taxes, their contribution today
is a total of $10,465 if they have the maximum amount of income, which
is $68,400. That is a lot. That actually includes Social Security and
Medicare, I might mention. So that is a lot. Social Security is 12.4
percent of $68,000. That is a lot of money. That is over $9,000 that
people are paying. If somebody happens to be making $68,000, they are
paying a lot. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. They can't
open up a bank account and say, ``Here is
[[Page S2920]]
my money for an investment.'' Basically they are funding a previous
commitment.
Senator Roth is saying we should take the surplus and allow people to
set up their own individual retirement accounts, let them be able to
invest in the marketplace, let them be able to enjoy the rewards of
compounding interest. Right now the rate of return on Social Security
as an investment--some people say 1 percent, some people say 1.2
percent, or 1.3 percent. That is not a very good rate of return. It is
pathetic if you consider what the market has done in the last several
years. The marketplace--the Dow Jones or Standard & Poors 500--has been
compounding in the 20 and 30 percent range for the last 4 years. But to
have individuals be able to enjoy this? The answer is no, not in Social
Security.
Senator Roth has done something else. I really appreciate it, because
it is important. He said not only should they be able to invest a
portion, but also we should be able to use that money to reduce the
unfunded promises that we now have in Social Security.
I want to do this proposal for two reasons.
One, I want millions of Americans to become millionaires. If we let
them take--some people say 2 percent. I think it should be up to maybe
5 or 6 percent, maybe half of their Social Security tax. Of the Social
Security tax of 12.4 percent of their income up to $68,000, you would
let them put 6.2 percent of their income in for 40-some-odd years
before they retire, and you will find that we will have lots of people
who started out maybe making $20,000 a year who are going to be
millionaires.
Senator Roth's example is they put in 1 percent at age 28, and they
can have over 100-some-odd thousands. That is 1 percent. Let's get it
up, and it can really compound, and individuals can have hundreds of
thousands of dollars, if not over a million dollars.
I want those individuals to be wealthy, whether they are on the lower
end of the income scale or in the higher end. We want them to be
independent.
Likewise, I want to reduce the unfunded promises that we don't have
the money to pay for. I am really concerned about what our kids are
going to have to pay for 20 years from now. If we do not do something,
as Senator Roth is proposing--Senator Moynihan, Senator Breaux, and
Senator Kerrey, and others of us have been working on it--our kids are
going to be inheriting a debt that is twice as large as our national
debt. Everybody is bragging around here. We are patting ourselves on
the back. ``Hey, we balanced the budget.'' We are balancing the budget
on using a great deal of Social Security surplus. That debt right now
has accumulated, the Federal debt--usually people say about $3.3
trillion or $4 trillion. The unfunded vested promises that we have in
Social Security today is almost $10 trillion, twice as large as our
national debt.
What this change by going to a capitalist-funded retirement system
would do would provide security, provide retirement funds for
individuals, and likewise could reduce the Government's obligations in
the future--to me that is a very positive thing--so future generations
won't have to have a payroll tax that is maybe twice as high as the
payroll taxes we have today. I think it is a very positive thing.
I might mention--I see a couple of colleagues on the floor who talked
about how we should not use Social Security funds to balance the
budget. Today the Social Security trust fund, this year 1998, $101
billion more will go in than goes out. That is a surplus. Yet, we are
using that surplus just like every administration has used it since we
have had Social Security.
What I would like to see it do--I might mention the Budget Committee
has already passed it. I was interested. I was going to introduce a
resolution that says we should pass in 2 or 3 years--3 years, let's
say--the budget resolution that doesn't use one dime of Social Security
trust funds to balance the budget.
I tell my colleague from North Dakota, who has talked about this on
more than one occasion, that I am willing to do it. It won't be easy,
but we should do it. I tell my colleague that in 10 years the Social
Security surplus will be $197 billion, almost $200 billion. I don't
think we should use these Social Security revenues to balance the
budget. If we balance the budget without that, we can make these moneys
available for personal security accounts. Now you are talking about
real money. You are talking about $200 billion in the year 2008 alone
that can go into personal security accounts that can be invested in the
stock market, that can be invested in mutual funds, that can be
invested in bonds, that can be invested in T bills. Let the individual
decide how he wants to invest it. We allow Federal employees to invest
in the stock market, in bonds, and in T bills. Federal employees are
able to do this. My colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned that they do
it in Chile. They make investments. Surely Americans are capable of
making these investments. I think it would be exciting to allow people
to be able to invest their own money. It is their money. It is not the
Government's money. We have been taking it from them. Shouldn't we
allow, out of that 12.4 percent, the individuals to take maybe 4
percent or 5 or 6 percent and be able to invest it for themselves? In
exchange for that, they will be a lot more dependent on themselves and
a lot less dependent on the Government.
This is a mandatory tax. Shouldn't we allow them to have part of that
for themselves so they can have an account and look at it on a monthly
basis, so it is there, and it is something they can count on, not for
an unfunded Government promise that we hope will be there.
Demographically, everybody who has ever looked at this problem says we
have a real problem. Some people say we don't have problems until 30
years. That is hogwash. We have problems, as Senator Roth mentioned, in
12 years.
It is estimated that by the year 2010 or 2012, for Social Security
that line of more money going in switches. More money goes out. No
later than 2012, more money goes out than in. We will start drawing on
the trust fund. What is in the trust fund? Nothing but Government IOUs.
That is the promise. The way we finance those--you say they are the
same things as T bills or the paper equivalent. It is just an IOU. The
way we pay for these is we issue more T bills. In 12 years we have a
big problem. We will have enormously high payroll taxes and a lot of
debt. You have to issue more debt. I think that is a bad solution. This
is the right solution, and I will tell you that millions of people in
the private sector have done this. We did it in my company. We went
from a defined benefit to defined contribution plan. Our employees love
us. I think we should give every American an opportunity to do this for
at least part of their Social Security. It doesn't have to be for all
of it. Some people say 2 percent. I said maybe it should be half of
it--maybe 6.4 percent, 6.2 percent. The Government, the employer
portion, can still go to meet current obligations. But, likewise, we
would be reducing current or future obligations. I think that is very
important.
What Congress has done in the past--we have had problems with Social
Security--is raise taxes. We raised the base. We raised the tax rate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a chart showing payroll taxes--Social Security taxes and employer taxes
combined. For the record--my colleagues can see this--if you look at
Social Security and if you look at disability, Medicare, if you add
those taxes together, in 1998, for a person making maximum of the base,
the base amount, which is $68,000, it shows they are paying in payroll
taxes alone $10,465. That is a lot of money. I am saying we should
allow individuals to take part of that, a few thousand dollars of it,
and be able to put it into their own account and likewise reduce
Government's obligation at the same time. I think it is awfully
important.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart that I
have prepared that shows the budget deficits and Social Security and
how that equates. It shows that we are becoming more and more reliant
over the next several years on Social Security surpluses that I
mentioned before, which disappear by the year 2012.
