[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 41 (Thursday, April 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3031-S3107]
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. 2218

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is Dorgan amendment No. 
2218, on which there are 2 minutes of debate equally divided, with the 
Senator from North Dakota controlling 1 minute and the Senator from New 
Mexico controlling 1 minute.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the budget resolution contains a sense of 
the Senate that the Tax Code shall be sunsetted at the end of the year 
2001. It doesn't provide what might be replacing that. It doesn't 
suggest whether after the current Tax Code is sunsetted there will be a 
flat tax, a VAT tax, a national sales tax; it just says sunset the Tax 
Code.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, says the 
following:

       I believe that a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code 
     should be in place before any action is taken to sunset the 
     existing Tax Code.

  The Tax Executives Institute, which represents thousands of 
corporations around the country, has said the same thing. It would be 
irresponsible to say let's get rid of the Tax Code without telling 
people what they are going to put in its place. What do you say to 
somebody who is going to buy a home tomorrow and they expect their 
mortgage interest deduction is going to be----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. There 
will be order in the Senate.
  Mr. FORD. I think the Senator from North Dakota should have some of 
his time back because nobody has heard him.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last evening, the Senator from New Mexico 
characterized the amendment as an amendment which supports the current 
Tax Code. It is a clever way to debate, I guess, what this amendment is 
about. I support reforming the current Tax Code, making it better, more 
simple, more fair, but I don't believe we ought to say, ``Let's abolish 
the current Tax Code and tell the American people there is nothing that 
we are going to put in its place this moment, you guess about that; you 
guess about that.''
  It may be a national sales tax of 30 or 35 percent. That is what the 
recent study from the Brookings Institute says it would have to be. 
Maybe it is a flat tax where a billionaire pays the same rate as a 
person who works for $20,000 a year.
  Let me conclude. The Senator from Maryland makes the point that I 
made last night. How would anybody tomorrow plan their expansion, plan 
their next action if they didn't know what the Tax Code was going to be 
in the year 2002?
  How will anybody decide to buy a house wondering whether they are 
going to have a mortgage interest deduction?
  How will anybody decide about their charitable contributions if they 
don't know that the tax system is going to allow that as a deduction? 
That is the point.
  This is not the thing to do. The chairman of the Finance Committee 
said so and many, many others around the country, including the 
President, said so.
  Let us strike this provision and replace it with the language I have 
suggested that supports the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable 
deduction, and others in the current code. We can improve the current 
code, and we should, but we ought not allow this provision to stay in 
the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Please, could we have order in the body.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I compliment the occupant of the Chair, 
the distinguished Senator from Kansas, and I compliment the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson. They have 
given us an opportunity to see to it that we reform the Tax Code of the 
United States. It has been talked about for so long and nothing ever 
happens. They have devised a way where they are saying to the 
committees of the U.S. Congress, and to the President, let us get on 
with it. And here is the leverage: If you do not, we will not have a 
Tax Code in the year 2001.
  I believe this is the only way you are going to get tax reform when 
those who are in charge of the job--with all the special interests 
gobbling them up not wanting any change. I think the only way it will 
occur is if this sense-of-the-Senate proposal becomes law. It is not 
law today when we approve of it. It will become law when a committee 
sends a bill to the President. But we ought to go on record saying we 
want reform, we want major reform of a broken down code, and we want it 
soon, not 15 more years of debate.
  If I have any additional time, I yield it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

[[Page S3032]]

         Amendment No. 2279 to Amendment No. 2218, As Modified

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding passage of an 
  IRS restructuring bill that provides real relief for taxpayers and 
 provides appropriate oversight as well as to express the Sense of the 
             Senate that the tax code should be terminated)

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have a second-degree amendment to the Dorgan 
amendment I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2279 to amendment No. 2218, as modified.

  Mr. FORD. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time does the Senator from 
Arkansas have on his second-degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, there is 1 minute on each 
side.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Did the unanimous consent request entered into last night 
prohibit second-degree amendments?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No, it did not.
  Mr. DORGAN. Second-degree amendments would be allowed? I did not hear 
your answer to Senator Ford. How much time is allowed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute on each side.
  Mr. FORD. One minute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I do not believe we need to be voting on the Dorgan 
amendment, which is simply a vote on behalf of the status quo. We need 
an affirmative vote on the need to sunset the current Tax Code.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator withhold?
  Could we have order in the body?
  Mr. BYRD. May we have a reading of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       Strike all after the first word of the matter proposed to 
     be inserted and insert the following:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PASSAGE OF THE SENATE FINANCE 
                   COMMITTEE'S IRS RESTRUCTURING BILL.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2676 on 
     November 5, 1997;
       (2) the Finance Committee of the Senate has held several 
     days of hearings this year on IRS restructuring proposals;
       (3) the hearings demonstrated many areas in which the 
     House-passed bill could be improved;
       (4) on March 31, 1998, the Senate Finance Committee voted 
     20-0 to report an IRS restructuring package that contains 
     more oversight over the IRS, more accountability for 
     employees, and a new arsenal of taxpayer protections; and
       (5) the Senate Finance package includes the following items 
     which were not included in the House bill:
       (A) removal of the statutory impediments to the 
     Commissioner of Internal Revenue's efforts to reorganize the 
     agency to create a more streamlined, taxpayer-friendly 
     organization,
       (B) the providing of real oversight authority for the 
     Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board to help prevent 
     taxpayer abuse,
       (C) the creation of a new Treasury Inspector General for 
     Tax Administration to ensure independence and accountability,
       (D) real, meaningful relief for innocent spouses,
       (E) provisions which abate penalties and interest after 1 
     year so that the IRS does not profit from its own delay,
       (F) provisions which ensure due process of law to taxpayers 
     by granting them a right to a hearing before the IRS can 
     pursue a lien, levy, or seizure,
       (G) provisions which forbid the IRS from coercing taxpayers 
     to extend the 10-year statute of limitations for collection,
       (H) provisions which require the IRS to terminate employees 
     who abuse taxpayers or other IRS employees,
       (I) provisions which make the Taxpayer Advocate more 
     independent, and
       (J) provisions enabling the Commissioner of Internal 
     Revenue to manage employees more effectively.
       (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, as 
     expeditiously as possible, consider and pass an IRS 
     restructuring bill which provides the most taxpayer 
     protections, the greatest degree of IRS employee 
     accountability, and enhanced oversight.

     SEC 302. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE SUNSET OF THE 
                   INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that a simple and fair 
     Federal tax system is one that--
       (1) applies a low tax rate, through easily understood laws, 
     to all Americans;
       (2) provides tax relief for working Americans;
       (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax 
     collection abuses;
       (4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment;
       (5) promotes economic growth and job creation;
       (6) does not penalize marriage or families; and
       (7) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections process to 
     replace the Internal Revenue Service.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the provisions of this resolution assume that all taxes 
     imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall sunset 
     for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001 (or in 
     the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a taxable 
     year, on any taxable event or for any period after December 
     31, 2001) and that a new Federal tax system will be enacted 
     that is both simple and fair as described in subsection (a) 
     and that provides only those resources for the Federal 
     Government that are needed to meet its responsibilities to 
     the American people.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 1 minute of debate on each side.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, if I might just explain the amendment. 
There are two major provisions to the amendment. One would say that 
until we are able to replace this Tax Code, we need to restructure and 
reform the IRS. Senator Roth has done a marvelous job in highlighting 
the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service. This puts us on record, in 
the sense of the Senate, that we should as expeditiously as possible 
provide taxpayer protections.
  The second major provision is that we should set a date certain in 
which this massive, incomprehensible Tax Code will be sunsetted, and we 
will have a replacement code written 6 months in advance of that.
  We give the sense of the Senate in those two respects.
  This chart in the Washington Post shows what we did in the Taxpayer 
Relief Act regarding one provision, IRA rules. We complicated it from 
this to this. The American taxpayer knows that. We need to simplify, we 
need to reform the IRS. And there is nothing irresponsible about 
setting a sunset date on sunsetting the existing Tax Code.
  We sunset the ISTEA bill, we sunset the higher education bill, we 
sunset the farm bill. But we just add to, and add to, and add to the 
Tax Code. We have elections. We have a process. We have hearings. We 
will have a responsible process by which we write a replacement code 
and the American people will come to a consensus.
  I ask your support for this second-degree amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays. I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe I have a minute in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from North Dakota 
has 1 minute.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is, with all due respect, a sloppy 
way to legislate. I do not--I guess I heard part of this being read a 
moment ago. The reason it is offered, I assume, is some do not want to 
vote on the amendment that I offered.
  I wrote the amendment, noticed it to the Senate. Everyone had an 
opportunity to read it, look at it yesterday, make a judgment about it. 
Now we have an amendment that is sent to the desk as a second-degree. 
Certainly you have a right to do that, but we are going to vote on my 
amendment. However, your amendment is disposed of, I might say to the 
Senator, my amendment is going to be offered as a second-degree. We are 
going to vote on my amendment. So we can do it sooner; we can do it 
later. One way or the other, we are going to vote on my amendment. It 
just seems to me that in a day in which we are going to be dealing with 
30, 50, 60 amendments, if we start doing second degrees because 
somebody doesn't want to vote on an amendment, we will be here until 
next Tuesday.

[[Page S3033]]

  As I said, the Senator has every right to offer a second degree. I 
don't contest that. I'm saying we are not going to get out of here if 
this is the way the Senate is going to do its business. We will not get 
out of here.
  I wrote an amendment. I made it available to everybody in the Senate 
to see, review, look at it, to make a judgment. I expected when I came 
here this morning we would have a vote. That is what I thought the 
unanimous consent was about last evening. Now I discover we have a 
second-degree and we go through a reading. We will be here forever if 
this is the way we will do business.
  Again I say if you think you will avoid a vote on this, you will not. 
When we dispose of this, if I'm recognized, I will offer a second 
degree. If I'm not, I will be here because I'm going to get recognized 
and I will offer a second degree, and when I do, we will vote on my 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment would 
put the Senate on record in support of sunsetting the tax code on 
December 31, 2001, before a system was set up to replace it and without 
assurance that such a system would be in place.
  There is no question that the Internal Revenue Code is too 
complicated and needs reform. In fact, as a result of the tax bill 
which was signed into law last year, 285 new sections were added.
  One of the problems with the amendment before us is that it would do 
away with the current tax system without a guarantee that it would be 
replaced in a timely and orderly manner, if at all, so people can plan 
their lives. The sunsetting is not dependent on the adoption of a 
replacement. Households and businesses rely on provisions of the tax 
code for budgeting purposes.
  Mr. President, we need a new tax code, but we also must make sure 
that a simplified and fairer tax code is in place. To pretend that we 
can sunset the current code without knowing what will take its place 
and without having the guarantee of a replacement in a timely manner, 
is misleading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Hutchinson amendment No. 2279. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The amendment (No. 2279) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. 2280 to Amendment No. 2218, As Modified and Amended

  (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)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2280 to amendment No. 2218, as modified.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 the amendment add the following:

     SEC.   . 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, expanded health and 
     retirement benefits.
       (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) sunsetting the entire income tax code without decribing 
     a replacement 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 and that a sunset of the tax code 
     that does not provide a replacement tax system that preserves 
     this deductibility could damage the American dream of home 
     ownership and could threaten the viability of non-profit 
     institutions.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me explain to my colleagues that the 
findings are the same as the underlying amendment that I offered with 
the exception that at the end, under ``Sense of Congress''--I will 
simply read very briefly what I have added.

       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--

  That was my previous amendment--

       and that a sunset of the Tax Code that does not provide a 
     replacement tax system that preserves this deductibility 
     could damage the American dream of home ownership and could 
     threaten the viability of nonprofit institutions.

  This is a second degree that I am offering.
  I don't know that I need to say much more about it except that it 
essentially is a vote on what I had offered in the first instance.
  My intent here is very simple. It is not to denigrate those who have 
different ideas than I have about this issue. It is, however, to say 
that I think suggesting that we throw away the current Tax Code, as 
imperfect as it is and as much in need of reform as it is, without 
suggesting what will come in its place is to say to all Americans who 
are homeowners that we are not sure that we are going to have a tax 
system in the future that allows you to deduct your home mortgage 
interest, we are not sure we are going to have a tax system in the 
future that allows charitable contributions to be deducted.

[[Page S3034]]

  So I think the responsible thing to do is to say to the American 
people that when there is a sunset, if there is, that there is a 
replacement that will be included in these provisions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yield's time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, 15 minutes ago, 59 Senators voted in 
favor of what I think all of us support: reforming and restructuring 
the IRS and protecting the taxpayers to a date certain on sunsetting 
the Tax Code that no one in this country defends.
  Do not be fooled. This amendment is a second-degree amendment offered 
by my dear colleague from North Dakota that would undo much of what we 
just did. We don't want to undo that. There is nothing in the sense of 
the Senate that we just adopted that would threaten in any way 
charitable deductions or home mortgage deductions or any of the other 
particular aspects of the current code that you may like. It would say 
that on a date certain we are going to have a new code that is fairer 
and simpler, more comprehensible to the American people, and that it is 
a tax code that they deserve.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this second-degree amendment designed 
only to undo what we just expressed to the American people--that we 
believe the IRS is out of control and that we have a code that needs to 
be simplified and that needs to be made more fair.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that on the remaining stacked 
amendments there be no second-degree amendments in order.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the second-degree amendment that is 
pending and 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I propose a parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in a nondebatable posture.
  Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. The second-degree amendment that I am offering does not 
in fact replace what the Senate voted on previously. Is that not 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The language is added 
onto the amendment as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from North Dakota No. 2280. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 98, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Thompson
       

                                NAYS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2280) was rejected.


   Vote on Amendment No. 2280 to Amendment No. 2218, as modified and 
                                amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the Dorgan 
second-degree amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I think Senator Domenici's motion to 
table gave all of us on this side of the aisle time to look closely at 
what the second-degree amendment by the Senator from North Dakota 
actually did. I have no objection to that second-degree amendment. I 
think it merely expresses--it does not undo or reverse the sense of the 
Senate that we adopted earlier with 59 votes. It expresses support for 
the charitable tax deduction and the homeowner deduction. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in support of Senator Dorgan's second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to speak for 
30 seconds simply to say the intent of the second-degree amendment was 
to say to the American people that whatever the merits of reforming our 
Tax Code--and most of us, myself included, think it does need reform--
that when we decide to change the Tax Code, if we decide to do that, 
its replacement shall give some assurance to the American people that 
we are not going to scrap their ability to deduct their home mortgage 
interest, to scrap the ability to deduct charitable contributions. That 
is the purpose of that second-degree amendment. I appreciate very much 
support on that amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.
  The amendment (No. 2280) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for an 
observation? The last vote took approximately 25 minutes.


          Vote on Amendment No. 2218, as modified, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the first-degree amendment 
as further amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be 
vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2218), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are ready for the next amendment, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 2170

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is amendment No. 2170, 
offered by the Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion to waive the Budget 
Act.
  Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Colorado is 
seeking recognition.

[[Page S3035]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to just briefly explain what my 
amendment does. Right now, the total debt that we are facing in this 
country is $5.6 trillion. The interest that we pay on that total debt 
is more than the entire defense budget, and I believe we need a plan to 
pay down that total debt.
  My amendment proposes such a plan. It takes the surplus that is 
reflected in the budget proposal that is before us here on the floor of 
the Senate today, and takes those first 5 years and allocates them 
towards that debt pay-down plan. It says that after the 5 years that 
are reflected in the budget plan, then we dedicate $11.7 billion a year 
towards paying down the debt. If we will do that, we can pay down the 
debt in 30 years and save more than $3.7 trillion in interest.
  The $11.7 billion which we set aside after the 5 years which is 
reflected in this budget, that is less than 1 percent of the total 
budget. I am here to ask the Senate to join me in putting in place a 
plan to pay down the total debt.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Allard 
amendment. It is going to impose excessively rigid strictures on the 
way we function. What it says, very simply, is that any time that 
income does not exceed expense, that revenues do not exceed outlays, 
there is a 60-vote point of order to make any change to accommodate it.
  Just think what the consequences might be. We use our opportunities 
here to sometimes adjust to an economy that is in stress. We could be 
endangering our national security, because though a declaration of war 
may not have been made, the fact of the matter is that military 
preparation may be necessary in advance of that.
  What happens if our outlays exceed our revenues? We cannot go ahead 
and take care of our necessary business. What happens in times of 
depression when, in fact, revenues may be down and we may have a need 
to increase our expenses to help us carry our citizens through that 
period of time?
  What it does is it excessively restricts our ability to function. 
Proper fiscal policy is an important part of operating our Government. 
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the request to waive the Budget Act.


                     Motion to waive The Budget Act

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to the Allard amendment No. 2170. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Landrieu
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 53, and the nays are 
45. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting, not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not agreed 
to.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the next amendment?


                           Amendment No. 2195

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2195, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, motion to waive the 
Budget Act, is the order of business.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a reserve 
fund to allow revenues, taxes paid by large corporate taxpayers, to be 
used in a manner that is directly connected to environmental cleanup.
  Right now, the bill that we are considering permits only the use of 
$200 million out of a total revenue base of $1.7 billion to be used for 
environmental cleanup. Frankly, I think that is wrong.
  What we need to do is make sure that these funds are available for 
the purpose that it is collected. We don't want to see it going to tax 
breaks or other programs. Only $200 million of this will be used to pay 
for the ``orphan shares,'' those shares for which no polluter can be 
found. It is insufficient to take care of the job. That is the way 
Superfund was originally designed.
  I hope we can waive the budget point of order that has been raised.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is another reserve fund. The reserve fund has the 
advantage, for the proponent, of creating a new series of entitlement 
programs, thereby indirectly breaking the caps. If you would try to 
spend these in the normal way, we would be breaking the budget.
  So it creates a series of potentially new entitlement programs. If we 
ever get taxes increased or other programs cut, the resources can be 
put into this reserve fund. I don't believe we ought to be doing this. 
I have objected to them regularly here on the floor when there is no 
real source of money.
  I think we should sustain the budget point of order on this one and 
not start another approach to a new series of entitlement programs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from 
New Jersey and my fellow member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Lautenberg.
  This amendment will allow the Congress to increase funding for 
important natural resources and environment programs without increasing 
the deficit or lowering the surplus. That is an important point.
  We would be able to address additional needs in these areas without 
affecting the overall deficit or surplus. The amendment would do this 
by allowing the excess receipts from a reinstated Superfund taxes to 
offset the cost of the programs.
  What kind of programs might be funded through in this amendment? We 
could hasten the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. We could provide 
assistance to states to protect waterways from polluted runoff. We also 
could fund construction and maintenance for our deteriorating national 
parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands.
  These priorities were included in the President's proposed 
Environmental Resources Fund for America, but they are not included in 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 86.
  The amendment would allow the authorizing committees, including the 
Environment and Public Works Committee on which Senator Lautenberg and 
I sit, to set direct spending levels for environmental and natural 
resources programs. Furthermore, it would allow any excess funds from 
an extension of the Superfund tax to offset the added costs.
  The Republican budget assumes that if a Superfund tax is reinstated, 
$200 million would be used to pay for that

[[Page S3036]]

portion of the cleanup that is attributable to parties that are 
bankrupt or otherwise cannot pay their share. The balance of $1.5 
billion each year could be used to offset the cost of unspecified 
spending or tax breaks.
  By contrast, the Lautenberg amendment would direct the money from the 
Superfund tax to needed environmental improvements--investments in the 
future of our natural resources and sustained health of our 
environment, not just for us, but for our children.
  Directing more resources to states to help address the problem of 
polluted runoff will be an investment in the future of clean water.
  Cleaning up Superfund sites is an investment that can protect public 
health and foster economic redevelopment.
  Maintaining our national parks--our national treasures--is an 
investment that we must make, or see that part of our heritage fall 
apart.
  Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Jersey for his 
amendment and urge my colleagues to support it for the future health of 
our citizens and the environment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Lautenberg's 
amendment to increase funding for the protection of the environment and 
our nation's natural resources. This important amendment would 
establish an environmental reserve fund, so that receipts from a 
reinstated Superfund tax can be used for environmental protection 
initiatives.
  The environmental and natural resources programs funded in the 
President's Budget are critical to our efforts to protect these 
resources which are so vital to our society.
  Several critical programs proposed by the President are not included 
in the Budget Resolution. Among others, these include operations and 
maintenance funds for the administration of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System and program support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service's execution of the Endangered Species Act. Both of these 
programs are critical to the State of Florida and our ability to 
protect and preserve unique ecosystems, habitats, and species.
  Today's 93 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System has its roots 
in the state of Florida. It was public outrage over the devastation of 
wading bird populations in Florida that led to the establishment of the 
Pelican Island Federal Bird Reservation in 1903. This action is 
recognized as the genesis of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Each year, nearly 30 million people visit our National Wildlife 
Refuges and enjoy activities such as wildlife observation, hiking, 
fishing, photography, hunting, and environmental education. These lands 
are home to millions of migrating birds, big game, and hundreds of 
critically endangered species.
  In the State of Florida, there are 25 National Wildlife Refuges that 
are an essential part of our natural heritage. I learned this lesson 
firsthand in May 1990 when I did my 241st workday at the ``Ding'' 
Darling Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island. Working with refuge 
naturalists, I spent the day surveying the refuge's bird population, 
cleaning up mangrove areas, reinforcing water retention ponds and 
speaking with local citizens who had a keen interest in the refuge's 
future.
  I also learned that the success of wildlife refuges since 1903 had 
occurred not because of any action taken by the House or Senate, but in 
spite of congressional neglect. While Congress has been willing to fund 
refuges, it had failed to ascribe a mission for the refuge system or 
clearly define environmental objectives for each individual refuge.
  This situation was corrected with the passage of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997. I was pleased to play 
an instrumental role in this law's enactment. It provides new 
protection to the more than 500 national wildlife refuges, and is a 
great step forward in our efforts to preserve the unique species and 
ecosystems located in these areas.
  However, these lands must be maintained if they are to remain 
national treasures. The President has requested an increase of $25.8 
million in FY 99 for the Fish and Wildlife Service operation and 
maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These funds would 
be used in the State of Florida for projects such as protection of the 
Florida Panther in the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge. 
They would support the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force, which 
is working to protect the Florida Keys from invasive exotic plants 
which threaten the restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem.
  The current budget resolution does not support this increase. The 
Lautenberg Amendment, which I have co-sponsored, will help ensure that 
the National Wildlife Refuge system receives the funds that are so 
critical to its future.
  In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the President's 
Budget request for an increase of $35.7 million in FY99 for the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's threatened and endangered species program is a 
critical element in our ongoing efforts to improve the level of 
protection of endangered species. As currently written, the Senate 
Budget Resolution does meet the President's request. Senator 
Lautenberg's amendment will give us the opportunity to review this 
decision and provide the required funds to this critical program.
  I believe that the Endangered Species Act is one of our nation's most 
critical environmental statutes. While it goes without saying that the 
Act could be more effective in recovering endangered and threatened 
species, I believe that the ESA has helped to forestall further 
declines and possibly even the extinction of many of our most imperiled 
species.
  Senate approval of this Amendment will give us the ability to review 
the current needs of the ESA program and appropriate the required funds 
to support these programs.
  Funding for implementation of the ESA is critical both today and into 
the future. As the Senate considers the Endangered Species 
Reauthorization Bill introduced by Senators Chafee, Baucus, Kempthorne, 
and Reid, our commitment to provide funds to support the revisions in 
the ESA Reauthorization Bill will be essential. Without this 
commitment, we run the risk of losing an opportunity to boost the 
worthy cause of endangered species conservation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I make the point this is not a new entitlement. It is 
direct spending and the revenue source would be it.


                     Motion to waive the budget act

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52.

[[Page S3037]]

  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. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  On the last vote, vote No. 64, the Allard motion to waive the Budget 
Act, I was unavoidably delayed and did not vote. But I want the Record 
to reflect that if I had voted I would have voted ``no.''
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will so reflect.


                           amendment No. 2213

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2213 offered by Mr. Bond of Missouri.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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. The President's 
budget request proposes reducing the funding from a current year level 
of $645 million to $109 million, an 83 percent cut.
  On behalf of myself, Senator Mikulski, and numerous other colleagues, 
we offer this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to say that we must 
maintain the section 202 program. The alternative is to provide 
vouchers. Vouchers for the typical resident, an elderly woman, frail, 
in her seventies--to give her a voucher to go out and walk to find a 
new apartment, or new dwelling place, is simply unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues to show an overwhelming vote in support of the 
program that maintains housing that our frail elderly so badly need.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? Is all time in 
opposition yielded?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Coats
     Nickles
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The amendment (No. 2213) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2228

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). There are 2 minutes equally 
divided on the Bumpers amendment. The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in 1975, the U.S. Congress passed a bill 
called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I apologize, but we cannot hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will have to come to order before 
we proceed.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we promised the school districts of this 
country that if they would abide by the rules we set for taking care of 
disabled children in school, we would foot 40 percent of the bill. We 
cried tears galore around here about unfunded mandates to the cities 
and the States and the counties, and we took care of it. Here is the 
biggest unfunded mandate of all. We promised the school districts of 
this country 40 percent for disabled children, and so far, after 23 
years, we are giving them 9 percent.
  You get a double whammy. You get a chance to fulfill that mandate 
and, No. 2, take care of a totally unjustified tax break we give the 
mining companies. We give them Federal lands for $2.50 an acre, they 
mine the gold and silver off of it, and we pay them to take it, a 15 
percent depletion allowance. So I would take that depletion allowance 
and give it to disabled children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this year this Senate will vote for $2.5 
billion in new money to go to the disabled. We are doing our part for 
the first time. What the Senator from Arkansas fails to say is he is 
proposing half a billion dollars in new tax increases on the working 
men and women of the mining industries. It is not that simple. If you 
want to vote for a big tax increase, then vote not to table this 
amendment. But if you want to vote to maintain a strong mining industry 
in this country that is the foundation of our industrial might, then 
you ought to vote to table because we are doing the right thing this 
year. We are funding for the disabled with an additional $2.5 billion. 
I ask my colleagues to vote to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment (No. 2228). The yeas and nays have been 
ordered on the motion to table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Coats
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords

[[Page S3038]]


     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2228) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee as much time as he desires off the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able chairman.


                     Amendments Nos. 2191 and 2192

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendments numbered 2191 and 2192. In doing this, I do not in any way 
minimize the seriousness of the outlay problems that national defense 
faces in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter. I want to commend the 
chairman of the Budget Committee for working with the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and myself to reach an agreement on an 
amendment to help alleviate this problem. We appreciate the assistance 
of the chairman of the Budget Committee as well as his assurances that 
he will work with CBO, OMB and the Secretary of Defense to resolve this 
problem.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2191 and 2192) were withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thurmond for his kind 
remarks. Obviously, he has, for a number of weeks now, been very 
concerned about the situation with reference to the Defense Department 
and the many things we must do in order to be militarily prepared to 
take care of our men and women in the military.
  I believe the issues that confront us have more to do with how you 
make estimates of what the program is going to cost than anything else. 
We are trying to work something out where those will be more 
realistically evaluated than perhaps have been in the past. I thank the 
Senator for his compliments and pledge I will do everything I can to 
get this done right.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, again, I wish to thank the able 
chairman.
  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. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the floor 
manager of the bill, what order of amendments do we have now? I have an 
amendment that I am certainly prepared to take up at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that we have, between the 
minority and the majority, a list of six amendments that we would like 
to present. Senator Brownback is No. 1 on that list; followed by 
Senator Boxer; followed by Senator Specter; followed by Senator 
Lautenberg; and then we would have another one in there, and we do not 
know whether it would be Senator Connie Mack or otherwise; and Senator 
Kennedy.
  I want everyone to know that we are trying very hard to get to a 
point where there is not very many amendments left for full debate. It 
does not mean we have yet arrived at how many would be entitled to a 
vote under the ``vote-arama'' with 1 minute. We are working on that 
right now. We need a lot of cooperation. But I think it is fair to 
proceed, I say to the leader, with this amendment. This is not one of 
the three or four we would choose to resolve these issues, but we had 
already made that commitment. And we will work on it as best we can.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 2177

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2177 to be the 
pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 2177 previously proposed by the Senator from 
     Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. As I understand, I have 15 minutes to make the 
presentation under the unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I don't know that I will take that amount of time. If 
the Chair will advise when I have used 10 minutes, I will appreciate 
that.
  I ask, as well, that Phil Gramm be added as a cosponsor to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. The Brownback amendment is a simple amendment that 
calls for a change in the budget law, the pay-go rules of the budget 
law, to allow for discretionary spending program eliminations, all 
those key words, to be used for tax cuts or to save Social Security. It 
allows for that usage to be able to do those things.
  Now, according to current budget law--and I realize some of this can 
be arcane to a number of people--we cannot make cuts in discretionary 
spending programs in order to finance tax cuts. You have to make cuts 
in mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare to pay 
for tax cuts. That is just not fair and it is not right and it is 
wrong.
  That is why we put forward this amendment. At this time I will read 
the amendment because it is short, sweet, and to the point and it is 
important.

       It is the sense-of-the-Senate that the functional tools 
     underlying this resolution assume that--
       (I) the elimination of a discretionary spending program may 
     [with emphasis on the ``may''] be used for either tax cuts or 
     to reform the Social Security system.

  There is some other language under that.
  That is the extent, basically, of the amendment.
  Now, I want to ask people, I know a number of folks watching this 
have concerns about what is taking place in waste in Government 
spending. We have a $1.7 trillion Government on an annual basis. We 
have things in that Government--like tobacco subsidies, like corporate 
welfare--that when I go home and talk to people in Kansas, they say, 
why in the world are you still spending money on tobacco subsidies? Why 
are you spending money on corporate welfare? Why don't you cut those 
programs? I don't think most people recognize the system works to 
protect those programs like tobacco subsidies.
  For instance, what you get is a system in place where there are a few 
people protecting tobacco subsidies, or corporate welfare, and a lot of 
people who want to eliminate it, but the few people can offset the 
greater number because if you eliminated tobacco subsidies today, what 
happens to the money? It just gets spent somewhere else. So people 
argue strongly in favor of their program no matter how wasteful it 
might be and say, even if you cut this, it will not reduce the budget, 
it will not cut taxes, it will just be spent somewhere else. That is 
the system. The system works against our getting rid of Government 
waste.
  Now, what if we created a competitive force back the other way? What 
if you said, OK, if we eliminate tobacco subsidies, we can use that to 
pay for a tax cut. Or, if we eliminate corporate welfare, we can use 
that to save Social Security. So they create a competing force of 
people who want tax cuts or save Social Security against the domestic 
discretionary spending programs that in many cases are very wasteful of 
precious taxpayer dollars. So that all this amendment attempts to do is 
to create that competing force to knock out some of this wasteful 
Government spending that everybody knows is here but nobody can ever 
seem to get at.

  We are at the point of record high levels of taxation. The average 
American family pays nearly 40 percent of

[[Page S3039]]

their income for taxes at all levels. It is the highest level since 
World War II. People are starting to ask why. Why are we paying such a 
high level of taxation? You add to that we are also broke, $5.4 
trillion worth of debt, we have unfunded obligations more than double 
that amount, and yet we waste money on tobacco subsidies or we waste 
money on corporate welfare, and people don't get it.
  The problem of it is the set of rules that we are operating under 
that create a system where the few, who protect a portion of waste that 
may be good for their constituents but is not good for the rest of the 
country as a whole, have a far greater stake in the system than the 
people who want to eliminate it, who, if they eliminated it, it just 
goes to be spent somewhere else and nothing happens to the debt or 
level of taxation or Social Security.
  This amendment is very simple and straightforward on that. You 
eliminate--and it is not just cutting; it is eliminating programs. A 
lot of times people might cut back on a discretionary spending program. 
Say we cut tobacco subsidies $100 million and use that for offsetting 
tax cuts somewhere--corporate welfare is a better example in that 
area--the next year we just add it back. We still have the tax cut that 
is pulling and draining resources from the Federal Treasury, which 
frankly I don't mind because it goes back to taxpayers' pockets, but on 
the other side you haven't paid for that tax cut. What we say is 
eliminate--not just shave, not reduce, but eliminate --a program so 
that this one doesn't come back and you can have an actual true offset.
  So, Mr. President, it is past the time for us to start changing the 
system that has yielded to us a $1.7 trillion Government, that 
maintains tobacco subsidies at a time when everybody in the world knows 
this contributes to the causes of cancer. We are trying to stop young 
people from starting to smoke, and yet we are still subsidizing tobacco 
subsidies. We still have corporate welfare all over the place, and we 
can't seem to get at it. This change in rule, this little change in 
rules would help us get at these issues. That is why I put this 
amendment forward.
  At the appropriate time I will ask for the yeas and nays. I reserve 
the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment by the Senator from Kansas. This amendment calls for a change 
in the Budget Act that would allow discretionary programs to be 
completely eliminated in order to provide new tax breaks for purposes 
other than the initial direction for this funding. I'm not sure that I 
understand who would determine that. Would it be the Budget Committee 
that would determine that? Would it be the specific committees? Would 
we go to Environmental and say, eliminate this environmental cleanup 
program? Or would we go to the Department of Transportation and say, 
eliminate safety programs, eliminate parts of the programs that are not 
financed through the trust fund?
  This would be an incredible departure from the rules that are 
established in the balanced budget agreement. It could threaten just 
about anything--education, anticrime efforts, environmental programs--
defense, as well, by the way.
  We know that we have a debate here between those who would typically 
like to spend more for defense or those who say, look, we have spent 
enough on defense to keep our security intact. How about the Coast 
Guard? You could come from a landlocked State and say, what do we need 
the Coast Guard for? How about other departments? Some might disagree 
with us on a program to protect our water or any number of programs 
that are often represented regionally.
  Frankly, I see this as a terrible prospect to contemplate. The Budget 
Act is designed to ensure that if we incur permanent obligations such 
as permanent tax cuts or new mandatory spending, we pay for these 
obligations with permanent savings.
  That is what the pay-as-you-go plan rules are all about. It has 
worked out well for many years. This amendment would change these 
rules. It says we should make cuts in temporary spending--that is, 
annually appropriated discretionary programs--and use those temporary 
cuts to fund permanent tax breaks. Well, it doesn't take a CPA to 
figure out that this can create serious problems in the long run. 
Cutting funding for a program in one year doesn't mean those savings 
are going to remain available in future years. Once you have a tax 
break on the books, its costs regularly occur, year after year.
  I am not opposed to tax cuts for ordinary Americans. In fact, I 
supported targeted relief like the expanded child care credit that the 
President proposed. But I think we ought to pay for tax cuts with 
permanent savings. I am also concerned that Senator Brownback's 
proposal could encourage further cuts from programs that educate us and 
help us continue the pursuit of a cleaner environment, put the cops on 
the streets, and make sure that our service people are well housed and 
equipped to do their duty.
  The budget agreement is already calling for substantial real cuts in 
discretionary programs. Under the agreement, nondefense discretionary 
spending in 2002 will reach its lowest level in almost 40 years as a 
share of GDP. These cuts are getting close to the bone, and we need to 
be careful about cutting further, especially if further budget cuts are 
to be used for large tax breaks that could very well blow a hole in the 
budget for the future.
  So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will agree that this is no 
time, nor is it the correct process, for radical surgery on the Budget 
Act. If we want to do that, we can discuss it within the Budget 
Committee. This is a new subject. Let us not create fiscal problems in 
the future by allowing short-term cuts to pay for long-term costs, 
because I suspect that in there, there is a mission, and that is to 
kind of take care of the people who are largely at the top of the 
ladder, who benefit from most of the tax cut proposals we have seen.
  Let's not encourage further cuts in programs that deal with education 
and crime. Do you want to tell veterans--I am a World War II veteran. I 
served 3 years in the Army overseas during the war. Do you want to tell 
my colleagues--and many are not as fortunate as I am, to have this kind 
of a position--do you want to tell them that someone may want to cut 
their programs on behalf of the tax cuts for the well off? I don't see 
it, and I sure don't want to tinker with defense. I am not what you 
call a traditional hawk, Mr. President.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 36 seconds. The 
Senator from New Jersey has 9 minutes 12 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to respond to a few of the 
statements. I think the Senator from New Jersey, whom I appreciate, and 
I appreciate his service in the U.S. Senate, probably made the exact 
accurate point. That is, if you are going to cut veterans programs for 
tax cuts, people will come unglued, and it will not happen, because 
there will be a number of veterans out there saying, ``What are you 
doing cutting veterans programs and paying for tax cuts? I am not going 
to let you do that.'' And that would work.
  If we went out and said, you know what, we are going to eliminate 
tobacco subsidies to pay for tax cuts, or we are going to cut the 
corporate welfare for the wealthiest 50 corporations in America and pay 
for a tax cut with that, would people come unglued? I sense an applause 
line in Kansas for something like that.

  If I go to Kansas and say, ``I am going to cut veterans programs and 
write tax cuts,'' they will say, ``We are going to give you your head 
for that one.'' That is the whole point here. The system is currently 
tilted toward no tax cuts and growing Government, because if you are 
going to provide for a tax cut, you have to cut Social Security or 
Medicare basically to pay for that tax cut. That is wrong. We should 
not be cutting Social Security and Medicare. We should not be cutting 
them at all, let alone offset them against a tax cut. The system was 
set up exactly this way to build Government and make it bigger.
  Why are we at $1.7 trillion and growing? It is because the system is 
built to

[[Page S3040]]

build. Why do we still subsidize tobacco? This makes absolutely no 
sense. So what we are trying to do here is make a little change.
  The Senator from New Jersey raises another very important point about 
permanent savings paying for permanent tax cuts. I think that is a 
valuable issue to raise. That is why, in the measure, we state that you 
have to eliminate the program--not just cut it back, but eliminate the 
program to pay for tax cuts.
  So let's take my example again. If we go to tobacco subsidies and say 
we are going to eliminate tobacco subsidies and pay for this tax cut, 
it will be a small tax cut. What about the next two then? Do you think 
they are going to be able to add back in tobacco subsidies once you get 
it finally pulled out by its roots? I don't think so. What if you are 
able to pull out corporate welfare by its roots to pay for that tax 
cut? Are we going to be able, the next year, to add back in that 
corporate welfare? I don't think so, once it is pulled out. There is 
such a system of inertia to build the bill that I think we are going to 
be able to get at this with this little change in the budget rules.
  This is exactly the time to be doing this, as we will be looking 
forward to the future as to how we are going to protect, preserve, and 
save Social Security. We need to do that. What are we going to do to 
further tax cuts on this burdensome level of taxation that we have for 
the American people? This little budgetary change will actually help us 
make some sense and sanity out of this place to a lot of the American 
public.
  So that is why I am putting this forward. Suggestions can be put 
forward by Members of Congress and by the Finance Committee on how you 
do it. That is the same way we do tax cuts right now--from Members, 
from people from the Finance Committee.
  This is a good provision. If you asked the American people about 
this, they will say that is the way the place ought to work, instead of 
this arcane way that we have set it up that actually hurts the American 
public and maintains wasteful programs. That is why I am going to urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.
  Mr. President, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I didn't hear the Senator's closing 
comment. Did he yield back his time or reserve it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He reserved the balance of his time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have respect for the Senator from 
Kansas. We have gotten to know each other a little bit. When we 
disagree, it is with a purpose of accomplishing something. When he 
talks about getting a big applause line in Kansas if there were to be 
the elimination of the subsidy for tobacco, well, I happen to agree 
with the Senator on the elimination of the subsidy for tobacco, but I 
wonder whether it would get an applause line in North Carolina or 
Kentucky or South Carolina. What if I were to say, well, let's reduce 
the cost for the Corps of Engineers, we don't have to do all that 
flooding work, or maybe eliminate the program for agricultural 
subsidies because in New Jersey our farmers are pretty close to market 
and they don't need a lot of subsidy, they don't draw down subsidy?
  The point I make--without being too challenging, or too pedantic--is 
that what the Senator described is exactly the problem, a Nation with 
50 States, one Nation wanting each of us here--and there isn't anybody 
here who hasn't stood up to protect a program in their State without 
feeling that they are doing the right thing. I don't know of anybody 
here.

  We have to respect those differences. I am not saying promote 
tobacco. I am not saying encourage agriculture. I am not saying that we 
ought to have our ports dredged and no one else ought to have an 
opportunity to move their economies along. When we lose our beaches in 
a storm, it is no different than a flood in Kansas, or a drought, or a 
tornado. It is our economy that is kept going. But, apart from that, 
the notion that we could suddenly change the rules and say, OK, who is 
it that is going to decide we are going to eliminate this program? I 
guarantee you that there will be quite a debate in this body about what 
programs get eliminated. There is only one way you can do this. That is 
through a deliberate, slow, and tedious discussion among us. It is 
called debate. It is called discussion, dialog.
  I hope that the Senator from Kansas would not prevail with this. I 
think it would be a disastrous conclusion.
  Imagine risking some of the services that we talked about. How would 
we feel about reducing the program in FEMA, the Emergency Services 
Program, where everybody calls up, picks up the phone, dials the big 
911, saying, ``Help. Get out here. Hurry.'' We wouldn't have the funds 
to do it because we were giving tax breaks to well-off people. That 
would really create a stir in this country. I will tell you, it would 
be louder than an applause line.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could respond to some of the 
comments of my colleague from New Jersey, for whom I have a great deal 
of respect. He makes the exact point I am making. Tobacco subsidies 
aren't cut because North Carolina and Kentucky and a few other States 
protect those basically. Everybody else says, ``Look, if you cut it, we 
are really not going to do it. We are not cutting taxes. We are not 
cutting spending.''
  So, all right, I will go along on it. We are trying to create 
competitors. If somebody comes up with a good idea, a program, and a 
need, we are going to fund it. We have proven throughout history that 
we will fund that. That is why actually today there is nothing so 
permanent as a temporary Government program. That is one of President 
Reagan's lines. Because we will do it. The problem is we never undo it, 
or we never stop doing it. We don't have any competing force back the 
other way.
  I think it would be a very helpful debate if we would have these 
regularly on the floor about, Should we actually be spending this money 
on corporate welfare? What if we gave it back to the taxpayer or used 
it to preserve and protect Social Security? That would be a good, 
healthy idea, because instead of the way we do it right now, which is 
basically we are going to add that spending, we will never look back 
here at what we previously paid for over the past 60 years because 
there is no competing force on the other side of it.
  That is why I am suggesting this would be an excellent change for 
this body. It would be an excellent force that would be set up in favor 
of the taxpayer, in favor of good government, in favor of Social 
Security.
  How much time is remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 3 minutes. The 
Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If the Senator from New Jersey would be willing to 
yield back his time, I would be willing to yield back at this time and 
ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield my time in fairness to the Senator from 
Kansas. I am going to, obviously, oppose the amendment.
  I yield the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 2176

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2176.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2176.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that the following Senators be added 
to this amendment: Senators Daschle, Sarbanes, Murray, Johnson, 
Kennedy, Bingaman, and Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in picking up where the Senator from 
Kansas left off, I think it is important when we recommend a priority, 
we figure out a way to pay for it.