There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S2921]]
BUDGET DEFICITS & SOCIAL SECURITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Unified
On-budget Security budget
deficit deficit/ deficit/
surplus surplus \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1962............................ (5.9) (1.3) (7.1)
1963............................ (4.0) (0.8) (4.8)
1964............................ (6.5) 0.6 (5.9)
1965............................ (1.6) 0.2 (1.4)
1966............................ (3.1) (0.6) (3.7)
1967............................ (12.6) 4.0 (8.6)
1968............................ (27.7) 2.6 (25.2)
1969............................ (0.5) 3.7 3.2
1970............................ (8.7) 5.9 (2.8)
1971............................ (26.1) 3.0 (23.0)
1972............................ (26.4) 3.0 (23.4)
1973............................ (15.4) 0.5 (14.9)
1974............................ (8.0) 1.8 (6.1)
1975............................ (55.3) 2.0 (53.2)
1976............................ (70.5) (3.2) (73.7)
1977............................ (49.8) (3.9) (53.7)
1978............................ (54.9) (4.3) (59.2)
1979............................ (38.7) (2.0) (40.7)
1980............................ (72.7) (1.1) (73.8)
1981............................ (74.0) (5.0) (79.0)
1982............................ (120.1) (7.9) (128.0)
1983............................ (208.0) 0.2 (207.8)
1984............................ (185.7) 0.3 (185.4)
1985............................ (221.7) 9.4 (212.3)
1986............................ (238.0) 16.7 (221.2)
1987............................ (169.3) 19.6 (149.8)
1988............................ (194.0) 38.8 (155.2)
1989............................ (205.2) 52.4 (152.5)
1990............................ (277.8) 58.2 (221.2)
1991............................ (321.6) 53.5 (269.4)
1992............................ (340.5) 50.7 (290.4)
1993............................ (300.4) 46.8 255.1()
1994............................ (258.8) 56.8 (203.1)
1995............................ (226.3) 60.4 (163.9)
1996............................ (174.0) 66.4 (107.3)
1997............................ (103.3) 81.3 (22.0)
1998............................ (92.0) 101.0 8.0
=======================================
1999............................ (104.0) 113.0 9.0
2000............................ (121.0) 123.0 1.0
2001............................ (117.0) 130.0 13.0
2002............................ (72.0) 139.0 67.0
2003............................ (94.0) 148.0 53.0
2004............................ (88.0) 158.0 70.0
2005............................ (96.0) 170.0 75.0
2006............................ (64.0) 179.0 115.0
2007............................ (59.0) 189.0 130.0
2008............................ (59.0) 197.0 138.0
---------------------------------------
Totals for 1999-2008...... (874.0) 1,546.0 671.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The unified budget deficit/surplus includes the on-budget deficit,
the Social Security surplus, and the Postal Service deficit/surplus.
____
Payroll Taxes
TAX RATE AND WAGE BASE
[Employee and employer combined]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax rates (in percent) Wage base
-------------------------------- Total -----------------------------
Social (in
Security Disability Medicare percent) OASDI HI
(OASI) (DI) (HI)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950.................................... 3.00 n/a n/a 3.00 3,000 n/a
1955.................................... 4.00 n/a n/a 4.00 4,200 n/a
1960.................................... 5.50 0.50 n/a 6.00 4,800 n/a
1965.................................... 6.75 0.50 n/a 7.25 4,800 n/a
1970.................................... 7.30 1.10 1.20 9.60 7,800 7,800
1975.................................... 8.75 1.15 1.80 11.70 14,100 14,100
1980.................................... 9.04 1.12 2.10 12.26 25,900 25,900
1985.................................... 10.40 1.00 2.70 14.10 39,600 39,600
1990.................................... 11.20 1.20 2.90 15.30 51,300 51,300
1995.................................... 10.52 1.88 2.90 15.30 61,200 No limit
1996.................................... 10.52 1.88 2.90 15.30 62,700 No limit
1997.................................... 10.70 1.70 2.90 15.30 65,400 No limit
1998.................................... 10.70 1.70 2.90 15.30 68,400 No limit
1999.................................... 10.70 1.70 2.90 15.30 70,800 No limit
2000.................................... 10.60 1.80 2.90 15.30 74,100 No limit
2001.................................... 10.60 1.80 2.90 15.30 76,800 No limit
2002.................................... 10.60 1.80 2.90 15.30 79,800 No limit
2003.................................... 10.60 1.80 2.90 15.30 82,800 No limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAYROLL TAX CONTRIBUTION \1\
[Employee and employer combined]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social
Security Disability Medicare Total
(OASI) (DI) (HI)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950............................................................... 90 0 0 90
1955............................................................... 168 0 0 168
1960............................................................... 264 24 0 288
1965............................................................... 324 24 0 348
1970............................................................... 569 86 94 749
1975............................................................... 1,234 162 254 1,650
1980............................................................... 2,341 290 544 3,175
1985............................................................... 4,118 396 1,069 5,584
1990............................................................... 5,746 616 1,488 7,849
1995 \1\........................................................... 6,438 1,151 1,775 9,364
1996 \1\........................................................... 6,596 1,179 1,818 9,593
1997 \1\........................................................... 6,998 1,112 1,897 10,006
1998 \1\........................................................... 7,319 1,163 1,984 10,465
1999 \1\........................................................... 7,576 1,204 2,053 10,832
2000 \1\........................................................... 7,855 1,334 2,149 11,337
2001 \1\........................................................... 8,141 1,382 2,227 11,750
2002 \1\........................................................... 8,459 1,436 2,314 12,209
2003 \1\........................................................... 8,777 1,490 2,401 12,668
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Medicare (HI) contribution shown above is based on the OASDI wage base. The HI wage base was eliminated
beginning in 1994, making the maximum HI contribution unlimited.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we need to wean ourselves and get off of
this addiction to this and take that money and allow people to put it
in their own account. That to me is a challenge. We shouldn't be
sitting back and saying, ``Oh, we balance the budget. Aren't we proud
of ourselves? We are doing good. We have a unified budget.''
I think we should have a unified budget. But I think we should go
back and let's balance the budget without using Social Security. Then
let's allow people to take that amount of money and be able to put that
in their own account.
I might mention that in the 10 years, if we did that, there would be
over $1.5 trillion that could go into individual accounts and we would
have more constituents that would be happier with us than anything else
we would do. We would do more to secure their retirement and their
future than anything else we could do.
I have even told the President's representatives. I said, if the
President really wants to go down in history and show that he has done
something significant, this change, this evolution of allowing at least
part of Social Security to be funded as a defined contribution in a
personal savings accounts would be an astronomically positive impact
for not only this generation; I think it would be a positive impact for
future generations, which history will record as having truly been a
great thing to do for seniors, a very positive thing to do for future
generations as well.
So I compliment my colleague from Delaware, the chairman of the
Finance Committee. I tell him that, as a member of that committee, I
will work energetically to try to see that we can make this happen as
soon as possible.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, Senator John
Breaux, in delivering a statement as to why we support the sense of the
Senate language put forth by the chairman of the Finance Committee,
Senator Roth.
For the past year, Senator Breaux and I have co-chaired the National
Commission on Retirement Policy, convened by the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. Our task is to review the situation facing
our Nation with respect to retirement income in the 21st century.
We will soon be releasing a final report of our findings and
recommendations, and we need not preview them here in detail. Suffice
to say that each of the major sources of retirement income--Social
Security, employer-provided pensions, and personal savings--will be
under severe strain in the 21st century, as a consequence of the aging
of our population, and the declining ratio of workers to retirees.
The situation facing Social Security is sufficiently dire to command
our immediate attention. We, as co-chairs of the NCRP, wrote to
President Clinton last December, urging him to make this issue a
priority in his state of the union address, and we were extremely
pleased that he did so. Social Security will begin running operating
deficits in the year 2012 under current law, and even if the $2.89
trillion that the Federal Government will owe Social Security is repaid
in full, the Trust Fund would still run dry in the year 2029. The
unfunded liabilities of the Social Security--the gap between projected
outlays and projected revenues--is on the order of $3 trillion. The
true ``unfunded liability,'' however, is much greater, because those
taxes haven't been collected yet, and therefore all of the future
liabilities of the program are in a sense unfunded, to be financed from
tax revenue at the time that they are paid.
We have carefully studied this problem for a year, and we believe
that there are several problems that must be solved simultaneously. The
actuarial soundness of Social Security is but one of these. There is
also a huge problem residing in the size of the tax burden that is
awaiting the future economy if we do not advance fund some of Social
Security's future liabilities. A solution to this problem is no
solution at all if it achieves actuarial soundness at the price of an
unfair tax burden on tomorrow's economy, or at the price of further
worsening the quality of the deal that today's young workers will
receive from the Social Security program.
It is for this reason that Senator Breaux and I believe that personal
accounts must be a component of the Social Security solution. Tough
choices will need to be made in order to bring the outlays and the
revenues of Social Security back into balance, and we believe that
personal accounts should be established within this context. Creating a
funded savings account component within the Social Security system is
perhaps the only way to give something back to today's young workers to
improve their treatment by the Social Security system relative to a set
of traditional solutions alone. This is one way that we have found to
prevent the income provided by the Social Security system from
declining below the level that we expect from the program.
Before turning to Senator Breaux, let me also note the flexibility of
Senator Roth's language with regard to the administration of such
accounts. This language does not commit the Senate to any particular
method of administration. Senator Breaux and I,
[[Page S2922]]
after a year of study, have reached the conclusion that the best way to
administer personal accounts is through the existing payroll tax
collection system. That money is already being paid in a timely way by
employers on behalf of individual employees, and is a structure that we
can practicably work through to set up accounts in every wage-earner's
name through a refund of some portion of the payroll tax. The Roth
language is flexible enough to permit a variety of approaches to
administering the accounts, as it should be. I hope that Senators who
differ as to the best administrative mechanism will be able to unite
behind it.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank Senator Gregg for his unwavering leadership on
this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the past year.
I also want to thank Chairman Roth for his leadership. Times have
certainly changed since the days when no one would even talk about
Social Security reform. Today, we have key members of the Senate
presenting innovative ideas about how to address the looming
liabilities of the Social Security program. I applaud Chairman Roth's
efforts because he is moving this debate forward.
This is critical because the motto must be ``sooner rather than
later''. There is no better time to tackle entitlement reform than
during good economic times. While SS's financing is projected to pay
full benefits until 2029--the strain on the Federal budget will begin
much earlier, only 10 years from now. The Social Security Advisory
Council could not agree on an approach to reform Social Security;
however, they all agreed that early action should be taken. This call
has been echoed time and time again by the General Accounting Office,
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as well as most
other experts.
The budget resolution already contains Sense of the Senate language
regarding the budget surplus and Social Security reform. It reads as
follows: ``Congress should use unified budget surpluses to reform
Social Security for future generations . . .'' I support Chairman
Roth's Sense of the Senate because it takes this language a step
further. It suggests that individual accounts are the direction in
which Social Security reform should move. I agree with this.
The American people will hear again and again over the next several
months about the financial instability of Social Security--about the
promises made that we can no longer afford to keep. Americans will also
hear about what is necessary to put Social Security on sound financial
footing--the difficult sacrifices and the tough choices. This dialogue
will only compound the already low level of confidence most Americans
have in our nation's public retirement system. I adamantly believe we
must do something to reverse this trend. We must provide some good news
in the middle of this debate. If we include individual accounts within
Social Security reform we are giving all Americans a new chance to
provide substantial retirement savings for themselves--that is the good
news.
This Sense of the Senate does not dictate or even suggest how these
individual accounts should be administered or that they be done
independently of fundamental Social Security reform. Senator Gregg and
I have our own ideas about how Social Security should be reformed and,
specifically, how individual accounts should be set-up and
administered. I look forward to our ideas being discussed and debated
during the coming weeks and months, along with all the other ideas
being put on the table. The Aging Committee, which I am pleased to
serve as Ranking Member, is looking at this issue closely. I hope the
Finance Committee will hold hearings as soon as May.
In looking to Social Security reform we cannot lose sight of the
larger budget picture and the difficult steps we have taken in this
Congress to get our country's books in order. What we tried to do with
the balanced budget--and what we should be trying to do with the
surplus--is reduce this country's overall financial liabilities. As
stated in the budget resolution, Social Security's unfunded liability
stands at around $3 trillion. Obviously, Social Security is a large
part of this country's debt and must be addressed. Again, it must be
addressed sooner rather than later. In conclusion, I want to again
thank Chairman Roth and Senator Gregg for their efforts in moving this
debate forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, a few moments ago I had an opportunity
to discuss with the chairman of the Budget Committee how we might
proceed, because one of the things we are running into is that,
although we had agreed to have a half-hour limit on amendments equally
divided, as a result of courtesy, we have extended time on the
resolution. It, thusly, then challenges whether or not we are ever
going to get done here, because we have almost 30 amendments. If we
take 30 amendments, you have 2 hours each, 7 or 8 hours of votes to
accompany that, that is another, who knows, 7, 8, 10 hours.
So what we are going to do, unless there is a difference in the
conversation as I remember it from what the distinguished Senator from
New Mexico agreed, we are going to permit approximate time on this side
equal to the two speakers that we just had. Then we are going to
eliminate further time off the bill itself for amendments.
With that, I yield some time to the Senator from North Dakota, as he
sees fit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the ranking
member. We have just seen a proposal unveiled on the floor of the
Senate which has some interesting aspects. I must say some of the
concepts here are ones that I am interested in. But I am concerned
about the specifics of the proposal that is before us in this regard.
The chairman of the Finance Committee suggests we ought to devote the
budget surpluses to building private accounts in Social Security. I am
on record as one member of the Finance Committee who favors moving
towards private accounts over time. But I must say, I am concerned
about the specifics of the proposal of the Senator from Delaware in
that it is based on, I think, a false assumption. I see the false
assumption as being that we have budget surpluses.
I am certain there are people listening here, here in the Senate
Chamber and people listening at home, who wonder what is this talk
about budget surpluses and Social Security surpluses? What does this
all mean? It is confusing. Unfortunately, the language we use here in
Washington, I think, contributes to that confusion. We talk about
budget surpluses but what we do not tell people is the way we have
calculated their surpluses is that we have included the Social Security
trust fund surpluses. This year that amounts to over $100 billion. And
by throwing that money into the pot, by, in effect, raiding Social
Security, we say there is a $8 billion surplus in the budget.
There is not a surplus in the budget. The truth is there is a
significant deficit. Oh, yes, on a unified basis--if you take all the
funds of the Federal Government and throw them into the pot and look at
all of the expenditures of the Federal Government, we are in balance.
That is what they call the unified budget. But the problem with that
is, and the little dirty secret here, is that $100 billion of the
Social Security surplus is being put into that calculation.
If any private company tried to balance their books in this way, they
would be headed for a Federal institution all right, but it would not
be the Congress of the United States. They would be headed for a
Federal facility all right. It would be a Federal prison, because that
is fraud. That is fraud. To take money for one purpose and use it for
another is fraud. Unfortunately, that is the pattern and practice here
and has been for 30 years. We are taking Social Security trust fund
surpluses, throwing those into the pot, and this year we are saying we
have balanced the budget.