[[Page S3041]]

  I am going to give you and my colleagues in the U.S. Senate an 
opportunity to cut funding, which is what the Senator from Kansas is 
very concerned about, out of the Government travel budget--cut that 
funding by one-tenth of 1 percent--and take those funds away from 
traveling bureaucrats and put them into after-school programs.
  I know you are a family man with many children and grandchildren. 
Often we talk about the joys of parenting and grandparenting. I think 
we all are concerned not only about our own children and grandchildren, 
but about America's children. I believe that is true across the party 
line.
  I think if we ask ourselves the question right now, right here, what 
our children will be doing after school today, I really do not think 
the answer would come back in a way that satisfies us as U.S. Senators, 
as parents, as grandparents, and, frankly, as community members. 
Unfortunately, many of our children after school have no place to go, 
are alone, get into trouble with gang members, or are lured into gangs. 
Frankly, if you look at the crime statistics, which I will show you 
later on a chart, the highest crime rate among juveniles occurs from 3 
to 6 p.m.
  Here, we have an opportunity with this amendment, which I am very 
proud to offer today, to take a stand to fund up to 500 after-school 
programs for our children and to cut out unnecessary Government travel. 
It seems to me it is a choice that, as my children say, is a ``no-
brainer.'' It makes sense.
  If you look at the faces of these children, and just look at their 
hands that they are holding up to answer a question--this is an after-
school program in Sacramento, Sacramento START, which I have seen. You 
can see in the faces of these children that they are interested, that 
they are engaged, that they are involved, that they are learning. 
Clearly, being in this program after school means they are not alone, 
they are not getting into trouble, they are not sitting home alone 
watching television, waiting for a working parent to arrive.
  I want to show you some other photos of these children. Here is 
another one from Sacramento START. This program, which my amendment 
encourages, includes drug counseling and anticrime measures. They 
invite policemen and firemen and businesspeople in. Here you can see 
the children engaged with this police officer; they are very engaged in 
what he is explaining to them.
  I am going to show you a couple of other photographs of these 
children.
  Here is one from the city of Oakland's after-school program. It is a 
music after-school program where the children are preteens. We talk a 
lot about preventing teenage pregnancy and the need for abstinence and 
the need for our children to understand that their self-esteem is 
important to them. Here we see the faces of these children and how they 
are engaged in this music program. Why? Because there was some funding 
that they scraped together to put together an after-school program. 
These programs are holding together in a very difficult way, and they 
want to see the National Government get involved.
  Here is another photo. This one is from Sacramento, also. You can see 
that this is an environmental lesson. They have, it looks like, a 
crocodile. The children are engaged in learning about science.
  We love our children in this country. We cannot afford to abandon 
them just because the school bell rings at 3 o'clock. Our 
responsibility does not end at 3 o'clock.
  Let me show you the crime statistics.
  When do juvenile offenders commit violent crimes? You can see the 
spike up at 3 p.m., and it doesn't begin even turning down until 6 p.m.
  If we overlay on this chart after-school programs that keep our 
children busy, we can see the real need for these programs. I might add 
that the victims of these crimes are also juveniles. The victims and 
the perpetrators of these crimes are juveniles.
  I think when we support such an amendment as this, we are not only 
going to increase the academic performance of our children across the 
board--and I will explain that--but we also absolutely take a step 
forward to reducing the crime rate.
  Mr. President, I ask that you let me know when I have 3 minutes 
remaining in my presentation.
  Let's see what some law enforcement people are saying about after-
school programs. This is a proclamation signed by Fight Crime: Invest 
in Kids. Fight Crime is made up of 170 of the Nation's leading police 
chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors, and the presidents of the Fraternal 
Order of Police and the International Union of Police Associations, 
which together represent 360,000 police officers. Let's hear what they 
say about the need for after school programs.

       No one knows better than we----

  The law enforcement people----

     that the most important weapons against crime are the 
     investments which keep kids from becoming criminals--
     investments which enable all children to get the right start 
     they need to become contributing citizens, and which show 
     them that, as adults, they will be able to meet their 
     families' basic needs through honest hard work.

  What else is being said? Further:

       We therefore call on all public officials to protect public 
     safety by adopting commonsense policies to . . . provide for 
     all of America's school-age children and teens, after-school 
     programs.

  So if you are pro--and this is important--pro-law enforcement, let us 
not turn our backs on law enforcement, who is urging us provide 
``after-school programs and access to weekend and summer programs that 
offer recreation, academic support and community service experience.''
  Let's see what the police chief of Los Angeles has said.

       Police leaders know America's commitment to putting 
     criminals in jail must be matched by its commitment to 
     keeping kids from becoming criminals in the first place.

  We are at a turning point in our country. We now know how important 
our children are to our future. We now know that if we invest in them, 
we save 10 times, 20 times on the other end when they are good 
citizens, when they learn, when they have self-esteem, when they get 
help with their homework. These are all important things that will 
happen from my amendment.
  Remember, if you want to fight crime, this is certainly one way to do 
it.
  What do we say in our amendment? We say that local school districts 
should design the program to meet the local needs. They will be 
competing with other local districts across this country. If we get a 
great application from Ohio and it brings in the police and it brings 
in the business community and it brings in the local college, all of 
those things will give that program higher scores. We say that the 
schools must offer at least two of the following activities: academic 
assistance; mentoring; recreational activities; or technology training. 
They have the option of offering any of the following in their program: 
drug, alcohol and gang prevention programs; health and nutrition 
counseling; or job skills preparation.
  We also believe that this amendment is setting our Nation on the 
right track. Across the country we pay millions and billions of dollars 
for school facilities. We do not use these facilities after school. We 
put a lock on the door because it is 3 o'clock. So what happens? Our 
kids leave those buildings and they get in trouble. Then we wonder why 
we have to build more prisons for our society.
  I would love to see us break this pattern of partisanship today. This 
is not a program that is new. Education is not new. These programs are 
out there already. They are working. If we in fact believe that our 
children are important--the Boxer amendment simply says cut out travel 
for the bureaucrats. They can take a little less travel. Put it into 
the classroom after school. Our children face many more risks today 
than our children faced when I was growing up. We know that. We know 
about drugs. We know about gangs. We know about the war of after-school 
hours. We know from our crime fighters that we need to get these kids 
off the streets.

  I want to tell you about LA's Best after-school enrichment program. 
There are 5,000 students in 24 elementary schools who participate. LA's 
Best children, well, they just like school a lot more. I have been 
there. I have seen them. I invite anyone to go there. Some of these 
schools are in tough neighborhoods and some of them are in less tough 
neighborhoods. But the results of this program show that the

[[Page S3042]]

children who participate like school more. Their grades significantly 
improve. They show positive behavioral changes. There is less crime at 
LA's Best schools. LA's Best children feel safe.
  Let's hear what the children say. We always talk here about how we 
love our children. Let's hear what they say.

       LA's Best is the best place to be after school. I like the 
     games and the work. I like going to the computer lab and I 
     like going to the Library. But most of all I like the people.

  Another child says:

       If we didn't have LA's Best, I would probably still be 
     going home to an empty house.

  We used to call those kids latchkey children, home alone after 
school.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me tell you about Sacramento START.
  I will close here and reserve my time.
  The children in Sacramento START are showing a 75 percent increase in 
their grades because they are getting help with their homework, 
tutoring and mentoring, and they feel good about their lives when they 
go to Sacramento START. The homework of these children has improved--by 
85 percent in quality and completion.
  Why would we not step in to support these important programs? The 
President has suggested in his budget that we do so, in a much larger 
way. This is a small, small measure here, cutting out one-tenth of 1 
percent of the Government travel budget and putting it into programs 
such as Sacramento START, such as a program like we have in the 
Tenderloin district in San Francisco, such as LA's Best, and give our 
kids something to say yes to.
  Here is the closing photograph, because to me it says it all. This is 
a beautiful photograph from a program in the Tenderloin district in San 
Francisco. These are kids after school, loving what they have there in 
that after-school program, enjoying their life, being kept busy 
learning, and it shows on their faces.
  I hope we will have an overwhelming vote for this. I hope we will 
break down this terrible partisanship that is dominating today and cast 
a vote for our kids, cut our Government travel, go home and feel a 
little bit better about what we are doing here.
  I yield the floor. Actually, I will reserve the few moments that I 
have.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the request could be deferred.
  Mrs. BOXER. I defer that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do the proponents of the 
amendment have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 1 minute 23 
seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So the Senator is yielding me 1 minute?
  Mrs. BOXER. If my colleague would like to support this amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will support it because I think it is a terrific 
amendment. I commend the distinguished Senator from California for her 
leadership. Too many kids spend more of their waking hours without 
supervision, without constructive activity, and it is only in school 
that they are able to have some supervision that makes sense. As many 
as 5 million kids are home alone after school each week. The prospect 
of a child alone without proper supervision is sometimes too grim to 
even think about when we think about those who would molest them, those 
who would invade the privacy of the home, those kids who might get 
their hands on a weapon. We have seen what happens there.

  I want to see that this amendment carries. It puts things in proper 
focus. We talk here constantly about children and about how important 
they are in our lives and what it means to every one of us. Anybody who 
has been a parent, a grandparent, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle, knows 
about the relationships that children need and require in terms of 
their growth and development.
  So I support the amendment of the Senator from California. We want to 
make sure there are quality after-school programs. The kids who do have 
good programs can do better in their schoolwork, get along better with 
their peers. I think it is a great amendment, and I want to see it pass 
even modestly if it passes. It doesn't have to be overwhelming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired for the proponents. The 
opponents have 15 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask it be in order for Senator Specter 
to proceed with an amendment that he has, and that time in opposition 
to the Boxer amendment, which is 15 minutes, be retained to be used by 
the opponents subsequent to the debate as agreed to heretofore on the 
Specter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask the chairman a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I know you are reserving your time to speak 
on the Boxer amendment. I am hoping to get back when you do that.
  Would it be possible for me to just take 1 of your 15 minutes, 
because I don't know where you are going to come out on this, but just 
so I can at least have 1 minute to respond?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure, when I said the opposition will have 15 minutes, 
we will have 14 and we will give 1 of them to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is very sweet of you. I appreciate that, Mr. 
Chairman. I hope maybe we are not in opposition, maybe we can come to 
agreement on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                    Amendment No. 2254, as modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call amendment No. 2254.
  Mr. President, before the amendment is read, I ask unanimous consent 
I be permitted to modify the amendment. What I intend to do here is to 
change the source of the funding for an additional $2 billion for the 
National Institutes of Health. Instead of taking it from the tobacco 
reserve fund--instead, to have an across-the-board cut of four-tenths 
of 1 percent. That is the modification which I seek to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the modification.
  Mr. SPECTER. Did I understand the distinguished Senator to say that 
he had no objection to the modification?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did say that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the modification 
not be read because it simply strikes certain lines, which will be 
unintelligible, but the import of it is to have a four-tenths of 1 
percent cut across the board.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 17, line 9, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 17, line 10, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 25, line 9, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I compliment the managers of the bill, especially my 
distinguished colleague Senator Domenici, for his very prodigious work 
on this budget and the budgets in the years that I have been here, 
going back to 1981.
  I offer an amendment to what Senator Domenici has done with some 
trepidation, but I do so because I think it is a very important matter, 
and I offer this amendment really in my capacity as chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the funding for 
Health and Human Services and for the National Institutes of Health.
  As I read the budget resolution with my expert staff, there is not 
funding for the subcommittee to be able to add funds for the National 
Institutes of Health. The distinguished chairman

[[Page S3043]]

and I have had some disagreement on the import of the budget 
resolution, but as I read it, with my experts on the staff, there is 
only $350 million for outlays, which would not accommodate the kind of 
increase which this Senate is on record as being committed to.
  Last year, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution was adopted to double NIH 
funding over the next 5 years, and that has been a rallying cry and one 
with which I agree. Were that standard to be met, it would mean more 
than $2.5 billion a year.
  Notwithstanding that amendment having been adopted for fiscal year 
1998, the year we are in, when the Budget Committee returned last 
year's budget, the health account was cut by $100 million. Therefore, 
Senator Harkin, my distinguished ranking member on the subcommittee, 
and I had set a target of a 7.5 percent increase for NIH, which is a 
good bit below the doubling over 5 years. We thought that was all we 
could afford.
  We then offered an amendment, similar to the one now being offered, 
for an across-the-board cut to enable us to increase NIH funding by 
$1.1 billion. That amendment was defeated 63 to 37, so that when it 
came to expressing our druthers, or our preferences, we were very 
generous as a Senate body, and said we would double NIH funding over 5 
years, or more than $2.5 billion a year. But when it came time to 
specify where the money was going to come from and have a hard dollar 
amount, that was defeated, as I say, 63 to 37. We are very generous 
with our druthers, but we are not very generous with our dollars.
  We had a hearing, coincidentally, just yesterday in our regular 
quarter for the experts at the National Institutes of Health to come in 
and testify about the grants which are made, about 28 percent of those 
which are offered, and there would be a very, very substantial 
additional number of grants awarded if the additional funds were there.
  We have a total budget of $1.7 trillion. I believe that it is a 
matter of assessing our priorities. It is my submission in this 
amendment, with my distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, that 
we ought to up the ante by at least $2 billion. I know that when it 
comes across the board, it is goring a lot of oxen, and there will be 
many who will object because it comes out of their funds. If we are 
going to articulate our priority for NIH, then we ought to put our 
money where our mouths are and put up the money to actually fund it.
  I changed the thrust of the amendment, as noted, to move away from 
the tobacco reserve fund, because that is a giant pot we are talking 
about on the tobacco settlement, but I think it is pie in the sky. It 
is questionable, speculative, and perhaps doubtful that those funds 
will be realized.
  In making the plans for our subcommittee, I want to know where we 
stand. That is why we are talking about hard dollars in this amendment. 
It is not too hard to say, ``Well, we'll get it from the tobacco 
reserve fund, because it really is highly speculative as to whether it 
will ever exist.''
  I believe that with the identification of many of the genes by the 
National Institutes of Health, we are on the brink of conquering 
cancer, on the brink of conquering Alzheimer's, on the brink of 
conquering Parkinson's, on the brink of conquering heart disease, on 
the brink of conquering AIDS, on the brink of conquering many of the 
maladies which afflict mankind, but it takes dollars.
  When you allow 28 percent of the grants, that means 72 percent of the 
doors are closed; 72 percent which are not allowed. If we open those 
doors, I think we will be enormously productive in seeing to it that we 
make the maximum effort to pursue breast cancer and prostate cancer and 
cervical cancer and Alzheimer's and a long list of maladies which 
confront us at the present time.
  That is the essence of the amendment, Mr. President. I know my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, wishes some time, so let me 
inquire at this point how much time is left on the 15 minutes of 
allocation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Eight minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will have printed in the Record a 
``Dear Colleague'' letter on the amendment which I had intended to 
offer, as I described earlier, opening the tobacco reserve to permit it 
to be used for biomedical research. This letter was circulated on March 
31, 1998, cosigned by Senator Harkin, Senator Boxer, Senator Hollings, 
and myself. We had a list of some 18 cosponsors to Senate Resolution 
170, which was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which I had submitted 
earlier in the session.
  It had been my intention to have a freestanding sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution to increase NIH funding by $2 billion. I had made an effort, 
with the cooperation of our distinguished majority leader, to have that 
listed as a freestanding resolution which I had hoped to bring to a 
vote before the budget resolution came up. We had anticipated voting on 
it on Monday or Tuesday, but it was not cleared. So we did not have an 
opportunity to bring up that resolution.
  The point of the resolution was to see how many people would say, as 
a matter of druthers or sense of the Senate, that they would support 
it, and contrast it to the number of people who would support the hard-
dollar transfer. I do not know--the budget resolution moves so fast--
how many more of the 18 who are cosponsors of Senate Resolution 170, 
which is sense of the Senate, will join here. These four Senators on 
this letter support increasing biomedical research by $2 billion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the ``Dear Colleague'' letter to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 31, 1998.
       Dear Colleague: We intend to offer an amendment to expand 
     the tobacco reserve fund to permit funding to be used for 
     biomedical research. In addition this amendment would also 
     expand the reserve to allow funds to be used for anti-tobacco 
     education and prevention, counter-advertising, smoking 
     cessation, transition assistance programs for tobacco 
     farmers, and other public health research and prevention 
     programs. The Senate is on record regarding doubling the 
     funding over the next five years for the National Institutes 
     of Health. To do that would require an average annual 
     increase of $2.7 billion. This amendment would make it 
     possible to increase funding for biomedical research by 
     $2,000,000,000 as the first lesser step in reaching the goal 
     of doubling the National Institutes of Health.
       In the past few years, this nation has seen dramatic 
     research developments that are offering great promise for 
     developing treatments for a host of diseases. These 
     developments have been made possible because Congress has 
     year after year increased the funding to fight the war 
     against disease.
       There has never been broader bi-partisan support for 
     comprehensive tobacco legislation. We therefore urge our 
     colleagues to join with us in supporting this amendment as 
     the first step toward adopting a tobacco reserve fund which 
     can accommodate enactment of historic legislation to protect 
     the health of this nation.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Harkin,
     Ernest Hollings,
     Arlen Specter.
     Barbara Boxer.

  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a budget year when the total 
amount of money available for discretionary spending out of which the 
NIH is funded was agreed to last year in the bipartisan budget 
agreement. It is a total dollar number for all of the Government that 
is not entitlement programs.
  So it is for education, it is to run the agencies of our Federal 
Government, it is for the money the IRS needs to pay its workers, and 
on and on.
  While it is very close to a freeze this year, there is an additional 
budget authority of $1.9 billion year over year and an additional $6.1 
billion in outlays, about one-half percent. For those who say this 
portion of Government is growing dramatically, for the next 4 years, 
because of the agreement, it will be growing at about this amount or 
less, literally close to a freeze for a sum total of 4 additional 
years. Very tough.
  Nonetheless--nonetheless--the President of the United States, in the 
President's budget, provided some restraint

[[Page S3044]]

by way of reductions in expenditures. I will just go through to give 
you examples. The President's budget, in function 150, international 
affairs, reduced that total function by $530 million; function 300, 
that is the environment, a $260 million reduction; function 350, 
agriculture, $240 million; function 370, housing and commerce, that is 
$640 million; function 400, a $1.25 billion reduction.
  They go on all the way through. And the sum total in cuts is $7.83 
billion. That means the President provided room for programs that he 
wanted and reduced these. What we have done in our budget resolution is 
we have taken these reductions but we have given different priorities 
to how we would spend the money.
  I want to say to my good friend, Senator Specter, there is no one 
here who, when it comes right down to being in the trenches where you 
provide money for NIH, there is nobody who has been more of a leader 
than he. And, frankly, his subcommittee, which covers a myriad of 
programs--education, NIH, and on and on--is a subcommittee that is 
constantly under pressure.
  I am not going to suggest, as some, that it always needs more and 
more money. Rather, I will say it is under difficult pressure because 
of the kinds of programs they have to fund. Having said that, in the 
budget resolution, where we have some responsibility to establish 
priorities, somebody else follows us and perhaps can change some, but 
we know that their subcommittee has most of the priorities that we are 
for and that he would like to fund. There is no other function with 
more priorities, other than perhaps the function of defense, which 
stands there singularly all the time.
  What we did, we funded that program, because of its being a priority, 
by increasing significantly the NIH assumption for expenditures. We 
also increased in that function education because we knew that from the 
Republican standpoint we wanted to fund the disability program in 
education, and we wanted to fund some flexibility programs for the 
States so they could do some things on their own, being relieved of 
some mandates that we had given them.
  In that alignment and that set of determining where we spend money 
and with that backdrop, we have provided in this budget resolution a 
larger increase in NIH, in the assumption for NIH--the assumption; the 
budget resolution isn't binding--we have provided the largest increase 
of any domestic program that is appropriated. That amount is $1.5 
billion in the first year. That is an 11 percent increase. Then, in 
estimating our assumptions for the remaining 4 years, we increase that 
a total of $15.5 billion for the premier institution researching health 
in the world--the American National Institutes of Health.
  We do not determine in the budget resolution which of the numerous 
NIH activities get what amount of money. I have been to the 
subcommittee with the distinguished chairman presiding, making a very 
strong, strong pitch that we put more money in researching mental 
illness. He recalls that. We were able over the years to raise those 
kinds of institutes to a level of funding where I can give you two or 
three which are now on the cutting edge again and which have excited 
young scientists and the very best to get into fields they might not 
have that are critical to our solving some of the enormous problems of 
the suffering of human beings, not only Americans but humans.

  So I am an advocate. But I guess I would say, in a tight budget, 
``Enough is enough.'' And $1.5 billion is enough; $15.5 billion over 5 
years is enough. And I cannot do any better. I cannot make the funding 
any more sure in a budget resolution than I have done in this budget 
resolution. If Senator Specter is to prevail, we cannot assure anyone 
that the desired level of NIH funding will be what Senator Specter 
assumes by his amendment, because he is once again going to be back 
into the competition of taking all the money that his committee gets, 
and deciding among hundreds of programs how much the NIH gets. So that 
is one side of this coin.
  Now, with every coin, there are two sides. When you add, you have to 
take away. Because the distinguished Senator did not try to break the 
budget. He did not try to break the caps, because he pledged last 
year--and he kept his pledge--that we would stay on this path of a 
balanced budget and the caps.
  There are some who would like to break the caps for any good 
proposal. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is not doing 
that. He is saying, let us cut other domestic programs to pay for the 
new increase over and above the $1.5 billion that we provided. And the 
Senator included defense in the .4 percent cut. So defense gets cut 
across the board, and domestic programs get cut across the board. So 
defense gets cut $1.1 billion over 1 year in order to pay for this $2 
billion increase. I will just tick off some so everybody knows. The 
veterans get a $76 million reduction; the environment gets an $89 
million reduction; agriculture, because it is smaller, gets a $17 
million reduction; transportation, $160 million; and on and on.
  It may very well be that the U.S. Senate today wants to say, in 
addition to what the budget resolution contains, with all the other 
programs being restrained dramatically, that in order to give it $2 
billion more, we ought to do these things, including cutting defense 
$1.1 billion. I do not believe the Senate will do that. But if they 
choose to do that, then obviously the appropriators will have to give 
that every consideration. I do not see how we can do the defense one, 
because we are already having a very difficult time meeting the defense 
needs with the numbers that are in the budget and the firewall that 
protects.
  Let me just share a thought with the distinguished Senator. I say to 
Senator Specter, you said you want to do this to defense also. I would 
like you to think about that, because if you do, then I believe the 
firewall prevails and you may have a supermajority requirement. But I 
leave that to you; that is not for me.
  Having said what I have said, I do not want to detract from the fact 
that the National Institutes of Health are a fabulous community of the 
best scientists in the world. When you really look at what they are 
doing, they are on a course to cure many, many aspects of human 
suffering and human disease. When you add to what they are doing in the 
normal research, you add something like the genome mapping, the mapping 
of all the chromosomes of the human body, and those are being looked at 
in terms of their relationship to disease. You have a formidable group 
of scientists and research equipment moving in a path of, perhaps, what 
may be called the generation yet to come, which will be a wellness 
generation. That could be, when the dread diseases are no more.

  So I don't want to sound like this is just a typical entity. It is a 
very prominent and important one. I do believe, consistent with limited 
resources and because we have to tax our people, we have limited 
resources. Some think they are taxed too much already. I believe the 
budget resolution treats this formidable research community fairly 
well.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and a half minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the 
distinguished chairman, Senator Harkin has made a request to have 5 
minutes reserved and he is at another hearing. I wonder if we might 
accommodate him at a later time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You have 5 minutes remaining?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will try to work it in.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator 
Domenici, for his comments. He has enumerated programs which will be 
cut. It is a matter of priorities.
  When he has recited there is an assumption of $1.5 billion for the 
National Institutes of Health, I have to disagree, because the Budget 
Committee assumes only an outlay increase of $350 million over the 
level from fiscal year 1998. There are also increases in education and 
child care programs. So there could not possibly be an increase at NIH 
with an increase of only $350 million in outlays.
  As Senator Domenici has recited a number of cuts, let me just recite 
a

[[Page S3045]]

partial list of the people who come to me as chairman of this 
subcommittee, who want increases in funding for breast cancer, cervical 
cancer, colon cancer, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes--
including juvenile diabetes--kidney ailments, amyotrophic lateral 
sclerosis, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, scleroderma, epilepsy, heart 
disease, prostate cancer, pulmonary disorders, AIDS, osteoporosis, 
Huntington's disease, to mention only a few.
  The fact is that many Senators receive awards from Alzheimer's or 
Parkinson's or AIDS, et cetera. This is a matter of priority, pure and 
simple.
  Senator Domenici is a valued member of the committee. He and I sit 
next to each other on the Appropriations Committee, have for years, and 
he comes and talks about mental illness programs. We have accommodated 
that as a very high priority. That is what the Senator has to do, 
establish the priorities. I say that it is worth the four-tenths of 1 
percent cut across the board for this high priority for the National 
Institutes of Health.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent the 3 minutes remaining in opposition and 5 minutes remaining 
by the proponent be retained subsequent to the debate on the Kennedy 
amendment, which will start now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2183

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is the Kennedy 
amendment numbered 2183.
  The Senator has 15 minutes to explain his amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  This sense of the Senate is very, very simple and, I believe, 
extraordinarily compelling. I find it difficult to understand why it 
would not be accepted.
  I think the best way to really explain it is to go through the 
amendment itself, because it is so simple and so compelling. All we are 
saying is that it is a sense of the Senate that we should pass a 
patient's bill of rights.
  It says that Congress finds that patients lack reliable information 
about health plans and the quality of care that health plans provide. 
We have had demonstrated this through a number of different hearings in 
the Labor Committee and in other Committees. Secondly, it says that 
experts agree that the quality of health care can be substantially 
improved, resulting in less illness and less premature death. We have 
heard this statement or similar statements from the business community, 
from the provider community, in hearings before the Presidential 
Commission and the Labor Committee, and in many peer-reviewed journal 
articles written by experts in the field of quality measurement and 
improvement. No one can argue with this finding.

  Third, this amendment finds that some managed care plans have created 
obstacles for patients who need to see specialists on an ongoing basis 
and that some have required women to get permission from their primary 
care physician before seeing a gynecologist. These were central 
findings, again, of the President's Commission on the Quality of Health 
Care and, again, these rights are overwhelmingly supported by the 
American people and by the doctors and other professionals who care for 
them.
  Fourth, this amendment finds that a majority of consumers believe 
that health plans compromise their quality of care to save money. One 
study shows an astonishing 80 percent of the American people have 
reached that conclusion. All you have to do is see the movie ``As Good 
As It Gets,'' and see Helen Hunt's extraordinary performance. Attend 
any movie theater in this country if you have any questions on this 
particular issue, and they will be resolved.
  Fifth, this amendment finds that the Federal preemption under the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 prevents States from 
enforcing protections for 125 million workers and their families 
receiving health insurance through the employer-based group health 
plans. This factual statement has been repeatedly confirmed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor and by the courts. In fact, Federal judges have 
pleaded with Congress to fix ERISA. State insurance commissioners see 
these problems on a daily basis, but their hands are tied with respect 
to these plans. There is no reason at all to maintain this special 
exclusion for one group of health plans. Those who make medical 
decisions that result in death or injury must be held accountable for 
those decisions.
  Sixth, Mr. President, the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection 
and Quality in the Health Care Industry has unanimously recommended a 
patient's bill of rights to protect patients against abuses by health 
plans and health insurers. Let me repeat this--the President's 
Commission, which included representation from health plans, 
corporations, consumers, providers and others, unanimously recommended 
that each patient be accorded the protections reported in their Bill of 
Rights. Regardless of whether they receive their health insurance 
through an employer or on their own.
  So, this sense of the Senate says that the assumption underlying this 
resolution provides for enactment of legislation to establish a 
patient's bill of rights for participants in health plans. Then, Mr. 
President, we point out very briefly exactly what those protections 
ought to be, and if there are Members in the Senate who want to differ 
with these, I welcome the opportunity to debate those or discuss them.
  This amendment says that our legislation should include the following 
provisions.
  First, a guarantee of access to covered services, including emergency 
care, specialty care, gynecological care for women, and prescription 
drugs. Does anyone really dispute that we ought to be able to ensure 
patients have access to the coverage and health care that they have 
paid for?
  Second, provisions to ensure the special needs of women are met, 
including protecting women from being forced to endure drive-through 
mastectomies. There are more than half a dozen Members of the Senate 
who have various pieces of legislation to address that particular need. 
This sense of the Senate refers to those efforts.
  Third, provisions to ensure the special needs of children are met, 
including access to pediatric specialists and centers of pediatric 
excellence.
  Mr. President, this is an extremely important and significant need. 
All you have to do is listen to parents and pediatricians. Senator Reed 
is a leader in this particular issue. We know the kinds of challenges 
that exist, particularly for newborn babies. It used to be that 90 
percent of the kinds of health difficulties that newborns faced were 
excluded from any coverage of health insurance.
  Some insurance forms say any particular needs of a child that occur 
within the first 10 days of life ``will be outside the coverage of this 
insurance policy.'' The fact of the matter is that 90 percent of the 
difficulties occur during that period of time. But so many mothers do 
not know that. We are still facing very, very important needs in terms 
of protecting children in this country.
  Four, provisions to ensure that special needs of individuals with 
disabilities and the chronically ill are met, including the possibility 
of standing referrals to specialists or the ability to have specialists 
act as the primary care provider.
  Forcing a patient who has a legitimate need to see a specialist to 
jump through extra hoops before every appointment is counter-productive 
and more expensive in the long run. Persons with disabilities and 
chronic illnesses face these kinds of challenges every single day. They 
can cite chapter and verse about the various exclusions and barriers 
they face--not just physical barriers, but barriers put up by their 
health insurance. They have special needs and they need special 
protections.
  Five, a procedure to hold health plans accountable for decisions and 
a procedure to provide for appeal of a health care decision to an 
independent impartial reviewer.
  This is to make sure that when these accountants in many of the 
insurance companies say ``no'' to a patient--say that they are not 
entitled to that particular health care service--there is an appeal 
procedure that can bring about a timely and independent decision. I 
won't take the time now, nor do I have the time, to point out the 
number of

[[Page S3046]]

individuals who have lost their lives or been permanently disabled 
because the plan's accountant or an insurance executive turned thumbs 
down on a procedure recommended by the treating physician.
  Six, measures to protect the integrity of the physician-patient 
relationship, including a ban on gag clauses and on improper incentive 
arrangements.
  We have had testimony time and again that says that doctors cannot 
tell the patients about all of their options because the plan denies 
them the chance to do so. That is absolutely, completely wrong. We have 
other instances where doctors have moved ahead and prescribed expensive 
treatment, only to effectively be dropped from the panels of various 
HMO's. We want to protect the physicians in these circumstances. We 
want to permit the physicians to be able to do what they should be able 
to do, and that is to be able to practice medicine to the best of their 
abilities.
  Finally, measures to provide greater information about health plans 
to patients and improve quality care.
  Mr. President, that is the sum and substance of this amendment. I 
really question how anyone can take issue with the findings and how 
anyone can take issue with the kinds of protections that we believe 
ought to be accepted by the Senate and included in a patients' bill of 
rights.
  This particular measure has the strong support of the American 
Medical Association, and of the AFL-CIO. It has the support of the 
National Breast Cancer Coalition; it has the support of Families USA; 
it has the support of the mental health community, including the 
National Alliance for Mental Illness, the National Mental Health 
Association and the American Psychological Association; it has the 
support of the Consumers Union and countless other consumer and patient 
groups representing hundreds of thousands of people.
  So I hope that we can have this measure accepted as a sense of the 
Senate on this budget, and then we will go about the business of 
debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate the actual legislation that 
incorporates these provisions. If some Senators have better ideas and 
they want to adjust or change something, we will have the opportunity 
to do so. But let's go on record at this time, on this occasion, to say 
that we want to make sure that the patients in this country are going 
to be guaranteed the kind of protections that we would want for every 
member of our families, and that we are going to put health care needs 
first, rather than the bottom line of the health insurance industry. 
Let's say that we are going to permit our doctors, not industry 
accountants, to practice medicine.

  Mr. President, I withhold the rest of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the proponents' 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes remain.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is a total of 15 on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Don Nickles is on the way. I want to discuss 
the issue a little bit with the Senate.
  Mr. President, my good friend, the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts, said that he doesn't know how anyone could disagree with 
these findings--the findings of a national commission appointed by the 
President. Well, just so everyone understands, the very commission made 
the findings, and then the commission itself split on whether they 
should be put in law or not. So I say, with reference to a sense of the 
Senate and whether we ought to adopt them in law, at least we ought to 
start with the premise that half of a commission was concerned about 
the broad picture of health care costs in America and other things and 
suggested that perhaps it would be better not to put them in law but to 
handle them some other way.
  Let me talk a little bit about the upside of what is going on in 
America with reference to health care costs during this very short era 
when we have moved away from fee for service toward managed care and 
HMOs. In doing that, let me hearken back to the joy that permeates this 
body and the American people when they hear that we have the budget 
under control. We are in an era of balance.
  Mr. President, it is almost unequivocal that had we not gone to 
managed care and HMOs, we would not be celebrating a balanced budget 
today. That is because under the other system--and I note that the 
doctors support regulating HMOs more--but under the doctor system, up, 
up and away went the costs. We had 3 or 4 years when the Federal 
Government's accounts that paid for health care were going up, 
compounded in double digits every year, which meant that in short order 
you would not be able to pay for Medicare, you would not be able to 
afford Medicaid because, even if we had the ability to borrow and 
borrow and incur debt, the States would not have been able to pay for 
it. So let's make sure that everybody understands this short era of 
moving to managed care and HMOs has brought within the reach of many, 
many Americans and many American businesses health care coverage they 
could not have afforded under the old system.
  As a matter of fact, it was interesting. As I listened to my friend 
from Massachusetts, I thought about a couple of speeches I gave when we 
were talking about our not being competitive with Japan on automobiles. 
I was able to say to audiences that one of the reasons we are not 
competitive is because the automobile is carrying around in the trunk 
four times the health care costs the Japanese car is, because our 
health costs were so enormous as compared with theirs. I am not 
suggesting theirs is as good as ours, but neither am I suggesting that 
ours is four times better than theirs.
  So I think when we talk about tying HMOs and managed care into some 
kind of rigidity in an effort to solve some problems that may be solved 
otherwise, we better be careful as to how much we do and how much we 
mandate versus how much we handle in other ways in an effort to get 
quality.
  I also indicate, just by way of an observation, that it is a lot 
easier to find the shortcomings of HMOs and managed care than it was 
the old system, because this one is all focused in on management 
running a system. Before, it was hundreds and hundreds of doctors. To 
be able to focus on the lack of quality care is much easier. That works 
both ways. It is good because it calls it to our attention. But it 
ought to be easier to get quality care than it was before without 
having to write it into rigid law.
  I note the presence of my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma.
  I want to close by just saying that before we make it so impossible 
for managed care and health care to control costs within reason and 
deliver health care, everybody should understand that whatever we do we 
ought to get quality at the best price. We ought not get quality at the 
expense of those who are paying for it, and at the expense of the U.S. 
Government. That is what I think ultimately we should do when we get 
down to trying to legislate. This isn't legislating. It is just us 
giving our opinion and our ideas as a Senate. When it comes right down 
to it, that is what we are going to be talking about sincerely in our 
committees and on the floor.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution. Members of the 
Senate and the House often wonder about America and the districts and 
States, and try to perceive the issues that American families really 
care about. I invite the Members of the Senate to go to the movie 
theater and see ``As Good As It Gets,'' with the top actor award

[[Page S3047]]

going to Jack Nicholson and the top actress award going to Helen Hunt. 
At one point in this movie, Helen Hunt, the mother of an asthmatic 
child, vents on her beliefs about HMOs and managed care. Do you know 
what happens in movie theaters across America? They break out in 
applause--applauding the fact that this poor woman on the screen is 
struggling with an asthmatic child and is caught up with the 
bureaucracy of managed care.
  I will concede the point made by the Senator from New Mexico. Managed 
care is designed to reduce costs. The people who manage these systems 
are trying to reduce costs, reduce services, and, of course, maximize 
their profits. The resolution offered by the Senator from Massachusetts 
looks at it from the perspective of the patient, of the family, and of 
the physician. Are we going to speak to that as well?
  This goes beyond the bottom line. This goes to a basic question. If I 
go into a doctor's office with my wife, myself, or one of my children, 
can I trust that doctor giving me advice based on his medical education 
and the science that he has available? Or is he telling me that the 
option for my family is one dictated by some manual, some code, some 
book out of a managed care office in some part of the country that 
bears no relationship to my personal need?
  That is what this is about--the trust that we need to restore so 
patients seeing doctors know they are getting medical advice and not 
insurance recommendations.
  Second, accountability--that these managed care plans are held 
accountable. Today, they dictate to doctors what they will do, the 
procedures that are allowed, where they will take place, and how long 
they will last. Forget the patient. We are talking about the bottom 
line. When they make a mistake--and sometimes these mistakes are 
fatal--they are not held accountable under the law.
  What Senator Kennedy is suggesting here is not only restoring the 
trust between doctors and patients but also restoring accountability in 
the system. So that when the managed care clerk off somewhere in Omaha, 
NE, pages through the manual to decide your fate in that hospital bed 
they are held accountable--not just for the bottom line but what 
happens to your health, your family, and your future.
  I am glad we are having this debate. I think this is just the opening 
salvo.
  For those who think everybody is rosy in America, American families 
could care less, and managed care is all perfect, please take a trip to 
the movie theater and see ``As Good As It Gets.''
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania and the remainder of my time to Senator 
Nickles following that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would just suggest that if you went to a movie theater you would 
not see a Government-regulated movie because no one would go to it 
because it would be of such poor quality. It would be so burdened down 
by bureaucracy and red tape, because it simply could not produce the 
quality that the free market produces.
  There have been dramatic changes in health care. This continues every 
day. I met the other day with the chairman of the national board that 
certifies health care plans. She told me they are constantly updating 
quality standards, constantly updating to see whether patients are 
getting the kind of care and access through these plans that are 
certified. It is important to let this dynamic system of health care 
operate in the system of the free market which has brought us so far. 
Do not burden it down with all sorts of bells and whistles and 
bureaucracies and red tape that will just stifle innovation, stifle 
quality, stifle progress in medicine, result in more uninsured, result 
in less comprehensive care. This is about patients.
  Look, I am not a great fan of managed health care. But I am a fan of 
the marketplace working and getting the response. I would suspect that 
the Senator from Illinois knows that there are managers of health care 
companies who probably saw that movie. In fact, they didn't have to see 
that movie. For years, they have been coming to my office--and I know 
offices around this Capitol--and they have been going out in America 
getting the message. The Senator is right. A lot of people are upset 
about managed care. I am not a big fan of it, but I understand that, in 
time, the marketplace, the employers, and the employees will work much 
more effectively through that place in changing the system to produce 
quality where people will go somewhere else. Employers will go 
somewhere else. In fact, they are already. It is working out there. It 
takes time.
  What we don't need to freeze in place is some Government standard 
implemented by a bunch of bureaucrats who take 4 years to implement 
regulations to control something that is already out of date. Let the 
dynamism work. Don't put the hand of the Federal Government over the 
system that has improved the quality of health care so dramatically for 
so many millions of people. Allow that system to continue to improve. 
Allow that system to continue to grow to serve more people more 
compassionately. Yes; there are problems. But don't add the ultimate 
problem--Government suffocation to a dynamic system where ``change'' is 
the operative word of the day.
  Senator Kennedy suggests that his bill is supported by the 
President's commission. His hand-picked commission does not support the 
legislation that the Senator has proposed. He would give you that 
impression. They recommended no legislation. They recommended the 
marketplace. It is in the process of working. It is working. In many 
areas it is working, and will continue to work. Managed care is still a 
relatively new thing.
  Again, I repeat. I am not a big fan of managed care. But it is new. 
It is improving. Like any new product, it takes time to work out the 
bugs and to get to the point where they are doing the kind of customer 
satisfaction and quality that we need. But the last thing we need is to 
put the Government in charge of health care plans, the Government in 
charge of regulating what is quality and what is not. Oh, my goodness. 
Compare any private sector organization on quality. Compare what goes 
on at HCFA, at the IRS, or a whole variety of other agencies. Are we 
now, in Government, the arbiters of quality? Think about that. Do you 
really want the Government of the United States through their 
regulation process to dictate to you what quality is? I don't think so.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Kennedy amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that we 
should pass legislation establishing a patients' bill of rights.
  Mr. President, legislation to reform the way health plans often treat 
patients is long overdue. The integrity of the doctor-patient 
relationship is being whittled away, and that must be stopped. For 
example, many health plans have gagged their doctors, preventing them 
from presenting their patients with all possible treatment options. 
That's wrong.
  Mr. President, Democrats have introduced a bill that would remedy 
many of the problems that consumers are facing in their managed care 
health plans. Our bill would put an end to drive-through mastectomies. 
It would ensure that individuals with disabilities and others with 
special needs have direct access to specialists. And it would ensure 
that children have access to pediatric centers of excellence.
  Mr. President, the American people are demanding that we enact a 
managed care reform bill this year. And that's exactly what Senator 
Kennedy's amendment promises we will do. I commend the Senator for 
offering his amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want the record to show that while I 
am not supporting the Kennedy amendment, I am supportive of many of the 
principles behind this amendment. I took the lead in sponsoring 
legislation (S. 701) last year to provide Medicare beneficiaries with 
consumer protections such as: (1) detailed comparative information and 
access to a 1-800 number for Medicare beneficiaries to choose the best 
health plan; (2) an expedited appeals process for urgent cases; (3) a 
prohibition on gag clauses that restrict patient/physician 
communications; (4) access to specialty care when needed, with special 
attention to the chronically ill; and (5) limits on the

[[Page S3048]]

use of financial incentives by managed care plans. Many of these 
provisions were enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Often, 
Medicare sets the example for the private sector, and this is my hope.
  I believe consumers should have good information about their health 
plans; that they should have protections in place for a fair and timely 
appeals process; that they should have access to specialty care when 
needed; and that physicians should be able to discuss all treatment 
options with their patients.
  Regulating the private sector is more difficult because regulations 
cost money. These costs are shifted onto employers and ultimately 
employees. I will want to evaluate proposed legislation based on the 
impact this will have on employees' health benefits. I do not want to 
do anything to increase the number of uninsured, which is as much as 41 
million Americans who lack health coverage. I commend my colleague from 
Massachusetts for raising this important issue, but as we all know 
``the devil is in the details.'' I would like this issue to be debated 
and for legislation to be proposed and analyzed thoroughly for any 
unintended consequences to ensure that we are not doing more harm than 
good. We cannot afford to increase the number of uninsured and must be 
careful not to hurt those that currently have coverage.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Your side has 5 minutes. The other side has 4 
minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Generally speaking, Mr. President, the proponents should 
go last.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be happy to go. We generally 
alternate back and forth. It doesn't make any difference.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy amendment. 
At a certain point I will be offering a second-degree amendment.
  Senator Kennedy's amendment--maybe I should read from it. It is a 
sense of the Senate that Congress should pass the bill called the 
``Consumer Bill of Rights,'' I believe.
  Now, I might mention the Senator introduced this bill 2 nights ago. I 
have a copy of the bill which was introduced, the companion bill which 
is in the House. It is 68 pages. It is the Federal Government getting 
involved in many areas that possibly my colleagues haven't had a chance 
to examine. I know this bill has only been introduced for a couple 
days, but it is a pretty far-reaching bill. It is a bill that treats 
private plans differently than union plans. It is a bill that says we 
in Government know best. It is a bill that has lots and lots of 
mandates. It is a bill that will increase the cost of health care. It 
is a bill that does not track the President's Commission on Quality 
Care.
  I met with some of the Commission on Quality Care just recently. They 
didn't have a consensus to legislate. As a matter of fact, there was a 
push by the administration and others that we need to legislate a 
patients' bill of rights. But that was not the consensus of the 
commission. As a matter of fact, the commission did not recommend 
legislation. Yet even though the commission, which studied this issue 
for 10 months, didn't recommend legislation, here comes a bill, 68 
pages, and now, without even having the ink dry on the bill, we have 
people saying let's pass this.
  It has a great title. I agree it is a great title. I compliment my 
colleague from Massachusetts. Boy, any time you say something has a 
bill of rights, it has to be good. Unfortunately, the closer you look 
at this legislation, it is not good. I don't think it is good if you 
increase costs for patients. I don't think it is good if you increase 
Federal mandates. I don't think it is good if you increase costs to 
where a lot of people cannot afford insurance. And I don't think there 
is a relationship between increasing regulations and increasing 
quality. As a matter of fact, it may be inversely related; you may have 
more Federal regulations and more money and resources that health care 
providers have, and instead of using those for providing quality, they 
are going to be using them to provide for compliance and health care 
quality goes down.
  So while I compliment my colleague from Massachusetts for having a 
great title on this proposal that is only 2 days old, I don't think the 
Congress should be committing itself to passing it. I think it would be 
a serious mistake.
  I might mention, this is not just the Senator from Oklahoma saying 
this. I am looking at health care providers who have serious 
reservations. I will just give you one example. This is a quote from 
the American Hospital Association regarding the bill which was recently 
introduced:

       However, the President's quality commission confirmed there 
     is no consensus that Federal legislation introduced today by 
     House and Senate Democrats is the way to achieve these best 
     objectives. The AHA believes the private sector can and must 
     meet the challenge to protect consumers and improving the 
     quality of care. Federal legislation should be considered 
     only if all private sector efforts fail.