If any company tried to take the retirement funds of its employees
and throw those into the pot and say they balanced the operating budget
of the company, they would be in violation of Federal law. So I think
we want to be cautious when we have a proposal that
[[Page S2923]]
in many ways is attractive. I want to say to the Senator from Delaware,
I am on record as favoring a partial privatization. I like the idea of
individuals being able to have several percentage points of Social
Security trust fund payments that they make be reserved in private
accounts that they could invest. I like that basic concept.
But how do you fund it? How do you fund it? It seems to me the first
thing we have to do is stop the practice of looting Social Security. If
we are going to secure the long-term prospects for Social Security, we
ought to stop raiding it. We ought to stop looting it. And we ought to
stop the talk that we have a budget surplus. Because the only way we
got a budget surplus is by counting those Social Security trust fund
surpluses, which we are going to need for the day when the baby boom
generation starts to retire.
We have a demographic time bomb just over the horizon, and it is the
baby boom generation. When they start to retire in the year 2012, all
of a sudden everything that looks rosy now is going to change and
change quickly. In fact, by the year 2029 we anticipate the Social
Security fund will have run through these massive surpluses that are
being built now. They are not built up in terms of money actually in
the bank, but built up in terms of IOUs that are being registered and
accumulated based on borrowing by the other parts of Government that
are spending those moneys, even though we know we are going to need
those funds when the baby boomers start to retire.
I think the basic concept the Senator from Delaware has merit. But I
am very concerned about the specifics that he has proposed, because to
take these so-called budget surpluses that we have on paper that only
exist because we are raiding Social Security and use those funds before
we use them to preserve and protect Social Security, has the prospect
of undermining our first responsibility and our first obligation. Our
first responsibility and our first obligation is to keep the promise to
the tens of millions of people who are relying on that Social Security
check.
Before we go off and raid the Social Security trust fund surpluses in
order to claim we have a budget surplus, we ought to stop that
practice. We ought to clean up our act, stop raiding Social Security,
stop looting Social Security, and then we can move in the direction
proposed by the Senator from Delaware. But I think the proposal that he
has before us at this moment is based on a misnomer. And the misnomer
is that there are budget surpluses. There are only budget surpluses
because we are taking $100 billion a year from Social Security
surpluses and throwing those into the pot when we make the calculation
of budget surpluses. So we say we have a budget surplus next year of $8
billion, but we are taking $100 billion from Social Security surpluses
in order to make that claim.
So I just say to my colleagues, I favor the notion of having some
portion of Social Security in an account where people control their own
investment. I like that idea. But we have to work through the
transition costs of this very carefully or we will undermine and
threaten the solvency, the long-term solvency, of the Social Security
trust fund itself. That should not be anything that we do.
Our first obligation, I believe, is to stop raiding the Social
Security trust fund, stop raiding those funds, and move to secure the
long-term solvency of Social Security and then have a chance to move in
the direction the Senator from Delaware has asked for.
Mr. President, I will be happy to yield back my time so the
distinguished Senator from New York has a chance to comment on the
issue before us.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the
Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and neighbor from New
Jersey, the manager on our side, and my friend Senator Conrad of the
Finance Committee, for his remarks.
Mr. President, I rise not so much in opposition to the proposal by
the esteemed chairman of our committee, as to see if it is not possible
to clarify some of these issues. And to welcome the Senate to what
should be a substantive, constructive debate over the next 6 months--
pending the time when our distinguished Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, Mr. Franklin D. Raines, has indicated the
administration plans to begin to have legislation on this issue, in the
first session of the next Congress. In my view, we ought to take up
such legislation as a first order of business in that session.
May I take the presumed responsibility of this body, which tends to
have long tenure, to give a bit of history? In 1935, we established the
Social Security system on a pay-as-you-go basis. It was no time, in the
midst of a great economic depression, to take more money out of the
economy than was being put back, even if it was only a nominal process.
This went on until 1977 when we moved from a pay-as-you-go system to
a partially funded system. I was a member of the committee of
conference between the Senate and the House which adopted that change,
and I can say there was very little attention paid to it. We put in
place a huge surplus to provide for the baby boom retirement, as the
phrase was. But we did not put in place any mechanism to save that
surplus.
Indeed, if I look around the horizon of political economy, I do not
think there is any such mechanism. You can strengthen an economy by
paying down debt such that the private sector grows. Theoretically you
could build warehouses and fill them with cans of Campbell soup to be
opened in 30 years time. But in a system of this kind, a defined
benefit arrangement for retirement and for survivors and the disabled--
only 62 percent of persons receiving Social Security benefits are
retired persons; the rest are spouses and children of persons who have
died, and the disabled--there is no way to save a surplus.
The result was that for 21, now 22 years, we have had each year a
large surplus from the payroll tax. This is what Senator Conrad was
speaking about. And we have used it for other reasons altogether. We
have abused it because at a minimum we have never let our debt be paid
down so our private savings and investment would rise as an absolute
reciprocal, as mathematicians say. For every dollar of debt you pay
down you get a dollar of savings that will be used for private
investment.
Instead, we used this money to conceal the enormity of the deficits
we ran in the 1980s and which we now have gotten past. We are now down
to a stable situation, not yet one of surplus, because we still have
this money coming in from the partially funded system we put in place
in 1977 with a very regressive, high payroll tax, 12.4 percent of
payroll, paid on the first dollar of income and up to $68,400 this
year.
But this is no longer much of a surplus. The numbers are
approximately this, and I say approximately because we won't know for
another year or so, but next year the combined costs of old age and
survivors and disability insurance, plus hospital insurance, will be
roughly equal to the combined payroll tax revenues for these two
programs; thereafter you are in deficit. Technically, there are
Treasury bonds that can be cashed in, but then you have to get general
revenue or borrow more to convert them into benefits.
By about the year 2010, there is no longer any surplus in the primary
OASDI, Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. We have 11 years
until there is nothing left there either.
Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and I have introduced legislation that we
think accommodates the situation we are in which, first of all, does
not save Social Security. Social Security does not need to be saved.
What it does not need is to be destroyed. There is now abroad a
powerful ideological movement to turn the system of retirement benefits
and survivors benefits over to personal savings in the market. This is
a legitimate idea, but I am not sure, if it were understood, it would
be a very popular idea.
It puts at risk much more than we would ever wish to do in terms of
the entire population. It translates the experience of successful
entrepreneurial people in an age of great economic growth into a
proposition that this is something that the whole of the population can
and ought to want to do.
We have a plan which does two things: One, it secures Social Security
as a defined benefit for retired persons, for disabled persons, for
survivors indefinitely. Simultaneously, it provides
[[Page S2924]]
for lowering payroll taxes and allowing the difference to be used for
just the kind of personal savings accounts, investment accounts, that
our friend from Delaware would like to do.
Specifically, we move from the current 12.4 percent payroll tax--half
of it by the employee, half by the employer--to 10.4. That will pay
your benefits for more than 30 years; thereafter the payroll tax is
gradually increased to a combined 13.4 percent thereby, with some other
adjustments I will mention, securing the system for more than a
century. Then we say give the employee the option of taking his or her
1 percent as income--some will do that; young persons will do, no
doubt--or having the 2 percent deposited into some kind of thrift
savings plan.
We have such an arrangement in the Federal Government. You can
contribute part of your salary, which the Federal Government matches.
There is a booklet, and you pick the kind of investment you would like.
Some people like index funds, bonds, mutual funds--there are a whole
range of these products, as they are called, and you can pick what you
wish, and from time to time you can change, if you wish.
The prospect for the average earner with a 2 percent investment is
that, after contributing for 45 years into the system, the worker would
have a nominal asset from that 2 percent contribution in the range of
$400,000. This would mean Americans would have an estate. They could
leave something to their grandchildren, who might even be more
attentive given that prospect.