  We have not even given them a chance. We are saying we know best and 
we are going to mandate it. We are going to dictate it.
  Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I am absolutely appalled at the response of our friends and 
colleagues on the other side. First of all, the President's panel 
unanimously said that these rights ought to be available to every 
American consumer, No. 1.
  Now, what good does it do to have a right if you don't have a remedy? 
That is like saying we are for the Bill of Rights but we don't want to 
put it in the Constitution. Come on, Senators. You have to have a 
better answer than that. It doesn't hold up.
  No. 2, this is not our legislation; this is a sense-of-the-Senate. I 
listened to my friend from Pennsylvania. He is talking about a slogan, 
not a program. What does he object to in here? Do you object to drive-
by mastectomies? Do you object to making sure that women are going to 
have gynecological and obstetrical care? If you do, let's say it. Do 
you object to being able to get the best information and not have your 
doctor gagged?

  This is what is in this amendment. This is what is important, not 
just some gray areas. So let's respond to what is in this sense-of-the-
Senate. We have outlined it. It incorporates what the President's 
commission unanimously recommended should be available to every single 
consumer.
  That is all we are saying--no specific legislation but extending it 
to every consumer. And if you think it is bureaucratic to say we are 
not going to permit health care plans to deny you at the emergency room 
when you have chest pains and are short of breath and may be having a 
heart attack, then go and defend that position.
  Ask any consumer in this country. Ask any woman in this country. Ask 
any disabled person in this country. They are entitled to the best that 
their particular policy has guaranteed.
  Finally, Mr. President, I am not going to yield to anyone about 
defending HMOs. I introduced the legislation and passed it in 1974. I 
supported it. We passed it five times here, and I led the fight for it.
  All I want to do is to make sure that all of the HMOs are going to 
live up to what the best of the HMOs are living up to today. The best 
of the HMOs today support this. They support our resolution. We just 
want to make sure that every HMO is going to provide that kind of 
protection for the consumers they have enlisted and whose premiums they 
are accepting and using to pay very substantial salaries to their 
executives.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Just a couple of comments.
  My colleague said that the President's Commission on Quality endorses 
these proposals, but they specifically did not endorse legislation. 
There is a big difference. Do we want to encourage the private sector 
to improve quality and access and information? You bet. But when you 
come up with a 68-page bill and say here is what you must do, there is 
a difference. The President's commission did not say legislate. The 
Senator's sense-of-the-Senate says legislate. The underlying sense-of-

[[Page S3049]]

the-Senate resolution provides for enactment of legislation to 
establish a patients' bill of rights which was just introduced 2 days 
ago that will increase health care costs. I think that is a serious 
mistake.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. No, not on my time. I only have a minute left.
  So I just make the comment that people can talk about these goals. I 
will agree with the goals. But when you try to mandate them by 
legislation, saying that we know better, that we are going to dictate 
to the Mayo Clinic, here is what you must do, we are going to dictate 
to the Cleveland clinic; we know better, Congress knows better, the 
Senator from Massachusetts knows better, we are going to dictate it by 
legislation, I disagree. I do not think that will improve quality. I 
think it would be a serious mistake.
  I urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to vote no on the 
Kennedy amendment, and I will offer a second-degree amendment shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 25 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Their time has expired.


                Amendment No. 2281 to Amendment No. 2183

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the enactment 
                     of a patient's bill of rights)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and 
send the amendment to the desk.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Parliamentary inquiry. I believe time has to expire 
before the Senator can send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded back his time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.
  Mr. NICKLES. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts had the floor. 
He yielded his time back and sent the amendment to the desk.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the second-degree amendment of the Senator 
from Massachusetts is the pending business.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2281 to Amendment No. 2183.

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

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING A PATIENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) patients lack reliable information about health plans 
     and the quality of care that health plans provide;
       (2) experts agree that the quality of health care can be 
     substantially improved, resulting in less illness and less 
     premature death;
       (3) some managed care plans have created obstacles for 
     patients who need to see specialists on an ongoing basis and 
     have required that women get permission from their primary 
     care physician before seeing a gynecologist;
       (4) a majority of consumers believe that health plans 
     compromise their quality of care to save money;
       (5) Federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 prevents States from enforcing 
     protections for the 125,000,000 workers and their families 
     receiving health insurance through employment-based group 
     health plans; and
       (6) the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and 
     Quality in the Health Care Industry has unanimously 
     recommended a patient bill of rights to protect patients 
     against abuses by health plan and health insurance issuers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense Senate that the 
     assumptions underlying this resolution provide for the 
     enactment of legislation to establish a patient's bill of 
     rights for participants in health plans, and that legislation 
     should include--
       (1) a guarantee of access to covered services, including 
     needed emergency care, specialty care, obstetrical and 
     gynecological care for women, and prescription drugs;
       (2) provisions to ensure that the special needs of women 
     are met, including protecting women against ``drive-through 
     mastectomies'';
       (3) provisions to ensure that the special needs of children 
     are met, including access to pediatric specialists and 
     centers of pediatric excellence;
       (4) provisions to ensure that the special needs of 
     individuals with disabilities and the chronically ill are 
     met, including the possibility of standing referrals to 
     specialists or the ability to have a specialist act as a 
     primary care provider;
       (5) a procedure to hold health plans accountable for their 
     decisions and to provide for the appeal of a decision of a 
     health plan to deny care to an independent, impartial 
     reviewer;
       (6) measures to protect the integrity of the physician-
     patient relationship, including a ban on ``gag clauses'' and 
     a ban on improper incentive arrangements; and
       (7) measures to provide greater information about health 
     plans to patients and to improve the quality of care.
       (8) a requirement that the network of providers included in 
     the plan are adequate to ensure the provision of services 
     covered by the plan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 20 minutes of debate divided 
equally on the amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the other side wants to yield back 
their time, I am prepared to yield time and move ahead to a rollcall 
vote on this.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Otherwise we will have a long quorum call, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield back 
time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2282

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning health care 
                                quality)

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to consideration of the 
amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I had understood, there had been 
representations that were made that the Senator from Oklahoma would be 
able to get a vote on his amendment and then we would go ahead with a 
vote on my amendment, the Kennedy-Durbin-Boxer amendment. That is my 
understanding. If my understanding is correct, I have no objection. Is 
that the----
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has sent to the desk 
an amendment. If there is no objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2282.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE QUALITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Rapid changes in the health care marketplace have 
     compromised confidence in the our Nation's health system.
       (2) American consumers want more convenience, fewer 
     hassles, more choices, and better service from their health 
     insurance plans.
       (3) All Americans deserve quality-driven health care 
     supported by sound science and evidence-based medicine.
       (4) The Federal Government, through the National Institutes 
     of Health, supports research that improves the quality of 
     medical care that Americans receive.
       (5) This resolution assumes increased funding for the 
     National Institutes of Health for

[[Page S3050]]

     1999 of $15,100,000,000, an 11-percent increase over current 
     funding levels, which are 7 percent higher than in 1997.
       (6) As the largest purchaser of health care services, the 
     Federal Government has a responsibility to utilize its 
     purchasing power to demand high quality health plans and 
     providers for its health programs and to protect its 
     beneficiaries from inferior medical care.
       (7) The Federal Government must adopt the posture of 
     private sector purchasers and insist on high quality care for 
     the 67,000,000 medicare and medicaid beneficiaries and the 
     9,000,000 Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents.
       (8) The private sector has proven to be more capable of 
     keeping pace with the rapid changes in health care delivery 
     and medical practice that affect quality of care 
     considerations than the Federal Government.
       (9) As Congress considers health care legislation, it must 
     first commit to ``do no harm'' to health care quality, 
     consumers, and the evolving market place. Rushing to 
     legislate or regulate based on anecdotal information and 
     micro-managing health plans on politically popular issues 
     will not solve the problems of consumer confidence and the 
     quality of our health care system.
       (10) When health insurance premiums rise, Americans lose 
     health coverage. Studies indicate that a 1 percent increase 
     in private health insurance premiums will be associated with 
     an increase in the number of persons without insurance of 
     about 400,000 persons.
       (11) Health care costs have begun to rise significantly in 
     the past year. The Congressional Budget Office (referred to 
     as ``CBO'') projects that the growth in health premiums will 
     be 5.5 percent in 1998 up from 3.8 percent in 1997. CBO 
     continues to project that premiums will grow about 1 
     percentage point faster than the Gross Domestic Product in 
     the longer run. CBO also warns that new Federal mandates on 
     health insurance could exacerbate this increase in premiums.
       (12) The President's Advisory Commission on Consumer 
     Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry developed 
     the Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. This 
     includes information disclosure, confidentiality of health 
     information, and choice of providers.
       (13) The President's Commission further determined that 
     private sector organizations have the capacity to act in a 
     timely manner needed to keep pace with the swiftly evolving 
     health system.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this resolution assume that 
     the Senate will not pass any health care legislation that 
     will--
       (1) make health insurance unaffordable for working families 
     and increase the number of uninsured Americans;
       (2) divert limited health care resources away from serving 
     patients to paying lawyers and hiring new bureaucrats; or
       (3) impose political considerations on clinical decisions, 
     instead of allowing such decisions to be made on the basis of 
     sound science and the best interests of patients.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is a first-degree amendment and now 
has 30 minutes equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have sent my amendment to the desk for 
various reasons, one of which is, my colleague from Massachusetts has 
an amendment which he calls a Patients' Bill of Rights. It sounds like 
a good title, but, frankly, I am concerned it will increase costs, I am 
concerned it will increase regulation, and because it will increase 
costs, the number of uninsured will rise, and without question it will 
increase regulation.
  The bill that he refers to, the bill that he recently introduced--it 
also has the same title--called the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 
1998, is 68 pages long and has a lot of details in it. It has a lot of 
things that every health care plan in America would have to provide. 
That would cost a lot. It has a lot of the same language that is in the 
so-called PARCA, the Patients Access to Responsible Care Act. Estimates 
were made on that bill that it would increase costs 23 percent. That is 
a big increase. If you increase health care costs 23 percent, you are 
going to put a lot of people who had insurance in the uninsured 
category. I think that would be a serious mistake. People who have done 
their homework on this legislation, and maybe are experts in it, have 
come out and said, ``We have reviewed this Patients' Bill of Rights and 
find it severely lacking.''
  Here is a quote from the Health Care Leadership Council. They said, 
``a vote for the Kennedy amendment is a vote for greater involvement by 
lawyers and bureaucrats in our health care system. To improve American 
health care we need to empower individuals, not government. We need 
every medical dollar to go to medical services, not to lawyers and 
legal fees.''
  One of the reasons for the reference to lawyers and legal fees is 
that it would allow insurers and businesses to be sued for not 
providing coverage; not just for the coverage, but also for pain and 
suffering, for punitive damages. So you would have health care insurers 
as well as businesses, who would be worried more about litigation than 
consumer care. I think that would be an enormously expensive provision, 
and people need to know it.
  I will continue with the Health Care Leadership Council. They said:

       The bureaucratic regulations that would result from the 
     Democrats' patient bill of rights legislation would add 
     unnecessary complexity to the health care system. Complexity 
     steals time from patients and forces health care providers to 
     focus on regulatory compliance instead of improving the 
     quality of care.

  The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, which represents 
companies throughout the country says:

       We urge your opposition to an amendment expected to be 
     offered by Senator Kennedy to the budget resolution today 
     expressing the sense of the Senate that a patient bill of 
     rights proposal should be enacted this session . . .
       The goal of improving health care quality can be better 
     achieved through the power of the marketplace.

  The National Federation of Independent Business says:

       The Kennedy amendment would dangerously place the Senate on 
     record in support of health care mandates prior to carefully 
     examining the issues of cost, coverage, regulation and 
     litigation. Additionally, it is premature given the work of 
     respective health care task force groups in the Senate and 
     House and private-sector efforts. Thus, we hope you will not 
     rush to legislate on the basis of antidotes rather than sound 
     decisionmaking. Big Government mandates substitute Government 
     intervention for quality innovations currently taking place 
     in the private health care market are the wrong prescriptions 
     for America's health care system.

  Also, I have a letter from the Council on Affordable Health 
Insurance:

       Bill of rights is a cruel hoax when the cost of those 
     rights will result in health insurance which is unaffordable 
     for those privately purchasing or causes employers to drop 
     health insurance coverage altogether. Both Congress and the 
     States have enacted laws to make health insurance accessible 
     to almost every American who seeks coverage. Access to health 
     insurance is meaningless if Congress makes it unattainable 
     because of regulations placing it financially out of reach 
     for many Americans.

  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Healthcare Leadership Council,

                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 1998.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Assistant Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: We understand that Senator Kennedy 
     intends, during Senate floor debate on the Budget Resolution, 
     to offer an amendment placing the Senate on record as 
     supporting enactment of the provisions incorporated in the 
     Patients' Bill of Rights legislation introduced by Senate and 
     House Democrats yesterday. It is critical that the Senate 
     strongly oppose this amendment.
       The approach toward health care embodied in the Kennedy 
     amendment is exactly the wrong medicine for our health care 
     system. The Democrats' bill introduced yesterday would raise 
     costs, increase the numbers of uninsured people and eliminate 
     consumer choices.
       A vote for the Kennedy amendment is a vote for greater 
     involvement by lawyers and bureaucrats in our health care 
     system. To improve American health care, we need to empower 
     individuals, not government. We need every medical dollar to 
     go to medical services--not to lawyers and legal expenses.
       The bureaucratic regulations that would result from the 
     Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights legislation would add 
     unnecessary complexity to the health care system. Complexity 
     steals time from patients and forces health care providers to 
     focus on regulatory compliance instead of improving the 
     quality of care.
       As you know, the members of the Healthcare Leadership 
     Council are the chief executives of the nation's leading 
     health care companies and organizations, America's health 
     care innovators. We are working toward a market-based 
     approach to making health care more accessible, more 
     affordable and of the highest quality for all Americans. 
     Again, we strongly urge the Senate to reject the government 
     micromanagement approach to health care that is embodied in 
     the Kennedy amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Pamela G. Bailey,
                                                        President.

[[Page S3051]]

     
                                  ____
                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                   Washington, DC, March 31, 1998.
     To Members of the U.S. Senate:
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the world's largest business 
     federation, representing more than three million businesses 
     and organizations of every size, sector, and region--strongly 
     opposes proposals that will increase the cost of health 
     coverage. We urge your opposition to an amendment expected to 
     be offered by Senator Kennedy to the Budget Resolution today 
     expressing the sense of the Senate that a patient bill of 
     rights proposal should be enacted this session.
       Health care reform easily has been one of the most 
     emotional, complex and divisive domestic issues facing our 
     nation. Many members of Congress have responded by 
     considering a wide variety of proposals to regulate the 
     health care marketplace, impose additional mandates, or most 
     dangerously to expand medical malpractice liability. The 
     Chamber strongly opposes these measures and may consider 
     votes in connection with these proposals for inclusion in our 
     annual ``How They Voted'' voting guide.
       ``Patient bill of rights'' proposals--such as that 
     advocated by a majority of the deeply flawed Clinton managed 
     care commission--more closely resemble provider than patient 
     protections. Higher costs for health coverage will be the 
     certain result of further government micro-management of the 
     health care marketplace and increased litigation, making 
     health coverage less affordable and available to small 
     businesses and individuals. Of what use is the ``perfect'' 
     health plan if businesses cannot afford to offer and 
     employees cannot afford to accept health coverage?
       The goal of improving health care quality can be better 
     achieved through the power of the marketplace. The Chamber 
     has recently joined other members of the business community 
     in forming the Employer Quality Partnership, a new coalition 
     intended to empower the health coverage purchaser--whether 
     employer or individual consumer--with the tools necessary to 
     evaluate health plan quality in a changing marketplace. In 
     addition, we strongly supported the development of the 
     American Association of Health Plan's Patients First 
     initiative.
       The expected Kennedy amendment is, at best, premature given 
     the work of the respective health care taskforce groups in 
     the Senate and House and private sector efforts like the 
     Employer Quality Partnership and Patients First. We urge you 
     not to commit today to legislation that will certainly prove 
     a losing proposition tomorrow.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                     The Health Benefits Coalition


                              for Affordable Choice & Quality,

                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 1998.
       Dear Senator Nickles: We urge your opposition to an 
     amendment to be offered by Senator Kennedy to the Budget 
     Resolution today putting the Senate on record in favor of 
     passage of so-called ``patient protection'' legislation this 
     session.
       The Health Benefits Coalition agrees with you that 
     Congress' first obligation is to Do No Harm. We share your 
     view that patients would be hurt by any health care mandate 
     bill that increases premiums on American families, reduces 
     coverage or causes a new wave of costly litigation and 
     regulation.
       Concerns about congressional action increasing costs and 
     reducing coverage are well-founded. An example is the 
     Democrats' Patient Bill of Rights Act, unveiled just 
     yesterday, which combines many of the worst elements of so-
     called ``patient protection'' proposals. It would result in 
     further government micro-management of the health care 
     marketplace and increased litigation, making health coverage 
     less affordable and available to small businesses and 
     individuals.
       Ironically, by increasing costs and forcing millions of 
     low-wage workers to choose between higher premiums or 
     dropping coverage for their families, the Democrat proposal 
     would hurt the very people who need help the most. Studies 
     show that last year some six million Americans declined 
     health insurance, largely because of cost, and these workers 
     are ``more likely to be young, Hispanic or black, or 
     unmarried and have low wages or low education levels''. 
     (Health Affairs, Vol. 16, No. 6)
       America has the finest health care system in the world 
     because our private health care market--unlike a government 
     run system--improves to meet consumers' needs. There is much 
     that is currently being done voluntarily by health care plans 
     and employers throughout the marketplace to improve the 
     quality of care. However, if we trade the innovation and 
     excellence of our private health care system for the 
     regulation of a government-run system, this progress and 
     innovation will be stifled. Furthermore, it won't be doctors 
     making decisions about our health care--it will be 
     Washington.
       The Kennedy amendment would dangerously place the Senate on 
     record in support of health care mandates prior to carefully 
     examining the issues of cost, coverage, regulation and 
     litigation. Additionally, it is premature given the work of 
     the respective health care taskforce groups in the Senate and 
     House and private sector efforts. Thus, we hope you will not 
     rush to legislate on the basis of anecdotes, rather than 
     sound decision-making. Big government mandates, which 
     substitute government intervention for quality innovations 
     currently taking place in the private health care market, are 
     the wrong prescription for America's health care system.
           Sincerely,
     Dan Danner,
       Chairman, The Health Benefits Coalition, Vice President, 
     National Federation of Independent Business.


                Health Benefits Coalition Participants:

     National Federation of Independent Business
     U.S.Chamber of Commerce
     The Business Roundtable
     National Association of Manufacturers
     National Restaurant Association
     Associated Builders and Contractors
     National Association of Health Underwriters
     American Automobile Manufacturers Association
     National Business Coalition on Health
     American Insurance Association
     Food Marketing Institute
     The ERISA Industry Committee
     National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
     Food Distributors International
     CIGNA
     American Association of Health Plans
     Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans
     National Retail Federation
     Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
     Citizens for a Sound Economy
     Society for Human Resource Management
     Council for Affordable Health Insurance
     Aetna U.S. Healthcare
     Prudential HealthCare
     Health Insurance Association of America
     Healthcare Leadership Council
     Humana Inc.
     International Mass Retail Association
     Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.
     New York Life/NYLCARE Health Plans
     Premier
                                                       Council for


                                  Affordable Health Insurance,

                                    Alexandria, VA, April 1, 1998.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Assistant Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: On behalf of the Council for 
     Affordable Health Insurance, representing 3 million 
     policyholders we are writing to voice our strong opposition 
     to the Kennedy amendment No. 2183 to S. Con. Res. 86. The 
     Kennedy amendment, Sense of the Senate resolution regarding 
     Patient's Bill of Rights, although nonbinding would place 
     Senators on record in favor of enacting legislation to 
     establish a patient's bill of rights. A Bill of Rights is a 
     cruel hoax when the cost of those rights will result in 
     health insurance which is unaffordable for those privately 
     purchasing or causes employers to drop health insurance 
     coverage all together.
       The ``rights'' listed in the Kennedy amendment amount to a 
     litany of mandated benefits, and mandated providers. One only 
     need to look to the states to see what these rights have cost 
     policyholders. In the state of Maryland, there are over 40 
     state mandates. These mandates; some benefit related, others 
     provider related, add more than 20% to the cost of insurance 
     premium in that state. Major studies have been released in 
     the last year that show the uninsured in the United States is 
     increasing. The reason for the increase is not lack of access 
     but lack of affordability!
       Both the Congress and the states have enacted laws to make 
     health insurance accessible to almost every American who 
     seeks coverage. Access to health insurance is meaningless if 
     the Congress makes it unattainable because of regulation 
     placing it financially out of reach for many Americans.
       The Kennedy amendment is premature when both the Senate and 
     the House have established Health Care Task forces to 
     carefully examine this issue. We are strongly opposed to the 
     Kennedy amendment and urge Congress not to enact legislation 
     which will increase the cost of health care insurance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Angela M. Hunter,
                                      Director of Federal Affairs.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the remainder of my time, because I have a 
couple of colleagues who wish to speak on this.
  I ask that the second-degree amendment No. 2281 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2281) was withdrawn.
  Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have, Mr. President? Is it 15 minutes 
on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. President, I disagree with some of Senator Nickles' findings, but 
I

[[Page S3052]]

have no quarrel with the general words, and I urge the Senate to 
support his amendment and then go ahead and support our sense-of-the-
Senate amendment, because the sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
incorporates the basic kind of protections that are essential in order 
to protect working families in this country.
  I might differ with some of the particular words that the Senator has 
provided in his resolution. I was just handed the resolution a moment 
or two ago. It says:

       Sense of the Senate. It is the sense of the Senate that the 
     assumptions underlying this resolution assume that the Senate 
     will not pass any health care legislation that will--
       (1) make health insurance unaffordable for working 
     families.

  How can you differ with that? I am not for making health insurance 
unaffordable.
  And:

       (2) divert limited health care resources away from serving 
     patients to paying lawyers and hiring new bureaucrats. . .

  I certainly agree with Senator Nickles on that one.
  And:

       (3) impose political considerations on clinical decisions. 
     . .

  That is basically what we are talking about in our amendment. 
Restoring the patient-provider relationship.
  I hope the entire Senate will support the Nickles amendment, and then 
we get back to our amendment, the real enchilada, the real McCoy. The 
essential protections we have spoken of today are included in the sense 
of the Senate advanced by myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer and 
Senator Sarbanes. Our amendment asks the Senate to pass legislation to 
ensure that women in this country are going to get the gynecological 
and obstetrical care they need. It identifies and ends the evils of 
forced drive-through mastectomies. It says that a person who has a 
medical emergency does not have to drive past the nearest emergency 
room to a more distant one in the plan. It says that we will eliminate 
the use of gag clauses, and respect our medical professionals and the 
decisions they make. And it says that health plans will be held 
accountable for their decisions that deny care for patients and result 
in serious illness or death for those individuals. Why should we 
continue to shield negligent plans?
  This Senator listened carefully, and neither the Senator from 
Oklahoma nor the Senator from New Mexico nor the Senator from 
Pennsylvania have addressed for one single moment the six essential 
elements of our sense-of-the-Senate resolution--the elements of which 
are strongly endorsed by the American Medical Association, the National 
Breast Cancer Association, Families USA, Consumer's Union, the 
emergency physicians, groups representing people with mental and 
physical disabilities, pediatricians across this country and a great 
number of consumer and patient groups that understand exactly what is 
at risk.

  We are going to vote. We are going to vote not only this afternoon, 
but we are going to vote continuously in this Congress until we pass 
this legislation. This afternoon is the first time.
  But I certainly hope that Senator Nickles' amendment will be 
supported, and I hope, if I can have the attention of the Senator from 
Oklahoma, that he will accord the same courtesy and support to our 
amendment as well, and we will have a happy afternoon here together.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, I say to my friend from 
Massachusetts, for his leadership on these issues.
  I certainly am going to support the Nickles amendment, as the Senator 
from Massachusetts has stated. The Nickles amendment simply says we 
shouldn't do anything when we legislate on this issue of a patient bill 
of rights to make things worse for patients. Of course we wouldn't do 
that. But the ultimate vote comes on Senator Kennedy's amendment, 
because that is a positive statement of things we must do and we should 
do for the average American who has an HMO plan and who deserves to 
have quality health care.
  I think we should vote for the Nickles amendment and then for the 
Kennedy amendment.
  I want to tell a couple of stories, because they really illustrate 
why the Kennedy amendment is so important.
  In the course of looking at the HMO issue, I met a gentleman named 
Harry Christie from Woodside, CA. He had a daughter who, at age 9, 
developed a very rare cancer. And it required a very delicate operation 
that could really only be performed by a surgeon who had experience in 
dealing with what they call Wilms' tumors.
  So Mr. Christie, as any parent, loving his child with all of his 
soul, went to find out which physicians could do this operation and 
found out who they were, went to his HMO, and said, ``I assume that you 
will pay for a specialist to perform this delicate operation on my 
daughter.'' The HMO said, ``Sorry, Mr. Christie, we do not have such a 
specialist on our staff. You will have to take a general surgeon, a 
very good general surgeon, or you will have to simply pay for this out 
of your own pocket.''
  Mr. Christie made the argument to no avail: ``This is my child. She 
is 9 years old. This is a delicate operation. This is a rare tumor. And 
I will not have someone with no experience, no matter how good a 
surgeon, take a knife to my child.'' Well, they said, ``You're out of 
luck.'' Mr. Christie had to come up with $50,000, and he did. Years 
later, his daughter is now 14. She is cured of this disease. She had a 
successful operation. What if Mr. Christie had not been able to come up 
with the $50,000? She may never have recovered.
  What is it that we are doing here? We tell people we believe in 
quality health care, and yet we stand here and say we cannot do 
anything about it. The Kennedy amendment says that if your plan does 
not have a specialist that you must have for you or your family, yes, 
you can go outside that plan.
  We held a press conference on this important bill that we hope will 
pass the U.S. Senate soon. And we heard over satellite from a gentleman 
named David Garvey from Illinois. He had an HMO; he thought it was 
terrific. Everyone loves their HMO until they get sick. Then, 
unfortunately, too many find out it was not what they thought it would 
be. What happened to this family is, Barbara Garvey, his wife of 30-
some years, got a very rare immune condition. She was on vacation in 
Hawaii. And the HMO said, ``No, no, no, no. We cannot treat her in 
Hawaii. She has to be flown on a commercial airplane, at your expense, 
back to Illinois.'' Well, to make a very sad story shorter, she never 
survived that experience because her immune system was so damaged in 
this particular anemia condition that she could not withstand the 
infections that she got on that airplane.
  We have to take action. There is nothing in the Nickles amendment 
that disturbs me at all. Of course, when we take action, it ought to be 
with all the concerns that Senator Nickles puts in. Of course we should 
not fix a plan because of political reasons--I do not even know what 
that means--but we should do it because we want to help the people of 
this country get quality health care. That means specialists, and that 
means, as Senator Kennedy has pointed out, a plan where doctors will 
not be gagged. We do not want doctors gagged. We want doctors to be 
able to tell you the truth about your condition. And if there is a 
remedy that might be a little more expensive, you deserve the right to 
know. That is in the Kennedy amendment.
  A woman who needs an OB-GYN--and many of us use our own OB-GYNs as 
our first line of support. We do not go to an internist, should not 
have to go through a gatekeeper, to get that kind of help. So we have a 
wonderful opportunity today to support both the Nickles amendment and 
the Kennedy amendment. We have an opportunity to say that patients in 
America who pay premiums deserve to have the quality put back in health 
care. This is a chance for us to make that statement.
  I hope we will cross over party lines on both these amendments and go 
home feeling we have made a statement that is important to the American 
people and follow it up with real action on a real patients' bill of 
rights.
  I yield back my time to Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee 4 minutes. How 
much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 15 seconds.

[[Page S3053]]

  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment from the Senator 
from Oklahoma and in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, which I think we are 
going to have widespread agreement on, basically says that--

       The Senate will not pass any health care legislation that 
     will--
       make health insurance unaffordable for working families and 
     increase the number of uninsured Americans . . .

  And in addition, it will not pass any health care legislation that 
will--

       . . . impose political considerations on clinical 
     decisions, instead of allowing such decisions to be made on 
     the basis of sound science and the best interest of patients.

  I would like to take the time and say why passage of the Nickles 
amendment means we should defeat the Kennedy amendment. Basically, 
physicians do not treat patients unless we know that the anticipated 
risks to that patient are outweighed by the benefits. If we were to 
pass the amendment by Senator Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
those unintended disadvantages would far outweigh the good intentions 
that we have.
  No. 1 is the issue of cost. We know that if we are mandating benefits 
today the cost of health insurance goes up. When health insurance goes 
up, those hard-working men and women, the single mom, working mom with 
the child, can lose her health insurance.
  So we feel good because we are out there arguing quality. However, 
what we are really doing is putting mandates on the American people. I 
can guarantee you, because the data shows it, we drive health care 
costs up when we impose mandates. Who is hurt? The people we think we 
are helping--the working poor people who are out there.
  A study by the Lewin Group showed that a 1 percent increase in 
premium implies that 200,000 people will lose their insurance. In fact, 
they said 200,000 to 400,000 people will lose their insurance. Yet, 
when we hear a little increase of 1 percent in your insurance premium 
we think anybody can take that. They do not. People will lose their 
insurance with these mandates. We should make the commitment, which the 
Nickles resolution does, not to pass legislation that drives the price 
of health care costs up and makes the uninsured a bigger problem.
  No. 2, good science. We need good science. Some mandates in some 
cases may be OK, but let us base that on good science where we are 
really helping people.
  Length of stay--mastectomy. Let me point out length of stay, how long 
you stay in a hospital, is not even mentioned in the landmark NIH 
consensus statement and guidelines for the management of breast cancer. 
In the guidelines that were determined by consensus to effect quality 
of care, the length of stay is not mentioned. In fact, in this 
particular bill where we talk about length of stay, length of stay is 
not necessarily the right issue.
  A 1996 study of 525 women who underwent outpatient mastectomies at 
Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan reported increased quality, accelerated 
physical recovery, earlier return to occupational activities, and 
numerous improved psychological advantages.
  My point is, if we are talking quality, this rubric of quality, we 
need to look at critical quality issues. Inpatient versus outpatient 
isn't necessarily a quality issue. It is an oversimplification. There 
are numerous studies.
  A 1995 study at the New Jersey College of Medicine of 133 women who 
underwent outpatient partial mastectomies showed a lower rate of 
postoperative infection and a higher rate of satisfaction in comparison 
to a group having surgery on an inpatient basis.

  In addition, the amendment itself also has other mandates, mandating 
reimbursement for prescription drugs. That is something that Medicare 
does not even do. If you mandate coverage for prescription drugs, I 
will guarantee you, you are going to drive the costs of health care 
insurance up to the point that you are going to be driving people out 
of the marketplace where they will not have access to even an adequate 
level of health care.
  Thus, in closing, I rise to support--and I hope we will have a 100-0 
vote for the Nickles amendment. Listen to what the Nickles amendment 
says. Let us not hurt quality of health care when we think we are 
helping it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields the time?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator from Maine 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 6 minutes. The 
Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  All of us agree that medically necessary patient care should never be 
sacrificed to the bottom line, and that medical decisionmaking should 
remain in the hands of medical professionals, and not in the hands of 
accountants. The question is, how can we best achieve that goal? Is the 
answer, as the Senator from Massachusetts suggests, massive new Federal 
regulations, mandates, and a preemption of the State's traditional role 
to regulate insurance? Or is the answer to trust the private-sector 
organizations that have made great progress in improving the quality of 
health care plans? Or is, perhaps, the answer somewhere in between? Is 
the answer carefully crafted, minimal Federal legislation that supports 
the efforts in the private sector?

  The reason this issue is so important is because we don't want to 
take a misguided step in the name of improving quality and end up 
making health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans.
  The Lewin Group recently released an important study that deserves 
the attention of all of our colleagues. It estimates that every 1 
percent increase in private insurance premiums results in an additional 
400,000 Americans who become uninsured. A 1 percent increase in costs 
brings 400,000 additional uninsured Americans.
  Health insurance rates are already projected to increase by more than 
5 percent in 1998. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported earlier this 
week that California's largest HMO was seeking an 11 percent increase 
in some rates. Therefore, we face an extremely delicate balancing act 
as we attempt to respond to concerns about quality without resorting to 
unduly burdensome Federal Government controls and mandates that will 
further drive up the cost of insurance and reduce access. Furthermore, 
we want to make certain that our efforts actually improve the quality 
of health care and not simply increase the amount of Federal 
regulation.
  Under the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma, I serve on the 
Republican health quality task force. We recently heard from the 
director of the Mayo Clinic, who voiced their own reservations about 
the Federal Government's ability to regulate quality. To quote Dr. Bob 
Waller:

       Quality is a continuous process that must be woven into the 
     fabric of how we think, act and feel. Government regulation 
     places a stake in the ground that freezes in place a quality 
     standard that may become obsolete very quickly. The 
     Government simply cannot react quickly to the changing 
     quality environment. The goal of quality is to continuously 
     improve patient care--not to achieve some defined regulatory 
     objective.

  Congress, in its haste to do good, should take care not to violate 
the first principle of medicine, which is, ``first of all, do no 
harm.'' Congress should not be acting precipitously, but rather should 
engage in a thoughtful and thorough debate on how best to ensure that 
Americans continue to enjoy the highest quality health care in the 
world. The amendment offered by the assistant majority leader adopts a 
reasoned, balanced approach to improving health care quality. All of us 
should be able to agree, as the amendment states, that Congress should 
not do anything to make health insurance unaffordable for working 
families and to increase the number of uninsured Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator has expired.
  Ms. COLLINS. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 53 seconds.

[[Page S3054]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Nickles amendment. I have 
outlined, as the Senator has, and, while I disagree with some of his 
statements, I think the Senate ought to go on record in favor of it. 
But I also invite others to support the amendment offered by myself, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer and others, which basically says the 
Senate should pass a patients' bill of rights. Our amendment and the 
rights embodied in it is commonsense.
  As we know around here, if you don't have a remedy for a right, you 
don't have a right. We have a Bill of Rights that we have enshrined in 
the Constitution of the United States. We have that to ensure all of 
our rights. All we are saying now is let us go on record in support of 
the rights that are included in this sense of the Senate.

  This amendment says that we will protect women from being thrown out 
of the hospital hours after a mastectomy and against the advice of 
their physician. We will assure that women are going to be able to get 
direct access to the gynecological and obstetrical care they need. 
These are rights that many plans say they already offer. With this 
amendment, we will make sure that they are realized.
  We will make sure that children with special needs have access to 
qualified pediatric specialists. We will make sure that we protect the 
rights of persons with disabilities. These rights are written in some 
of the various insurance policies, but too often they are not realized. 
We want to make sure that every American, if they have a heart attack 
or a stroke, can go to the nearest emergency room.
  Here are the basics, and they have been undisputed. No one has 
challenged that. Let's get aboard and say let us, in this Congress--
Republicans and Democrats--draft legislation that will protect those 
consumers. That is what the President's commission did unanimously. It 
said these ought to be the rights of every single American. We have a 
chance this afternoon for the Senate of the United States to say 
``yes.'' Every good plan already provides these rights. Consumers need 
protections against those insurance companies who put profits ahead of 
patients. Many organizations representing patients and doctors are on 
our side. Only those who profit from the current abuse are opposed to 
us.
  I hope the Senate will go in favor of this resolution.
  I yield the remaining time to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 2 minutes 
23 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his, as 
usual, stalwart defense of what is right in health care. I am struck by 
the referral of the Senator from Maine to the increased number of 
uninsured, which has always been put out by those--particularly the 
insurance companies--who oppose any kind of adding on to health care 
coverage or the quality of health care coverage in this country.
  It is the oldest irony in the books. They have never supported 
anything, anything that I can remember, over the last 10 years that 
increased health insurance coverage. They have opposed everything. She 
quotes them--and she was even shot down by the Republican appointed CBO 
Director June O'Neill, who says in her letter, ``CBO has not estimated 
how PARCA [the bill referred to in the estimates under discussion] 
might affect the number of people covered by insurance.''
  So on the one hand there is no argument, there is no case to be made 
about the increase; and secondly, in talking about this consumer bill 
of rights, we are talking about very, very fundamental things.
  I had to take my own son into an emergency room within the last 2 
weeks with my wife. There was nobody in the emergency room except us. 
It was held open, Sibley Hospital, because it was open and we were able 
to take advantage of it. It is the most important room in a hospital. 
This bill would guarantee that an emergency room would be open for 
everybody in America--not just people named Rockefeller or Kennedy--24 
hours a day, 365 days a year. That is necessary.
  I have another relative who has been through a mastectomy. People who 
say mastectomy quality is going up and people are not being urged to 
get out of hospitals simply don't know the facts because I have seen 
otherwise and I know otherwise.
  I suggest we support the amendments of the Senator from Oklahoma and 
that we support the Senator from Massachusetts, both.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Massachusetts has 
expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the fact that my colleagues on the 
Democratic side say they will support our amendment, but I want to 
inform them that our amendment is in direct contradiction with their 
amendment.
  Our amendment says we shouldn't do anything to increase health care 
costs. My colleagues want to say that the proposal by the Senator from 
Massachusetts doesn't increase costs. They can say it, but it is not 
true.
  The facts are the Lewin Group, for example, did a study on the so-
called PARCA bill and said it increased costs 23 percent. Granted, the 
bill that the Senator introduced 2 days ago and is calling upon the 
Senate to pass may not be exactly the same thing, but it has a lot of 
common elements, and it will increase costs.
  The Nickles resolution says we shouldn't increase costs because that 
increases uninsured. Common sense. And it says we shouldn't require 
health care providers to spend a lot of money defending themselves 
instead of providing quality care.
  The proposal by my colleague from Massachusetts refers to the patient 
bill of rights. His bill of rights says we should pass legislation. I 
mention that the President's commission did not say we should pass 
legislation. They are not consistent. Should we try to improve quality 
care? Sure. Should we pass legislation mandating a fixed definition of 
quality care? I don't think so.
  To give an example, a letter from Bob Waller of Mayo Clinic says, 
``Providers of care are in the unique position based on the personal 
commitment to the well-being of the individual patient to drive quality 
improvement initiatives. Nothing could stifle innovation quicker than 
external mandatory standards.'' Now, that is not from some insurance 
carrier. That is the director of the Mayo Clinic, one of the top 
providers of quality health care in the world.