We have an idea of an America very different from the world of the
1930s and the system we put in place, which was put in place in Europe
in the 1880s. We have an idea of a retirement system in which persons
begin to have a three-tiered system: You have your Social Security, a
fixed amount, an annuity. You have benefits from private pensions that
you earned with your employer. About half of American workers now have
such. And then you have income, if you wish it, from your savings and
investment accounts.
That requires a few other changes. It requires that we get an
accurate cost-of-living index by which to adjust the benefits for
changes in the cost of living. We do not now have one. There is a small
group of economists who dissent, but the overwhelming judgment of the
profession is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index
is not a cost-of-living index, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics
insists it is not. They do not misrepresent their product; it is we who
misuse it.
I will say that again. The Department of Labor does not misrepresent
its Consumer Price Index; it is we who misuse it. We began the practice
in 1972 at a time when Social Security benefits were the object of a
biannual auction on the House and Senate floors as Members rose to say,
``I propose we raise benefits 5 percent,'' then 10 percent, then 15
percent. I think on one occasion we went up 20 percent. We had to stop
that. The nearest thing at hand was the CPI. We can make a correction.
A committee of distinguished economists, headed by Professor Michael
Boskin, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under
President Bush, reported to the Committee on Finance a year and a half
ago recommending a correction of 1.1 percentage points.
Different economists, different Government officials, have different
judgments, but they are almost all in the same range. And just at this
moment, the principal economic planners of the U.S. Government do not
use the CPI as a measure of inflation. They just don't; they know
otherwise.
We have to gradually increase the age of retirement to 70, as we do
in our bill, way into the next century. Under current law, we are
already approaching an increase to 67. The majority of beneficiaries,
Mr. President, retire at age 62 at a reduced benefit, which is
actuarially sound.
We get rid of that dumb earnings test. It wasn't dumb in 1935 when we
were encouraging people not to be in the labor force. Right now, if you
work between ages 62 and 70, you lose some or all of your benefits. At
age 70 and above, you would then get increased benefits. That is, you
receive the same benefits over the course of your retirement. Under our
bill, you can decide when to collect your benefits, regardless of
whether you are working. You don't have to fool around.
We would tax these benefits at the rate at which ordinary pension
income is taxed. May I say, Mr. President, for a very, very large
number of our present recipients, particularly the old ones, their
Social Security benefit and any other income they might have is so low
that they pay no Federal taxes of any kind and would not pay any taxes
under this new proposal.
But I say that this can be done, but it won't be done if we don't
understand that we are dealing with a group, a body of respectable
opinion, that basically thinks Social Security is a failed plan,
perhaps never should have been put in place and now should be
transitioned out. This is not the view of the Senator from Delaware. He
would like to see a basic annuity for all Americans continue. But it is
the view of many more people than we know, or perhaps are aware of, or
perhaps are collected in a coherent manner.
This morning in the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Gingrich spoke
very much in these terms. Typically, Senator Dole, who appeared as a
witness, did not. The problem is, right now there are groups who are so
attached to the present system that they will not make the changes
necessary to maintain the present system. It is painful. They know who
they are. If I may say, the White House knows who they are. I daresay
there aren't many of us in the Finance Committee who do not know. But
they must recognize that the alternative is the loss of everything we
have developed over 60 years, 60 years in which the system has never
been a day late or dollar short on any payment, but which has somehow
lost the confidence of the public. I ask my distinguished friend for
another 2 minutes to conclude.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield up to 5 minutes, as needed,
by the Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I want to make this point. I want to
shout this point at the American people: They are trying to scare you
out of your Social Security. You don't think you are going to get it
now. Why, I am not sure. But ask anyone on the streets at home. Ask
someone in their thirties or in their forties. The polls are clear.
People do not expect to get it. Partly this is bad management at the
Social Security Administration. It got lost in the HEW and then HHS.
In 1994, we re-created it as an independent agency with an
independent Administrator, but the SSA never tells people that the
agency knows their name, what they are going to get in benefits, and
that they are on top of this.
I say it right now, there are people who would like to scare you into
thinking you are not going to get Social Security, so don't worry about
it when they take it away, and what they are going to make you instead
is a millionaire in the stock market. I don't think that will happen. I
don't think it should. I think we should allow the accommodation of
both. I think we should begin, if I can use a term from the academy, to
demystify some of these claims, not by Senator Roth, who is loyal to
this institution. He has been on the Finance Committee for 30 years and
has helped maintain the system.
But there are those who are out to do away with it. Why, I do not
know. They take as their model the system in the Nation of Chile, a
nation of some 12 million people, I believe, a system developed under
General Pinochet, which does not immediately suggest sound social
policy or equity. I don't say there is anything wrong with their
system, but there is nothing wrong with ours either. It is ours to
maintain. We should do it, and we should not let our people be
frightened into giving up something so important to them and to their
children and to their parents.
I thank my friend for giving me this time. I regretfully have to say
that while I very much endorse the idea of personal savings accounts,
right now we should use the surplus money we have to pay down the debt,
increase investment, and get on with the simple changes we need to make
this system permanent and stable.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the manager for his
courtesy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment sounds innocuous, but it
is a direct assault on Social Security, and
[[Page S2925]]
it deserves resounding rejection by the Senate.
Millions of senior citizens depend on Social Security. In fact,
Social Security benefits comprise more than 75% of the income of half
of the nation's 28 million recipients. It is a sacred compact between
citizens and their government that says, ``pay into Social Security
during your working years, and we will guarantee you a decent
retirement income during your golden years.''
Social Security is one of the most popular programs ever enacted. It
is also one of our nation's most successful anti-poverty programs. In
1959, 35% of the nation's elderly lived in poverty. Today, that number
has dropped to 9%.
We all recognize that legislative action is necessary to assure that
Social Security will be solvent throughout the 21st century. There is
no crisis--but there is a problem, and the sooner we take action to
solve it the better. All of us know that Social Security will run out
of money in 2030. All of us know that the single highest priority of
the American people is to see Social Security preserved.
All of us know that the President has said that none of the budget
surplus should be spent until we solve the Social Security problem--and
the American people strongly support this approach.
But this amendment takes a different approach. It says: ``Let's
forget about preserving Social Security. Let's go ahead and spend the
surplus on a risky and untried experiment with individual retirement
accounts.''
We all know what is going on here. There are a number of members of
this body who want to throw Security on the scrap heap of history. They
think it ought to be privatized. They think the concept of Social
Security is wrong. They think individuals, instead of relying on the
tried and true and guaranteed support that Social Security provides,
should take their chances by speculating in the stock market. If they
do well, they can become rich. If they do poorly and are impoverished
in their old age--so be it.
I reject that philosophy. The American people, I believe, also reject
that philosophy. And the Senate should reject that amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, just to be certain, if we combine the
time that was yielded off the resolution and off of the amendment, the
proponents used a total of?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. We to this point have used a total of?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thirty. So I will yield myself some time off of the
amendment, which I understand is the time that remains to respond to
the proposal by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee,
the Senator from Delaware, whose proposals we always take seriously.
This is a man who is intelligent, who is committed to the proper
procedure of getting things done. We have great respect and regard for
the Senator from Delaware. But we can nevertheless disagree.
On this particular proposal, I do disagree because I see things in
perhaps a different light. When I think of the prospect--and I thank
the Senator from New York because, as usual, he has a grasp of issues
that goes way beyond the capacity of the average human being. And, boy,
do we learn, and we learn in a hurry here. But nevertheless, I listened
carefully to what the Senator from New York said. He talked about the
possibilities of some investment on the private side, and I respect
that, when combined with other changes that have to be made. I think
otherwise we are rushing almost willy-nilly into a change, if this
proves to be law at some time, that would rock the timbers of our
society.
When we think of Social Security, we think of the foundation that it
holds for senior citizens. I kind of ask myself, well, would we
recommend to the elderly across this country that they go ahead with
some investment adviser, or make a decision on their own, whether it is
to buy fund X, A, B, or C? We saw what happened to this investment club
that was doing so well, according to the papers, and finally they
admitted they made a few accounting mistakes. Would anyone want to have
to face that widow who perhaps gets $700, $800 a month and say,
``Sorry, there's an error; you don't have $800 a month, you have $400 a
month or $500 a month''? Or would you rather say, ``Listen, what you
have is guaranteed. It may not have provided the kinds of things that
your husband and you had when you were living together, but you will
not be chased out of your room or your house. You will have a chance to
continue to live at some scale, modest as it may be.''
But when I look at companies like the Prudential Insurance Company,
one of the great companies of the world, one of, if not the largest
company in the world--it was among the top five--it had some
inappropriate management problems there. And they are good friends of
mine, so I do not knock the company. But they, nevertheless, had to
reduce the interest they were paying on policies, on cash reserves on
their policies. This giant company, the Rock, the Rock of Gibraltar was
their trademark, and they had to reduce their interest rates.
In October, a few years ago, 1987, the market lost a substantial
portion of the holdings. I was at a meeting in Boston and people up
there were shaken to their foundation to see their investments, their
growth in investments, suddenly whittled away by some 15-plus percent.
While I am excited about the market and where it is going, just like
everybody else, I know one thing: That going down is always faster than
going up when there is any velocity attached to it.
I think that without full deliberation about what the consequences
might be, pro and con, with this kind of investment, it is excessively
hasty. I would not want to be talking to people who suddenly decided
they wished they had had Social Security IOUs, as they were described
here. I do not know about you, but I know that I still feel pretty good
about an IOU owed by the U.S. Government, by the people of America.
Those are, as they say in the movies, as good as it gets, not high-
paying but everybody pretty much feels that, listen, the worst that
happens, we are going to get paid. We may even have it monetized a
little bit with inflation, but the fact is we know it is there.
So when I look at the proposition that is offered, I say that I hope
my colleagues will vote against it. When you cast your vote, you must
look or try to look in the eyes of an elderly parent or grandparent, or
perhaps, at some of our ages, a brother or sister, who are totally
dependent on Social Security for their survival--for their survival.
I tell you, I would not recommend on a personal basis--and I have had
a lot of experience. I ran a big company. And I managed, as part of my
responsibilities, the company's investments. I managed acquisition. I
had a lot to do with the financial side of things. I could hardly
imagine myself recommending to someone whose principal asset, exclusive
asset in some cases, was Social Security, that they invest in the
market a little bit, buy a hedge fund maybe or, gee, your adviser--I
remember when one of the great unions, I say to Senator Moynihan, sued
a bank in New York, who I will not identify here, for the poor
performance that this bank had with hundreds of millions of dollars
that belonged to this union's pension funds because it underperformed.
Who, with an investment of a couple thousand dollars a year or a
thousand dollars a year or less, is going to be able to pick just the
right adviser? There is some genius sitting there waiting to take your
$1,000 a year and monitor it and watch it? Come on, what do we think
this is? The guys who get that kind of attention are the guys who hit
the new scales on the heights--$500 million in net worth, $1 billion in
net worth, the people who are outside.
I know of one university fund, common among investments, being made
today by university endowments, who wants to get into investments that
they can be out of in 5 years. They do not want to be stuck in
investments that carry them indefinitely. And you will find that true
in place after place.
I say also that everyone is aware today that capital is not a problem
in this country. Capital is chasing investment all over. I know people
in the real estate business. I know people in the investment business
and merchant banks. And people are coming to them--institutions,
universities, companies, individuals--with money saying, ``Please help
me invest it properly.
[[Page S2926]]
Please help me place it securely. Please help me make sure that it's
safe.''
So how is a person who has a modest Social Security income going to
have the security to know that they have the right person advising them
or whether they know how to read a financial statement? It is an
interesting idea, but an idea, in my view, whose time has not come. I
hope that we will stand securely against it, give it a chance, led by
the leadership that the chairman of the Finance Committee can so aptly
provide, and have a full review of what it means.
We have discussed it. We have discussed it in the Budget Committee,
and we have discussed it with other committees, with Alan Greenspan and
with other distinguished economists: What does it mean? What about
privatization? Some say yes, some say no. I tell you this, I would far
rather be one who said no, just leave it where it is, than take the
risk that we have to face someone who is depending on Social Security
and not finding the reserve there when they need it.
So I hope this amendment does not pass. I urge my colleagues to vote
against it. No disrespect to the chairman of the Finance Committee or
those who are supporting it, but it just needs more time than we have.
Mr. President, as I stated, I must oppose the proposal to allocate
the surplus for personal savings accounts. In my view, this proposal
has serious ramifications for the future of Social Security. And we
shouldn't endorse it without first carefully examining all of its
implications.
Mr. President, let me just discuss a few of the concerns raised by
this amendment.
First, this proposal represents a major step toward privatizing
Social Security. And privatization, in my view, is directly
inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the program.
Social Security is supposed to guarantee that all American seniors
can avoid poverty and live their lives with a basic level of dignity.
It is a social insurance program. It is not supposed to be the only
source of retirement income for most seniors.
Moving to a system of private accounts represents a dramatic shift in
risks. Away from government. And onto the backs of individual senior
citizens.
Under a privatized system, seniors would lose: protection against
declines in stock prices; protection against inflation through cost of
living adjustments; and protection against outliving their assets.
Mr. President, protections against these kinds of risks--which are
completely beyond the control of any individual--are why we need social
insurance in the first place.
Let me be clear. I'm all for private retirement savings. I support
IRAs and 401(k)s, and believe Americans need to save more. But private
savings should supplement, not replace, social insurance. Otherwise,
most Americans will spend their old age walking a financial high wire,
without a safety net. And as someone who lived through the Great
Depression, that is not what I want for my children and grandchildren.
If we use a surplus to roll back payroll taxes and force people to
put this money into private accounts, money would be drained from the
Social Security trust funds. That would accelerate the date when the
program will go bankrupt. And that is the opposite of what we should be
doing.
There are many other points I could make about this proposal, but I
will not get into great detail here. Let me just say again that this is
not the kind of change that we should endorse without a great deal of
careful and thoughtful debate. That discussion is only now just getting
underway. And it would be premature to rush to judgment on such a
fundamental change in our system.
So I hope my colleagues will oppose this proposal. Let us fix Social
Security. But let us do it carefully. And let us do it right.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed some editorials in the
Record. The Senator from New York has asked us to do that, and I put
them forward.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From USA Today, Mar. 17, 1998]
Social Security Needs Repair, But Poor Shouldn't Pay For It--Moynihan's
Plan Isn't Perfect, But at Least He's Got People Talking
(By Michael Tanner)
Before the nation can solve its $15 trillion problem of
financing 70 million baby-boomer retirements, people need to
start talking about it. On Monday, Sen. Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, D-N.Y., gave them a place to begin.
His conversation starter: a 15% cut in the Social Security
payroll tax that could all go into a personal retirement
account.