  The Cleveland Clinic states:

       We are already subject to extensive Federal, State and 
     private regulations through oversight by private payors and 
     accrediting bodies. Adding yet another layer of regulation 
     will only further complicate matters, add administrative 
     costs to our organization, and in all likelihood have little 
     or no effect on the actual quality of care provided.

  I ask unanimous consent to have these statements printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                              mayo clinic

       Mayo Clinic, Baylor Health Care System, and the Cleveland 
     Clinic are all raising their voices in opposition to federal 
     regulation of health care quality.
       Dr. Bob Waller of the Mayo Clinic has stated: ``Quality is 
     a continuous process that must be woven into the fabric of 
     how we think, act and feel. Government regulation places a 
     stake in the ground that freezes in place a quality standard 
     that many become obsolete very quickly. The government simply 
     cannot react quickly to the changing quality environment. The 
     goal of quality is to continuously improve patient care--not 
     to achieve some defined regulatory standard.''


                       baylor health care system

       ``There has been an enormous commitment on the part of 
     Baylor Health Care System and providers throughout the 
     country to evaluate and put in place the processes for 
     continuous quality improvement. We believe it must be done at 
     this level. Providers of care are in the unique position, 
     based on their personal commitment to the well-being of the 
     individual patient, to drive quality improvement initiatives. 
     Nothing could stifle innovation quicker than external 
     mandatory standards.''


                            cleveland clinic

       ``We are already subject to extensive federal, state and 
     private regulations through oversight by private payors and 
     accrediting bodies. Adding yet another layer of regulation 
     will only further complicate matters, add administrative 
     costs to our organization, and in all likelihood have little 
     or no effect on the actual quality of care provided''.

[[Page S3055]]

    american hospital association (this was in response to senator 
                  kennedy's bill announced yesterday)

       ``The President's quality Commission confirmed there is no 
     consensus that federal legislation like that introduced today 
     by House and Senate Democrats is the best way to achieve 
     these objectives. The AHA believes the private sector can and 
     must meet the challenge of protecting consumers and improving 
     the quality of care. Federal legislation should be considered 
     only if all private sector efforts fail.''

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, these are not insurers. They are 
providers of care saying that more regulation will do just the 
opposite--it will increase costs. Experts are saying the Kennedy 
proposal will increase costs and therefore increase the uninsured and 
add a lot of money being expended for defensive purposes in litigation, 
not for improving quality of care. That is a mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, cosponsored by 
Senators Jeffords, Frist, Collins, and others. I thank them for their 
comments. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friend from Oklahoma sets up a 
strawman and then knocks it down. There are not going to be any 
additional costs for those insurance companies and those HMOs that are 
doing a good job. Massachusetts' HMOs, for example, are the best in the 
nation. I have the highest regard for them. But there may be an extra 
cost for HMOs that are shortchanging the consumer--the Senator is 
right--but not for those that are doing what they have represented to 
the consumers. In other words, if they are doing a good job, they have 
nothing to fear. That is why we have the support of a number of HMOs at 
the present time. This sense of the Senate focuses on the ones that are 
not doing a good job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for participating 
in what has been an exciting debate. I have a consent agreement that 
has been worked out between the majority and the minority.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be debated 
between now and approximately 4 o'clock, under the same terms as agreed 
to last night, with the exception of second-degree amendments, which 
are now limited to 10 minutes equally divided:
  Brownback amendment No. 2177, which has already been debated; Boxer 
amendment No. 2167; Specter amendment No. 2254; Lautenberg amendment 
No. 2244; Kyl amendment No. 2221; the two amendments that we have just 
heard debated, the Nickles amendment and the Kennedy amendment, Nos. 
2282 and 2183, respectively; a Hutchison from Texas amendment No. 2208; 
and the last in this series is the Rockefeller amendment No. 2226.
  I further ask that at the conclusion or yielding back of time on each 
of these amendments, and any second degrees, all remaining time on the 
budget be considered yielded back, and the and the Senate proceed to 
stack rollcall votes, under the same terms as last night.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, at 
approximately 4 p.m.--it looks like it will be a little bit after 
that--today, the Senate will begin what has been fondly called a 
``vote-arama.'' Some might not want to say ``fondly''; they may have 
other words to describe it. I choose that today for no particular 
reason. If all Senators will remain in the Chamber and refrain from 
insisting on rollcall votes on their amendments, all Members will 
survive this cruel process and the Senate can conduct the final vote on 
this resolution within 3 or 4 hours after 4 p.m.
  I understand that is wishful thinking, I say to my fellow Senators. 
Nonetheless, I urge my colleagues, once we start the ``vote-arama,'' to 
remain here in an attempt to work with us on the amendments that they 
may have to be included in the ``vote-arama'' or be disposed of 
otherwise. We still have a lot of amendments that we have not reached 
agreement on that might end up in the ``vote-arama.''
  We are making some very significant headway. We started today with 72 
amendments. We have worked to clear a number of those. Today, I think, 
with the amendments we will shortly adopt by voice vote, we are 
probably down to about 30 amendments that will fall into the ``vote-
arama,'' and we have not had a chance on each of them to discuss them 
with the Senators. Perhaps a significant number of those will not 
require votes.
  I yield so that my distinguished friend, the ranking member, can 
address the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I encourage all to listen carefully to 
what is proposed in this UC. The mission is to respond to the 
entreaties by Senators on both sides, ``When are we going to complete 
our work? We have plans to make, we have our appointments to keep.''
  You cannot have it six ways. What we have done here is we have tried 
to be as considerate as possible. The Senator from New Mexico has 
clearly stated the case. I have a further request that would apply to 
both sides, and that is, where the subjects are in common in two or 
more amendments, if those parties would consent to try to consolidate, 
we can further eliminate any time for discussion. Even though it is 
only 1 minute on each side, we are looking at a considerable amount of 
time. I plead with our colleagues--10 minutes on their clock has to be 
the same as 10 minutes on our clock; they can't be a different 10 
minutes.
  So if we are going to keep the voting limited, I urge the chairman of 
the Budget Committee to exercise all of the ``meanness'' that he can, 
be a bad guy and criticize and punish and all that. This is serious, 
and if people don't want to be looking at this clock at midnight, then 
they are going to have to adhere to the rules as we have them. I think 
I heard the Chair declare that the unanimous consent is in place. I 
would like to get on with the business at hand and do what we can to 
expedite the program and the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, following the next amendment, which I 
think will be the Lautenberg amendment, we will propose to the Senate a 
long list of amendments that we will accept and propose to accept by 
voice vote or by accommodation by both sides agreeing. So we will do 
that and that will take care of another long list of amendments. Then 
what will be left will be the ``vote-arama,'' and we will try to narrow 
those down in our personal conversations with Senators. Our leader will 
be along shortly to discuss this with Senators, also.
  According to the order, Senator Lautenberg's amendment will now be 
the pending business.


                           Amendment No. 2244

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Lautenberg 
amendment, No. 2244.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment presents a modified 
version of the budget that President Clinton submitted to the Congress 
last month. The amendment delineates all of the important priorities in 
the President's budget.
  First, it maintains strict fiscal discipline and adopts the 
President's commitment to save Social Security first. The amendment 
reserves all surpluses--I want to emphasize all surpluses--until we 
solve Social Security's long-term problems. This will help ensure that 
when the baby boomers retire, Social Security will be there for them, 
just like it has been there for their parents and grandparents. Second, 
this amendment, like the President's budget, makes education a top 
national priority. It calls for an initiative to reduce class sizes by 
hiring 100,000 new teachers; it promotes higher standards and greater 
accountability; it provides more after-school opportunities for young 
people; and it would help modernize and rehabilitate many of our 
schools.

  These initiatives are not included in the budget before us. That is 
one of its greatest shortcomings.
  Third, this amendment, like the President's budget, includes a 
historic commitment to helping families afford

[[Page S3056]]

quality child care. It would double the number of children receiving 
child care subsidies by the year 2003. It would provide tax relief to 
working families who struggle to afford child care, whose biggest 
concern is that their kids are in good, safe, secure hands and it 
doesn't matter what your income is or what your assets are. Everybody 
wants that. It includes many other measures to improve the quality of 
child care. Again, the Republican budget in front of us fails to 
include a meaningful child care initiative and would do little for 
working parents and their kids.
  Fourth, this amendment, like the President's budget, would expand 
Medicare to provide health care to many older Americans who now lack 
private insurance. It would assist those people to help them pay for 
their fair share so that there are no additional burdens on the 
taxpayers at large. The Republican budget rejects this proposal.
  Fifth, this amendment, like the President's budget, includes a major 
investment in research, especially medical research at the National 
Institutes of Health, with all of the lifesaving possibilities it 
promises. The Republican budget claims to provide funding for NIH, but 
it provides no new money to do so. It merely assumes that the 
Appropriations Committee will cut other programs--cut education, cut 
environmental protection--to find the money to provide NIH with more 
resources. That is not likely to happen.
  Sixth, this amendment includes a significant investment in our 
transportation infrastructure in accordance with the agreement reached 
on ISTEA funding. That includes not only funding for highways but 
transit and safety matters as well.
  Seventh, this amendment, like the President's budget, reflects a 
commitment to environmental protection. It calls for reinstatement of 
the Superfund taxes on polluters and to use those funds for a variety 
of environmental objectives. The Republican budget, by contrast, uses 
most revenues from the Superfund tax for purposes that have nothing to 
do with environmental protection.
  Mr. President, this amendment accommodates a wide range of Democratic 
priorities that have been shortchanged in the Republican budget--
education, child care, health care, environment. We accommodate all of 
these priorities using real numbers scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office. This alternative budget fully complies with the discretionary 
spending caps in the balanced budget amendment, and it doesn't spend a 
penny of any surplus to meet the goals that we have had to modestly 
scale back some of the spending included in the President's original 
proposal.
  We have adjusted the levels of both nondefense and defense 
discretionary spending to be consistent with the spending caps, and we 
have held about $15 billion in the President's funds for America's 
initiative in reserve. Those reserves will become available upon the 
enactment of tobacco legislation, if that legislation produces more 
revenues than proposed by the President.
  I note that all of these priorities could be funded if we enact the 
proposal that Senator Conrad and I have been advocating; that is, to 
promptly increase the cigarette taxes to $1.50 a pack. Mr. President, 
to avoid any confusion on this point, let me explain. We are assuming 
that many of the President's discretionary initiatives will be funded 
in authorizing legislation, which largely means tobacco legislation. We 
think that is the most likely way that many of these priorities will be 
funded. If so, they would all be scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office under the pay-as-you-go system separate from the discretionary 
spending caps. Of course, as the administration has proposed, this 
could also be accomplished with the rules change included in 
appropriations legislation.

  The point is that, in any case, the President's priorities can be 
accommodated here within the current rules or with the rules change for 
tobacco legislation.
  I want to be up front about this. I don't expect a Democratic 
substitute to be approved by this Senate. I am not asking for an 
extended debate about this proposal. We aren't looking for a partisan 
fight. We simply wanted to put this forward to reassert our support for 
the President's budget and to counter those who might try to argue that 
the President's priorities cannot be accommodated using the 
Congressional Budget Office scoring. We have shown that they can be. If 
the Senate wants to reject the President's proposals to expand 
Medicare, child care, reduce class size, that is their right. We can 
disagree. We can disagree on these in good faith. But we shouldn't just 
blame it on the Congressional Budget Office. It will be our choice and 
an expression of our priorities.
  Speaking for most Democrats, we think that this budget represents the 
values and priorities that we care about and that this country ought to 
care about. It reflects our commitment to fiscal discipline. It saves 
Social Security first. It would improve the lives of millions of 
American families.
  Mr. President, I yield the time so that the Democratic leader can use 
as much of that time as remains. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes eighteen seconds.
  The distinguished Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished ranking member for 
his excellent statement.
  Mr. President, it is with some disappointment that Democrats offer 
any substitute at all. The times when we work best are the times when 
we can find agreement in the Budget Committee, as we did last year. We 
were disappointed that agreement could not be reached to everyone's 
satisfaction. So we find ourselves compelled to offer an alternative to 
the budget now being proposed by the majority.
  The distinguished ranking member has laid out very thoroughly some of 
the reasons why our resolution is superior and the reasons why 
Democrats feel compelled today to express our differences with our 
Republican colleagues about this budget.
  Our plan very simply does what the President of the United States 
said we should do in his State of the Union address a couple of months 
ago. We put Social Security first. We provide targeted tax cuts for 
working families. We make very important domestic investments so that 
working families across this country can experience the tremendous 
economic gain and economic vitality that this country has realized in 
the last several years. We stay within the spending ceilings 
established in last year's budget agreement. We maintain balance in 
1999 and produce budget surpluses well into the next century.
  We are very proud of what we have been able to achieve thus far. It 
is on the basis of what we have achieved that we now propose a budget 
to build upon those achievements and allow this nation to be as 
successful in the future as we have in the past. Before I describe our 
fiscal priorities, let's take a brief look back at the past.
  In 1993, the budget deficit was a whopping $290 billion, the highest 
deficit our Nation had ever experienced.
  The deficit at that time was projected to grow to over $500 billion 
by the end of the decade. In 1993, the President presented an economic 
plan and the Democratic Congress--unfortunately, without the help of a 
single Republican vote--took action.
  Today, the results are very obvious. The 1993 plan produced the 
largest deficit reduction in our history. The plan produced the first 
unified balanced budget in 30 years. The plan created 15 million new 
jobs. The plan contributed to the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. 
The plan put us on the road to the lowest core inflation rate since 
1965. The plan has led to the fastest annual growth rate in real 
average hourly earnings since 1976.
  The results could not be more clear. Because we made the commitment 
in 1993, because we turned the economy around, because we were able to 
come to grips with the significant economic and fiscal problems that we 
were facing at that time and address them consequentially, we celebrate 
success in 1998. Now it is our responsibility to build upon that 
success.
  We would like to highlight the differences between our vision for the 
future and that of our Republican colleagues. The most visible and the 
most important of those differences relates to public education. Our 
budget contains a series of proposals that will provide our children 
with the educational opportunities they need to successfully confront 
the challenges of

[[Page S3057]]

the 21st century. We provide tax credits for local districts that build 
and renovate public schools. We provide funds for local districts to 
hire an additional 100,000 teachers. This proposal will allow schools 
to reduce class size. For grades from 1 to 3, class size will be 
reduced from an average of 22 children down to 18. In addition, we 
provide opportunities for after-school learning programs. I will not 
elaborate on any of those proposals, because they have each been the 
subject of a targeted Democratic amendment already offered during this 
budget debate.
  The Republican budget freezes spending on the most important 
educational programs. It freezes spending on the new programs I have 
outlined as well as the programs already established to provide 
children the opportunity to grow and to learn. As a result, 450,000 
children will be denied access to safe after-school learning centers if 
this Republican budget passes; 30,000 kids will be denied access to 
Head Start if this Republican budget passes; 6,500 middle schools will 
not have drug and violence prevention coordinators if this Republican 
budget passes.
  There is another important difference--and my colleague, the 
distinguished ranking member, noted the difference. Democrats have a 
fundamentally different approach to tackling the problem of teen 
smoking. On this issue there is a very clear difference between the 
Republican budget and our budget. Every American should carefully 
examine each side's approach to ending tobacco's insidious hold on 
young people in this country. Our proposal ends Joe Camel's reign over 
America's teenagers by fully funding the anti-youth-smoking 
initiatives, by providing tobacco-related medical research, by allowing 
smoking cessation programs, by ensuring public service advertising to 
counter the tobacco companies' targeting of our children today.
  The Republican budget does none of those, not one. There is no anti-
youth-smoking initiative, there is no tobacco-related medical research, 
there are no smoking cessation programs, there is no public service 
advertising--there is none. It stacks the deck against meaningful 
tobacco reform and the effort to end teenage smoking.
  So we see a host of important initiatives in the Democratic plan--
investing in education, anti-teen smoking efforts, health care and an 
array of other proposals designed to build upon the success our plan 
has enjoyed over the last 5 years. Unfortunately, our Republican 
colleagues have said no to virtually every single one--no to education, 
no to child care, no to comprehensive solutions to teen smoking.
  For all these reasons, I ask my colleagues to say no to the 
Republican budget and to say yes to the way we have proposed to build 
upon our success in the past, to say yes to the Democratic alternative.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains on the Democrat side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 18 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I see the minority leader is here. Maybe he wants more 
than 18. He can try to get it off the bill, but I remind him that we 
made a deal we weren't going to do that, so I will keep my remarks 
brief.
  First, Mr. President, I would like to say the basic difference 
between this proposal and the President's--and it is very fundamental, 
and everybody should understand it--is that we thought if there was 
going to be some new money to spend, that we ought to take a look at 
what American programs were most in need of money, and we found that 
there are two American programs. They are not State programs, they are 
not city programs, they are not school board programs--they are ``the 
U.S. Government does them, or they don't get done.'' They are the 
Social Security system and the Medicare system for our seniors--but we 
are all going to get to be seniors, so therefore all of us.
  What we did in our budget was say very, very simply: If you settle 
this tobacco agreement--which seems to me to be getting further and 
further from reality, but let's just say if it gets settled--put all of 
the Federal Government's receipts from it into the program that is most 
in need and that has been most adversely affected by smoking. That is 
the Medicare Program.
  It is interesting that while the President's program and the Democrat 
program--the President suggests $124 billion in new programs, and the 
litany sounds wonderful. We have heard some of it here this afternoon. 
I can't tell for certain, but it looks like the budget before us does a 
little better. It looks like it has $88 billion to $100 billion in new 
programs, new spending.
  I ask, whether it is $124 billion in new money or $88 or $90 billion, 
is it right? Is it correct? Is it the right thing to do, to put not one 
nickel toward Medicare, which is the largest American program in 
jeopardy? And, as I debated this earlier in the week, I showed in a 
very simplified, simple chart, what will happen to the Medicare trust 
fund starting in about 10 years. And the deficit line goes in a line 
downward as if we are aiming it towards the middle of the Earth--which 
we used to say that's where Hades was, when we were little kids.
  For starters, that is one big difference, and we are proud of that 
difference, for we put a very substantial number of billions into that 
very needy program so those national commissioners trying to put it 
together will have some extra resources to save Medicare for the 
seniors of today and the seniors of tomorrow.
  When you do that, you cannot pay for all the new wish list of 
programs that have been alluded to here today and that our President 
alluded to in a dramatic speech to the American people as the State of 
the Union. As a matter of fact, had that wonderful pot of gold--to wit: 
the cigarette companies' agreement--not been around when the President 
of the United States was preparing his speech, he could not have told 
the American people that there were any new programs. You know why? 
Because he agreed. He agreed that for the next 5 years there would be 
little or no increases in the discretionary programs of this country. 
That was the deal. That was the agreement.
  So, lo and behold, the expectation quotient rises from that night to 
this moment on the floor of the Senate, when the big pot of gold is 
there, to start a whole bunch of new American programs. Frankly, as I 
indicated, everybody should know that most of the list of good things 
that we cannot afford, that the Democrats are speaking to, most of them 
won't come into existence if we don't have a big, gigantic pot of gold 
coming from the tobacco companies. That is point No. 1.
  Point No. 2: With reference to smoking and its relationship and cost 
to the American taxpayer, and to our programs, the distinguished 
occupant of the chair has the most forthright sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that he will offer during this debate, and I hope we adopt 
it. It just says that every penny we get out of the tobacco settlement 
should go to Medicare, because Medicare suffers a $25-billion-a-year 
hit because of seniors who, when they were young, smoked, got sick, and 
Medicare pays their bill. Pretty logical. I commend him for it and for 
his leadership in that regard.
  Nonetheless, they would ask, aren't we going to take care of some of 
the needs that we know about because of smoking? And we say yes. But we 
didn't wait around to do them based upon a settlement; we did it by 
reducing other programs and paying for them. So, for those who wonder, 
the National Institutes of Health, which everybody says should be 
increased so they can work on some prevention areas of cancer that have 
been affected by smoking, gets a $15.5 billion increase in the next 5 
years, the largest in the history of any research entity that the 
United States funds.
  And then, education. You see, we don't forget what we agreed to last 
year. We have a 5-year agreement on education, and it is one of the 
high-priority agreements between the President and the Congress. We 
didn't forget about it in the second year. We fully fund the increases 
in education, and they are very significant. What we said is, we should 
put $2.5 billion, minimum, for the disabled of our children being 
educated by our public schools.
  A disgrace exists today with a Federal Government which mandated this 
assistance years ago, committed to pay 40 percent of its cost, and is 
still paying 9 percent as of this day. While the

[[Page S3058]]

schools foot the bill, we write the laws, even though we agreed last 
year that education money would first be applied there to bridge the 
gap between the 9 percent and the commitment. The President saw fit to 
go with new programs and not that; but not us--$2.5 billion. That means 
those school systems can hire new teachers. We don't have to pay for 
teachers from the Federal Government's tax coffers, which we have never 
done in history. We say relieve the burden on the schools and they can 
hire them.
  We put an additional $6.3 billion in education--an increase--so that 
we can fund in due course some programs which will have flexibility 
built in for our public schools, including such things as teacher 
training and those kinds of things that will bring some accountability 
to the public school system of our country. And we are proud of that, 
too. It is not as if there is nothing in, it is just we chose these 
instead of others, and we think these are prudent choices.
  Then we could go on from there and talk about criminal justice. We 
all know we cannot cut that; it must go up. We increased that in our 
budget, because it was a high priority item when we made our 5-year 
agreement that we worked so hard together on, Democrat and Republican 
and President.
  So it is not as if we did not do some of these things that the 
Democratic leadership is here touting that they would do and we didn't 
do. It is just that we did not increase net spending by $84 billion. 
The Democrat budget does. Net tax increases of one type or another--$80 
billion in that proposal. We did not do that much. The reduction in the 
surplus--there is a cutting of the surplus in half, under their 
proposal, from 8 to 4. That is not a lot of billions, as we throw them 
around here, but nonetheless a significant thing to note.
  Mr. President, I believe the budget we produced in the Budget 
Committee, if it were to become the cornerstone for this year's 
appropriation bills and tax reduction--for there is $30 billion worth 
of tax reduction in ours. It is provided for by closing loopholes and 
other tax advantages, many of which have been listed as items that we 
should consider for more than a decade, and some of them 15 years.
  So ours is pretty well balanced. I am convinced, having familiarized 
myself as best I can, and I think perhaps with a few exceptions as well 
as anyone in the Senate, ours would be good for the future growth of 
the American economy and would continue this dramatic, sustained 
economic growth that is bringing us revenues and bringing us jobs.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I don't believe there is very much in the 
Democratic budget or the President's budget that would contribute 
significantly to those positive things that we all cherish and want so 
much.
  I yield the floor and reserve whatever time I have.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a couple minutes of my leader 
time. I know we are out of time, and I don't want to take any time off 
the resolution.
  I know the distinguished Budget chair has made his arguments, and I 
think they merit some response. I will yield in a moment to the 
distinguished ranking member as well.
  Let me just make three points. First of all, the distinguished chair, 
the Senator from New Mexico, alluded to our budget proposal as one that 
seems to be outside the realm of the agreement we made last July. He 
also noted the Republican budget is in keeping with these same 
commitments.
  Let there be no mistake about this, the Democratic alternative 
adheres to the requirements. It keeps the agreement--agreed to and 
signed by Republicans and Democrats last July--intact. That is the 
whole premise upon which we based our alternative budget resolution.
  We recognize how important that agreement is. We recognize the 
importance of investments. But as I noted in my opening comments, there 
is a profound difference between the vision expressed in our resolution 
toward major investments in education, in child care, in those areas 
for which we believe it is essential this country continue to invest, 
and the Republican proposal which fails to invest in those areas.
  The second point: He sets up a false choice. He says he believes it 
is important for us to recognize the critical nature of using tobacco 
revenue to shore up the Medicare program. I agree with that. I too 
think there is an important need to invest in Medicare to ensure its 
solvency. However, it is a false choice to say this is the only option 
available to us as we pass tobacco legislation. Indeed, the Senate 
Commerce Committee itself takes issue with the statement just made by 
the distinguished Budget Committee chair.
  Yesterday, on a vote of 19 to 1, the Commerce Committee voted out its 
recommendations to the Senate with regard to tobacco legislation. They 
note it is important for us to take some of those revenues and dedicate 
them to reimbursing public health care programs in Medicare. However, 
they also say that, in addition to Medicare, it is critical we 
recognize the importance of prevention and cessation activities, 
efforts to stop teenage smoking, to support health-related research, to 
ensure tobacco farmers receive the resources they are going to need, to 
ensure that we deal with the tobacco-asbestos trust fund, to ensure 
that we deal with the problems in Medicaid, and to ensure that problems 
with black lung are addressed through these resources.
  In other words, the committee, in the 19-to-1 vote just yesterday, 
said we agree with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, but we 
think we ought to do more. We think that it is critical that we look at 
how we prevent teenage smokers from starting, how we assist tobacco 
farmers in during the transition, and how we deal with research in ways 
that are not adequately addressed in this budget.
  I think it is very critical to acknowledge that on an overwhelming 
basis many in Congress have already indicated their support for 
dedicating tobacco revenues to an array of different needs including 
Medicare.
  The bottom line is really very fundamental. We have to recognize that 
this is our one opportunity to state our priorities. Our priorities 
ought to be in education. Our priorities ought to be in child care. Our 
priorities ought to be in preventing teenage smoking. That is what our 
budget does. That is what our priorities are. And that is the 
difference in vision between Republican and Democratic budgets.
  I ask the ranking member if he has any need to express himself prior 
to the time I yield the floor?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I can have 2 minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 2 minutes of my leader time to the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't want to take any more time 
than that, because we have an understanding about the use of time, but 
I do want to say to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, who is so articulate and who is so knowledgeable about the 
budget, the only thing is he happens to be wrong. Other than that, we 
are in very good agreement.
  What do I think the chairman is wrong about? Priorities. I think that 
when he lays out those things that are taken care of, we say, ``No, 
they are not taken care of,'' and we will do all we propose, all the 
President has offered by staying within the budget caps, and we are 
going to use the pay-as-you-go mantra; that is, nothing happens until 
it is paid for. That is the way we see it.
  When I see the narrowness, the demand that the only way that we spend 
any of our surplus is on Medicare--and I submit, and I proposed this 
the other day--ask any grandparent, because by the time you get to 
Social Security, you are pretty much a grandparent, if they would 
rather worry today about shoring up Medicare or keeping their child or 
their grandchild from starting smoking.
  I can tell you what the answer is going to be. They would say, 
``Listen, we have lived a pretty good life, and we are worried about 
Medicare; we want you to help solve the problem, but if you are saying 
take a choice between keeping my youngster from getting hooked on 
tobacco, which will begin his or her final innings at sometime in life 
when it is very inopportune, take care of those kids.''

[[Page S3059]]

  That is what we are asking for. If the revenues come from tobacco, we 
want those funds to be used for smoking cessation programs.
  I think it is a fairly simple choice, and that is, do we want to say 
to the American public that we are going to try to deal with all of the 
problems that we have, but we are only going to do it if we have the 
money to spend and, if not, then we are going to have to forego that as 
well?
  We committed to a balanced budget. I worked not only amicably but I 
think efficiently with my friend from New Mexico in getting a balanced 
budget into place. We were commended by people across this country, 
including leaders of both our parties.
  I want it to continue that way, Mr. President, and I hope we will be 
able to have the votes that say, ``OK, let's give the priorities that 
are for the people a chance to be put into effect.''
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time was used in excess of the 
15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 55 seconds of leader's time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to manage that 
amount of time in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, outside of this, Senator Stevens wants 
to offer an amendment that is going to be accepted. I ask unanimous 
consent that he be permitted to do that without it being charged to 
either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2253, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2253, and I send 
a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.    . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OUTLAY ESTIMATES OF 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a new era for 
     federal spending and forced the Department of Defense to plan 
     on limited spending over the five year period from fiscal 
     year 1998 through 2002.
       (2) The agreements forged under the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997 specifically defined the available amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays, requiring the Department of Defense to 
     properly plan its future activities in the new, constrained 
     budget environment.
       (3) The Department of Defense worked with the Office of 
     Management and Budget to develop a fiscal year 1999 budget 
     which complies with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
       (4) Based on Department of Defense program plans and policy 
     changes, the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Department of Defense made detailed estimates of fiscal year 
     1999 Department of Defense outlay rates to ensure that the 
     budget submitted would comply with the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997.
       (5) The Congressional Budget Office outlay estimate of the 
     fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense budget request exceeds 
     both the outlay limit imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997 and the Office of Management and Budget's outlay 
     estimate, a disagreement which would force a total 
     restructuring of the Department of Defense's fiscal year 1999 
     budget.
       (6) The restructuring imposed on the Department of Defense 
     would have a devastating impact on readiness, troop morale, 
     military quality of life, and ongoing procurement and 
     development programs.
       (7) The restructuring of the budget would be driven solely 
     by differing statistical estimates made by capable parties.
       (8) In a letter currently under review, the Director of 
     the  Office of Management and Budget will identify 
     multiple differences between the Office of Management and 
     Budget's estimated outlay rates and the Congressional 
     Budget Office's estimated outlay rates.
       (9) New information on Department of Defense policy changes 
     and program execution plans now permit the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office to 
     reevaluate their initial projections of fiscal year 1999 
     outlay rates.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the totals underlying this concurrent resolution on the 
     budget assume that not later than April 22, 1998, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the 
     Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall complete discussions and develop a common 
     estimate of the projected fiscal year 1999 outlay rates for 
     Department of Defense accounts.

     SEC.    . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OUTLAY ESTIMATES FOR 
                   THE BUDGETS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The federal civilian workforce in non-Defense 
     Department agencies shrank by 125,000 employees, or 10 
     percent, between 1992 and 1997.
       (2) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 assumed over $60 
     billion in reductions in nondefense discretionary spending 
     over the period 1998-2002.
       (3) These reductions were agreed to notwithstanding ever-
     increasing responsibilities in agencies engaged in fighting 
     crime, combating the drug war, countering terrorist threats, 
     cleaning the environment, enforcing the law, improving 
     education, conducting health research, conducting energy 
     research and development, enhancing the nation's physical 
     infrastructure, and providing veterans programs.
       (4) All Federal agencies have worked closely with the 
     Office of Management and Budget to balance much-needed 
     programmatic needs with fiscal prudence and to submit budget 
     requests for FY 1999 that comply with the Balanced Budget Act 
     of 1997.
       (5) Reductions in the President's requests, as estimated by 
     the Office of Management and Budget, to comply with the 
     Congressional Budget Office's estimates could seriously 
     jeopardize priority domestic discretionary programs.
       (6) There is no mechanism through which the Congressional 
     Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget 
     identify their differences in outlay rates for nondefense 
     agencies.
       (7) Such consultation would lead to greater understanding 
     between the two agencies and potentially fewer and/or smaller 
     differences in the future.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the totals underlying this concurrent resolution on the 
     budget assume that not later than April 22, 1998, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in consultation 
     with the Secretaries of the affected nondefense agencies, 
     shall complete discussions and develop a common estimate of 
     the projected fiscal year 1999 outlay rates for accounts in 
     nondefense agencies.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am offering a Sense-of-the-Senate 
Amendment which urges the Office of Management and Budget, the 
Department of Defense, and the Congressional Budget Office to develop a 
common estimate of outlays under the fiscal year 1997 Defense budget.
  Last year, the Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--
putting the Federal Government on a path to living within its means. 
The act specified the budget authority and outlay levels for the 
Defense Department for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
  The Department of Defense is a $250 billion organization--an 
organization which needs stability to run effectively.
  The Defense Department relied on last year's Budget Act to build its 
fiscal year 1999 budget.
  Currently, the fiscal year 1999 budget submitted by the Defense 
Department, and scored using OMB rates, complies with the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997.
  OMB and the Defense Department built their outlay rates based on the 
specific spending plans of each DOD program and based upon the policy 
changes contained in the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget. In many 
cases, the Defense Department increased outlay rates over last year's 
levels.
  DOD also adjusted working capital fund policies, and billing rates, 
to generate positive balances and keep these funds solvent.
  Mr. President, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which I 
chair, has for the last 3 years, transferred cash into the working 
capital funds and directed DOD to change its billing rates and 
policies.
  The Defense Department has done what the Congress asked. However, the 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that outlays under the fiscal 
year 1999 Defense budget will exceed the limit imposed by the budget 
agreement, as well as the OMB quality estimate, by $3.7 billion. These 
differences are based on statistical analyses and projections of the 
future based on the past. While this may all be theoretically 
interesting, it has severe implications for the Defense Department.
  The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would have to totally 
restructure the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget to reduce outlays by 
$3.7 billion. We would have to cut military personnel funding 
unexpectedly forcing thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen out of 
the force structure.
  We would have to cut operation and maintenance funds--funds which 
keep

[[Page S3060]]

our troops trained and ready, which pay to day-to-day bills for our 
bases, and which repair the aging equipment relied upon by our military 
personnel.
  Lastly, we could turn to the procurement and research and development 
accounts--cutting $2-$10 of budget authority for every dollar in 
outlays we must save. This would bring modernization to a virtual halt 
and increase the cost of the remaining, less efficient programs. These 
cuts would not serve the Senate, and Defense Department, or the Nation 
well.
  I understand that there may be new and more detailed information on 
the Defense Department's budget policies and execution plans--
information that the Congressional Budget Office did not consider.
  It is essential that there be a common agreement on the outlay 
estimate of the Defense budget--an agreement that does not punish DOD 
based on a disagreement over statistical predictions and historical 
interpolation.
  My amendment urges that everyone work toward this common agreement--
an agreement which I hope will allow us adequate flexibility to 
maintain balance in the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to address 
my colleagues on a subject which is of increasing concern to me. I have 
spent a great deal of time on the floor of the Senate during our 
consideration of the budget resolution for this fiscal year and the 
following 5 years. I have listened intently as the Senate has debated 
taxes, education, child care, Social Security, Medicare and other 
issues which Senators have raised with respect to this resolution.
  It has been glaringly evident to me, and I suspect to some of my 
colleagues, that there has been little or no mention of national 
security issues during this debate. No one has raised the issue of 
defense spending. Maybe its because defense doesn't rank very high 
these days in the polls which reflect the concerns of the American 
people; Or maybe it's because everyone assumes that the defense budget 
is adequate and there is no reason to debate it. I am concerned first 
of all because I believe there is clear shortfall between the ambitious 
foreign policy of this Administration and the resources we are willing 
to provide for national defense.
  The operational tempo of our military forces is at an all time high. 
American forces are deployed literally around the globe. The foreign 
policy of this Administration has raised the number of separate 
deployments to the highest in our history. Our servicemen and women 
spend more and more time away from their homes and families on more 
frequent and extended deployments. As a result, recruiting grows more 
difficult and retention is becoming an extremely serious problem--
especially for pilots.
  We are also beginning to see increasing indicators of readiness 
problems. Spare parts shortages, increased cannibalization, declining 
operational readiness rates, cross-decking of critical weapons, 
equipment and personnel foretell a potential emergence of readiness 
difficulties that could seriously cripple our military forces in the 
very near future. The Chiefs of the military services indicate that 
they are on the margin in readiness and modernization. The Chief of one 
of our military services has recently stated orally as well as in 
writing that his budget for fiscal year 1999 is, for the third year in 
a row, inadequate.
  While, at the present time, the American people may not be expressing 
concern about threats to our national security or the readiness of our 
armed forces, we in the Senate are not relieved of our responsibilities 
to ensure that we have capable, effective military forces ready to 
defend our nation's vital interests. It is our job in the Congress to 
examine the readiness and capability of our armed forces and ensure 
that we have provided adequate resources and guidance to the Secretary 
of Defense so that he can carry out his mission with respect to 
our national security. I believe, as I have stated so many times on 
this floor, that nothing that we do here in the Congress is more 
important than providing for our national security. I intend to 
continue to make this point whenever I believe that we in the Senate 
may not be paying enough attention to this most critical issue.

  Mr. President, the Congress has endeavored over the past several 
years to shore up our defense budgets with annual add-ons. However, 
reductions in the defense budgets over the last 3 years to pay for 
Bosnia have denigrated the effect of those congressional plus-ups. 
Almost half of the $21 billion we added to the defense budgets over the 
last 3 years which was intended to enhance readiness and modernization 
was spent instead for operations in Bosnia. With the increased optempo 
of our buildup in the Persian Gulf, the strain on our military forces 
and budgets is more and more evident.
  As many of you are aware, we face a potentially serious problem of 
$3.6 billion resulting from scoring differences between the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget. The chairman of the 
Budget Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I 
were able to work out an amendment to help alleviate this problem. We 
appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the Budget Committee and 
trust that in his discussions with the Secretary of Defense, the Office 
of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, he will 
resolve this problem. It is critical that this problem be resolved. 
Otherwise, the impact on the defense budget would be devastating to our 
military forces.
  The Armed Services Committee will begin work on our markup during the 
Easter recess period. We intend to have our bill on the floor before 
the Memorial Day recess. Under the budget agreement, the Congress will 
not be adding funds to the defense budget. I know that the majority of 
Senators would not support adding funds to the defense budget in 
violation of the budget agreement. Therefore, we will conduct our 
markup consistent with the budget agreement. However, I have stated in 
the past and I say again, I believe that we are not providing adequate 
funds for defense. It remains my firm belief that we should provide 
additional funds for our national security.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are a number of cosponsors to this 
amendment. The amendment I offer is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
which directs the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of 
Defense, and the Congressional Budget Office to develop a common 
estimate of outlays under the fiscal year 1999 defense budget. The 
modification of my amendment adds a corresponding sense-of-the-Senate 
section which urges OMB, CBO, and the Secretaries of nondefense 
agencies to also develop common estimates for the 1999 outlays for the 
nondefense discretionary programs.
  I believe this amendment is one that is needed. It is a sense of the 
Senate, but it directs, as far as the Office of Management and Budget 
and CBO and the Defense Department, to find a common ground before we 
start marking up either the authorization bill or the appropriations 
bill. It has been cosponsored by both sides. I believe it will be 
accepted. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2253), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Stevens, I understand, 
working with the other side, this amendment includes nondefense where 
there are serious discretionary estimating inconsistencies.
  Mr. STEVENS. The chairman is right. We have added the nondefense 
portion. It deals, however, just with the discretionary accounts, both 
defense and nondefense discretionary. It is a matter that 
Appropriations must have resolved.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know that Senator Hutchison is 
waiting, but I want to use some of that 6 minutes. I am not sure I will 
use all of it. Let me take a little.


                           Amendment No. 2244

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know how we judge right and 
wrong, whether I am right or wrong after an eloquent speech, as my 
friend called it. But, look, this afternoon we

[[Page S3061]]

are going to vote and sometimes in America, democracy says the one that 
gets the most votes wins. I don't know if that means you are right, but 
I can tell you we are going to win and they are going to lose. I don't 
know what that means, but I think that is pretty good.
  In addition, let me suggest, I, too, am worried about what is 
happening to our young children who smoke. It is wonderful for me to be 
able to say that I smoked heavily until 8 years ago. I have eight 
children and not a single one smokes. So I am very pleased about that. 
I don't know what that means either, except it is just a statement of 
fact.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can I ask a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did they see you coughing?
  Mr. DOMENICI. They did not. But they used to leave all kinds of 
little notes on my pillow and stuff them underneath.
  Mr. President, let me just say, it is a question in politics if there 
is ever enough spending by a Government. How much is enough, I ask? Is 
$825 million provided in this budget resolution to take care of 
advertising to have a positive impact on our children smoking enough or 
should we have more?

  I tell you, that is twice as much as the President asked for. I 
assume if a Democratic President has some $400 million and we have $825 
million, that probably--probably--we have enough. Having said that, 
there are so many programs being talked about to come out of that pot 
of gold, that giant piggy bank, many of which nobody knows will even 
work. If you have national advertising programs and preventive programs 
in drugs where you are going into schools, talking to the kids, running 
advertising and it is not working a bit--in fact, there are more 
drugs--one would have a tendency to be a bit skeptical, it seems to me, 
about whether we know how to do that, be it for drugs or for 
cigarettes.
  In the final analysis, we have decided in our budget resolution to 
take every priority that we can find consistent with our 5-year 
agreement and fund them as best we can consistent with the agreement; 
that there be no new discretionary spending.
  What is happening now, just so everybody will understand, we asked 
those experts who talk about our money supply, our interest rates, the 
wonderful economy, what are we supposed to be most concerned about to 
keep the message out there that we are fiscally responsible and we are 
aiming at a balanced budget for a long time? They tell us, ``Don't 
breach the agreement that you entered into with reference to how much 
you can spend each year as you appropriate annually.''
  We all say we will not do that. That is right. But, Mr. President, 
what this budget that is before us and what the President chose to do 
is to take another pot of money and say, ``We'll spend it another way 
and it won't count against those agreed-upon expenditures.''
  That is called new entitlement programs.
  So this litany of new programs cannot be paid for under the budget 
agreement. But it can be paid for if you choose to create new 
entitlement programs that will go on forever even though the money from 
which they are paid has a terminal time. So I believe we did the right 
thing. We look forward to an era of balanced budgets, an era of solid 
economic growth, an era during which we fix Social Security permanently 
and during which we fix Medicare permanently and we actually put our 
budget where our mouth is, and that is to do those things.
  I yield back any time that I might have. And in due course I will 
make a point of order against the budget. But I do not choose to do it 
now.
  I say to Senator Hutchison, if you would let me dispose of a series 
of amendments, I would really appreciate that.