In a speech at Harvard, Moynihan tacked that concept on to
his long-standing plan to put Social Security on a pay-as-
you-go basis. That's a small step, perhaps, but one that
could help break a political stalemate over Social Security
reform.
It bows to GOP plans to give people more control over
Social Security contributions while keeping the safety net
Democrats favor.
To pay for these enticements. Moynihan proposes some hard
medicine members of both parties have balked at swallowing.
Neither party has shown enthusiasm for Moynihan's plan to
end their balanced-budget charade. Payroll tax cuts now would
take away revenue that's used to mask government's $100
million operating deficit.
And even those who embrace budget honesty aren't likely to
enjoy the senator's proposals for making up the money and
ensuring Social Security's fiscal soundness.
He'd reduce cost-of-living adjustments for both tax
deductions and benefit increases. He'd also subject more
income to the payroll tax, raise the retirement age to 67
more quickly than now planned, and raise payroll taxes higher
than today's levels after 2025.
Trade-offs like those are inevitable if Social Security is
to be saved. But the real problem with Moynihan's plan is the
risk that it may not go far enough to protect the poorest
workers in their old age.
That is Social Security's fundamental goal. And it has
almost been achieved.
In 1935 when the program was initiated, more than half of
all elderly were supported by their children. Today, most are
independent. In 40 years, poverty rates among the elderly
have plummeted from 35% to under 11%, with Social Security
providing the bulk of income for 40% of elderly households.
Unlike most plans to privatize all or part of Social
Security, Moynihan's would not make savings mandatory. So
low-income families, squeezed for pennies, likely would spend
the $4 a week they'd get from the payroll tax cut.
That permissiveness is counterproductive. If the money were
saved for 40 years at 7% interest, it would generate more
than $40,000. The income from those savings--about $2,800 a
year at the same 7% rate--combined with other Social Security
payments would keep recipients out of poverty. Such savings
are essential for laborers who may not be able to work into
their late 60s as Moynihan's higher retirement age would
require.
Congress needs to start moving soon on Social Security
reform. Time is the great enemy of affordable answers. And
enabling people to invest some Social Security themselves may
be part of the answer.
But the test for any changes is whether they'll assure all
Americans of an adequate retirement. Social Security
shouldn't be saved or altered by robbing the poor.
____
[From USA Today, Mar. 17, 1998]
Tinkering Won't do the Job--The Only Sensible Solution Allows Private
Investment
(By Michael Tanner)
From President Clinton on down, there is now a national
consensus that Social Security is in trouble. Indeed, the
retirement program will begin running a deficit by 2012, just
14 years from now. The program's total unfunded liabilities
top $9 trillion.
Yet, in the face of the coming crisis, some still resist
serious change. They will suggest that a little tinkering
around the edges will be enough to fix Social Security.
Some want to raise taxes. But payroll taxes have already
been raised more than 38 times since Social Security began.
Even after accounting for inflation, payroll taxes are 800%
higher than at the program's inception. Three out of four
American workers now pay more in payroll taxes than they pay
in federal income taxes.
Others want to cut benefits. But young workers are already
going to receive less back in benefits than they pay in
Social Security taxes. Reducing benefits will only make
Social Security a worse deal for these young workers.
Tinkering will not fix Social Security's most basic flaw.
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program, similar to the
type of pyramid scheme that is illegal in every state.
Taxes paid by today's workers are not saved for their
retirement, but rather are spent immediately to pay benefits
for today's retirees. When those workers retire, they have to
hope that the next generation of workers will be large enough
to support them. But with people living longer and having
fewer children, the number of workers supporting each retiree
is shrinking.
What we really need is a new Social Security system based
on the power of private investment and individual savings.
Under such a plan, benefits to current retirees would be
guaranteed, but workers would be given the option of shifting
their payroll taxes to individually owned retirement
accounts, similar to IRAs or 401(k) plans.
[[Page S2927]]
Those accounts would be privately invested in real assets
such as stocks, bonds, annuities, etc. Because private
investment brings much higher returns, individuals could
expect to receive much higher retirement benefits.
It's time to stop tinkering and get on with the fundamental
reform necessary to preserve retirement security for future
generations.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 1998]
Public Trust Busting
When Senator Pat Moynihan speaks, liberals listen. So it
just might mark a watershed in the Social Security reform
debate that the New York Democrat this week embraced private
investment retirement accounts.
Mr. Moynihan's welfare state credentials are impeccable. He
helped to expand it during the Johnson and Nixon years and
he's been its most intellectually nimble defender since. He
bitterly opposed President Clinton's decision to sign a
welfare reform law. And only last year, writing in the New
York times, he seemed to rule out any significant change in
Social Security.
Well, he's now revising and extending those remarks. On
Monday at Harvard, he said Social Security can be saved only
by changing it. And not merely with the usual political
kamikaze run of raising taxes and slashing benefits. He's
also endorsing a redesign that would allow individuals to
invest two percentage points of their payroll tax as they
please, presumably in stocks, bonds and other private
investments.
This is a big breakthrough, ideologically and politically.
The idea of a private Social Security option has until
recently been the province of libertarians and other
romantics. When Steve Forbes talked up the concept in 1996,
he was demagogued by fellow Republicans. Even such a free-
marketeer as Ronald Reagan was forced to accept a Social
Security fix in 1983 that relied mostly on tax hikes.
What's changed? Only the world, as Mr. Moynihan admits. The
weight of the looming Baby Boom retirement has caused a loss
of public faith in Social Security's sustainability. Few Gen-
Xers even expect to receive it. More and more Americans also
began to see the virtue of private retirement vehicles like
IRAs and 401(k)s, which grew like Topsy as the stock market
boomed.
``In the meanwhile the academic world had changed,'' Mr.
Moynihan also told the mostly liberal academics at Harvard.
``The most energetic and innovative minds had turned away
from government programs--the nanny state-toward individual
enterprise, self-reliance, free markets.'' (No, he wasn't
quoting from this editorial page.) Privatizing Social
Security suddenly became thinkable, in many minds even
preferable.
In short, the same economic and political forces that have
remade American business are now imposing change on
government. Global competition and instant information have
forced industry to streamline or die. Now those forces are
busting up public monopolies--the public trusts, to adapt a
Teddy Roosevelt phrase--that deliver poor results.
In the U.S. that means breaking a public school monopoly
that traps poor kids in mediocrity or worse. And it means
reforming a retirement system that gives individuals only a
fraction of the return on their savings that they know they'd
receive if they invested the money themselves. These are
ultimately moral questions, because in the name of equity
these public trusts are damaging opportunity for those who
need it most.
The rich have known for years how to exploit the magic of
compound interest, for example. Why shouldn't working stiffs
have the same chance? Mr. Moynihan shows that a worker
earning $30,000 a year can, at a modest 5% annual return,
amass $450,000 in savings over 45 years by shifting just 2%
of the payroll tax into a private account. Thus do even
liberals become capitalists.
Now, let us acknowledge that ``privatizing'' Social
Security is not what Mr. Moynihan desires. His political goal
is to reform Social Security just enough to be able to save
its universal guarantee. He fears, sensibly enough, that if
liberals oppose any change they may find the debate has moved
on without them. ``The veto groups that prevented any change
in the welfare system,'' he says, ``looked up one day to find
the system had vanished.''
No doubt many conservatives will want to go much further
than the New Yorker, us among them. If investing 2% of the
payroll tax rate is desirable, why not more? Workers ought to
be able to decide for themselves if they want to trade lower
taxes now for a lower Social Security payment at retirement.