 Amendments Nos. 2187, 2204, 2217, 2212, 2225, 2233, 2235, 2236, 2237, 
 2239, 2240, 2246, 2248, 2250, 2253, 2258, 2263, 2264, 2266, 2269, and 
                             2270, en bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a list of amendments by number. 
There are 21. And I will not cite each one but, rather, I will send the 
list to the desk for consideration. These amendments have been agreed 
to. And I would like to agree to them en bloc. There is no objection on 
our side and no objection on their side, the Democrat side. They are 
both Republican and Democrat amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the enumerated amendments 
sent to the desk will be considered en bloc.


                           amendment no. 2235

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with Senator 
Lieberman expresses the sense of the Senate that the next budget 
submission by the President, and the next Congressional budget 
resolution, should reclassify all civilian research and development 
activities within the Federal government, now scattered among 12 
separate budget functions in the Budget Resolution, into one budget 
function--Function 250.
  Function 250, entitled ``General Science, Space, and Technology,'' 
currently is comprised of funding for the National Science Foundation, 
NASA, and some R&D programs at the Department of Energy.
  The purpose of the functional analysis in the Budget Resolution is to 
provide the Congress with insight into important crosscutting themes in 
the budget. When it comes to the federal investment on R&D, though, the 
current functional analysis in the Budget Resolution fails. It does not 
facilitate any sort of cross-cutting discussion about the size and 
direction of Federally supported science and technology research. In 
fact, our current budget function structure hides more than half of the 
Federal investment in civilian R&D. According to data from the Office 
of Management and Budget, in addition to the agencies and programs 
currently in Function 250, 20 other civilian departments and agencies 
have research and development programs of consequence. My amendment 
would address this problem by providing more transparency to our 
support of Federal R&D. No funds or programs would be shifted among 
agencies. But the President's next budget proposal would highlight 
where in each agency R&D was being supported. If the President were to 
implement the suggestion in this amendment, I believe that it would 
have the following beneficial effects.
  No. 1, when all civilian R&D is placed into one budget function, it 
will become much easier for the Congress to examine the entire Federal 
R&D portfolio. Questions of balance, coverage, and emphasis within that 
portfolio will become easier to ask when the whole picture can be seen 
more easily.
  No. 2, the proposed change in my amendment will facilitate the 
ability of each authorizing committee to review the Federally supported 
R&D under its jurisdiction, as one element in preparing its views and 
estimates for the Budget Committee. The amendment will also allow 
committees such as the Committee on the Budget or the Committee on 
Appropriations to conduct a global review of federal R&D early in the 
budget/appropriations process. The National Academy of Sciences has 
recommended that such a global look at R&D take place annually in 
Congress in its 1995 report, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and 
Technology. The Academy stated that the ``Congress should create a 
process that examines the entire [federal science and technology] 
budget before the total federal budget is dis
agggregated into allocations to appropriations committees and 
subcommittees.'' This amendment would facilitate the implementation of 
this idea, which has broad support in the scientific and technical 
community.
  No. 3, placing civilian R&D at mission agencies into Function 250 
will reflect the reality that all Federal research and development, 
regardless of sponsoring agency, is interrelated. All Federal R&D, 
regardless of sponsoring agency, can and does make essential 
contributions to the general fund of knowledge. These are realities 
that are well known to the scientific and technical community. In the 
words of former IBM Vice President Lewis Branscomb, ``One cannot 
distinguish in any meaningful way `basic' from `applied research' by 
observing what a scientist is doing.''
  No. 4, placing civilian R&D at mission agencies into Function 250 
will elevate the prominence of R&D supported by those agencies in 
future budget and policy discussions.

[[Page S3062]]

  I believe that this amendment will result in a valuable contribution 
to our institutional ability to understand and manage one of the most 
important parts of the Federal budget
  I urge the adoption of both amendments.


                           amendment no. 2236

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is co-sponsored by 
myself, Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator Lieberman. It expresses the 
sense of the Senate in favor of a basic principle that is widely 
supported in this body. That principle is that we should seek to double 
the Federal investment in civilian research and development over the 
next 10 years. This principle is contained in legislation co-sponsored 
by us, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and about 10 other 
Senators.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sense of the 
Senate Amendment to double federal R&D investments over the next ten 
years. Federal support for research and development is all about 
creating wealth and opportunity and assuring a higher quality of life 
for our citizens. As policy makers, it is worth our while to focus on 
wealth creation because it enables everything else we want to do.
  We have an awful lot of data these days that tell us there is a firm 
connection between R&D expenditures and subsequent economic growth. One 
commonly cited figure--derived from Dr. Robert Solow's Nobel prize-
winning research--is that 50% of America's post-World War II growth can 
be attributed to technological innovation--innovation largely driven by 
the discoveries that flow out of the nation's R&D laboratories. 
Economists do not give us the tools to determine the optimum level of 
R&D spending, but is clear from all the data that we are far, far below 
the point of diminishing returns. Numerous studies indicate that the 
marginal rates of return on publicly-financed R&D investments are 
extraordinarily high. These high rates of return tell us that federal 
R&D expenditures are an especially efficient investment vehicle, that 
we are currently underinvesting in R&D, and that we are underutilizing 
our nation's existing R&D infrastructure, including its pool of 
talented scientist and engineers.
  Why is the government involved in research in the first place? These 
days industry funds nearly twice as much R&D as government does, why 
don't we let them do all of it? The problem with that notion is that 
the private sector, for the most part, does not fund discovery--
government does. The private sector funds the later phases of the 
innovation process--those phases closest to product development. 
Privately-financed R&D--which is mostly D--provides the critical link 
between research and the subsequent creation of new wealth and 
opportunity. It is vitally important, but it depends on publicly-
financed R&D for fundamental knowledge creation.
  The benefits of knowledge created in the nation's laboratories and 
universities are diffuse and typically yield economic returns only 
after a significant time lag--a time lag well beyond the planning 
horizon of most commercial firms. Moreover, the benefits cannot be 
anticipated in advance. The chemists and physical scientists who first 
conceived of utilizing nuclear magnetic resonance to determine chemical 
structure never imagined that their discovery would become the basis of 
a whole new medical diagnostic industry. Firms realize that they cannot 
capture most of the benefits of fundamental research. It is a classic 
market failure. The returns are very significant, however, and they are 
fully captured by the society as a whole.

  Because federal investments are typically focused on the early phases 
of the innovation process, they exert tremendous leverage. This is part 
of the reason why the returns on federal R&D investments are so high. 
The early phases are the high-risk, high-payoff phases. There may be 
many misses, but the hits are very large indeed.
  In recent years, we have not maintained federal R&D investments at 
traditional levels as a fraction of either discretionary spending or, 
more significantly, as a fraction of national income. I would argue 
that, in a society and an economy that are increasingly knowledge-
intensive, we ought to be increasing our investments in knowledge 
creation not reducing them. Nonetheless, federal support for research 
and development has declined substantially since the 1960s as a 
percentage of national income. We have to turn this situation around. 
Robust federal support for R&D and the American research enterprise is 
one of the key elements in sustaining high levels of economic growth in 
the future. We cannot take America's current economic and technical 
leadership for granted. If we are to maintain our nation's leadership 
position, we must be prepared to make the requisite investments in our 
R&D system--the most productive system of its kind in the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendments en bloc.
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2187, 2204, 2217, 2212, 2225, 2233, 2235, 2236, 
2237, 2239, 2240, 2246, 2248, 2250, 2253, 2258, 2263, 2264, 2266, 2269 
and 2270) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments 
were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2229

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I add to the list amendment No. 2229, 
the Feinstein amendment. And I assume we will have to adopt that 
separately.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of 
the Senate that we must rededicate ourselves to making our public 
education system the best. These reforms, if implemented by states and 
local school districts in partnership with the federal government, will 
improve: The achievement of students; the quality of teaching; and the 
accountability of public school systems.
  This sense of the Senate amendment has six elements. It calls on the 
federal government to work with states, school districts and local 
leaders to accomplish the following goals by the year 2005:
  (1) Establish achievement levels and assessments in every grade for 
the core academic curriculum; measure each regular student's 
performance; and prohibit the practice of ``social promotion'' of 
students (promoting students routinely from one grade to the next 
without regard to their academic achievement);
  (2) Provide remedial programs for students whose achievement levels 
indicate they should not be promoted to the next grade;
  (3) Create smaller schools to enable students to have closer 
interaction with teachers;
  (4) Require at least 180 days of instruction per year in core 
curriculum subjects;
  (5) Recruit teachers who are adequately trained and credentialed in 
the subject or subjects they teach and encourage excellent, experienced 
teachers to remain in the classroom by providing adequate salaries; 
require all teachers to be credentialed and limit emergency or 
temporary teaching credentials to a limited period of time; hold 
teachers and principals accountable to high educational standards;
  (6) Require all regular students to pass an examination in basic core 
curriculum subjects in order to receive a high school diploma.


                 u.s. schools' performance unimpressive

  In 1983--15 years ago--the National Commission on Excellence in 
Education issued its startling report on the decline of America's 
schools, titled ``A Nation at Risk.'' Our schools today are still at 
risk.
  A February report this year revealed that American high school 
seniors are among the world's least prepared in math and science, 
scoring far below their peers in other countries. Overall, U.S. 
students outperformed only two countries in the Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study--Cyprus and South Africa. In twelfth 
grade advanced math and physics, U.S. students scored last in physics 
and next to last in math. American eighth graders scored well below the 
international average in math.
  SAT scores today are near their lowest point ever, reports the 
Brookings Institute. The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
reported that math, science, writing and reading achievement have been 
flat for the past quarter century.
  The U.S. Department of Education last fall reported that 29 percent 
of all

[[Page S3063]]

college freshmen require remedial classes in basic skills.
  The 1997 annual report on our national education goals found that the 
high school dropout rate has increased and more teachers reported 
student disruptions in their classrooms.
  The national goals report told us that performance has declined in 
reading achievement at grade 12 and in the percentage of secondary 
teachers who hold a degree in their main teaching assignment.
  The goals report found no significant improvement in high school 
completion rate or reading achievement at grades 4 and 8.


            issue 1: achievement levels; no social promotion

  The first provision of my amendment urges the establishment of 
achievement levels and assessments in every grade for the core academic 
curriculum and calls on state and local schools to stop social 
promotion. Social promotion is the practice of schools' advancing a 
student from one grade to the next regardless of the student's academic 
achievement.
  Forty-nine states are working to establish achievement standards and 
assessments, but few have completed the task. AFT found: ``In most 
districts, there are no agreed-upon explicit standards of performance 
to which students are held accountable.''
  Educators widely agree that tough, clear academic content and 
performance standards are the only way to determine what students are 
learning and how quickly or slowly they are learning it. Standards 
should be the foundation of learning.
  Social promotion is contrary to tough standards. Saying that social 
promotion is ``rampant,'' AFT leaders found that school districts' 
criteria for passing and retaining students is vague, that only 17 
states have standards in the four core disciplines (English, math, 
social studies and science) that are well grounded in content and that 
are clear enough to be used.
  It is time to end social promotion, a practice which misleads our 
students, their parents and the public.
  I agree with the conclusion of the September 1997 study conducted by 
the American Federation of Teachers:

       Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides school 
     failure and creates problems for everybody--for kids, who are 
     deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to be 
     successful or get the message that achievement doesn't count; 
     for teachers who must face students who know that teachers 
     wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for the 
     business community and colleges that must spend millions of 
     dollars on remediation, and for society that must deal with a 
     growing proportion of uneducated citizens, unprepared to 
     contribute productively to the economic and civic life of the 
     nation.


                         How Widespread Is It?

  None of the districts surveyed by AFT have an explicit policy of 
social promotion, but almost every district has an implicit practice of 
social promotion. Almost all districts view holding students back as a 
policy of last resort and many put explicit limits on retaining 
students. Districts have loose and vague criteria for moving a student 
from one grade to the next. This approach, concludes AFT, is implicit 
approval of social promotion.
  AFT found last year that 7 states are seeking to end social promotion 
by requiring students to meet the state standards before being promoted 
into certain grades, an increase over the 4 of the previous year.
  Mike Wright, a San Diegian, is an example. Cited in the February 16 
San Diego Union-Tribune, Mr. Wright say he routinely got promoted from 
grade to grade and even graduated from high school, even though he 
failed some subjects. At age 29, he is now enrolled in a community 
college program to learn to read--at age 29.
  Social promotion is a cruel joke. We are fooling students. We are 
fooling ourselves. Students think a high school diploma means 
something. But in reality, we are graduating students who cannot count 
change, who cannot read a newspaper, who cannot fill out an employment 
application.


      The Academic Cost of No Achievement Levels, Social Promotion

  Students' need for remedial work is one measure of the harm of the 
lack of clear achievement levels and the practice of social promotion. 
Here are some examples:
  A January 1998 poll by Public Agenda asked employers and college 
professors whether they believe a high school diploma guarantees that a 
student has mastered basic skills. In this poll, 63% of employers and 
76 percent of professors said that the diploma is no guarantee that a 
graduate can read, write or do basic math.
  In California, a December 1997 report from a state education 
accountability task force estimated that at least half of the state's 
students--3 million children--perform below levels considered 
proficient for their grade level.
  Nationwide, about one third of college freshmen take remedial courses 
in college and three-quarters of all campuses, public and private, 
offer remediation, says the AFT study.
  A March 27 California State University study found that more than 
two-thirds of students enter Cal State campuses in Los Angeles lack the 
math or English they should have mastered in high school. At some high 
schools, not one graduate going on to one of Cal State's campuses 
passed a basic skills test. At Cal State Dominguez Hills, for example, 
8 out of 10 freshmen enrollees last fall needed remedial English and 87 
percent needed remedial math.
  Sadly, these numbers represent an increase. In the fall of 1997, 47 
percent of freshmen enrolled at CSU needed remediation, compared to 43 
percent in each of the previous three years. In math, 54 percent needed 
remedial help, compared to 48 percent in 1994.
  Similarly, almost 35 percent of entering freshmen at the University 
of California do poorly on UC's English proficiency test and must 
receive help in their first year.
  Florida spent $53 million in college on remedial education, says the 
AFT study.
  In Boston, school principals estimate that half their ninth graders 
are not prepared for high school work.
  In Ohio, nearly one fourth of all freshmen who attend state public 
universities must take remedial math or English (Cleveland Plain 
Dealer, July 7, 1997)
  Employers tell me that their new hires are unprepared for work and 
they have to provide very basic training to make them employable. For 
example, last year, MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic skills 
training (USA Today, 1996).


           Support for Ending Social Promotion is Widespread

  Fortunately, many policymakers are beginning to realize that we must 
stop social promotion. President Clinton called for ending it in his 
January 27 State of the Union speech. He said, ``We must also demand 
greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade to grade who 
hasn't mastered the work, we don't do that child any favors. It is time 
to end social promotion in America's schools.''
  On February 23, the President sent Secretary Riley a memo asking him 
to prepare guidelines for educators on ending social promotion and 
guidelines for using federal funds to adopt sound promotion policies. 
``Neither promoting students when they are unprepared or simply 
retaining them in the same grade is the right response to low student 
achievement,'' the President wrote. ``Both approaches presume high 
rates of initial failure are inevitable and acceptable.''
  At least three states--Florida, Arkansas and Texas--explicitly outlaw 
social promotion.
  The Chicago Public Schools have ditched social promotion. After their 
new policy was put in place, in the spring of 1997, over 40,000 
students failed tests in the third, sixth and eighth and ninth grades 
and then went to mandatory summer school. Chicago School Superintendent 
calls social promotion ``education malpractice.'' He says from now on 
his schools' only product will be student achievement.
  Cincinnati's students are now promoted based on specific standards 
that define what students must know.
  In my own state, the San Diego School Board in February adopted 
requirements that all students in certain grades must demonstrate 
grade-level performance. And they will require all students to earn a C 
overall grade average and a C grade in core subjects for high school 
graduation, effectively ending social promotion for certain grades and 
for high school graduation. For example, San Diego's schools are 
requiring that eighth graders who do

[[Page S3064]]

not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses in summer 
school.
  As long as we tolerate social promotion and the absence of standards, 
we will never know (1) what our students need to learn and (2) whether 
they have learned what they should learn. How, I ask, can you measure 
what you have accomplished if you don't know where you are going?


                    issue 2: more remedial programs

  Some schools are trying to provide after-school help, tutoring and 
summer school remedial programs as ways of intervening when students 
are having learning problems, but a report by the American Federation 
of Teachers found that only 13 states require local school districts to 
provide academic intervention for students who fail to meet standards. 
Similarly, a report of the Council of Chief State School Officers in 
1997 on math and science standards, found that states were doing very 
little to ensure that all students master the standards.
  AFT's 1997 report on state standards found that only 13 states 
require and fund intervention programs to help low-performing students, 
up from 10 the previous year.
  The Chicago Public School, for example, have launched a major 
revamping of their school system, and have made after-school programs a 
priority in helping students learn.


                        issue 3: smaller schools

  The amendment calls on school districts to have smaller schools. In 
California, some campuses sprawl across acres and acres and schools can 
have thousands of students. The principal is just a voice over the 
loudspeaker. School personnel hardly know the names of the students.
  I believe that elementary schools should have no more than 500 
students; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools, 1,500 
students. I believe that in smaller schools children have a stronger 
sense of community and connectedness, that school personnel become 
closer to and more effective with their students.
  One study of 744 large high schools found that the dropout rate at 
schools with over 2,000 students was double that of schools with 667 or 
fewer students. Another study of 357 schools revealed that large 
schools have higher rates of class cutting, absenteeism, and classroom 
disorders.
  I believe these studies make a compelling case.


                      issue 4: longer school year

  My amendment also urges states and school districts to have a school 
year of at least 180 days. The U.S. school year averages around 180 
days, an outdated calendar based on our agrarian past over 100 years 
ago.

  Currently, 29 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 
require a minimum of 180 teaching days. California now requires only 
172 teaching days, but a new state law does provide incentive funds for 
adding up to eight professional days to the 172-day school year.
  Many other countries have longer school years than we do. Students in 
England, Germany and Japan go to school between 220 and 243 days a 
year.
  A 1993 study entitled ``Timepiece: Extending and Enhancing Learning 
Time'' observed that American school children spend more days out of 
school than in school and documented ``summer learning loss,'' finding 
that teachers spend four to six weeks every fall going over lessons 
from the previous school year. Similarly, A Nation at Risk recommended 
lengthening both the school day and the school year.
  Along with setting high standards, we must put more time into 
teaching and learning and thus my amendment recommends 180 days of 
instructional time, which still would leave us with a school year 
shorter than many of our international competitors.


                       issue 5. trained teachers

  Class sizes cannot be reduced without hiring more teachers. And these 
teachers must be trained and credentialed teachers.
  The National Commission on Teaching and Learning in November 1997 
brought us some disturbing findings:
  More than one-fourth of newly-hired teachers lack qualifications for 
their jobs.
  The U.S. has no real system in place to ensure that teachers get 
access to the kinds of knowledge they need to help their students 
succeed.
  Twenty-three percent of high school teachers do not even have a minor 
in their main teaching field.
  School systems often waive or lower standards to hire people without 
qualifications to teach.
  California, unfortunately, is a case example. We have 21,000 teachers 
on emergency credentials. In California, nearly 22,000 of the 240,000 
public school teachers in California are not fully credentialed or have 
not passed a basic skills test. Half of California's math and science 
teachers did not minor in those subjects in college, yet they are 
teaching. The October 13, 1997, U.S. News and World Report reported 
that in Los Angeles, ``new teachers have included Nordstrom clerks, a 
former clown, and several chiropractors.''
  The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future ranked 
California near the bottom of states in the quality of our public 
school teaching force because we have some of the highest proportions 
of uncertified or undertrained teachers, particularly in math and 
science. The Commission defined ``well-qualified'' as a teacher with 
full certification and a major in their assigned field. By this 
measure, only 65 percent of the state's teachers meet the standard. 
Nationally, that figure is 72 percent. In California, 46 percent of 
high school math teachers did not minor in math. The national average 
is 28 percent.
  California will need up to 300,000 new teachers in the next decade 
because of our escalating enrollment. But a 1996 analysis by Policy 
Analysis for California Education found that my state could only expect 
about 9,000 new credentialed teachers per year if current trends 
continue.
  Without good teachers, no school reform, however visionary or 
revolutionary, can improve student learning. This nation needs a major 
investment in teacher training, professional development and we need to 
pay teachers decent, professional salaries to attract and retain them.


                  issue 6: final exams for graduation

  Without achievement levels or tests, students today can leave high 
school with a diploma.
  According to the Council of Chief State School Officers, for the 
1995-1996 school year, only 17 states require passing minimum 
competency tests for high school graduation. California, for example, 
does not require high school graduation exams.
  The 1997 AFT report on state standards found that only 13 states have 
high school graduation exams based on 10th grade standards or higher.
  Therefore, without standards, with social promotion rampant, a high 
school diploma means little. It is no measure of achievement. This has 
to stop.


             the public expects performance, accountability

  In a recent survey of Californians, 61 percent agreed that our 
schools need a ``major overhaul,'' up from 54 percent who answered the 
same question two years ago. A mere six percent believe that schools 
provide a ``quality education.''
  A poll by Policy Analysis for California Education found that only 17 
percent of Californians considers the state's schools ``good'' or 
``excellent,'' down from about 33 percent three years ago. A 1997 poll 
in my state found that improving elementary and secondary education has 
replaced crime and immigration at Californians' top priority.
  Nationally, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last year found that 58 
percent of Americans say fundamental changes are needed in U.S. 
schools. A Garin-Hart poll last year found only 9% of the public 
believes our public education system ``works pretty well.'' Only 27 
percent gave our schools an above-average rating. A whopping 84% of 
people favor establishing meaningful national standards.


                               conclusion

  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment 
because we must stop shortchanging our students.
  School achievement must mean something. It must mean more than 
filling up a seat at a desk for 12 years. A diploma should not just be 
a symbol of accumulating time in school. And school systems need to be 
accountable.
  I hope today the Senate will go on record in support of this modest 
amendment that expresses 6 critical principles for school reform.

[[Page S3065]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 2229.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2229) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
approximately how long is he asking authors of amendments to--
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are operating under a time agreement where you are 
in control of 15 minutes and the opposition has 15 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you. We will certainly yield back part of our 
time. Well, I will wait and see what the opposition is.


                           Amendment No. 2208

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I call up amendment No. 2208 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       An amendment numbered 2208 previously proposed by [Mr. 
     Domenici] for Mrs. Hutchison of Texas.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Grams as a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is what my amendment does. It is 
a sense of the Senate that this resolution assumes that any budget 
surplus should be dedicated to debt reduction or direct tax relief for 
hard-working American families.
  It is really quite simple. This Congress has labored mightily for the 
last 2 years to come up with a balanced budget. This budget resolution, 
which has been so ably led by the Senator from New Mexico, and helped 
by the Senator from New Jersey, is an example of how difficult it has 
been to actually balance our budget. It has not been easy. It has been 
tough to make these hard choices, but Congress has done it.
  We are talking about a balanced budget and, in fact, surpluses. I am 
saying, do not fritter away the victory. We have done the tough things. 
Now is not the time to get wimpy. Now is the time to remain tough, so 
that we will be able to assure our children and grandchildren that they 
will not inherit the $5 trillion of debt that has been built up in this 
country for the last 40 years. It is a time to say we are going to be 
responsible stewards of this country while we are on the watch deck.
  It is time for us to say, it is the sense of the Senate that there 
are only two responsible choices for spending any budget surplus: 
either tax cuts for the hard-working American family that is today 
paying over 38 percent of its income in Federal, State and local 
taxes--and if you add the regulatory burden on top of that, government 
is costing the average American family, at the $50,000 level, 50 
percent of its income. If we say we are going to give tax cuts to those 
hard-working Americans or we are going to start paying down the debt 
for our children and grandchildren, and to keep interest rates low, 
that would be the sense of this Senate for the responsible stewardship 
of our economy.

  We have the highest debt burden today of any peacetime in American 
history. Economic research shows that tax cuts actually add to the 
economy. They generate work; they generate jobs; they generate buying 
power. So it would have a huge impact in a positive way. Debt reduction 
also has positive returns because certainly it will keep interest rates 
low and we can continue to invest in our savings.
  Not only are taxes at record highs today, but the trend is in the 
wrong direction. Since President Clinton came into office in 1993, the 
tax burden as a percent of gross domestic product has climbed 2.1 
percentage points. Just reducing taxes to the 1993 levels means the 
average family would have a tax windfall of $2,500. This is their 
money. This money is money they earn, and we believe it belongs to 
them. That is what this sense of the Senate would say to the American 
people--you earned this money, and it belongs to you, and if we are not 
going to give you direct tax relief, the surplus is going to pay down 
the debt so that you will be able to continue to enjoy the great 
economy we have and we will also give to our children the same 
stability in a great economy.
  The amendment is very simple. I ask my colleagues to vote that we 
will not undo the hard choices and the hard work that we have done in 
this Congress over the last 3 years, but in fact we will do the right 
thing, and that is, give the money back to the people who earned it or 
pay down that debt so that our interest rates can stay low and so that 
we can stop paying so much interest.
  Mr. President, I now yield the rest of our time--up to 5 minutes--to 
Senator Grams, the cosponsor of this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for all her fine work on this 
amendment.
  I rise today to offer my strong support to Senator Hutchison's sense 
of the Senate calling on Congress to look at and to reserve any future 
budget surplus for tax relief and natural debt reduction or Social 
Security reform. But this amendment represents, I believe, some very 
sound, responsible fiscal policy, and again I commend Senator Hutchison 
for her leadership and her efforts on this very important issue.
  The question of how to use the potential budget surplus has been 
debated extensively before this Chamber. In my view, tax relief and 
debt reduction and Social Security reform are all equally important. 
Tax relief will reduce the growing tax burden on our American families. 
As Senator Hutchison pointed out, from 38 percent to more than 50 
percent of the incomes of our average families in this country are 
going to support government rather than supporting their families. But 
if we give tax relief, it will increase incentives to work, save and 
invest. It will help keep our economy strong. Debt reduction and Social 
Security reform will address our long-term fiscal imbalances. These are 
two closely related issues, and I believe they go hand in hand. We can 
and we should be addressing both of these at the same time.
  There are compelling reasons for supporting this amendment. When we 
talk about how to use the budget surplus, let us not forget those who 
generated this surplus in the first place. If, as the administration is 
predicting, we do achieve a budget surplus, that surplus will have come 
directly from working Americans, from taxes paid by corporations, from 
individuals and investors. Clearly, this money belongs to the American 
people. It has been an overcharge. It is only fair to return it to the 
taxpayers who earned that money in the first place.

  Families today, again, are taxed at the highest level since World War 
II, with 38 percent to 50 percent of a typical family budget going to 
pay taxes on the Federal, State and local level. Last year's tax cuts, 
I believe, moved us in the right direction, but in reality those tax 
cuts were too little, too late, too small. After spending the 
unexpected $225 billion revenue windfall last year, busting the 1993 
spending caps, Washington delivered tax cuts only one-third as large as 
lawmakers had promised back in 1994.
  Recent polls show that 89 percent of the American people believe that 
taxes on all levels of government should not consume more than 25 
percent of their income. Again, 89 percent of Americans believe that 
all levels of taxes should not consume more than 25 percent of their 
income, and 77 percent also believe that estate taxes should be 
eliminated.
  Lower tax rates, again, increase incentives to work, save and invest. 
They help families to maximize their income and improve their standard 
of living. They allow families to allocate their precious dollars to 
meet their own needs, not to go out and meet the needs of disconnected 
spenders located in Washington.
  So, again, cut taxes and families today, who are forced to scrimp 
just to cover their monthly bills and their taxes, would find that they 
have more money to spend on their children's education, on their health 
care expenses,

[[Page S3066]]

on food, clothing and insurance, et cetera. If we are truly interested 
in giving our families the tools that they need to help raise their 
children, isn't it about time that Washington cut their taxes instead 
of limiting their choices?
  Beyond the direct benefits to families, tax cuts can also have a 
substantial and very positive impact on the economy as a whole. John F. 
Kennedy proved it. Ronald Reagan proved it. So we should not spend a 
budget surplus that does not yet exist. If a surplus, however, does 
develop, the Government has no claim on it because the Government did 
not generate it. So I do not believe Washington should be first in line 
to reap the benefits of any surplus.
  A surplus, again, will be the direct result of the hard work of the 
American people, and, therefore, it should be returned to the American 
people, either in the form of additional tax relief or beginning to pay 
down this tremendous $5.6 trillion national debt.
  So, Mr. President, a vote for the Hutchison-Grams amendment is a vote 
for families. I believe it is a vote for fiscal sensibility in 
Washington, and I urge my colleagues very strongly to give it their 
support.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Texas have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 34 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is the minority going to respond?
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent it be 
charged equally.
  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. I rise to oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas, Senator Hutchison. It would reject President Clinton's call to 
save Social Security first.
  Now, the Hutchison amendment calls for diverting part of any surplus 
for tax breaks. It therefore directly contravenes the President's plan 
to preserve Social Security benefits for baby boomers and other young 
Americans. For the first time in 30 years, Mr. President, we are 
probably going to have a budget surplus at the end of 1998--1998; that 
is, the current fiscal year. It ends September 30.
  The forecast for the coming decade is for continued surpluses--$1 
trillion over the next decade. We have tightened our belts, we have 
restored fiscal responsibility, and these surpluses are largely the 
product of our joint hard work.
  What do we do with the surplus? On this question, the President has 
spoken clearly and unequivocally. I agree, before we spend a penny of 
any surplus, we should save Social Security first. A decade from now, 
the baby boom generation will begin to retire. Additionally, Americans 
probably, Lord willing, are going to be living longer and having fewer 
children. That means fewer workers will be contributing to Social 
Security for each beneficiary. These forces will put severe strains on 
the Social Security system. It could have a real impact on our economy.
  If we do not maintain fiscal discipline, plan ahead, we could reduce 
the quality of life for our children and thus jeopardize the most 
important safety net for protecting senior citizens against poverty. 
That is why the President has been so insistent that we save Social 
Security first. That is why the amendment by the Senator from Texas is, 
in my view, misguided.
  I heard the Senator talk about restraining ourselves, about returning 
money to the citizens as quickly as we can. The President shares that 
objective. What he says when he says save Social Security first, he 
talks about doing it through paying down the debt. If we look at where 
we are now, I have to say, the President's leadership in managing this 
economy is pretty good. This doesn't mean that our friends on the 
Republican side haven't worked together with us and the administration 
to do things. This isn't pointing a finger. It is recognizing where we 
are: The lowest inflation rate, perhaps, in 30 years, in terms of the 
consistency and the level of the rate; the lowest unemployment rate in 
decades; the best growth rate in the economy that we have seen in 
decades; perhaps the best economic condition that this country has ever 
seen--maybe any country has ever seen.
  We are on the right track, and we are paying down debt. We have gone 
from almost $300 billion when President Clinton took over, down to a 
prospective surplus in 1998, a period of 6 years. That is quite an 
accomplishment.
  Why is it, at a time like this, that we suddenly recognize, ``My 
gosh, we have a huge deficit out there and we better get it paid 
down''? The President agrees, except he provides the leadership to do 
it.
  I urge my colleagues to resist the short-term temptations. Confirm 
the fact that we want to save Social Security. Confirm the fact that we 
want to pay down the debt. Let's continue to work together, not point 
fingers at who is at fault. If we are going to point fingers at who is 
at fault, we had better point fingers at those who helped us in the 
excellent job we have done together, and it was not all done by Alan 
Greenspan, as much respect as I have for him. I want to make sure 
Social Security will be there to protect younger Americans as it is 
here today for parents and grandparents.
  Mr. President, we have had all kinds of attacks on the present 
condition. Frankly, I scratch my head and say, What are my friends 
looking at? I see a stock market that is thriving--and I am not here to 
prognosticate the future of the stock market, but I heard a very 
distinguished economist, a personal friend of mine, on the air this 
morning. His name is David Jones. He is with a New York firm. He says 
that he thinks the economy is in pretty good shape in terms of the 
market. He doesn't see any reason to get overly concerned about sudden 
market dips. He doesn't predict that the market is going to continue 
straight up, but he predicts it is on a good, solid base.
  So the worry tree is sprouting buds here. I don't know whether it has 
to do with the political condition we will be facing when we get out 
there and talk to voters or exactly what it is. I want to be as frugal, 
as thrifty, as the next one, but I also want to make sure we maintain 
the service of our responsibilities to the people in our society, that 
those who don't have as much money as some at the top are still able to 
afford a college education for their child so that child can learn, to 
make sure there is sufficient housing for people, to make sure there 
are jobs for people who are moving from welfare to work. We had better 
have work for them.
  There are lots of worries and concerns, as I guess there always are 
with mankind, no matter what the conditions are. Recognize what we 
have, recognize where we have come, and at least admit we are doing the 
right kind of a job.
  So I don't want to do anything that will restrict the way we function 
with this economy of ours. That is why I don't want to succumb to the 
short-term temptation and take money out of programs to pay down the 
debt. We have a program laid out on just how we will do these things.
  I hope my colleagues will say no to the amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Texas.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New Jersey 
that he can very well vote for my amendment and still do what he says 
he wants to do, and that is, save Social Security first, because my 
amendment just lays out the framework for what our priorities would be.
  What it says is that there are only two reasons we should spend the 
surplus: For tax cuts for the hard-working American family, or for debt 
reduction, which would save Social Security.
  I support saving Social Security first with all of the surplus, and 
that would be possible under my amendment. But what we are saying is, 
we are not going to do anything else with the surplus. We are not going 
to go on new spending binges. We are going to live within our income. 
We are going to prioritize our budget, just like every family in 
America does. We are going to live within that budget. And every penny 
of surplus can only go to one of two purposes: One is tax reductions on 
the

[[Page S3067]]

hard-working American family, and the second is to pay down debt. If we 
continue to pay all the debt, to save Social Security, you can vote for 
my amendment and be very happy that all of the Congress will support 
debt reduction as one of our two priorities.

  I hope everyone will support this sense of the Senate, because I 
think it does set our priorities, just as this budget resolution does. 
That is what a budget does; it sets the priorities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is the Senator from Texas ready to 
yield back time? If so, I yield back my time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kyl as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield back the remainder.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                           Amendment No. 2176

  Mr. DOMENICI. In the interest of reducing the time, I will accept the 
Boxer amendment numbered 2176, and I yield back the time I was going to 
use to speak, and she has yielded all her time but 1 minute.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield that time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2176) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2226

  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe we will go to Senator Rockefeller, if he is 
ready.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 2226 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Amendment numbered 2226, previously proposed by the Senator 
     from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller].

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have a very interesting amendment 
to propose and I think a very important one. I want to say first, I 
fully support highway funding. Obviously, in a State like West 
Virginia, where it is mostly mountainous, highway funding is more 
important and more expensive than most places. I supported Senate 
passage of ISTEA. We are spending $217 billion on highway funding this 
year. When I was Governor, I helped get an amendment passed in this 
Congress, which was actually referred to as the Rockefeller amendment, 
which said if States had accumulated money, they went to the head of 
the line on interstate highway building and got their money from the 
Federal Government first.
  Again, this is in no way an antihighway amendment, as some are very 
anxious to label it. It is, however, very much a proveteran amendment. 
The amendment has one purpose and one purpose only: To protect veterans 
funding from a midnight raid--nothing less--by the administration and 
the Budget Committee. The raid isn't really a raid, it is a ravage on 
the authority of the Veterans' Committee to see that the needs of the 
Nation's veterans are met. In this case, I am talking particularly 
about disabled veterans.
  It is as simple as that. The veterans' account under the budget 
authority is being cut by $10.5 billion to pay for an enormous increase 
in highway funds. This money is in the veterans' budget baseline. And 
today they are taking it away from disabled veterans and putting it 
into highways, where we already have $217 billion. My point is they 
need to find another offset.
  I think my colleagues would want to know just what is being done 
here, because it is not a pretty sight. First, what is the law about? 
Veterans law generally requires the VA to pay disability compensation 
to veterans for any injuries, diseases, or conditions they incur while 
they are in service in the military. After long debate, and for very 
good reasons, the Government long ago decided that veterans disability 
compensation is not limited to only combat-related conditions. The 
budget resolution would change that.
  In 1993, the VA general counsel in a Republican administration 
interpreted the law to require the payment of disability compensation 
to veterans who could prove they had become addicted to tobacco while 
in military service if that addiction continued without 
interruption and resulted in an illness and disability.

  It is important to remember that this is a very, very tough test for 
veterans to meet. And very few veterans--only about 8 percent of those 
who have made such claims--have been able to meet this test so far. In 
my home State of West Virginia, where there are approximately 200,000 
veterans watching this debate closely, as of March 10, only 250 
smoking-related disability claims have been filed and, of that number, 
only 6--6--had been granted so far. What this says to me is that these 
are tough claims to substantiate. This tough test is the very reason 
that so few claims have been filed and why so few have been granted.
  Even the military now acknowledges that it played a significant role 
in fostering addiction in very young men and women in the service. How 
did the military do this? One, by distributing free cigarettes in C-
rations and K-rations. Two, by creating a culture that encouraged 
smoking at every opportunity, a culture of ``smoke 'em if you've got 
'em.'' And three, by selling tobacco products at vastly reduced prices, 
prices as much as 76% less than in civilian markets.
  Mr. President, whether or not a veteran became addicted to tobacco 
during military service, the results of that addiction are issues that 
the VA has correctly decided, under existing law, should be determined 
by its triers of fact. This is the law currently. This is the law that 
the Budget Committee would unilaterally change.
  Now we get to the midnight raid. In approving the fiscal year 1999 
budget resolution, the Senate Budget Committee assumes a $10.5 billion 
cut from the veterans account--from disabled veterans, in effect--to 
partially fund the very large increase in ISTEA funds. The Budget 
Committee made this transfer based upon their decision to totally bar 
any veterans' claims for disabilities resulting from any tobacco-
related illnesses. But not only did the Budget Committee make this raid 
on veterans' compensation for disabled veterans under the budget 
resolution, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' jurisdiction over this 
issue is totally removed. And lo and behold, where does it appear to 
go? It appears to be solely placed in the realm of the Transportation 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. President, this type of gimmickry makes a mockery of our budget 
process and of regular order in the Senate. It makes a mockery of the 
system of the Senate, which so many of our Senators are fond of talking 
about. This budget resolution will ultimately result in the erosion not 
only of the Veterans' Committee's authority, but of all authorizing 
committees' authority to determine policy. The budget committee is 
saying to us on the Veterans' Committee, we who take our work 
seriously, we will decide for you, we in the Appropriations Committee 
will decide for you; you will not decide policy in the authorizing 
committee.
  Let's put a human face on this issue. Just who are the people that 
this VA compensation is helping? In Huntington, WV, Robert Christian is 
a 71-year-old World War II veteran. He entered the Navy when he was 17 
years old. He began smoking cigarettes supplied by the Navy while on a 
ship headed to the Pacific, where he was involved in three separate 
invasions during that war.
  Robert is just one of thousands of World War II veterans who became 
addicted to cigarettes supplied by the military. Don't talk about 
personal choice. His cigarettes were supplied by the military. So 
Robert smoked and has been addicted for 24 years. Today, he has 
bronchitis and emphysema as a result of his addiction. He receives 
regular treatments to help him breathe.

[[Page S3068]]

  Because Robert and his physicians were able to make the connection 
between his bronchitis and his nicotine addiction, his medical 
disability has been service-connected by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Under the budget resolution, veterans like Robert would not be 
able to seek help. That is a disgrace.
  His disability check is not a lot of money, I might add. But the real 
asset in this case is his VA health care. Now, as a service-connected 
veteran, Robert is able to go to the VA medical center for treatment of 
his service-connected condition. He is able to get his health care 
because he is service connected. This would change under the budget 
resolution.

  And let's look at my friend, Larry Stotts of Spencer, WV. Larry 
joined the Marines at age 18, and he, too, began smoking the cigarettes 
supplied in service.
  Larry is a Korean War combat veteran and one of the Chosin Few. The 
Chosin Few are veterans of a bloody battle--in driving snow and sub-
zero temperatures--at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea in 1950.
  After years of smoking beginning in the military, Larry has chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease. It is so severely disabling that the VA 
has granted--under the very law now proposed to be struck down--a 100% 
service-connected disability and free medical care.
  So when you take away this Department of Veterans Affairs 
compensation, remember that VA health care is now being provided on a 
priority basis. It has to do with your service-connected status or 
income level, and the first priority is for medical conditions linked 
to service in the military. A vote to deny VA compensation for smoking-
related illnesses due to Government-sponsored nicotine addiction, which 
began in the service when these young men and women were teenagers, is 
also a vote to deny veterans health care--not just compensation for 
being disabled, but health care to thousands of veterans who turn to 
the VA for treatment of their smoking-related diseases. This is indeed 
a sorry statement about this country's sense of obligation to those who 
served our country. Mr. President, this issue is much clearer than all 
of this discussion of the law and the cost estimates. The issue is 
stunningly simple. Even if one opposes paying this compensation to a 
disabled veteran, or even if one is totally comfortable with the cost 
estimates that have been created, there is simply no reason--no 
reason--morally, ethically, or otherwise, to take away money from 
disabled veterans' programs and use it for other programs like tax cuts 
and highways. It is outrageous that veterans' programs are being looted 
in this way.
  We are not asking for cuts in all accounts this year. In fact, we are 
not even demanding that others, such as Social Security disability 
recipients, lose their smoking-related compensation. No. Only veterans.
  This year, we single out veterans and say: You, veterans, pay for all 
of this by giving up your rights. We imagine your satisfaction, 
disabled veterans, at $10 billion extra for highways, paid for by the 
loss of your rights to compensation as a disabled veteran.
  I oppose this raid. I urge a vote in favor of my amendment, and I 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment after I yield to the 
Senator from Colorado. How much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes 5 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia. I 
want to associate myself with his remarks. It is amazing to me how much 
we praise the actions of our military when they are putting their lives 
on the line and how quickly we forget them during peacetime or after 
they leave the military. This highway bill is important. I believe 
that, too, that our Nation's highways are in disrepair. But we have 
human beings that are also in disrepair in our veterans' ranks. We put 
$217 billion into the highway fund this year, which is almost $40 
billion more than anybody expected. We have done a good job on funding 
our highways. I hope that we do an equally good job on funding the 
benefits for our sick veterans.
  As my colleague from West Virginia mentioned, the administration--I 
don't, frankly, think they understand the ramifications of this because 
when I was in the service, I can remember, as Senator Rockefeller 
alluded to, that there was no counseling not to smoke. In fact, as he 
said, it was ``smoke 'em if you got 'em.'' That was the common thing to 
do at virtually every break. We were told, ``If you want to smoke, go 
ahead, do it.'' There weren't any labels on the packs, and the 
cigarettes were free. You were actively encouraged to smoke. To say 
that it is somehow the veterans' fault and to say that they voluntarily 
smoked is a stretch of the imagination. I know we have potholes in our 
highways, but we ought to also be concerned with the bullet holes that 
were put in some of the veterans. To raid the veterans' health care 
funds to put it in the highways, I think, is absolutely outrageous.
  I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from 
West Virginia. I applaud him for his courageous stand on trying to 
protect the veterans of our Nation.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is very difficult to listen to words 
like, ``The President of the United States is looting a veterans' 
health care program,'' and ``the Senate Budget Committee continues to 
loot.'' Mr. President, almost everybody on that Budget Committee who 
voted for this probably votes for everything the U.S. Congress proposes 
for veterans. But what has happened here is very, very interesting. 
Here is the expansion of a program in a dramatic way. One would assume 
it is rather dramatic, since it is going to cost about $10 billion over 
5 years. Congress has never voted on the program, number one. It is so 
inconsistent, in terms of causal connection between something that 
happened while you are in the military and your death, that the 
President of the United States, on two occasions --not one, but two 
successive budgets--has not funded any money to administer this 
expanded program.
  As a matter of fact, this year the President refused to fund it and 
removed the money needed from the veterans' overall available moneys, I 
assume because the President believed it probably was never going to 
happen. That is two points. The third point: Not a single claim under 
this proposed expansion has ever been granted to this day. I take that 
back. The staff says 200 claims have been granted.

  What we are saying is the President is right on this one. Before the 
afternoon is finished, we hope we can talk about another way to see who 
is right without having to do what the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, asks for. We are working on that, because, 
if anything, Mr. President, and fellow Senators, we ourselves need some 
clarification about what this program is all about. I want to give two 
examples. I am not an expert like my friend Senator Rockefeller, who is 
on the Veterans' Committee, apparently is, or Senator Specter, who 
works hard in that area and is chairman.
  Here is one example. If a young man started to smoke when he was 16 
years old and he smoked for 4 years, and he joined the Army when he was 
20 and he smoked for 4 more years, and he only served 4 years and he 
got out, and then he continued to smoke for 40 years, and he got 
cancer, this expansion of the program never before considered says that 
the Federal Government, the military, is responsible for his cancer. Do 
you have that? He started smoking before he went in. He smoked for only 
4 years while he was there. Now he gets a benefit for cancer. If he 
dies, his widow gets a widow's allowance because something happened to 
him in the military and we should pay for the death and a widow's 
allowance. Frankly, I do not believe anybody who has

[[Page S3069]]

been talking about this veteran's benefit understood that.
  I will give you the more typical one. You join the military. Most of 
these are going to be people who were not in for a long time because 
they are the veterans who were coming in while we had the draft. So you 
have a 20-year-old joining and he smokes. Here is one. He smokes for 
the 2 years that he is in. Then he continues thereafter to smoke for 40 
more years. He dies of cancer. His widow gets a benefit allowance 
because he smoked for 2 years in the military, and continued thereafter 
on the premise that he became addicted to nicotine in the military and, 
therefore, we should pay for it.
  There are all kinds of examples like that. I don't know all of the 
examples. Of the three that I stated, one of them may not be exactly 
right. But I am in the ballpark about what is happening.
  I believe we ought to follow the lead of the President and not permit 
this program to go into effect now. I did not say that we should kill 
the program. I said I believe we should come up with a way so that we 
don't implement the program now so that we don't create any false hope 
immediately, but that we find a way to get this program appropriately 
evaluated and that we find out here in the Congress what it is all 
about. I am hopeful before too long that we will have an approach to 
try to do that. I know frequently in these kinds of situations it 
doesn't do a lot of good to talk and to explain because maybe people 
have already made up their minds. I hope not on this.
  Let me tell you, there is no question that we are not denying 
veterans any health benefits they are getting today. If 200 people have 
gotten the claims, it certainly is just the beginning. There will be 
many more. We ought to take a good look at it before we decide that it 
is right. Frankly, I look forward to taking another look at this in 
some appropriate way for a reasonable period of time. I hope the 
veterans' groups in this country will say, well, the Senate quite 
appropriately wanted to take a look. They did not say we weren't 
entitled to this. But it is very, very different than anything we have 
done before. In a sense, it is sort of saying if you smoked at any time 
in the military and smoked thereafter, that the military is responsible 
for everything that happens to you if you smoke for 25 more years 
because somehow or another you became nicotine addicted in those years 
while you were in the military.

  I repeat: This does not change all of the veterans' benefits with 
reference to existing programs that are being carried out. I understand 
with reference to hospital treatment that Senator Rockefeller is 
alluding to the fact that if this isn't continued on and if it doesn't 
continue starting right now that some veterans will not be as high up 
in the rank of using the veterans' facilities as they would be if this 
program were in effect. But I suggest even there that we ought to take 
a look for a reasonable period of time and get this analyzed thoroughly 
before we proceed.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield time to 
the Senator from Idaho?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho on my time 
in opposition to the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I reluctantly stand in opposition to the 
amendment by my colleague from West Virginia. I say that because I 
appreciate and share with him membership on the Veterans' Committee. So 
I don't take this opposition lightly. But I recognize its importance 
because of the broad sense of obligation we have to our veterans 
community. We in this Nation have elevated veterans and veterans' care 
to a high standard. That is why it is a Cabinet agency. It didn't just 
happen by accident.
  We want to care for our veterans. Those men and women who have stood 
in harm's way for the defense of our freedoms deserve that care, and 
all of us appreciate the fact that is a great deal. That is why this 
budget spends $3 billion more over the next 5 years than was assumed in 
last year's bipartisan budget agreement. That is a true statement of 
commitment and obligation to our veterans. But this administration and 
I, and the chairman of the Budget Committee, have very real doubts 
whether allowing a post-service, smoking-related illness as a part of 
cash compensation to dependents is the right way to go--at a time 
certainly when our Veterans' Administration is strapped for cash to 
meet its current obligations to generate and create a new obligation 
that is estimated will cost $45 billion over the next 10 years and 
could reach as high as $10 billion a year by the year 2009.
  That is the reality of what we are talking about. How did we get 
there? There was a question asked inside the Veterans' Administration 
whether it was reasonable and right. Could they compensate if this were 
true? The answer was yes. But the chairman of the Budget Committee is 
right. Did this Congress authorize it? No; we did not. Can we literally 
start a new extension of entitlement that could cost $10 billion a year 
without Congress speaking to it? I hope not. But that is the character 
of the amendment offered by my colleague from West Virginia.
  I oftentimes do not like to use the argument that maybe we ought to 
study this. But maybe we ought to understand what we might be walking 
into. Is it really going to be, by the year 2009, a $10 billion 
expenditure at a time when our veterans' hospitals may be going 
unserved or unmodernized or unadministered, at a time when we are 
trying to strive for outpatient care, at a time when we are trying to 
build obligations for State-managed and shared veterans' nursing homes 
for the population of World War II veterans as they grow older and 
older? If this is the kind of expansion of entitlement we are talking 
about, how much of the other programs of the Veterans' Administration 
will we be starving out?
  That is why I have to say no and will oppose the amendment, and hope 
we can look at the possibility of secondary amendments that would 
analyze and study to see what this obligation might be. We really do 
not have the parameters of it.
  In the Veterans' Committee the other day, chaired by my chairman, 
Senator Specter, there was a general analysis of how they would 
interpret how they would judge. But, as we know, once you lay down a 
set of regulations and make arbitrary decisions about who is and who 
isn't eligible, all it takes is a court test to say, ``Wait a moment. 
You have judged me, my husband's, or my wife's illness improperly 
although they are deceased and I am entitled.'' And the judge says, 
``Why not? It is the largess of the Treasury. And, by the way, the 
Veterans' Administration is being arbitrary anyway.'' Boom. We have a 
new expansion of an entitlement because this Congress didn't speak to 
it and this Congress didn't set the tight parameters necessary when we 
created new entitlement programs. We allowed an agency and their 
administrators to interpret and, therefore, to judge and, therefore, to 
define. I believe that is arbitrary. I think all of us do.

  Let me remind you: $10 billion a year by the year 2009 is potentially 
$45 billion over the next 10 years. That is a big chunk of money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time, 
time is charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to clarify the situation in my 
mind. Senator Craig has not yet offered his amendment. Therefore, 5 
minutes for responding to that amendment is not at this point available 
to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Therefore, the Senator from West Virginia has 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 14 seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will close on this portion.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask the Senator if he would like a couple of 
minutes so he can give Senator Specter a couple minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I want very much to give the chairman time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page S3070]]

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe that veterans are entitled to 
be compensated for illnesses related to smoking because that has been 
the determination of the General Counsel of the Veterans Administration 
and the doctors who have analyzed this program. The Veterans' Affairs 
Committee had an extensive hearing on this matter a few days ago. The 
reallocation of $10.5 billion to another expenditure line, I believe, 
is unfair to the veterans of America. Young people are taken away from 
homes. They are put in situations of stress. Cigarettes are provided 
either free or at a low cost. The determination has been made by the 
General Counsel that nicotine dependence is a disease and it is 
compensable. If the money is not to go for tobacco-related illnesses, 
it ought to remain in the VA funds generally, because the VA funds are 
very, very limited for the tremendous obligation owed to the veterans 
of America.
  I believe another source of funding might be available from the 
tobacco funding. And as much as I want to see the highway program 
proceed, and highways are very necessary as a matter of infrastructure 
for America, I believe the veterans' benefits come first. I do not 
believe we need any additional studies on this matter. The analysis has 
been made extensively by the general counsel that it is a disease, that 
nicotine addiction is a disease, and the veterans are entitled to be 
compensated. These funds ought to be made available to the veterans, as 
Senator Rockefeller has proposed.
  How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one seeks recognition, time will run 
equally on both sides.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico if 
he wishes to speak. I would like to maintain my right to close the 
debate on my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have never been so certain that my 
eloquence had that much to do with matters, as to whether I spoke first 
or last, but normally I have been speaking last here as the floor 
manager when we are opposing an amendment. But I will not follow that 
now. I will speak now and let the Senator close.
  I don't have much additional to say. Frankly, I think it is a 
mistake, however, to categorize the money that the President saved in 
the budget by saying he was putting this program off. I think it is a 
mistake to categorize it that it all went for highways. The truth of 
the matter is, it goes to discretionary spending for programs across 
the board, which include highways. Frankly, what is going to happen is, 
the programs of this country all go to the Appropriations Committee; if 
there is not enough money for highways, then they are apt to fund 
highways and cut NIH, or anything else, if they would like. It is going 
to be a matter of what is the highest priority.
  So it seems to me we are talking about a program that the President 
of the United States for 2 consecutive years has said should not take 
effect, has provided no money to let it take effect. That, at least, is 
very questionable, whether the general counsel ruled or not. Congress 
never voted. And we believe some additional time ought to be taken on 
this matter.
  Whatever time I have I yield back at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the distinguished floor manager 
indicates that the President of the United States has done this. I am 
not trying to protect the President of the United States. I think he is 
wrong on this also. I am trying to protect disabled American veterans 
who have been addicted to nicotine and who will be barred from getting 
compensation as a result of this. All I can say is that my amendment 
seeks to strike $10.5 billion that was put artificially, by trumped-up 
means, into the veterans' baseline. If there is a study or something to 
look at it in the future, it will then be too late--my purpose will be 
dead. I want to return to veterans that $10.5 billion which is ascribed 
to roads--which we treasure in West Virginia, but which, because of the 
good work of my senior colleague, we are doing very well with. And that 
is a common joke around here, and one which I enjoy and respect.
  But I care about veterans. We have approximately 200,000 of them in 
West Virginia. We have 26 million of them in this country. This is a 
blatant attempt, under a whole new concept--despite our new 
understanding of addiction to tobacco in general, and our new 
understanding of addiction to tobacco by veterans in the service--which 
DOD now admits for the first time--to take money away from helping 
veterans and give it to highways.
  Concrete and rebars and all of those things are important. But so are 
human beings who have served in this country's military service and who 
are addicted and have to go through an incredibly hard process to 
become classified as disabled to get this kind of help from VA.
  Yes, as the manager has indicated, some will get their health care 
benefits. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking 
about a process which, because of the addiction, they have to go 
through a very difficult process to achieve a status where they can get 
compensation for their disability due to addiction. It is a fundamental 
American matter, and it is also the law of the land at the current 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back the remainder of my time and send an 
amendment to the desk.


                Amendment No. 2283 to Amendment No. 2226

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask it be reported.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Regular order, Mr. President. Mr. President, I 
believe I had----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; the time of the Senator had expired, and 
the manager was recognized.
  The clerk will report the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. Craig and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 2283 
     to amendment No. 2226.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 14, line 7, strike ``$51,500,000,000.'' and all 
     that follows through line 24, and substitute in lieu thereof 
     the following:
     $51,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,700,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,800,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,900,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000.'' and all that 
     follows through line 25, and substitute in lieu thereof the 
     following:
     -$300,000,000,
       (B) Outlays, -$1,900,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,600,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,000,000,000.
       In lieu of the language proposed to be stricken, insert:
       (6) For reductions in programs in function 700, Veterans 
     Benefits and Services: For fiscal year 1999, $500,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $500,000,000 in outlays; for fiscal 
     years 1999-2003, $10,500,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $10,500,000,000 in outlays.
       (7) Sense of the Senate on VA compensation and post-service 
     smoking-related illnesses.
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (i) the President has twice included in his budgets a 
     prohibition on the entitlement expansion that the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (referred to as the ``VA'') is proposing 
     to allow post-service smoking-related illness to be eligible 
     for VA compensation;

[[Page S3071]]

       (ii) Congress has never acted on this entitlement 
     expansion;
       (iii) the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of 
     Management and Budget have concluded that this change in VA 
     policy would result in at least $10,000,000,000 over 5 years 
     and $45,000,000,000 over 10 years in additional mandatory 
     costs to the VA;
       (iv) these increased number of claims and the resulting 
     costs may present undue delay and hardship on veterans 
     seeking claim review;
       (v) the entitlement expansion apparently runs counter to 
     all existing VA policy, including a statement by former 
     Secretary Brown that ``It is inappropriate to compensate for 
     death or disability resulting from veterans' personal choice 
     to engage in conduct damaging to their health.''; and
       (vi) Secretary Brown's comment was recently reaffirmed by 
     Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West, who stated 
     ``It has been the position of the Department and of my 
     predecessor that the decision to use tobacco by service 
     members is a personal decision and is not a requirement for 
     military service. And that therefore to compensate veterans 
     for diseases whose sole connection to service is a veteran's 
     own tobacco use should not rest with the Government.''.
       (B) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the function totals and assumptions underlying this 
     resolution assume the following:
       (i) The support of the President's proposal to not allow 
     post-service smoking related illnesses to be eligible for VA.
       (ii) The study and report required by paragraph (3) will be 
     completed.
       (iii) The Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs, 
     the Office of Management and Budget, and the General 
     Accounting Office are jointly required to--
       (aa) jointly study (referred to in this section as the 
     ``study'') the VA General Counsel's determination and the 
     resulting actions to change the compensation rules to include 
     disability and death benefits for conditions related to the 
     use of tobacco products during service; and
       (bb) deliver an opinion as to whether illnesses resulting 
     from post-service smoking should be considered as a 
     compensable disability.
       (iv) The study should include--
       (aa) the estimated numbers of those filing such claims, the 
     cost resulting from such benefits, the time necessary to 
     review such claims, and how such a number of claims will 
     affect the VA's ability to review its current claim load;
       (bb) an examination of how the proposed change corresponds 
     to prior VA policy relating to post-service actions taken by 
     an individual; and
       (cc) what Federal benefits, both VA and non-VA, former 
     service members having smoking-related illnesses are eligible 
     to receive.
       (v) The study shall be completed no later than July 1, 
     1999.
       (vi) The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall report their finding to the 
     Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the chairmen 
     and ranking minority members of the Senate Budget and 
     Veterans' Affairs Committees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes equally divided on each 
side on this second-degree amendment.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I 
yield 3 minutes to Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator only has 5 total.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 2.
  Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, and I think it is a 
fair amendment. This amendment says that for the next year this program 
will be held in abeyance. And during that year, the Veterans' 
Administration, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of 
Management and Budget will meet, analyze, and make recommendations to 
the President of the United States and to the Congress of the United 
States.
  I believe that enough has been said here on the floor, enough is 
there by virtue of the President of the United States deciding what he 
has decided for 2 consecutive years, that we really ought to make sure 
we receive the best information about what is the right and fair and 
honorable thing to do.
  I do not believe that anybody expects we should pay a widow's 
allowance, and for cancer, for a veteran who spent 2 years in the 
military and smoked, or for a veteran who spent 4 years in the military 
and smoked, and then smoked for 40 years thereafter. I believe we need 
some clarification and some real details on this, because this is a 
very large expenditure of money and it should not be denied to veterans 
if, in fact, there is a reasonably causal relationship between a 
veteran's service and the illness from which a veteran died. If there 
is a reasonable causal relationship and it does encompass as many as 
might claim under this, then we ought to have this group of people 
spend at least a year, or whatever time it takes, and report to us on 
the effects of the General Counsel's interpretation of a general 
statute with relationship to nicotine.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has 
explained our intent with this amendment. Let me read it:

       The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the GAO are jointly 
     required to--
       jointly study (referred to in this section as the 
     ``study'') the VA General Counsel's determination and the 
     resulting actions to change the compensation rules. . .
       [and] deliver an opinion as to whether illnesses resulting 
     from post-service smoking should be considered as a 
     compensable disability.

  That is one point. The other point, and I think the most important 
one that drives this process, that alludes to the potential $10 billion 
a year, or $45 billion over the next few years, is:

       . . . estimate the numbers of those filing such claims, the 
     cost resulting from such benefits, the time necessary to 
     receive such claims, and how such a number of claims will 
     affect the VA's ability to review its current claim load.

  In other words, this is not a dodge, this is a sincere effort to 
determine the impact of this potential program, that not one dime has 
been spent on yet. Are we truly going to damage other veterans' 
programs that are ongoing, that current veterans believe they are owed 
and, in all right, they are owed? I think we ought to have that 
information. That is exactly what this study does.

  Does it shove it off for years and years? Not at all. The study 
concludes that this has to be completed no later than July 1, 1999. And 
the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Office of Management and 
Budget and GAO shall report their findings to the majority and the 
minority leaders of the Senate and the ranking member and the chairman 
of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  This is an honest and sincere attempt not to legislate into the dark 
and to risk $10 billion or $45 billion, and to put in jeopardy current 
and future ongoing programs of the Veterans Administration, but to have 
a real understanding of where we might be treading.
  I believe it is responsible, I believe it is right, and I hope my 
colleagues will join with the chairman of the Budget Committee in 
support of this second-degree. Let's find out where we are going before 
we launch on a commitment that we would never be able to walk away from 
once we created that obligation to veterans. If we truly have 
dependents out there who start receiving the money, we will never cut 
it off.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the proponent of the amendment has 
expired.
  The Senator from West Virginia has 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I don't know how to say much in a minute and a half. 
Let me just say to my good friend from Idaho that I believe the second-
degree amendment is not a step forward. I think it is a great leap 
sideways. A study is not what we are talking about. You don't have to 
be a rocket scientist to know what is at issue here. This is money that 
we believe should have gone to veterans for compensation. If it doesn't 
go directly for compensation, this $10 billion-plus ought to go into 
the VA budget. It ought to be there for disabled veterans. It ought to 
be there for health care for veterans.
  There are a lot of gaps. There are a lot of holes in this VA budget. 
As is, we are not living up to a contract for veterans. My colleagues 
are absolutely right in what they are doing, and I rise to speak on the 
floor of the Senate to support the Rockefeller-Specter amendment. I 
hope we will defeat the second-degree amendment and pass this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.

[[Page S3072]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment in the second 
degree because an additional study is not necessary. The matter has 
already been studied extensively by the Veterans Administration. There 
has been an opinion of the General Counsel that nicotine is a disease 
and that it is compensable. A study might be all right if we did not 
take $10.5 billion off what ought to be in the Veterans' Affairs 
account--the Department of Veterans' Affairs account--and put it 
somewhere else.
  I believe the underlying amendment by the Senator from West Virginia 
is accurate. The second-degree amendment ought to be defeated.

  I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to tell 
the Senator from West Virginia when he has only 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. President, the Craig amendment would cut $10.5 billion in 
veterans' funds in the budget resolution.
  No. 2, the Craig amendment still allows the money to be cut and then 
to reauthorize--as he says, we will do a study for a year--
incidentally, by the same people, a study by exactly the same people 
who came up with this solution, to cut the money.
  But in order to reauthorize the veterans' disability benefit, the 
Congress--everything would then be subject to PAYGO, and my colleagues 
had better understand that Congress would then have to cut off another 
veterans' benefit. So this is a blind path that we are going down. A 
vote in favor of the Craig amendment is a vote to shift $10.5 billion 
away from disabled veterans.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.


                Amendment No. 2284 to Amendment No. 2226

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send a perfecting amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2284 to amendment No. 2226.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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 14, line 7, strike ``$51,500,000,000.'' and all 
     that follows through line 24, and substitute in lieu thereof 
     the following:
     $51,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,300,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000.'' and all that 
     follows through line 25, and substitute in lieu thereof the 
     following:
     $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,600,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
       On page 31, line 24, strike subsection (6) in its entirety.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes on a side on this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for 
the yeas and nays on the perfecting amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has yielded 
back all his time.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this puts us right back where we were at 
the beginning. What I would like to do is remind the Senate that we 
will have an opportunity to vote on the Domenici substitute which calls 
for the 1-year study, and that does have the General Accounting Office 
in it also, for those who are wondering whether it is just the 
Veterans' Administration and the OMB.
  In addition, if we table this Rockefeller amendment, we will vote 
next on the Domenici amendment which will give us this 1-year study to 
make sure that we are doing the right thing.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, and I move, at the appropriate 
time, to table the amendment. 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. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Brownback amendment No. 2177. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know why we proceeded to the 
vote. We did not intend to go to a vote. We are going to stack the 
votes and have a series of votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rollcall was on the first series of votes. 
The Brownback amendment----
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are not finished with our pool of amendments. We 
still have Senator Kyl to offer his, and then we will have the entire 
package voted on one after the other.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico want to ask 
unanimous consent----
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is the consent. There is consent that these six 
amendments be debated and that they then be voted on in order. Of that 
group, Senator Kyl's has not yet been debated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona 
to call up an amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 2221

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2221.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 2221.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. I note, Mr. President, that this amendment was supposed to 
have been discussed earlier. That undoubtedly accounts for the 
confusion, because it should have occurred already. However, I was not 
here at the time and, therefore, it will be the last amendment 
discussed prior to the time the votes start, for the benefit of my 
colleagues.
  This is a very straightforward amendment. It expresses the sense of 
the Senate in favor of a supermajority vote for raising taxes.
  Mr. President, the tax burden imposed on the American people has 
grown so large that it is beginning to act as a drag on the Nation's 
economy. As a share of the gross domestic product, revenues to the 
Treasury will rise from 19.9 percent this year to 20.1 percent next 
year. That would be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be 
only the third year in our entire history during which revenues have 
exceeded 20 percent of the national income. Notably, the first two 
times that revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into 
recession.
  Mr. President, we are talking about something very serious, and that 
is the possibility that this great economic engine that has been 
creating budget surpluses for the Federal Government and a great 
standard of living for the American people could come to a screeching 
halt if we do not begin to do something about the tax burden imposed 
upon the American people.
  Many of us believe it would have been prudent to consider more tax 
relief in the budget this year. But it seems to me that if the Congress 
and the President cannot agree on more tax

[[Page S3073]]

relief, we at least ought to be able to agree that taxes should go no 
higher. The House of Representatives, I inform my colleagues, is 
scheduled to vote in April on an initiative to make it much harder for 
Congress to raise taxes. It would require a two-thirds majority vote in 
each House in order to add to the tax burden.
  The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I have offered now will begin 
the debate in the Senate as well. I do not specify a particular 
percentage that would constitute a supermajority for purposes of 
raising taxes, but simply request that we go on record as expressing 
support for the principle that a supermajority should be required. I 
will briefly explain why.
  A third of the Nation's population imposes tax limitations on their 
State governments. Voters have approved tax limits by wide margins, so 
this is not something new or risky. In my home state of Arizona, for 
example, a tax limitation passed with 72 percent of the vote, and we 
are one of the fastest growing States in the Nation. We have one of the 
lowest tax burdens, one of the highest rates of growth. In Florida, 
another high-growth State, a tax limitation amendment was adopted with 
69.2 percent of the vote; in Nevada, with 70 percent. I daresay, Mr. 
President, these are probably three of the fastest growing States in 
the country.

  A tax limitation ensures growth, reduces taxes, provides more jobs 
and, I believe, would be a good thing for the Federal Government to 
adopt for the entire country with respect to Federal taxes.
  The proposed Constitutional amendment, which is referred to in the 
pending sense of the Senate amendment, now has 23 cosponsors in the 
Senate. It is something that was recommended by the National Commission 
on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. In fact, that commission, which you 
will recall was chaired by former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, advocated 
the supermajority requirement in its report on how to achieve a simpler 
single-rate tax to replace the existing maze of tax rates, deductions, 
exemptions and credits that makes the Federal Tax Code so complicated 
as we know it today.
  Here are the words of the commission:

       The roller-coaster ride of tax policy in the past few 
     decades has fed citizens' cynicism about the possibility of 
     real, long-term reform, while fueling frustration with 
     Washington. The initial optimism inspired by the low rates of 
     the 1986 Tax Reform Act soured into disillusionment and anger 
     when taxes subsequently were hiked two times in less than 
     seven years. The commission believes that a two-thirds 
     supermajority vote of Congress will earn American's 
     confidence in the longevity, predictability, and stability of 
     the new tax system.

  Mr. President, there is no small irony in the fact that it would have 
taken a two-thirds majority vote of the House and Senate to overcome 
President Clinton's veto and enact the 1995 Balanced Budget Act with 
its tax relief provisions. Yet, by contrast, the President's record-
setting tax increase in 1993 was enacted with only a simple majority 
and, in fact, not even a majority of elected Senators at that. Vice 
President Gore broke a tie vote of 50-50 to secure passage of the tax 
increase in the Senate.
  A tax limitation is based on a simple premise: that it ought to be at 
least as hard to raise people's taxes as it is to cut them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
several documents.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      [From Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, Apr. 8, 1997]

 Making a Taxing Decision: Why Congress Should Pass The Tax Limitation 
                               Amendment

                            (By Scott Moody)

       On April 15, Congress will have an historic opportunity to 
     make a sincere commitment to the principles of a balanced 
     budget and a smaller government by voting for the Tax 
     Limitation Amendment (TLA) to the Constitution. If the 
     Congress and the president mean it when they say the era of 
     big government is over, then the deficit must be eliminated 
     by reigning in government spending, reforming entitlements, 
     and cutting wasteful and unnecessary programs. Passage of the 
     TLA--which would require a two-thirds vote of Congress to 
     raise taxes--will help take tax increases off the table. The 
     message from taxpayers to members on both sides of the aisle 
     is clear--pass the Tax Limitation Amendment.
       A bipartisan message. According to voters all across 
     America, creating a more accountable tax policy is a 
     bipartisan responsibility. In fact, the congressional 
     delegations from the twelve states that have adopted a 
     supermajority tax provision are almost evenly split between 
     Republicans and Democrats.\1\ In the House of Representatives 
     there are 68 Republicans and 50 Democrats who represent these 
     states with a supermajority provision. In the Senate, 
     representation is evenly split with 12 Republicans and 12 
     Democrats. This even split reveals that states with 
     supermajority provisions do not strictly lean toward one 
     political party or another. It also shows, and politicians on 
     both sides of the aisle should take notice, that there is 
     growing consensus among all taxpayers for tax limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A two-thirds majority provision is gaining in popularity. 
     Within the last five years, the trend toward tax limitation 
     has accelerated. Of the twelve states with supermajority 
     requirements, seven of them have been enacted or expanded 
     since 1992. Although the requirement varies from state to 
     state, the most popular provision requires a two-thirds (66 
     percent) majority vote to raise taxes. As shown below, voters 
     are strongly supportive of tax limitation. Politicians can 
     only ignore this tidal wave of support at their own peril.
     1992
       1. Arizona--Requires \2/3\ elected majority, passed by 72 
     percent of voters.
       2. Colorado--Requires \3/4\ elected majority, passed by 54 
     percent of voters.
       3. Oklahoma--Requires \3/4\ elected majority, passed by 56 
     percent of voters.
     1996
       4. Florida--Requires \2/3\ voter majority, passed by 70 
     percent of voters.
       5. Nevada--Requires \2/3\ elected majority, passed by 70 
     percent of voters.
       6. Oregon--Requires \3/5\ elected majority, passed by 52 
     percent of voters.
       7. South Dakota--Requires \2/3\ elected majority, passed by 
     74 percent of voters.
       A TLA would boost economic growth and created new jobs. 
     States that have adopted a tax supermajority provision have 
     grown faster and created more jobs than states that do not 
     have any tax limitation. A look at these states reveals that 
     the existence of supermajority provisions help to limit tax 
     and spending increases by state governments. As a result, 
     more money is available for productive investment by 
     businesses and individuals which boosts economic growth and 
     creates new jobs. Other studies have found the same results:
       A study by Jim Miller, former budget director under 
     President Reagan, and Mark Crain, an economist at George 
     Mason University, which is based on data from all 50 states 
     found that a supermajority provision for raising results in a 
     lower per-capita growth in state spending.\2\
       Economist Dan Mitchell has also made a number of important 
     discoveries on economic growth in his study of ten states 
     that require a supermajority to raise taxes. He found that 
     between 1980 and 1992, states with supermajority grew by 43 
     percent (35 percent without) and employment increased by 26 
     percent (21 percent without).\3\
       Increased accountability. Passed by simple majorities, four 
     of the last five major tax bills would not have met a two-
     thirds approval requirement. In fact, the last tax bill 
     passed by one vote in the House of Representatives and the 
     Vice-President broke a tied vote in the Senate. As a 
     consequence, American taxpayers are not fully convinced that 
     Congress has carefully weighed the pros and cons of 
     increasing taxes that have since raised a staggering total of 
     $666 billion.\4\
       Judging by the large support of a two-thirds majority 
     requirement by voters, most Americans realize the economic 
     benefits of creating a more accountable tax policy in 
     addition to a smaller tax burden. Many taxpayer from both 
     sides of the political spectrum have, in most cases, 
     overwhelmingly approved supermajority provisions for their 
     own state. Now they expect Congress to do the same and pass 
     the Tax Limitation Amendment.


                               FOOTNOTES

     \1\These states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 
     Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, 
     Oregon and South Dakota.
     \2\Mark Crain and James Miller, ``Budget Process and Spending 
     Growth,'' William and Mary Law Review, Spring 1990.
     \3\Dan Mitchell, ``The Case for a Tax Supermajority 
     Requirement: A Look at the States,'' Citizens for a Sound 
     Economy Foundation, Issue Analysis, No. 25, April 12, 1996.
     \4\James Perry, ``Growth, Prosperity, and Honest Government. 
     The Case for Constitutional Tax Limitation,'' Americans for 
     Tax Reform, Policy Brief, 1997.


          OFFICIAL SUPPORTERS OF THE TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT

     American Conservative Union
     Americans for Tax Reform
     Associated Builders and Contractors
     Association of Concerned Taxpayers
     Chamber of Commerce of the United States
     Christian Coalition
     Citizens for a Sound Economy
     Coalition for America
     Competitive Enterprise Institute
     Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
     Family Research Council
     National-American Wholesale Grocers Association/International 
         Foodservice Distributors Association

[[Page S3074]]

     National Association of Manufacturers
     National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
     National Federation of Independent Businesses
     National Tax Limitation Committee
     National Taxpayers Union
     National Taxpayers United of Illinois
     Seniors Coalition
     Small Business Survival Committee
     60 Plus Association
     United Seniors Association


                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 31, 1998.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: National Taxpayers Union, America's 
     largest grassroots taxpayer organization, strongly supports 
     your ``Sense of the Senate'' Tax Limitation Amendment to S. 
     Con. Res. 86, the FY '99 Budget Resolution.
       Your amendment would put the Senate on record as favoring a 
     super majority vote for the enactment of legislation that 
     would raise tax rates, impose new taxes, or otherwise 
     increase the amount of taxpayers' income that is subject to 
     tax. As perhaps the most important tax limitation vote of 
     this Session of Congress, National Taxpayers Union will 
     likely score a ``YES'' vote on your amendment as one of the 
     heaviest-weighted pro-taxpayer votes in our annual Rating of 
     Congress.
       In addition to supporting tax limitation, your amendment 
     establishes the basic premise of any genuine tax reform. We 
     urge your colleagues to join you in voting for the Kyl 
     amendment on the floor of the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John E. Berthoud,
     President.
                                  ____


     [From Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, Apr. 12, 1996]

   The Case for a Tax Supermajority Requirement: A Look at the States

                        (By Daniel J. Mitchell)

       A number of states require at least a three-fifths majority 
     vote to raise taxes. These states have seen lower tax and 
     spending increases, faster economic and job growth, and an 
     accumulation of less debt. This evidence supports the case 
     for a supermajority requirement to raise taxes at the federal 
     level, which the House of Representatives is scheduled to 
     vote on this Monday.
       On April 15th, the House of Representatives will vote on 
     whether the Constitution should be amended to require a two-
     thirds vote to raise taxes. A supermajority requirement 
     eliminates the existing bias in favor of enacting higher 
     taxes. Such a provision is particularly important during 
     times when lawmakers are under pressure to control deficits 
     and balance the budget. Simply stated, if higher spending 
     cannot be achieved by increasing borrowing, the only other 
     way of financing new spending is by raising taxes. Requiring 
     a supermajority to raise taxes ensures that a simple majority 
     of politicians cannot continue to spend other people's money 
     and evade fiscal responsibility.
       Critics charge that the supermajority requirement would be 
     a risky, untested idea. This accusation is false. Ten states 
     require at least a three-fifths vote of lawmakers to raise 
     some or all taxes. Supermajorities, needless to say, are just 
     one of many factors that influence these states' performance. 
     It stands to reason, however, that making it harder to raise 
     taxes would be at least partially responsible for these good 
     numbers. Three of the states instituted the tax limit in 
     1992, but seven states have lived under this requirement for 
     some time. In these states--Arkansas, California, Delaware, 
     Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Dakota--the 
     evidence shows that, on average, supermajority states have 
     smaller tax and spending increases, grow faster, create more 
     jobs, and accumulate less debt.


                supermajority states control tax burden

       On average, states with supermajorities saw their per 
     capita tax collections jump by 102 percent between 1980 and 
     1992. This is too high, but it is much better than the 
     average 121 percent increase in per capita tax collections 
     that occurred in states without these supermajority 
     protections. In other words, the tax burden rose nearly 20 
     percent faster in states that did not limit the ability of 
     politicians to raise taxes.


            lower spending increases in supermajority states

       In the supermajority states, per capita state spending on 
     average increased by 132 percent between 1980 and 1992. While 
     this is hardly a record to be proud of, states without 
     supermajority tax requirements experienced average total per 
     capita spending increases of 141 percent. This difference may 
     not be very large, but taxpayers are grateful for even modest 
     improvements in their state's fiscal performance.


                    Supermajority States Grow Faster

       Lower taxes and lower spending are desirable, but the real 
     reason for controlling the size of government is to promote 
     prosperity. Not surprisingly, a supermajority is associated 
     with faster economic growth. States with restrictions on the 
     ability to raise taxes grew by an average of 43 percent in 
     real terms from 1980 until 1992. States that made it easier 
     for politicians to raise taxes, by contrast, only grew on an 
     average of 35 percent during the same period.


                 Supermajority States Create More Jobs

       The combination of smaller government and faster growth in 
     supermajority states means that there is more money available 
     for the productive sector of the economy. This means more 
     jobs. In states with supermajorities, total employment 
     increased by an average of 26 percent between 1980 and 1992. 
     In states that allow taxes to be raised by a simple majority, 
     on the other hand, the number of jobs increased by an average 
     of only 21 percent.


                  Supermajority States Incur Less Debt

       One of the criticisms of supermajority requirements is that 
     politicians would not have the power to raise taxes in times 
     of fiscal crisis, thus subjecting state residents to higher 
     levels of debt. Evidence from the states, however, appears to 
     dispel this fear. In the seven states with supermajorities, 
     state debt increased by an average of 271 percent between 
     1980 and 1992. This is not a good track record, but states 
     without limits on higher taxes saw average debt increases of 
     312 percent in the same period.


                               Conclusion

       Empirical data from the states suggests that tax 
     supermajority requirements serve their intended purpose--
     helping to limit the growth of government and enabling a more 
     rapid pace of economic growth and job creation. To be sure, a 
     supermajority requirement does not guarantee sound economic 
     policy. The record tax increase in California, for instance, 
     was enacted in spite of a two-thirds majority requirement. 
     And many states without supermajority requirements, such as 
     Tennessee and Nevada, scored well in most categories (not 
     surprisingly, the lack of a state income tax seems to be 
     associated with more growth and less government). 
     Nevertheless, examining the performances of states with and 
     without supermajorities seems to confirm the well established 
     relationships between sound fiscal policy and good economic 
     performance. If federal lawmakers approve similar legislation 
     on the federal level, there is every reason to expect 
     positive results.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time against the amendment?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl 
amendment. I assume we have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise in opposition to an amendment presented by 
Senator Kyl that would call for a constitutional amendment and require 
a supermajority to vote to increase Federal revenues. This amendment 
effectively would grant special protection for tax loopholes. In this 
body, we only require a supermajority vote for things that deserve 
special protection--Social Security, for example. It would be wrong to 
give breaks for corporations and the well-off and permit them to have 
the same protection as the Social Security trust funds, and it would be 
outrageous to give those loopholes constitutional protection.
  The Founding Fathers had it right the first time. A simple majority 
vote is all that should be required for this body to act. That is a 
democracy.
  I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. It 
calls for a sense of the Senate looking for a constitutional amendment 
to be offered here.
  I am not going to take any more time. I hope that the Members will 
see that we are giving special protection to tax loopholes when 
certainly the status doesn't warrant it, but worse than that, we are 
talking about a constitutional amendment. Thank goodness it is a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment. It has about as much force as so many of the 
other sense-of-the Senate amendments that we have already had here. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has all time been yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield back 
his time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the rest of the time has been yielded back, then I 
yield back the time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2177

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We now proceed under the previous order to 
Brownback amendment No. 2177. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North

[[Page S3075]]

Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.}

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
     #
  The amendment (No. 2177) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I 
move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment before the Senate is Specter 
amendment numbered 2254. Under the previous order, there is 1 minute 
per side to debate the amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily lay aside 
the Specter amendment and go to the amendment of Senator Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2244

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment represents a modified 
version of the budget that President Clinton submitted to the Congress 
last month. The amendment incorporates all of the important priorities 
in the President's budget, maintains strict fiscal discipline, and 
adopts the President's commitment to save Social Security first. The 
amendment reserves all surpluses until we solve Social Security's long-
term problem. That will help ensure when the baby boomers retire, 
Social Security will be there for them.
  Secondly, like the President's budget, this makes education a top 
national priority, calling for an initiative to reduce class sizes by 
hiring 1,000 new teachers, promotes higher standards and greater 
accountability, and provides more after-school opportunities for young 
people.
  In short, what this does is remind us all what the commitment is that 
the President made and what we would like to see in place. I will just 
say that this presents the President's budget in a modified form. I 
hope our colleagues will support it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, without this counting as part of my 1 
minute, if I could remind the Senators of where we are now. We have 
seven amendments stacked with reference to the previous order. Then we 
will start the 1-minute amendments, and on our side we have about 10. I 
am not sure how many are on the Democrat side, but we will work with 
those 10 and see if we can put those down. They are mostly sense-of-
the-Senate amendments. For now, we are in a position to take up about 
six more. The time is supposed to be 10 minutes on the votes. I know 
that is difficult. For all additional time we take, we will be here 
later and later tonight in order to get it finished. This is a 10-
minute vote on the Lautenberg amendment.
  Now, let me say this is the Democrat amendment offered in committee. 
In the committee, it did not even receive all of the Democratic 
Senators' support. If you want to spend more money, like $88 billion 
more, vote for this. If you want to vote to put the moneys that we get 
from the tobacco settlement on Medicare instead of six new programs, 
vote for theirs. If you want to spend new money on at least eight more 
domestic programs, vote for theirs.
  We have provided increases in NIH, education, the environment, and 
the criminal justice. We think that is a good priority.
  Have I raised a point of order on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I make the point of order it is not germane.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask to waive the point of order, and I request the 
yeas and nays on my 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.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Helms
     Inhofe
     Inouye
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 42, the nays 55. 
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. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is quarter to 6. We are still working to 
try to get the list agreed on of what we are actually going to need to 
vote on. We still have probably 24 or 25 amendments that we still have 
to vote on--maybe more. But we are working to get that down. In order 
to get this completed, we need to really start to get rolling on these 
votes. We have been having them every 10 minutes. The Senator from 
Alaska is in the Chair. He knows how to do it. I urge Members to stay 
in the Chamber. We can move these along a lot faster. From here on they 
will be gaveled to a close after 10 minutes.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2254

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on agreeing to the 
Specter amendment No. 2254. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would provide for $2 
billion extra for NIH to offset by four-tenths

[[Page S3076]]

of 1 percent a cut in all programs. This body has expressed a sense of 
the Senate that we should double NIH over 5 years, which will call for 
$2.5 billion a year. This is a lesser amount. We have expectations 
built up by the sense-of-the-Senate expression of our druthers. Now is 
the time to put our dollars behind it. Although there is paperwork to 
the contrary, Mr. President, although the budget does not determine how 
it is going to go, which is through the appropriations process, we will 
have only $350 million in additional outlays for an $80 billion budget 
by the subcommittee. We need this $2 billion if we are to move ahead on 
the important NIH functions.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, we have $1.5 billion 
next year for NIH. We have added $1.5 billion to NIH in this budget; 
$15.5 billion over 5 years. The amendment would add another $2 billion. 
That would cut defense $1.1 million, environment $88 million, 
agriculture $17 million, veterans $76 million, justice $86 million, and 
so on.
  I believe we have done enough with the $1.5 billion increase and $15 
billion over five years. We should not now add $2 billion more and 
propose that we restrain every department of Government, including the 
Defense Department, for half the cuts.
  I yield any time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Specter amendment and 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 of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Collins
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2254) was agreed 
to.