We also disagree with Mr. Moynihan on some of his details.
To defray the cost of reducing the payroll tax, he would
increase the amount of wages subject to that tax--from
$68,400 now to $97,500 by 2003. This is a large increase in
the marginal tax rate for many taxpayers that would defeat
reform's very purpose. He'd also raise the payroll tax rate
down the line as the Boomers retire--something that needn't
happen if the reform were more ambitious than the Senator
says he wants.
Yet for all of that, Mr. Moynihan moves the debate in the
direction of more individual control and more market sense.
Along with his pal and co-sponsor, Nebraska's Bob Kerrey, he
has broken with liberal orthodoxy. Maybe their daring will
even give courage to Republicans.
____
[From the New York Times, Mar. 29, 1998]
Wrong Way on Social Security
Proposals from archconservatives to chip away at a
gargantuan Government program like Social Security shock no
one. But when an influential moderate like Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan proposes to divert Social Security taxes
into private retirement accounts, a flawed idea gains ominous
support. Mr. Moynihan's rationale is complex. But it is also
misleading and unwise.
Mr. Moynihan exaggerates the financial predicament by
pointing to 2029 as the date that actuaries say the Social
Security trust fund will empty out. But actuaries also say
that annual revenues will continue to cover almost all of
each year's outlays. Indeed, the financial gap amounts to
only about 2 percent of payrolls and can be eliminated with
modest benefit trims, changes in retirement rules and small
tax increases. Instead, Mr. Moynihan proposes a cut of up to
30 percent in future benefits, larger even than what is
needed to balance the trust fund's books. He does so because
his plan includes a second agenda--partial privatization.
Mr. Moynihan would temporarily cut payroll taxes and invite
workers to deposit the money saved into individual tax-
sheltered retirement accounts. Some will accept the
invitation and, depending on the outcome of risky investment,
replace some or all of the 30 percent benefit cut. But based
on past behavior, most workers will not save for their
future. Mr. Moynihan's reasons for cutting revenues of a
program that he depicts as near bankrupt are political. He
wants to stop Congress from frittering away the current
temporary surpluses in the program to support other programs
in the Federal budget. He also proposes partial privatization
to ward off a more sweeping privatization assault by
conservatives.
Private accounts are popular because, if invested in
stocks, they can grow faster than money deposited in the
trust fund, which is invested in low-yielding Treasury bonds.
Mr. Moynihan warns that liberals who oppose his partial
privatization risk having the entire Social Security program
scrapped, along with its magnificent record in redistributing
money from the rich to poor and thereby lifting millions of
retirees out of poverty each year.
But Mr. Moynihan refuses to acknowledge the harm his
partial privatization scheme would do. Small savings accounts
are expensive to administer, threatening to burn up a quarter
of a low-wage worker's annual deposit in commissions and bank
fees. Besides, the seemingly small return on money turned
over to Social Security is partly an optical illusion.
Social Security has promised to pay millions of retirees
benefits that far exceed the amounts they pay into the trust
fund. Part of the payroll tax that workers turn over to the
Social Security system covers these unfunded benefits. If
part of the money that workers would deposit in private
retirement accounts under the Moynihan plan were siphoned off
to pay their fair share of unfunded benefits, then the yield
on these accounts would look puny too.
By reinforcing the false notion that private accounts are
far superior to public accounts, Mr. Moynihan risks setting
off a political process that would feed the conservative goal
to replace virtually the entire public program with private
savings.
Mr. Moynihan's warning that Social Security looks like a
lousy deal for workers should be heeded. The best way to
increase retirement funds is to invest payroll taxes in
stocks. But rather than having a hundred million workers
invest itsy-bitsy amounts on their own, the trust fund
itself, through a process insulated from politics, should
invest in equities on behalf of everyone. The Social Security
problem is modest. So too are the right solutions
____
[From the Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 19, 1998]
SOS for SS
Always pungent Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan has gotten to
the heart of America's Social Security problem. In a speech
at Harvard this week he offered a specific, tough-minded
formula for saving Social Security from the demographic
collision it faces in future decades.
Moynihan, long an expert on Social Security, shrewdly weds
(a) a conservative plan to allow workers to invest a portion
of their SS payroll tax in a private nest egg to (b) a return
to a Rooseveltian pay-as-you-go pension system.
As ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, he
plans to propose such a reform immediately.
Compare that with the official Washington crawl on Social
Security.
In his state of the union speech last month, President
Clinton claimed to be concentrating mightily on Social
Security, but then sent it out for yet another scrutiny by
commission. Mr. Clinton also cast himself as a latter day
Horatius telling politicians to keep their hands off federal
budget surpluses. He said he was earmarking those surpluses
to save SS.
Good theater. Poor economics. The best way to preserve
those surplus revenues for a need starting two decades hence
would be to use them now to reduce the national debt. That
would trim those huge interest bills on the debt for years to
come. And that, in turn,
[[Page S2928]]
would allow more pay-as-you-go money for SS.
Instead, Clinton announced a clutch of new programs that
would eat up the surpluses--despite iffy funding from tobacco
revenues.
Hence the appeal of Moynihan's approach. It would allow
Americans to voluntarily use as much as 15 percent of their
SS payroll tax for personal pension savings accounts. Because
that's optional and restricted to a modest percentage, it
would minimize the danger that at retirement a pensioner
might suffer from a market drop. And the upside--higher
compounded returns over decades of savings--would compensate
for increased risk.
Meanwhile, Moynihan would seek to ensure that the basic SS
pension remains rock solid by assuring its yearly pay-as-you-
go integrity. To make bearable the tax burden borne by next
generation workers paying for their retiring baby boom
parents, he adapts two existing ideas: (1) Speed the move to
a standard retirement age of 70, reflecting longevity
statistics. (2) Trim the rate of indexing for inflation.
There will be battles to come. But at least one of our most
thoughtful political statements has gotten a realistic mix of
elements on the table. Now it's up to his colleagues.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. With that, Mr. President, I yield back the time on
our side and hope that we can proceed forthwith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator wants to ask for the yeas and nays on his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ROTH. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Brownback be
added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a request.
Mr. DOMENICI. Did you have a request?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do.
Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has asked for some time to
discuss something, and I would give him 5 minutes off of the resolution
to do that, unless there is an objection.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just see if we can get an agreement that you and
I have spoken to.
I say to the Senator, are you going to speak on the subject that is
before us? Or do you just want consent to speak on a subject not
pertaining to the budget for 5 minutes?
Mr. HARKIN. It has something to do with the budget.
Mr. DOMENICI. But it is not a proposal?
Mr. HARKIN. No.
Mr. DOMENICI. We are going to be able to arrange that for the
Senator.
Mr. President, I want to suggest that when we entered into the
unanimous consent agreement, the idea was that we would expedite the
voting on amendments and minimize the number perhaps that was going to
be voted on in the so-called ``votarama'' with 1 minute on a side by
amending the statutorily allotted amount of time for amendments and
second-degree amendments. And we did so agree. But we were not specific
in saying that there shall be no time yielded off the bill to those new
time agreements. So I just ask, with the concurrence of my friend from
New Jersey, unanimous consent that there be added to the unanimous
consent agreement regarding the time allotted on amendments and second-
degree amendments, the following language: And that no time, no
additional time, shall be allotted from time remaining on the bill by
either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
I say to the Senator, did you want to do something?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If we can let our friend from Iowa make his
statement.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, we will yield you 5 minutes off
the bill.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I appreciate it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
____________________