                           Amendment No. 2221

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is now the Kyl amendment 
No. 2221. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, colleagues, this is a very straightforward 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It would simply express the sense of 
the Senate that we support a supermajority to raise taxes. Many of the 
States in this country now have supermajorities. In some of the fastest 
growing States like Arizona and Florida and Nevada, our State 
legislatures pass supermajorities to raise taxes with 69, 70, 71 
percent of the vote. It has not hurt the economy. In fact, it has 
helped the economy of those States.
  The House of Representatives will be considering a constitutional 
amendment to do this. The Senate will probably not be considering that. 
But I do think it is important, before tax day, April 15, for the 
Senate to at least express its view that it ought to be as hard to 
raise taxes as it is to cut taxes. That means we should have some kind 
of a supermajority to raise taxes here in the U.S. Congress.
  It is a sense of the Senate. It expresses a very simple proposition 
that Americans are taxed enough and that to tax them any more should 
require more than a bare majority of the House and the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? One minute in opposition. Who 
seeks time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we oppose the use of the supermajority 
that the Senator proposes in this amendment, for a tax increase. We 
think it is inappropriate. We think it ought not be offered at this 
time. We hope everybody will stand against it, as opposed to putting 
into concrete the proposition that it should take a supermajority vote 
to close a wasteful corporate tax loophole, or other special interest 
tax break.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time 
has been yielded back. Are the yeas and nays required?
  Mr. KYL. 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 amendment 
of the Senator from Arizona. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea''.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 2221) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2282

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is Nickles amendment No. 
2282. The time is to be equally divided. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist and Senator Collins 
for speaking on behalf of this amendment. I now recognize Senator 
Jeffords, who

[[Page S3077]]

is the principal cosponsor of this amendment, for our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this amendment. It originally was a second-degree amendment to the 
Kennedy amendment. I understand that the Senator from Massachusetts 
agrees with our amendment. I appreciate that. But I point out that what 
we are doing now is trying to make sure that our health care system 
does what we want it to do, trying to make sure that it is fair to 
patients and trying to make sure that we provide what is necessary for 
us to improve the system that is now having some problems. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  An important and necessary role for the Federal Government is to 
foster a competitive marketplace by ensuring that efficient and similar 
information about the product is available to consumers. Consumers can 
make their choices according to their own personal beliefs.
  Another role is to ensure fairness, and this amendment provides that. 
I urge Members to vote for it.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues will vote in 
support of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It says that we should 
not pass legislation that makes health insurance unaffordable for 
working families; we should not divert limited health resources from 
serving patients; we should not impose political considerations on 
clinical decisions. I am all for that. Let's all support that.
  But this does not address the issues raised when we talk about 
protecting basic rights of patients. The amendment I have offered gives 
the Senate the chance to go on record as saying it is time for Congress 
to decide that profits should not take priority over patients. My 
amendment and this amendment are not in conflict.
  The broad principles in my amendment are supported by the American 
Medical Association, the disability groups, the advocates for mental 
health, consumer groups, the women groups, and the labor movement.
  Let us all vote in favor of the Nickles amendment and then vote 
equally, and return the favor, for my amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Nickles 
amendment No. 2282. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea''.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 2282) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2183

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the next amendment is a sense of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Chair call the amendment up. The 
amendment is No. 2183. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the time has come for action to protect 
families and curb the insurance company abuses. This amendment gives 
the Senate a chance to go on record as saying it is time for Congress 
to decide that profits should not take priority over patients.
  I just ask our colleagues to read page 3 of this sense of the Senate. 
It ensures coverage of emergency services, and allows women direct 
access for obstetrical and gynecological care. It ensures women will 
not be subject to drive-through mastectomies. It meets the special 
needs of children and the special needs of individuals with 
disabilities. It provides for the protection of the relationship 
between the doctor and the patient, and the elimination of the gag 
clauses. And it provides greater information about health care plans to 
the patients.
  Our opponents will argue that these rights will raise premiums. But 
it will not cost an additional cent for any of the good plans. It may 
cost more for those plans who do not currently do these things. We all 
know that the easiest way to save money is to deny care.
  Let us stand for the patients and the medical profession. They have 
basically endorsed these rights, as has the President's commission. 
This amendment says that we are going to pass legislation which will 
protect them. That is what this sense of the Senate guarantees.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against--Mr. 
President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senators please take their 
conversations to the cloakroom.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
Senator Kennedy's amendment. I tell you, if you voted for the Nickles-
Jeffords amendment, you should not vote for Senator Kennedy's 
amendment, because the amendment we just adopted, I guess unanimously, 
said that we do not want to increase costs. The Kennedy amendment says, 
let us pass the so-called patients' bill of rights. That was introduced 
2 days ago. It is 68 pages long. It has lots and lots of mandates, 
mandates that will increase costs. And as costs go up, the number of 
uninsured will go up.
  This bill has hundreds of regulations in it. So if you want more 
regulations instead of patient care, that would be what you would be 
voting for in Senator Kennedy's amendment. I mention that this is 
opposed by individuals from the Mayo Clinic to the Cleveland Clinic to 
some of the best health care providers in the world. They are saying: 
You are going to make us provide and spend our time litigating and 
regulating instead of providing quality health care.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kennedy amendment. And if they 
voted in favor of the last amendment, they certainly should vote no on 
the next one. You cannot tell me this thing does not have significant 
costs to the consumers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired. All those in favor of the 
amendment----
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to table the Kennedy amendment, and 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 
lay on the table the amendment No. 2183. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3078]]

  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2183) was agreed 
to.


                           Amendment No. 2208

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Hutchison amendment 
numbered 2208, with 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is a budget that will set our spending 
priorities. What my amendment says is there are only two responsible 
ways to spend any future surpluses: to pay down the debt, to save 
Social Security; or to give tax relief to the hard-working American 
family. If Congress decides to put all the money into debt relief and 
Social Security, that is consistent with this amendment.
  The only reason you would vote against this amendment is if you want 
Congress in the future to be able to go on spending binges and give the 
bill to our children. This allows us to put all the money on pay-down 
debt or to give tax relief.
  It is important that we recognize that we have labored mightily. We 
should not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on the balanced 
budget. This is our chance to take a stand. We are going to spend any 
future surpluses in only two ways--to pay down debt or to give tax 
relief to the hard-working American family.
  I urge Members to support this.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Hutchison 
amendment. It would reject President Clinton's call to save Social 
Security first. Yet, I hear conversations constantly about how 
everybody is saluting the sanctity of Social Security--preserve it, 
make sure we shore it up, make sure that we take care of it for future 
generations. But here we open the gate to use this money that would 
otherwise be reserved for Social Security for tax cuts. I think that 
the American people, if asked the question, would say no, we want to 
pay down the debt, shore up Social Security, and let's not use this for 
tax cuts, the benefit of which goes principally to those people in the 
higher income level.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment in the interest of 
saving Social Security first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
       Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 2208) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2284

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Rockefeller 
amendment No. 2284. There has been a motion to table, and the yeas and 
nays are ordered. In the interest of moving things along, the Chair is 
going to recognize each side for 1 minute, so we will know what we are 
voting on.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the budget resolution would take 
$10.5 billion of ``savings,'' which is in the baseline of the Veterans 
Administration budget, and remove it, excise it, and put it into more 
highway funds. There are $217 billion of highway funds over 5 years. 
What this would effectively also do is bar any veteran's claim for 
disability from a tobacco-related illness at a time when the test for 
getting a tobacco-related illness in the VA is incredibly difficult. 
Only 278 Americans, to this point, have achieved that. The whole issue 
on tobacco and the military has changed in the last 3 or 4 years. We 
want to restore the money, keep the money in the VA budget and not have 
it taken out and given to highways, which could find a different 
offset.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have moved to table.
  I would like to withdraw my motion to table so the vote can be an up-
or-down vote. I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask everyone on our side to vote in 
favor of this amendment. Then I want everybody to know that the subject 
matter will be the Domenici amendment. I will have a minute then, but I 
will use the remaining 30 seconds to tell you what I think we ought to 
do. This is potentially a $40 billion program. Congress never voted on 
it. The President has denied it twice and taken it out of his budget. 
We believe the best thing to do is to have one more solid look at it by 
the GAO, OMB, and the VA. They ought to report to us and the President 
before we engage in a $10 billion-a-year program which is built around 
the notion that if you ever smoked in the military and then you got out 
and smoked for 40 more years, you are to collect benefits from the 
military because you started smoking in the military. That is the 
essence of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2284.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.

[[Page S3079]]

  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 2284) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2283 To Amendment No. 2226

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute numbered 2283.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 1 minute.
  This is the amendment to the pending Rockefeller amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, essentially the Domenici amendment says 
this program, which has never been voted on by Congress, which has been 
put into regulation by order of the counsel for the Veterans 
Administration, which will cost ultimately $40 billion, we are saying 
let us wait 1 year and have the GAO, the Veterans Administration, and 
the OMB study it and report to us and to the President. The President 
has denied this program's efficacy, because of concern about the kinds 
of benefits and whether they are relevant to service in the military, 2 
years in a row. We ought to take a little bit of time before we get 
involved in a $10-billion-a year program.
  I will give you one example. A veteran who smoked 3 years before he 
went into the service, 4 years in the service, and 40 years thereafter 
his surviving spouse might very well collect a widow's benefit and 
other benefits under this particular program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues 
understand that by voting for the Domenici amendment--which I hope they 
will not--they will simply completely reverse the vote which they have 
just made and wipe it all out. That will seem strange, I think, to 
veterans. This is an up-or-down vote on veterans and their disability 
benefits. A 1-year study, in the humble opinion of the junior Senator 
from West Virginia, is a farce, because it is going to be made by 
exactly the same three groups that came up with the $10.5 billion cut 
out of the veterans account to put the money into highways. I doubt 
that they are going to be any different next year, because they will 
need the money. They will have to go get the money in the next year.
  This cuts veterans. A ``no'' vote is what I would ask of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by 
Senator Domenici to the amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller on 
disability compensation for veterans with smoking-related disabilities.
  It seems to me reasonable to ask for more deliberate review of this 
issue. After all, President Clinton has twice proposed not to allow 
post-service smoking related illnesses to be eligible for VA disability 
compensation. Once the question has been thoroughly reviewed, we can 
then reconsider the matter.
  This Domenici amendment would ask the General Accounting Office, the 
Office of Management and Budget, and the VA to review this matter over 
the next year. This will allow the main analytical resources of the 
Federal Government to come to bear on this question. And, when the 
assessment is finished, we will have greater confidence that we are 
doing the right thing.
  With respect to the main Rockefeller amendment, we have to keep 
several things in mind. This would be an expensive program. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, we are talking about around $10 
billion over five years. It is also not clear that it is fair to all 
the other veterans who have service-connected disabilities which are 
clearly service-connected or low income veterans who have problems 
clearly related to military service that have led, or would lead, to 
receipt of disability compensation.
  Furthermore, it is certainly possible that major inequities could 
result were the underlying amendment enacted. By this I mean that 
veterans who started smoking after military service could conceivably 
be eligible for disability compensation under terms of this amendment. 
Keep in mind also, that veterans who suffer from tobacco-related health 
problems can still qualify for health care services from the VA if they 
met the regular qualifying criteria.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the remainder of his 
time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Domenici amendment.
  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 amendment 
of the Senator from New Mexico. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms), would vote ``yea''.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
      
  The amendment (No. 2283) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 2226, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now the question will be on the Rockefeller

[[Page S3080]]

amendment as amended by the Domenici substitute. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The yeas and nays are vitiated.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2226), as amended, was agreed to.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senators, and 
this has been agreed to by the ranking member, we will now start the 1-
minute ``vote-arama.'' From the list we will call up an amendment and 
it will be taken up. When it is finished, we will call up another one. 
We will alternate back and forth.
  We are getting it down to a reasonable number on our side. We are 
hoping the other side will get rid of three or four more there, but we 
are going to start this way.
  The first amendment on our side is the amendment of Senator Grams, 
No. 2222, and that will be followed by Senator Kennedy, amendment No. 
2184. For each one, they will tell you the title and then the Senator 
will have 1 minute to explain it.
  Amendment No. 2222 by Senator Grams is called up.


                           Amendment No. 2222

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2222 is before the Senate. One 
minute on each side. Senator Grams is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment expressing 
the sense of the Senate that projected budget surpluses should be 
dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security. This is a 
very simple and straightforward amendment. It asks Congress and the 
President to commit any budget surplus to reducing the Social Security 
payroll tax and use the tax reduction to set up personal retirement 
accounts for America's working men and women.
  Mr. President, the latest report from the Treasury Department shows 
that we may have a budget surplus as large as $60 to $80 billion this 
year, if revenues continue to grow at the current rate. As I have 
argued repeatedly, this surplus comes directly from taxes paid by hard-
working Americans, and it is only fair to return it to them in the form 
of tax relief, national debt reduction, or Social Security reform.
  We all agree it is vitally important to save and strengthen Social 
Security. Many of my colleagues believe we should use the entire budget 
surplus to save the system, but the real question is how to do it.
  Finally, this amendment is complementary to Senator Roth's amendment. 
I believe the Roth amendment is an excellent one. I support it. The 
only difference is mine has the payroll tax reduction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Grams amendment. 
As he clearly says, the budget surplus should be used to, perhaps, 
establish personal savings accounts. At the same time I heard the 
Senator say we all want to save Social Security.
  If we want to save it, then we ought to pay down the debt, shore up 
Social Security, and not turn over to the private sector the 
opportunity now to engage in individual savings accounts. This is not 
the place to do it. Perhaps it ought to be considered 1 day, but this 
would completely upset the principle of saving Social Security first. 
If we are going to talk about it, then we ought to really mean it and 
put all surpluses into saving Social Security and reducing the debt. I 
think that is the proper way to go, and I hope all my colleagues vote 
against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Are the yeas and nays ordered?
  Mr. GRAMS. 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 amendment 
(No. 2222).
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
       
     Inouye
  The amendment (No. 2222) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open for amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2184

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe one of my amendments on the 
educational opportunity zones is before the Senate. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator talking about amendment No. 
2184?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the last item of President 
Clinton's education proposal. It basically provides help and assistance 
to communities for these educational opportunity grants for those 
communities in this country, both in rural and urban areas, that are 
showing a special kind of designation in reforming and rehabilitating 
their total educational package.
  This is one of the areas that has been recommended by most of the 
educational groups. It has been tried and tested in the past year and a 
half with very small, modest programs, with very substantial 
improvement in academic achievement and accomplishment.
  It does provide $1.5 billion over 5 years, and it is paid for with an 
across-the-board cut in nondefense by less than two-tenths of 1 percent 
of the budget program. I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have kept our word, and we have 
increased education spending by exactly what the President and the 
Congress decided to do last year in the Balanced Budget Act.

[[Page S3081]]

  We provide an additional $8 billion in additional discretionary 
education funding over the next 5 years. In total, we will provide 
close to $20 billion in K-12 education funding this year. That is a 98 
percent increase over the last 10 years.
  We agree with the President on the funding. However, we disagree with 
the President on how to spend the money, because the President and his 
party want to make Washington, DC, education central. Republicans want 
to decentralize education decisionmaking and put power and resources 
into the hands of the States, the localities, and the families. We 
should oppose the amendment. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. 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 
lay on the table amendment No. 2184. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2184) was agreed 
to.


                             change of vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on amendment 2184, believing it was an up-
or-down vote, I voted in the affirmative. It was a tabling motion. 
Therefore, I inadvertently voted against my intentions. I ask unanimous 
consent that my vote be switched and that I be recorded as having voted 
in the negative. It would not affect the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Who seeks time on the next 
amendment? What is the will of the Senate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that we are calling them up 
now. The Coverdell amendment is the next amendment we would like to 
call up on our side.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 1 minute.


                           Amendment No. 2262

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, amendment No. 2262, parallels the 
House-passed resolution passed unanimously this week that Congress set 
aside money for Black Hawks--$36 million. In last year's foreign 
operations spending bill the President signed this provision into law. 
But the money has not been spent. Black Hawks will work better than any 
alternative in eradicating the poppyseed that grows in Colombia. This 
poppy is used for heroin, which is becoming increasingly a problem in 
American cities.
  We have a choice. We can either fight heroin at the source, or we can 
treat the victims in our own neighborhoods. You do not win a war 
treating the wounded. Let us get serious in this drug war and pass the 
amendment.
  I attempted to come to a resolution with the good Senator from 
Vermont, but we could not reach agreement. Therefore, we will have to 
vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who seeks time in opposition? Time in opposition is running. Unless 
someone seeks time--
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am somewhat surprised by this because I 
understood I had an agreement with the Senator from Georgia. I 
understand now he does not want to follow through with that agreement. 
I have already told our side that we would not request a rollcall. I 
will stick to my agreement. We will not request one.
  But I simply say there was a better way that would not have taken the 
money away from Bolivia fighting drugs. But we will just take this 
matter up when we get to conference. I will keep to my commitment to 
the leaders not to ask for a rollcall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 2262.
  The amendment (No. 2262) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I report to the Senate, on the 
Republican side we have one amendment left, Senator Nickles; on the 
Democratic side eight. I hope you can reduce that number some so we can 
get out of here earlier than any of us expected.


                     Amendment No. 2185, withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. The next amendment to come up is Kennedy amendment No. 
2185 regarding the EEOC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 1 minute.


                           Amendment No. 2185

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the equal employment amendment calls for 
a 15% increase in the budget for the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission for the coming year. Under this amendment the EEOC's budget 
will increase from $242 million to $279 million next year.
  One of the most basic civil rights protected by current law is the 
right to equal opportunity in employment, your right to be free from 
job discrimination because of your race, your sex, your age, your 
ethnic background, your religion, or any disability you may have. This 
country has made significant progress against job discrimination, but 
we still have a long way to go to guarantee that you are hired or paid 
or promoted on the basis of your abilities. Too often, the right that 
you have on paper is not a right in reality, because your remedy is 
inadequate or non-existent.
  The EEOC has the principal responsibility to combat discrimination in 
the workplace and that responsibility has grown significantly in recent 
years. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the growing 
awareness of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, and the 
effect of downsizing on older workers have all added greatly to the 
responsibilities of the EEOC, but there has not been a commensurate 
increase in the agency's resources. The Commission's workload is 
growing and its budget must keep up, or vast numbers of Americans will 
have a meaningless right--a right without a remedy.
  In fact, EEOC funding has increased only by 5.2% over the last four 
years. That is not enough to keep up with inflation--let alone keep up 
with the agency's increased responsibilities. Without substantial new 
funding, the

[[Page S3082]]

EEOC will fall farther and farther behind in its vital work. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  The numbers tell the story. In 1990, 62,000 charges of discrimination 
were filed by employees in the private sector. That number increased to 
81,000 in 1997, an increase of almost 30%. Ninety percent of the 
Commission's budget is allocated for fixed costs, with the vast 
majority--75%--going to salary and benefits. When its budget doesn't 
keep pace with inflation, the Commission must get along with fewer 
investigators and attorneys. As a result, although the workload has 
increased, the size of the staff has fallen. The number of employees 
declined from 2800 employees in 1993 to 2600 employees in 1997. Since 
1980, the number of employees has dropped by 23%. Think about that--
mushrooming responsibilities, declining resources. That's an invitation 
to employers to think they can get away with discrimination in the 
workplace.
  The agency has tried to hold the line, but there is a limit to doing 
more with less. The Commission urgently needs this budget increase, and 
I want the Senate to approve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who rises in opposition?
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment requests that the 
functional total in this budget that we assume in the EEOC should 
receive $279 million in budget authority. This is the level requested 
by the President. The amendment would raise a freeze baseline we assume 
by $37 million.
  From my standpoint, ultimately the Appropriations Committee will 
determine between a freeze and a $37 million reduction, but if the 
Senator insists on this, then I have to move to table and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  I think you are just as apt to get the money without the amendment as 
you are with it, because it will be up to, incidentally, the man 
sitting in the chair, coupled with a couple of other Senators, which of 
the two levels will be funded. There is plenty of money for them to go 
either way.
  Having said that, I urge you to withdraw your amendment. We stated 
the case here, but if you would like to vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If we could have 2 minutes and maybe save ourselves 
time.
  I ask unanimous consent to inquire of the manager, would we have the 
assurance of the chairman that he would bite for the higher amount? Is 
that what I understand the Senator is saying?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let's make sure we understand, I am not chairman at 
that point. In my capacity as a Senator, I agree that I will do 
everything I can in that regard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. To get the amount.
  That makes a good deal of sense to me.
  Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2185) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2188

  Mr. DOMENICI. Is Senator Wellstone ready?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, colleagues.
  The veterans' health care--some background--is funded by two sources: 
appropriations and a supplemental fund called the MCCR. The President's 
budget cut veterans' health care appropriations by $29 million, and the 
estimate is that the MCCR fund will generate $10 million less--a 
conservative estimate; CBO says much more than that.
  This sense-of-the-Senate amendment simply puts that $40 million back. 
It makes the budget whole, takes it to last year's level. I hope there 
will be a strong vote for this. This is a vote to restore the funding 
and to make the veterans' health care system whole, at least as good as 
it was last year. We ought not to be cutting veterans' health care 
benefits. I hope I get an overwhelmingly positive vote on this.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone, if you will look at 
the budget, what we recommended is precisely what you are saying in 
your sense of the Senate. We reinstated $153 million in veterans' 
programs that the President had cut. Your amendment would be totally 
redundant.
  I think what we could agree to here is that the amendment provides 
for an assumption that increases the level to the exact level you have 
recommended in your sense of the Senate. Thus, I don't think we need a 
sense of the Senate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague my reading of it is different; 
otherwise, I would not have done the amendment. If you are right, there 
is no harm in a strong vote on this.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we voice vote it?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to have a recorded vote on it, but I 
assume, based upon the reaction, that there is overwhelming support for 
this amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is overwhelming support for the budget 
resolution, which does the same thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let's have a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2188) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We really roll when everybody is sitting in their 
chair.


                           Amendment No. 2206

  Mr. DOMENICI. Next is Senator Reid on amendment No. 2206.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment that has been offered by 
Senator Reid and Senator Bryan is supported by all environmental groups 
in the country. It is supported by the Counsel for Environmental 
Quality and the Secretary of the Interior. The Endangered Species Act 
is an important act. We have worked very hard to come up with a 
compromise. We must have a source of funding that is realistic. This is 
not. This is a quick fix that will fail just as quickly. It is 
unrealistic to sell public lands basically from the State of Nevada for 
a national project.
  The amendment we have offered says that the landowner, instead of 
programs included in the Endangered Species Recovery Act, should be 
financed from a dedicated source of funding, and the public lands 
should not be sold to fund the Landowner Incentive Program of the 
Endangered Species Recovery Act.
  This amendment should be passed. It is the fair thing to do.
  Mr. BRYAN. I rise today in support of the Reid/Bryan amendment which 
expresses the sense of the Senate that Federal public lands should not 
be sold to fund the landowner incentive program of the Endangered 
Species Recovery Act.
  As some of my colleagues are aware, the budget resolution before us 
today assumes the landowner incentive program of the Endangered Species 
Recovery Act will be enacted. The landowner incentive program includes 
habitat reserve agreements, safe harbor agreements, habitat 
conservation plans, and recovery plan implementation agreements within 
the Act. The report accompanying the budget resolution calls for 
funding for these programs to be made available ``from the gross 
receipts realized in the sales of excess BLM land, provided that BLM 
has sufficient administrative funds to conduct such sales.''
  Mr. President, this proposal is a short-sighted attempt to find a 
solution to a very legitimate issue. I support efforts to find a 
sustainable funding mechanism to provide incentives to landowners to 
undertake conservation measures that are necessary for the protection 
and recovery of threatened and endangered species. The problem with the 
proposal before us today is that it fails to establish a reliable 
source of funding. The one-time sales of BLM lands cannot be expected 
to provide a revenue source for habitat conservation plans and other 
landowner incentive programs that are designed to last for 50 years or 
longer. This proposal is a classic example of selling a capital asset 
to pay for operation and maintenance costs. In my opinion, it 
represents the utmost in fiscal irresponsibility.
  In addition, this proposal would set a dangerous precedent regarding 
the management of our public lands by threatening the public land base 
available to future generations of Americans. Currently, the land 
disposal

[[Page S3083]]

method favored the BLM involves land exchanges. This process allows the 
BLM to dispose of land it no longer needs in exchange for land that is 
worthy of public ownership. The land exchange process allows the BLM to 
trade an asset it no longer deems desirable for one that it does. 
Ironically, the BLM often uses land exchanges as a means of acquiring 
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. By disrupting 
the land exchange process, the land sale proposal in this resolution 
could actually weaken the federal government's ability to acquire 
private, environmentally sensitive land that rightfully belongs in 
public ownership.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned with this proposal because it 
would effectively eviscerate another piece of legislation that I have 
sponsored concerning the BLM land disposal process in Southern Nevada. 
It is no secret that the public lands that this budget resolution 
contemplates being sold are those BLM lands in the Las Vegas valley. I 
have worked closely with Senator Reid and our House delegation for the 
last three years to develop the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 
Act, which provides local governments in southern Nevada with more 
input into the BLM land exchange and land sale process. Over the last 
several years, BLM land exchanges have contributed significantly to 
growth and development in the Las Vegas valley. My legislation would 
allow local governments and the BLM to work more closely together in 
managing growth in the valley. The land sale proposal in this budget 
resolution would destroy the ability of the Las Vegas community to have 
a voice in the BLM land sale process as envisioned under my 
legislation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Reid/Bryan amendment and 
to reject the irresponsible sell off of our public lands as contained 
in this budget resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the minute we have to Senator Chafee.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I will take 30 seconds, and the Senator from Idaho will 
take 30 seconds.
  More than half of all the endangered species in the United States are 
in private lands. In the Endangered Species Reauthorization Act, we put 
in moneys, we provide for assistance to private landowners, most of 
them small landowners. We do that.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee provided that if any BLM lands 
are sold--if they are sold, those moneys, instead of going into the 
general treasury, will be used for the Endangered Species Act to help 
landowners, mostly small landowners.


                Amendment No. 2285 to Amendment No. 2206

   (Purpose: To recognize potential alternative funding sources for 
    landowner incentives under the Endangered Species Recovery Act)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2285 to amendment No. 2206.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. FORD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       An amendment in the Second Degree to the Reid Amendment.
       At the end of subsection (b)(2), strike ``Act.'' and insert 
     the following:
       ``Act through their proceeds alone, if subsequent 
     legislation provides an alternative or mixed, dedicated 
     source of mandatory funding.''

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I want to acknowledge the great work that the Senator 
from Nevada has done on the Endangered Species Act, along with the 
Senator from Montana and the chairman from Rhode Island.
  This is not a question of whether we should sell excess BLM lands; it 
is taking place; it is a question of where the revenues should be 
utilized.
  The Budget Committee--and I thank the chairman--came up with a 
revenue source that finally we could compensate landowners who 
voluntarily stepped forward so we could have an incentive to help 
species and to help property owners.
  Now the effect of the second-degree is to say that rather than 
foreclose the use of that excess land revenue, we will continue to look 
at all different sources of revenue so that we can come up with ways 
that we can make good on our pledge, and that is, property owners 
should be compensated when they come forward and help us save species.
  This is good for species, good for people, and it keeps all options 
open.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I acknowledge the good work of the Senator 
from Idaho, the Senator from Rhode Island, and certainly the ranking 
member of the full committee in coming up with a compromise. However, 
the amendment that I have, the underlying amendment, does everything 
they say it should do, except their amendment will still allow Western 
lands to be sold at a fire sale to provide a quick fix for the 
Endangered Species Act. We do not need a quick fix; we need a dedicated 
source of funding.
  Mr. D'AMATO. 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 amendment No. 
2285. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     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

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 2285) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2206

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the underlying amendment 
No. 2206.
  The amendment (No. 2206) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2257

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the next amendment will be one from our 
side. It is our last amendment, which Senator Nickles has. It is No. 
2257.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

[[Page S3084]]

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by myself 
and Senator Murkowski. The net effect of it would be that if we are 
dealing with the budget process and the so-called wish list amendments, 
the sense of the Senate and sense of Congress would basically be ruled 
out of order. My amendment would instruct the Chair to make precatory 
amendments not germane to the budget resolution. That means you would 
need 60 votes to pass it. At one point, we had 100 amendments, and over 
two-thirds of them were precatory amendments; they were wishes. The 
word precatory means to wish. That doesn't change the budget 
resolution, and it wastes a lot of time. It means that, yes, we have 
some kind of sparring back and forth. I don't know how many votes we 
have had in the last couple of days, two-thirds of them have been sense 
of the Senate or sense of the Congress. And, really, they will have 
very little impact on the budget process. I think they have made the 
Senate look bad in the process.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I am not going to 
request the yeas and nays unless it is necessary. I think this would 
help us do our business in a much more orderly and efficient manner.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I recognize the fact that the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has sent up a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution to prohibit sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. This amendment 
would prohibit those sense-of-the-Senate resolutions----
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, this is a concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then I owe the Senator an apology. I will start all 
over. I don't call attention to the fact that he has sent a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution to the desk.
  This amendment, however, Mr. President, would prohibit any Member of 
the Senate from offering a sense of the Senate or sense of the Congress 
amendment to a budget resolution. The budget resolution already places 
serious restrictions on minority participation. This is how we get 
there. When you are on this side next year, you will know how it feels 
to be in the minority and you will have an opportunity to amend things 
that you don't see.
  I, frankly, don't see a lot of harm in it. It takes time, yes, but it 
gives a chance for an exchange of ideas that I think is important.
  I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order, and I 
tell my colleague that you can still pass sense-of-the-Congress 
resolutions with 60 votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
point of order.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any Senators wishing to vote or to 
change their vote?
  The clerk will report.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, how am I recorded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is reported as a 
negative. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how am I recorded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is reported as 
negative.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Regular order.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 60----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President. You can't do that there, come on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 60 and the nays are 38.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how am I recorded?
  Mr. SARBANES. No, no, no, no, no.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SARBANES. Not when someone is seeking recognition here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is ruling the reporting of the vote 
can occur and the yeas are 60----
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And the nays are 38.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. I object.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will renew my request. I ask unanimous 
consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Durbin be recognized to switch his vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                              Vote Change

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, no. I ask unanimous consent that my vote 
be changed to no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Are we waiting for the vote to be turned in?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are waiting for the vote to be reported.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 
39, and the motion to waive is not sustained.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

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

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was rejected.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Nickles for the magnanimous 
gesture he just made. However, I want to emphasize we are trying to 
move these votes, and the Chair was absolutely right, because it is up 
to the discretion of the Chair to respond when Members ask how they are 
recorded, but also when regular order is called for, especially when we 
are trying to move through all these votes, the Chair is under an 
obligation to bring this to a conclusion.
  I think we had the right resolution here, but I want to make sure 
everybody understands, we are trying to move these votes through. We 
are trying to get to a conclusion, and that brings me to my next point.
  It is 5 after 9. We still have, it looks like, as many as five 
amendments that

[[Page S3085]]

we may have to vote on. I urge Senators, if they are planning on 
calling up those amendments, to see if we can't work out something 
where maybe some of them can be accepted or not offered and that we not 
go through the process of having second-degree amendments offered at 
this point.
  If we can do that, we can finish this within this hour, by 10 
o'clock. I thank Senator Reid and others for the work they have been 
doing in trying to help pare down the list. We are very close now, and 
I think it important we not lose the decorum we have exercised through 
a long day. I thank my colleagues for that.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also want to acknowledge the efforts 
made by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, in 
resolving this minor problem. I appreciate very much his efforts to do 
what he did. I will say, however, that we have been working in good 
faith on both sides to try to move this along. Regular order is called, 
but also Senators deserve the right to be recognized when they seek 
recognition for purposes of clarification of their vote, so there is a 
need to be sensitive on both sides in a request of the Chair. I know 
that the Chair was accommodating or attempting to accommodate Senators.
  I also join with the majority leader in asking the five remaining 
authors to work with us to see if we might reduce the number of 
rollcalls necessary. We are very close now, and I thank my colleagues 
on this side for cooperating thus far. Let's see if we can get it down 
to a couple, fewer than what we have right now. We can finish this 
within the hour, and I hope we can receive just a little more 
cooperation to make that happen. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2216

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2216.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2216 is the pending amendment. 
The Senator from Washington is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, my amendment increases Function 500 budget authority 
and outlays to include the President's education initiatives, and adds 
the Resolution level for IDEA. The offset is a Function 920 across-the-
board reduction of less than one percent, taken from non-defense 
discretionary funds.
  The President's budget request only included a level of $35 million 
for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (I.D.E.A). To 
get the Federal Government back on track toward its responsibility to 
cover 40 percent of the cost of educating special education students at 
the local level, significant increases are necessary.
  The Resolution level in fiscal year 99 for Function 500 is $500 
million below a freeze. It does not provide enough funding for the 
important education initiatives requested by the President and 
supported by the American public: Continuing investments in education 
technology, including teacher training reflecting my Teacher Technology 
Training Act; creation of education empowerment zones; appropriations 
for Minority Teacher Recruitment; funding for the 21st Century Learning 
Centers; appropriations for Children's Literacy and Work Study; 
increases for Title I funding; an increase in the maximum Pell Grant; 
and increased funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
  My amendment makes education a higher priority within the construct 
of a balanced budget. I must point out that even with my amendment, the 
President and the Budget Committee have left other critical educational 
services unfunded. But by passing this amendment, we will take steps to 
stop the cuts to education, and get on the road toward results for 
American students.
  Mr. President, the American people believe education should be a 
higher priority than its current 1.8 percent of total Federal outlays. 
They see the need to improve the quality of every Federal education 
program, minimize red tape, improve efficiency, and create 
collaboration. But, they also see our Nation facing increased 
enrollments, a teacher corps nearing retirement, and other factors 
which increase the overall need for education funding at this critical 
point in our history. The American people see that education must 
become a higher priority in our national budget.
  Unfortunately, this budget fails to meet the education needs of 
America. It does not invest in the future. It cuts from services that 
are helping students in schools today. This budget resolution places 
America at a crossroads--and it takes us down the wrong road. A vote 
for the Murray amendment is a vote that honors our commitment to fund 
40 percent of the cost of special education funding, but doesn't try to 
pit students against one another over limited federal dollars. We need 
to invest in the future, and we need a budget that reflects America's 
priorities.
  Mr. President, when looking at the budget resolution as it came from 
the Committee, I think we need to ask ``what do the assumptions in the 
Republican budget resolution leave out?'' The answers are disturbing.
  Within Function 500, for sub-function 501 (Elementary and Secondary 
Education), Chairman Domenici's Committee resolution starts with a 
freeze.
  The resolution then adds $2.5 billion for funding for the Individuals 
with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), and $6.3 billion for Title 
VI School Reform efforts, for a total of $8.8 billion over 5 years.
  From this amount, the majority then assumes that $2.2 billion will be 
saved through consolidation of current educational services, leaving 
their overall add to a freeze at $6.6 billion.
  Mr. President, another important question now arises: Which important 
priorities of the American people were left out when the majority 
ignored the President's new initiatives?
  The only education programs explicitly left unfunded by the 
discretionary Republican budget resolution are the President's new 
initiatives (such as educational empowerment zones; teacher technology 
training; the new transition to school program; community-based 
technology centers; and Safe and Drug-Free Schools coordinators). These 
programs total $2.4 billion.
  When added to the $7.3 billion in mandatory spending for class size 
reduction, the total President's request level for new sub-function 501 
funds is $9.7 billion over a freeze.
  Because the Republicans assume $2.2 billion in consolidation, we need 
to ask another question: Which current programs will be cut under their 
$2.2 billion consolidation proposal?
  This list could include any discretionary elementary and secondary 
education program, such as:
  Title I Education for the Disadvantaged (including reading and math 
assistance for needy students; Even Start; Migrant Education; services 
for neglected and delinquent students; and others.)
  America Reads Children's Literacy
  Eisenhower Professional Development
  Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
  Magnet Schools
  Education for Homeless Children and Youth
  Inexpensive Book Distribution
  Bilingual Education
  Goals 2000
  Arts in Education
  Women's Educational Equity
  School-to-Work
  Vocational Education
  The American people will remember that last year, during debates on 
consolidation and block granting, proponents of block-granting federal 
education funds proclaimed that by eliminating bureaucracy under block-
granting, school districts would actually have more money to spend, not 
less. Hold-harmless provisions were discussed, which would purportedly 
assure that school districts would not see funding cuts.
  But we had all heard this kind of talk before, from those who start 
by ``consolidating,'' and then take the next step to ``downsizing.'' 
Too often a block-grant equals a cut, and our school communities know 
it.
  We were told that the fundamental philosophical question was whether 
or not we believed that individual school districts and parents and 
teachers know best how to handle education in their own communities, or 
whether we

[[Page S3086]]

believed those fundamental decisions are best left to bureaucrats in 
Washington, D.C.
  I think the fundamental question is rather when certain people in 
positions of authority in Washington D.C. are going to listen to their 
state and local governments and the people. This is a time of 
incredible renewal in education. Republicans, Democrats and 
Independents in my state of Washington and other states are on a 
serious, measurable road to school improvement.
  From school report cards, to higher standards, to increased family 
and community involvement--improvement is happening, accountability is 
present, and students and their parents are seeing results. At a 
minimum, there is a fundamental discussion about educational 
improvement going on in every community in my state. When federal 
consolidation is tied to questions of ``who knows best,'' I think those 
who do know best, the parents, teachers, students, and community 
leaders like those in my state have reason to feel betrayed.
  Because money does matter. Yes, we need to consolidate services where 
it has an educational goal. Yes, the federal government works best when 
it creates red tape least--but Americans interested in improving 
education already have venues to make these changes. And these 
discussions--such as the one that will occur during the 1999 rewrite of 
federal elementary and secondary education programs--respect the 
knowledge and experience of those who actually learn with or work with 
federal education services.
  But when the Congress ignores needed investments to improve school 
facilities and improve the quality of school personnel--then uses 
block-grants as cover for education cuts--local communities have reason 
to feel betrayed.
  So, my hope is that those who want to improve the federal 
government's efforts to help students learn, and who see consolidation 
as a vehicle toward this end, will work with local school communities. 
My hope is that they will work with those of us who have experience in 
education. My hope is that we can work together to find results for 
students.
  Because when the Congressional majority begins to pay attention to 
the appropriate federal role in school improvement, that is a positive 
step. Now that the discussion is joined, however, it must be 
productive, bipartisan, and aimed at efforts that will work.
  When we look at this budget resolution, we also need to ask ``what do 
the assumptions in the President's budget request leave out?''
  The President's budget request assumes less than sufficient funding 
(less than current-services funding, or complete terminations) for, 
among others:
  Impact Aid (Construction and payments for Federal Property)
  State Student Incentive Grant
  Innovative Education Program Strategies
  Ellender Fellowships
  Literacy Programs for Prisoners
  Urban Community Service
  National Early Intervention Scholarships and Partnerships
  State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders
  In addition, the President's budget includes only $35 million for 
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act over a 
freeze annually. My amendment would meet the $500 million increase per 
year in Sen. Domenici's Committee reported resolution ($465 million 
over the President's level). For too long, the Congress has not met its 
obligation to pay 40 percent of the costs of educating each special 
education student.
  Education, especially public education, is near and dear to the 
American people. Although the challenges are great, there are 
productive discussions happening in public schools across the country. 
Local people are making decisions that are producing results for 
students. We know we need to expect more from our schools than folks 
did in the past. We know we have an economy and a society full of new 
demands. Regardless of political persuasion, ethnicity, income, age, or 
any other dividing line one might find--all Americans want students to 
succeed. And there is broad recognition that we should do more, not 
less. More to improve the quality of our schools. And more to make 
education a higher priority in the federal budget. I urge adoption of 
the Murray amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters regarding 
education funding be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                               American Federation of Teachers

                                                    April 1, 1998.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of over 950,000 members of the 
     American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge you to oppose 
     the FY 1999 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, S. Con. Res. 
     86, unless changes are incorporated to rectify the following 
     shortfalls.
       Although the budget resolution assumes a $2.5 billion 
     increase for IDEA over five years, a $500 million increase in 
     FY 1999, total discretionary spending in Function 500 
     reflects only a $600 million increase over FY 1998. This 
     level is $1.6 billion below the President's budget and $1 
     billion below the amount needed to maintain current program 
     levels in education, job training, and social services.
       This budget resolution should include funding for the 
     President's initiatives in class size reduction and for 
     school construction. The President requested $1.1 billion to 
     recruit and train 100,000 new teachers over the next seven 
     years in order to reduce class size to an average of 18 in 
     grades 1-3, when children need the most help in learning to 
     read proficiently and mastering the basics. The AFT also 
     supports he President's proposal for more than $20 billion in 
     interest-free bonds for school construction. An estimated 
     one-third of all schools need extensive repairs and new 
     academic facilities are needed to serve the booming 
     enrollments in elementary and secondary schools. Instead, the 
     budget resolution assumes a $6.3 billion increase, $522 
     million in FY 1999, for Title VI Innovative Program 
     Strategies, an education block grant program, while assuming 
     an estimated $2.2 billion in savings from unspecified 
     consolidation of elementary and secondary education programs.
       In addition, the AFT opposes savings assumed in 
     discretionary spending resulting from repealing Davis-Bacon 
     and the Service Contract Act beginning in the year 2000. The 
     AFT also opposes the citing of S. 1133, The ``Parent and 
     Student Savings Account Plus,'' as an illustration of tax 
     relief, which would expand the use of Education IRAs to 
     include private and religious school tuition for elementary 
     and secondary students.
       For these reasons, I urge you to oppose S. Con. Res. 86 
     unless amendments are adopted to address these concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gerald D. Morris,
     Director of Legislation.
                                  ____



                                                        NAPSEC

                                                   March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murray: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Private Schools for Exceptional Children (NAPSEC), an 
     association that represents over 900 private special 
     education schools for children with disabilities across the 
     nation both nationally and through its Council of Affiliated 
     State Associations, I urge you to oppose the FY 99 Budget 
     Resolution when it is considered by the Senate.
       Although the resolution adds a billion dollars for special 
     education programs and Title VI innovative education 
     strategies programs, the resolution provides only $600 
     million more for all education and related programs. The 
     resolution would fund education programs at $1.1 billion 
     below current service levels. Programs like Head Start, Title 
     I, Pell Grants, and other education programs would have to be 
     cut or frozen to make up the difference.
       This action appears totally inappropriate considering the 
     new challenges facing America's education system--rising 
     enrollments at all levels, more students with special needs, 
     growing teacher shortages, unsafe, overcrowding, and decaying 
     schools, just to name a few.
       Recent polls ranked increasing federal funding for 
     education ahead of health care, reducing national debt, tax 
     cuts, crime, and defense. I urge you to represent this 
     priority by supporting a bipartisan budget resolution that 
     makes increased investments in education. I also ask you to 
     support the amendments that are offered that would increase 
     funding for education.
       Thank you for considering our request.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Sherry L. Kolbe,
     Executive Director & CEO.
                                  ____



                                                         NSBA,

                                                   March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murray: The National School Boards 
     Association, representing 95,000 school board members through 
     its federation of 53 states and territories, urges you to 
     make education your first priority and to oppose the FY 1999 
     Budget Resolution reported from the Senate Budget Committee 
     last week because of its inadequate levels of funding for 
     education.
       The Senate Budget Committee's resolution is more than $1 
     billion below current services for discretionary spending in 
     Function 500,

[[Page S3087]]

     which includes education and related programs and is $1.6 
     billion below the President's request. While recommending a 
     billion dollars more for special education and the Title VI 
     innovative education strategies programs, the FY 1999 Budget 
     Resolution provides only $600 million more for all education 
     and training programs. Programs like Title I, Impact Aid, and 
     charter schools would have to be cut or frozen to make up the 
     difference.
       In contrast, the FY 1999 Budget Resolution allocates 
     increases for health and transportation over the next five 
     years that are $20 billion and $30 billion higher, 
     respectively, than the levels approved in last year's budget 
     agreement. This increase will put further pressure on funding 
     levels for education and other domestic programs.
       Finally, the FY 1999 Budget Resolution also rejects 
     creating new revenue streams for education such as tax 
     incentives to encourage school construction and mandatory 
     spending for new initiatives proposed by President Clinton.
       When looked at as a totality, the FY 1999 Budget Resolution 
     will result in cuts below the current level of services for 
     education at a time when America's educational system is 
     facing new challenges at the start of the 21st century.
       Education is America's best investment. Education will 
     continue to fuel a growing economy that is able to compete in 
     world markets; provide the job-ready labor force that will 
     contribute to the stability of the Social Security system; 
     give all Americans the opportunity to achieve a higher 
     standard of living for themselves and their families; and 
     allow the United States to maintain its strong leadership 
     role in the world. Last year, Congress and the Administration 
     worked together to provides a substantial increase in the 
     investment in higher education. This year, several important 
     investments for elementary and secondary education have been 
     targeted, and it is vitally important for our nation's 
     schoolchildren that we make a commitment to fund them. Our 
     nation's schools face unprecedented challenges: exploding 
     enrollments; dramatic increases in students with special 
     needs; overcrowded, inadequate, and unsafe school buildings; 
     high demands for costly, new technology; and the commitment 
     to reach high standards for all students. To meet the current 
     challenges for elementary and secondary education, the 
     federal government needs to expand its financial commitment 
     to education funding, state and local funding cannot meet the 
     expanded demands and expectations for our schools.
       We hope to work with you to ensure a significant federal 
     funding of the American public's top priority--education. We 
     hope the year will not begin with a debate about cutting the 
     federal investment in elementary and secondary education.
       If you have any further questions about this issue, please 
     call Laurie A. Westley, assistant executive director, at 703-
     838-6703.
           Sincerely,
                                                William B. Ingram,
                                                        President.
                                                   Anne L. Bryant,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               Committee for Education Funding

                                                   March 23, 1998.
     Re: Oppose FY99 Budget Resolution That Falls Short of 
         America's Education Investment Needs
       Dear Senator, The Committee for Education Funding, a 
     nonpartisan coalition of over 90 education organizations 
     reflecting the broad spectrum of the education community, 
     urges you to oppose the FY99 Budget Resolution reported out 
     by the Senate Budget Committee on March 18, 1998 because of 
     its inadequate funding levels for education.
       The Senate Budget Committee's Resolution is over $1 billion 
     below current services levels for discretionary spending in 
     Function 500, which includes education and related programs, 
     and is $1.6 billion below the President's request. While 
     recommending a billion dollars more for special education and 
     the Title VI innovative education strategies programs, the 
     resolution provides only $600 million more for all education 
     and related programs. Programs like Head Start, Title I, Pell 
     grants, or other education and related programs would have to 
     be cut or frozen to make up the difference.
       In contrast, the resolution allocates increases for health 
     and transportation over the next five years that are $20 
     billion and $30 billion higher, respectively, than the levels 
     approved in last year's budget agreement. These increases, 
     while much needed, will put further pressure on funding 
     levels for other domestic programs like education.
       The budget resolution also rejects creating critical new 
     revenue streams for education such as mandatory spending to 
     reduce class size and tax incentives to encourage school 
     construction as proposed in the President's budget.
       Taken all together, this budget resolution is likely to 
     result in cuts below current service levels for education at 
     a time when America's educational system is facing new 
     challenges at the start of the 21st century. These include 
     rising enrollments at all levels; more students with special 
     needs; growing teacher shortages and professional development 
     needs; unsafe, overcrowded and outdated school facilities; 
     access to rapidly advancing educational technology; and 
     continuing access to postsecondary education for low income 
     students.
       Recent polls ranked increased federal funding for education 
     ahead of health care, reducing national debt, tax cuts, crime 
     and defense (Greenberg-Guinlan and the Tarrance Group, 
     January 1998). We urge you to support a bipartisan budget 
     resolution that makes increased investment in education the 
     top budget priority to meet the growing needs of America's 
     students and secure America's future. We also urge you to 
     support amendments to the budget resolution that would 
     increase funding for education.
           Sincerely,
                                             Kenneth G. McInerney,
                                                        President.
                                                  Edward R. Kealy,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                 National PTA,

                                                   March 16, 1998.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murray: The National PTA urges you to include 
     education as a top funding priority in the FY 1999 budget 
     resolution you are about to consider. There are thousands of 
     excellent public schools in this country, but too many others 
     lack the resources they need to provide a quality education 
     for all children. These schools face formidable challenges, 
     which include record-high student enrollments, an increase in 
     the number of children with disabilities, a growing need for 
     new and qualified teachers, extensive and expensive 
     technology needs, and school facilities in desperate need of 
     expansion and renovation. An increased federal financial 
     investment is needed to address these national concerns.
       For the past two years, Congress has increased federal 
     funding for education, and National PTA supports this 
     leadership. National PTA now urges lawmakers to continue this 
     positive trend to assure that the benefits of this investment 
     are long-lasting. Even with the recent spending growth, none 
     of the major elementary and secondary education programs 
     designed to expand educational opportunity or improve 
     achievement is funded near the level needed to serve all who 
     are eligible.
       As you develop the FY 1999 Senate Budget Resolution, 
     National PTA asks that you include an increase for 
     discretionary education and children's programs sufficient to 
     allow funding for new initiatives and increases in vital 
     existing programs like Title I, IDEA, and Impact Aid. We also 
     urge you to include in the budget an accommodation for new 
     sources of funding for education, such as an infrastructure 
     tax credit or mandatory education programs to reform schools 
     and increase student learning.
       Now is an excellent time to strengthen the federal 
     investment in successful and cost-effective education 
     programs. The nation's economic health is robust. The 
     president's budget request is balanced and projects growing 
     surpluses for at least the next ten years. Many vital 
     interests will compete for discretionary funds this year, but 
     investing in education is one of the best ways to assure that 
     the national economy continues to prosper, and the stability 
     of the Social Security system is strengthened.
       We look forward to working with Congress to secure much-
     needed resources to improve the quality of public schools and 
     to invest now for America's future.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Shirley Igo,
     Vice President for Legislation.
                                  ____

  Mr. President, I request the yeas and the nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I didn't want to interrupt, but some of 
us are having a little difficulty hearing even when there is quiet. 
Maybe Senators could make sure they are talking into the mike.
  I didn't hear much of what Senator Murray said. But, Mr. President, 
let me say what I understand this amendment does. It asks for a $2.5 
billion increase in education for special ed. It doesn't say where the 
money comes from, but it comes from somewhere in the budget.
  The Republican budget before us asks $2.5 billion more for special ed 
than the President of the United States asked for. As a matter of fact, 
the President, after committing to dramatically increase special ed, 
increased it $38 million while we increase it $2.5 billion. We said 
where we took the money so that it is doable. This one does not even 
indicate what programs in the Government would be cut to pay for this. 
I don't believe this is the way we ought to do business here, and if 
the time has been yielded back, I yield mine. I move to table the 
Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S3088]]

  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 
lay on the table amendment No. 2216. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and 
voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), would vote 
``yea.''
  Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     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

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2216) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is 
amendment No. 2220 by Senator Biden.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 2220

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, recognizing reality and the hour, I am 
going to tell you what my amendment was going to be, and then I will 
withdraw it. This amendment was to see to it that the moneys from the 
tobacco settlement, if any, could have been used for VA health care, as 
well as Medicare. But looking at that lineup, I understand the outcome, 
and so I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2220) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The next amendment is the Feingold amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2224

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to establish a 
narrowly focused, deficit-neutral reserve fund to help people with 
disabilities become employed and remain independent. While it does not 
specify a specific proposal, I want it to be clear that we have crafted 
this reserve fund with a very specific measure in mind, and that is the 
bipartisan Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1998, S. 1858, which was 
developed under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Jeffords.
  We truly offer people with disabilities a chance to leave the 
disability rolls and become self-sufficient taxpayers. If just 1 
percent of the 7.5 million Americans with disabilities become 
successfully employed, it is estimated it will save, in cash assistance 
alone, over $3.5 billion. So I urge the body to support this narrowly 
targeted, capped, deficit-neutral reserve fund.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Feingold 
in his amendment to create a disability reserve fund to allow people 
with disabilities to become employed and remain independent. The 
amendment would ensure that the budget resolution incorporates the 
flexibility to allow offsets for the bipartisan Work Incentive 
Improvement Act of 1998. This bill allows people with disabilities to 
become employed and remain independent, by providing more affordable 
and accessible health care.
  Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is 
enjoying today, persons with disabilities continue to struggle to live 
independently and become fully contributing members of their 
communities. Of the 54 million disabled people in this country, many 
have the capacity to work and want to become productive citizens, but 
they are unable to do so because they are afraid of losing their health 
care.
  Today, 7.5 million disabled Americans depend on public assistance. 
The cost to the taxpayer is $73 billion annually and will continue to 
increase at 6% a year. If we can support just one percent of the these 
7.5 million individuals to become successfully employed, savings in 
cash assistance would total $3.5 billion over the work lives of these 
individuals.
  Senator Feingold's amendment creates a narrowly targeted reserve 
fund, which allows savings or revenues from various sources to be used 
to offset the costs associated with this proposal. The reserve fund is 
limited in the total spending it permits for this specific purpose, and 
is permissive--it allows the Senate leadership to use savings from 
unrelated areas to be dedicated to support disabled people to become 
employed. Work is a central part of the American dream, and it is time 
for this Congress to support our disabled citizens in achieving that 
dream.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, the amendment violates the 
Budget Act. This sets up a new reserve fund to create a new entitlement 
for disabled people. It permits the raising of taxes in order to pay 
for it, and in every respect it violates the Budget Act. I do not think 
I have to say much more.
  We have denied any new reserve fund where specific revenues or 
resources have not been allocated. That is the case here. We think we 
have adequately taken care of the disabled under our budget. In many 
cases, we have done more than what the President has done. So with 
that, I make a point of order that the amendment is not in order under 
the Budget Act.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act as to the 
pending amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? 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 waive the 
Budget Act as to the amendment No. 2224. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms), would vote ``no.''
  Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      (Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.)

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe

[[Page S3089]]


     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 47, and the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not agreed to. 
The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 2234

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have just two amendments that require 
votes, but we have finally agreed on the Boxer amendment and there will 
not be a second-degree amendment. I ask that amendment No. 2234 be 
called up. This will be voice voted. It is already understood if the 
Republicans say ``no'' loud enough, you will win.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his many 
courtesies throughout the evening. I would have appreciated one more 
courtesy, which would have been accepting the amendment. I want to say 
to my colleagues that I urge a strong voice vote on this side. There 
isn't one penny of tobacco money in the budget resolution going for NIH 
research, and nothing for cancer research. So I hope you will give me a 
strong aye voice vote, even though I think the result is predetermined 
because I think with all the people getting cancer caused from 
cigarettes, it makes sense to use the reserve fund from the tobacco 
settlement for NIH funding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2234) was rejected.


                           amendment No. 2230

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator John 
Kerry's amendment No. 2230.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my amendment is subject to a budget point 
of order. Since that is the same 60 votes that it will require to 
accomplish this later, I am not going to ask my colleagues to make that 
vote tonight. What I would ask is that my colleagues, during the break, 
think about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of where we are 
currently allocating tobacco funds.
  The entire purpose of the tobacco legislation is directed at stopping 
kids from smoking. Yet, that is going to require funding for various 
things, such as research and compliance. We need to assist the tobacco 
farmers. There are clearly a set of priorities for where tobacco money 
should go. I hope when we come back and take up the Commerce Committee 
bill, we will find it in ourselves to adopt those appropriate 
priorities.
  I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we thank the Senator for doing that.
  Senator Robb is the last amendment that I think we have to have a 
vote on.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator mind me asking to put 
a couple things in the Record.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2232

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2232.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2232 is now the pending 
business.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I regret very much that I am not in a 
position to do as my two previous colleagues have done because we have 
a bit of a dilemma for tobacco farmers. Everyone who has proposed 
legislation to include the legislation reported out of the Commerce 
Committee yesterday by a vote of 19-1 makes provisions for tobacco 
farmers in terms of transition.
  The tobacco reserve fund, however, has been wisely fenced off by the 
chairman of the Budget Committee so that it might not be raided by 
those of us who might have other spending plans. But the only source of 
payment for any of the plans that have been proposed or considered is 
going to be the money that comes into that particular fund.
  This amendment would simply make available that particular funding, 
along with Medicare, to fund any of the tobacco provisions that might 
otherwise bring down tobacco legislation for the tobacco farmers.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Everybody should recall that the Republican budget says 
unless and until the Congress of the United States produces legislation 
with 60 votes that does otherwise, we allocate whatever Federal moneys 
we receive from any cigarette settlement to the Medicare fund, which is 
the fund most entitled to it because it's the fund that is most abused 
by smoking--$25 billion a year.
  So what we have now is an attempt to say, no, let's change it just a 
little bit, let's add another use to that fund. I don't believe we 
should do that.
  I make a point of order that this amendment violates the Budget Act 
because it is not germane.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order, and 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 the motion to waive the 
Budget Act.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--67

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 2232) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 31, the nays are 67. 
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.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just say there are no more 
amendments that we have to have rollcall votes on before final passage. 
I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask we agree to vote--to have a voice 
vote en bloc on the amendments that are on the list that I sent to the 
desk. I send that to the desk now. It is the list that we submitted 
which starts with No. 2271 and ends with No. 2252. I ask unanimous 
consent that those amendments

[[Page S3090]]

be voted en bloc, and that they be voice voted. There is an expectation 
that the ayes will prevail here. I call that to the attention of the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.


Vote On Amendments Nos. 2271, 2238, 2180, 2243, 2265, 2272 and 2252, En 
                                  Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendments 
2271, 2238, 2180, 2243, 2265, 2272, and 2252.
  The amendments (Nos. 2271, 2238, 2180, 2243, 2265, 2272, and 2252) 
were agreed to.

  The text of the amendments is printed in a previous edition of the 
Record.


                           amendment no. 2238

                             Tax Complexity

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am so pleased that the Senate has 
agreed to accept my amendment on tax complexity. Mr. President, two 
weeks from now is April 15, a day known as Tax Day. On that day, 
approximately 120 million Americans will file some type of tax return 
to the Internal Revenue Service. Of these taxpayers, more than 40 
percent will file the short tax forms known as the 1040EZ, or the 1040 
long form.
  These two forms--only one page long--are designed to be simple and 
easy to complete, but Americans will pay millions of dollars to tax 
preparers to fill out these forms in their stead in order to avoid 
making a mistake and facing the wrath of the Internal Revenue Service.
  The perception is that the tax code is too complicated, and frankly, 
these Americans have good reasons to be concerned. The Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997, passed by Congress last year and hailed as providing 
significant tax relief to every American, added over 1 million words 
and 315 pages to the Internal Revenue Code. The capital gains 
computation form alone grew from 19 lines to 54. Consequently the 
average taxpayer will spend 9 hours and 54 minutes preparing Form 1040 
for the 1997 tax year. The total burden on all taxpayers of maintaining 
records, and preparing and filing tax returns is estimated to be in 
excess of 1,600,000 hours this year.
  Tax relief is not just about financial relief, it is also about 
paperwork relief. This amendment states that it is the Sense of the 
Senate that this chamber give priority to tax proposals that simplify 
the tax code and reject proposals that add greater complexity to the 
code and increased compliance costs to the taxpayer. I think we have 
sent a sound message to the American people that we are committed to 
reducing complexity in this already onerous tax system.


                           amendment no. 2243

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the Sense of 
the Senate that Congress should fulfill the intent of the Amtrak Reform 
and Accountability Act of 1997 and appropriate sufficient funds in each 
of the next five years to enable Amtrak to implement its Strategic 
Business Plan.
  In the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress 
declared that ``intercity rail passenger service is an essential 
component of a national intermodal passenger transportation system.'' 
With the passage of this Act, Congress and the President effectively 
agreed to provide adequate appropriations over the next five years for 
Amtrak to implement its Strategic Business Plan so that it may achieve 
the goal of operating self-sufficiency.
  I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Lott for his 
cooperation on this amendment and for his commitment to providing the 
funding necessary for Amtrak to implement its Strategic Business Plan.
  I would also like to thank Senator McCain for his cooperation and 
assistance in working out the language of this amendment.
  Finally, I would like to thank Senators Roth, Biden and all of the 
cosponsors of this amendment for their continuing support of Amtrak.
  I believe that for the first time in memory, we have a general 
commitment among members of Congress to provide Amtrak with the funding 
necessary for it to turn its financial situation around. We will 
accomplish this by providing Amtrak with the capital funds necessary to 
modernize its equipment and facilities. For too long, Congress 
underfunded Amtrak, leaving it with an aging and inefficient capital 
stock. By providing sufficient capital funding, we will allow Amtrak to 
increase the efficiency of its operations and attract new passengers by 
providing better, more reliable service.
  Last year's $2.2 billion capital fund and the passage of the Amtrak 
Reform legislation brought the dawn of a new day for our national 
passenger railroad.
  We need Amtrak to reduce congestion on our highways and in our skies. 
Congress and the President have demonstrated clear support for Amtrak 
as a national system and for continued federal appropriations. Too 
often in the past, we under-funded this important system. Today, Amtrak 
is operating under substantial challenges to meet strict business 
goals.
  I believe Amtrak is up to the task and I hope and expect that we will 
provide them the funds we have promised and give Amtrak a fighting 
chance to succeed.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend, 
the distinguished Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Frank 
Lautenberg, in introducing this amendment. We are in excellent company, 
joined by the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Bill 
Roth, the distinguished Majority Leader, and other supporters of 
Amtrak.
  As I testified just last week before Senator Shelby's Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Amtrak is currently under the gun--both 
the Amtrak Reform Act we passed last year, and our current budget plans 
assume that Amtrak will be without operating subsidies beginning in 
2002.
  Personally, I am not convinced that this is a wise course of action. 
Virtually all passenger rail systems in the world are supported by 
public funds, because their benefits--reduced congestion on highways 
and at airports, less air pollution--are enjoyed by those who may never 
ride a train. Public support does not automatically signify 
inefficiency, Mr. President; in the case of passenger rail, it is a 
recognition that the public benefits are not fully paid for by 
individual ticket purchases.
  But it is even clearer, Mr. President, that passenger rail deserves 
support for its major capital needs. Just as the federal government 
provides funds for highways, airports, ship channels, and ports, it has 
a proper role--justified by the strictest notions of economic 
efficiency--in providing support for the basic infrastructure of our 
national transportation system.
  Despite the heavy burdens placed on Amtrak by years of under funding, 
Amtrak has responded with increased efficiency--and has undertaken a 
business plan that aims at operating self-sufficiency by the year 2002.
  This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that we should live 
up to our end of the deal we entered into when we passed the Amtrak 
Reform Act last year--we should, at an absolute minimum, provide Amtrak 
with the funds necessary for them to reach 2002 with the equipment, 
routes, and ridership that will make that self-sufficiency possible. 
That means providing Amtrak with the funds--both long-term high-return 
capital from its capital funds, as well as operating support--that they 
anticipate in that business plan.
  And I must add, Mr. President, that following the recommendation of 
last year's Presidential Emergency Board, Amtrak has agreed to provide 
pay raises for its long-suffering workers. To make good on that 
commitment, and to provide similarly for all of the workers that have 
gone for years without a pay raise--or even a contact--Amtrak will 
require the funding level we commit to with his amendment.
  I am gratified that we have the support of so many of my colleagues 
for this amendment. Today, we will put the Senate on record in support 
of funds for Amtrak that will allow them to achieve the goals that we 
have set for them. That, Mr. President, is the least we can do.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of concern over 
whether the budget resolution actually provides adequate funding to 
allow the Labor-HHS subcommittee to provide increased funding for the 
National Institutes of Health as assumed in the budget.
  After extensive conversations with the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee

[[Page S3091]]

 Chairman and his staff, I am confident that the recommendations 
contained in the budget resolution would in fact allow for increased 
funding of the National Institutes of Health.
  In fact, the Chairman of the Budget Committee has agreed to enter 
into a colloquy with me which explicitly states that the budget assumes 
a substantial increase over the Labor-HHS subcommittee's 1998 
appropriated levels. The chairman has assured me that this funding 
level assumes increases to cover shortfall created by forward funding 
in last years Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Additionally, the budget 
assumes further increases to fund a number of Congressional priorities, 
including increased funding for the National Institutes of Health.
  The full content of the colloquy is contained in a written statement 
which I will now send to the desk and ask that it be entered into the 
Record in its entirety.
  Mr. President, as my colleagues will recall, during consideration of 
the 1998 Budget Resolution, I offered an amendment to express the sense 
of the Senate that funding for the National Institutes of Health should 
be increased by 100 percent over the next five years. It passed by a 
vote of 98-0.
  The amendment I am offering today will help to ensure that the Senate 
continues to move forward toward achieving this goal. The 1999 Senate 
Budget Resolution assumes an increase of $1.5 billion for the National 
Institutes of Health for FY 1999, an 11% increase over the FY 1998 
funding level.
  I know the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has 
worked very hard in a tight budget year to include this increase in the 
Budget Resolution. I want to express my sincere thanks to Chairman 
Domenici and commend him for his leadership on this initiative. He, 
too, has been a true friend to NIH and I know he shares our commitment 
to increased funding for biomedical research.
  I am aware of concerns raised by patient organizations and public 
health advocacy organizations with respect to future increases for NIH.
  Based upon discussions I have had with both Chairman Domenici and 
with Chairman Stevens today, I am convinced the budget resolution will, 
in fact, lead to the increases necessary to achieve the goal of 
doubling funding for NIH.
  I have submitted into the Record a colloquy with Senator Domenici 
which addresses these concerns, and I encourage all interested parties 
to review this colloquy.
  It is also important to remember that the Congress is at the 
beginning of the budget process. The House of Representatives has not 
acted on the Budget Resolution. There still must be a conference with 
the House.
  At this time, I am convinced the Budget Committee has done its' best 
to provide the framework to increase funding for NIH by at least $1.5 
billion in FY 1999. And, I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committee 
will do its best to support these recommendations.
  For purposes of this Budget Resolution, I do believe it is important 
for the Senate to be on record with respect to our bipartisan 
commitment to NIH.
  To that end, the amendment I offer today will express the Sense of 
the Senate in three areas.
  First, it would reaffirm our commitment to double funding for NIH 
over the next five years.
  Second, it would express the Sense of the Senate that appropriations 
for NIH should be increased by $2 billion in FY 1999.
  Finally, it would express the Sense of the Senate that, at a minimum, 
appropriations for NIH should match the levels specified in the Budget 
Resolution.
  Funding for NIH has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the 
Senate. Today should be no exception. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.


               Addition of Cosponsors--Amendment No. 2243

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be added to the Amtrak sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
No. 2243: Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, Chafee, Kerry, Moseley-Braun, 
Lieberman, Durbin, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Dodd, Baucus, Leahy and 
Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2219

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have one last thing, amendment No. 
2219, by Senator Dorgan. Would you call that up? Here we are going to 
voice vote it. Let me make sure everybody understands, this amendment 
is supposed to fail. And there has been concurrence on that point as we 
deliberated on this subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2219 is before the Senate. If 
there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2219) was rejected.


                          Amendments Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all other 
pending amendments be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendment Nos. 2186, 2194, 2215, 2223, 2227, 2231, 2241, 2242, 2245, 
2247, 2179, 2181, 2249, 2255, 2256, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2267, 2268, 2273, 
and 2274 were withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2204

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my amendment to the Budget Resolution I hope 
will be only the first step this Congress will take to prevent abuse 
and mistreatment of elderly and disabled patients in long-term care.
  Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43% of Americans over 
the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of 
people needing long-term care service, both in nursing homes and home 
health care, is sharply increasing, and it will continue to do so as 
the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of long-term care 
facilities do an excellent job in caring for their patients, but it 
only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should 
be a healing environment.
  A disturbing number of cases have been reported where long-term care 
workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct 
patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. Most 
recently, The Wall Street Journal published a troubling article 
describing the extent of this problem and the difficulties we face in 
tracking known abusers. I ask that this article be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See 
exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KOHL. This article is only the tip of the iceberg. A recent 
report from the Nation's long-term care Ombudsmen indicates that in 29 
states surveyed, 7,043 cases of abuse, gross neglect, or exploitation 
occurred in nursing homes and board and care facilities. Similar 
stories have appeared nationwide and abuse is not limited to nursing 
homes. It is far too easy for a health care worker with a criminal or 
abusive background to gain employment and prey on the most vulnerable 
patients.
  Why is this the case? Because current state and national safeguards 
are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required 
to maintain nurse aide registries which include information about 
abusive workers. But these registries are not comprehensive or 
complete. First, many facilities do not report abuse complaints and 
instead, simply fire the worker. Second, these registries usually do 
not include abuse information about home health or hospice aides. 
Finally, and most important, there is no national system in place to 
track abusers, little information sharing between States, and no 
Federal requirement that a criminal background check be done on 
potential employees. A known abuser or someone with a violent criminal 
background in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and 
continuing to work with patients there.
  I have introduced and continue to work on legislation that would 
create a national registry of abusive long-term care workers and 
require criminal background checks for prospective employees who 
participate in Medicare and Medicaid. Although this will not prevent 
all cases of abuse, I believe it will go a long way toward making sure 
that those who have a history of preying on the vulnerable are not paid 
to do so by Medicare and Medicaid.
  This Budget Resolution includes a lot of different priorities and 
funding recommendations--some of which I agree with, and others that I 
believe deserve

[[Page S3092]]

more attention. But as we consider this Budget Resolution, we must not 
forget to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens--the elderly 
and the disabled.
  This amendment expresses our desire to establish a viable, efficient, 
and cost-effective national system that will screen out abusive workers 
and prevent them from working with patients. We should adopt this 
amendment to devote resources toward developing such a system. We 
should adopt this amendment to send a clear signal to potential abusers 
that we will not tolerate the mistreatment of our patients. And we 
should adopt this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to protecting 
the elderly and the disabled from known abusers and criminals. When a 
patient checks into a nursing home facility or receives home health 
services, they should not have to give up their right to be free of 
abuse, neglect, or mistreatment.

                               Exhibit 1

                     [From the Wall Street Journal]

              Many Elders Receive Care at Criminals' Hands

                           (By Michael Moss)

       When Carletos Bell applied to work at the San Antonio 
     Convalescent Center, he didn't try to hide his violent 
     criminal past. He disclosed his record of aggravated assault 
     right on his application for nurse-assistant.
       He got the job anyway, in June 1996. Six months later, Mr. 
     Bell was charged with sexually assaulting a 71-year-old 
     resident of the nursing home. He pleaded not-guilty and is 
     now in jail awaiting trial.
       The case illustrates a growing problem for nursing-home 
     patients and owners alike: People with serious rap sheets are 
     landing jobs as care givers for the elderly.
       On Monday, a local trial judge in Denver gave a green light 
     to the first-ever class-action lawsuit alleging nursing-home 
     negligence. A pivotal claim is that many nurse-assistants had 
     arrest records. A local attorney for the facility's former 
     owner, GranCare Inc., denies the allegation of negligence.
       Even before that ruling, crime against residents of nursing 
     homes has been a growing concern among patient advocates. 
     Efforts to draw attention to the problem have been stymied 
     partly by the lack of good data. Advocates say there is 
     severe underreporting of crimes--especially of rapes--because 
     residents often fear retribution for leveling complaints.
       Still, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 
     Office of Inspector General took disciplinary actions mostly 
     related to nursing-home abuse in 382 cases in 1997, more than 
     double a year earlier. The office received 1,613 reports of 
     abuse allegations in that year, up 14% over a three-year 
     period.
       Lesser crimes abound as well. Four percent of nursing-home 
     workers acknowledged they stole money, jewelry and other 
     items from residents, in questionnaires completed as part of 
     a soon-to-be-published study by Diana Harris, a sociologist 
     at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Ten percent of 
     workers said they saw other staff steal.
       Nursing-home owners, in turn, are finding themselves at 
     greater risk in lawsuits brought by injured residents. In 
     some facilities, plaintiffs' attorneys are discovering that a 
     large portion of the staff has a criminal past. At another 
     San Antonio nursing home, the Crestway Care Center, where in 
     1995 two female residents said they were raped, half of the 
     69 male workers had arrest records and nearly one-quarter had 
     felony convictions, according to pretrial fact-finding in a 
     negligence lawsuit the women brought against the nursing 
     home. The facility's owner at the time couldn't be reached. 
     His attorney declined to comment. The suit was settled last 
     year.
       The plaintiffs' criminologist, Patricia Harris, noted in 
     court papers, ``A setting which contains infirmed females who 
     are unable to defend themselves creates an enhanced 
     opportunity for sexual assaults.''
       When trouble strikes, the involvement of a single employee 
     with a felony record can send jury awards soaring. Last year, 
     the owner of the nursing home where Mr. Bell worked, Living 
     Centers of America, quickly settled a lawsuit brought by the 
     resident whom Mr. Bell allegedly assaulted. Since then, 
     investor group Apollo Management LP, headed by financier Leon 
     Black, has acquired control of Living Centers and merged it 
     with GranCare to form Paragon Health Networks Inc., of 
     Atlanta.
       ``Until there is some public awareness, the problem of 
     nursing homes employing criminal and sexual deviants is going 
     to escalate,'' says the resident's attorney, Marynell 
     Maloney, who also brought the other San Antonio case.
       Living Centers' local attorney, Charles Deacon, says the 
     job interviewer at the facility made a mistake in hiring Mr. 
     Bell. Given Mr. Bell's record, says Mr. Deacon, ``there is no 
     way the company would ever have wanted him.''
       Employees with criminal records pose an industry-wide 
     problem, says Mr. Deacon, who represents other nursing-home 
     owners. ``They end up costing these companies a lot of 
     money.''
       A Boston jury last month sent a message to a home health-
     care provider by awarding $26.5 million to the estate of John 
     Ward, who was beaten and stabbed to death in 1991, along with 
     his grandmother. The perpetrator was a six-time convicted 
     felon who was hired by an agency to care for Mr. Ward, age 
     32, at their home.
       Rachel Schneider, acting co-president of the Visiting Nurse 
     Association of Greater Boston, which settled the lawsuit 
     after the jury's verdict, says the killings were ``one of 
     those very unfortunate lessons.'' The agency began checking 
     its workers for criminal records starting in 1994, she said.
       Nursing-home owners, patient advocates and labor unions 
     agree that an important step in combating nursing-home crime 
     is to keep criminals from getting the jobs. Bills introduced 
     in both houses of Congress would require Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation background checks of would-be nurses' aides and 
     other care givers.
       A group of nursing-home owners, the American Health Care 
     Association, says it supports the concept and favors imposing 
     background-checks on care givers at hospitals and other 
     providers, too. Patient advocates say there's no reason to 
     limit the checks to nurses' aides. ``We think everybody--
     doctors, nurses, everyone--should be checked,'' says Elma 
     Holder, founding director of the National Citizens' Coalition 
     for Nursing Home Reform.
       A growing number of states already have legislation 
     mandating background checks, with mixed results. Illinois's 
     two-year-old program for screening nurses' aides has turned 
     up disqualifying criminal backgrounds on about 5% of the 
     people who were checked. Their crimes ranged from theft to 
     homicide. But nearly 90% of those who asked that the law be 
     waived were permitted to take or keep jobs anyway.
       ``The law is a farce,'' says Violette King of Nursing Home 
     Monitors, a local patient-advocacy group based in Godfrey, 
     Ill. The state Department of Public Health responds by saying 
     it weighs each waiver request carefully.
       Spokesman Thomas Schafer cites the case of a man who 
     murdered his girlfriend 24 years ago. He had been working in 
     a nursing home without problems for 15 years when the new 
     background-check program turned up his record. The state 
     decided he wouldn't be a risk to the residents.
       One thorny question is whether mere arrests should carry as 
     much weight as convictions. In Colorado, it has become a 
     point of contention in the Denver class-action suit. Of the 
     176 aides hired by Cedars Health Care Center in 1995 and 
     1996, 74 of them, or 42%, had arrest records, the plaintiffs' 
     attorney has alleged.
       ``Most of these records reflect serious, and sometimes 
     habitual, criminal behavior,'' alleges the complaint filed by 
     Denver attorney Lynn Feiger, an employment-law specialist, on 
     behalf of five current and former Cedars residents. More than 
     200 can join the suit, thanks to this week's ruling.
       The nursing-home owner's attorney, Jerome Reinan, who is 
     weighing an appeal of the class-action decision, argues that 
     the threshold should be convictions. ``We're not aware at 
     this point of any convictions that would made an employee 
     ineligible for hiring,'' says Mr. Reinan.
       State officials in Colorado say they are considering a 
     number of ways to strengthen rules for screening nursing-home 
     employees, including extending checks to probation reports 
     and arrest records.
       ``An arrest record is certainly indicative of a pattern,'' 
     says state Department of Public Health spokeswoman Jackie 
     Starr-Bocian. ``We have had a concern here in Colorado for 
     many years about issues of employment in nursing homes. Now 
     it's a very grave concern because our unemployment rates are 
     so low it's hard to find qualified applicants.''


                           amendment no. 2240

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I believe that the Senate has taken a step in the 
right direction today by accepting my amendment that ensures that the 
Senate will not reduce the value of Social Security. Mr. President, 
Social Security is perhaps the most successful and important government 
program ever enacted in the United States. It has allowed millions of 
Americans to retire with dignity and has played a key role in bringing 
poverty among the elderly to the lowest level since the government 
began keeping poverty statistics.
  But if you ask young adults--the twenty-something and thirty-
something Americans--whether they believe Social Security will be there 
for them, they will tell you that they are more likely to see a UFO 
than receive Social Security benefits when they are old.
  That's regrettable, Mr. President, not just because these young 
Americans are financing the benefits that my generation will receive 
from Social Security, but also because they have every right to benefit 
from Social Security when they reach their twilight years. Social 
Security was created not just for the current generation, or for our 
generation, but for all the generations that will follow.
  The Senate, I think, has a responsibility to restore the faith of 
young Americans in their Social Security. In a recent poll, fewer than 
one-third of Americans age 55 and older expressed a

[[Page S3093]]

lack of confidence in the ability of the Social Security system to meet 
its long-term commitments. For those under age 55, however, nearly two-
thirds expressed that view.
  Frankly, young Americans have good reason to be worried. Americans 
are living longer and retiring earlier. As a result, retirees will 
collect Social Security benefits for a far longer time than was 
anticipated when the system was developed. That means that younger 
Americans may be paying into a system that will no longer provide 
benefits when it is time for them to retire.
  The impact of these trends will be greatly magnified when the Baby 
Boom generation retires. Once the Boomers have retired, there will only 
be about tow working Americans contributing to Social Security for 
every retiree receiving benefits, down from over five just a generation 
ago.
  Social Security is too important to the retirement security of too 
many people for us to retreat from that accomplishment. More than one-
half of the elderly do not receive private pensions and more than one-
third have no income from assets. For 60 percent of all senior 
citizens, Social Security benefits provide almost 80 percent of their 
retirement income. For 80 percent of all senior citizens, Social 
Security benefits provide over 50 percent of their retirement income.
  It is our responsibility to act to ensure that the Social Security 
system provides the same value to new generations of Americans as it 
did to past recipients. It is my hope that in having passed this 
amendment, we will have demonstrated to younger Americans that we are 
committed to safeguarding the integrity of the Social Security system 
no only for their generation, but for all the ones that will follow.
  I also want to say how pleased I am that the amendment I proposed 
that would express the Senate's sentiment that the Administration 
should include in its yearly budget a generational impact study will 
also be included in the budget resolution. I believe that this type of 
information will be useful in our decision making process and will lead 
us in a direction that is proactive, rather than reactive.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their support.


                           amendment no. 2263

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to begin by acknowledging 
Senator Santorum's efforts on this amendment. I look forward to working 
with him in the future to preserve our nation's most vulnerable 
farmland.
  We have heard a lot during the last decade about the dissolution and 
destruction of the American Family Farm. Indeed, the family farm is 
under serious threat of extinction. Today, there are 1,925,300 farms in 
the United States, the lowest number of farms in our nation since 
before the Civil War. The U.S. is losing two acres of our best farmland 
to development every minute of every day. In my state, New Jersey, we 
have lost 6,000 farms, or 40% of our total, since 1959. This reduction 
has serious implications for the environment, the economy and our food 
supply.
  The threat comes partially from an anachronistic and unfair 
inheritance tax that threatens the generational continuity of the 
family farm, and partially from the fact that much of America's 
farmland is near major cities. As our cities sprawl into neighboring 
rural areas, our farms are in danger of becoming subdivisions or 
shopping malls.
  Last year I strongly supported a significant reduction in the estate 
tax to keep farms in the family, preserve open space and ensure 
fairness in our tax code. This was an important victory for farmers 
across the nation. However, we also need programs like the Farmland 
Protection Program to reinforce this effort. That is why I am 
supporting Senator Santorum's amendment which will express the Sense of 
the Senate that Congress should reauthorize funds for the Farmland 
Protection Program. This critical program is designed to protect soil 
by encouraging landowners to limit conversion of their farmland to 
nonagricultural uses.
  The Farmland Protection Program was authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill 
and provided $35 million over a six year period. However, the last of 
the funding was dispersed in FY1998 and there is no money in the budget 
for the program this year. This amendment will send a strong message 
that we remain committed to protecting our family farms and preserving 
our open spaces. I am proud to support Senator Santorum's amendment, 
and look forward to its acceptance by my colleagues.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2266

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, of all the priorities included in the 
Budget Resolution now before the Senate, I believe that none is more 
important than continuing our fight against violent crime and violence 
against women.
  To a great extent, this Budget Resolution meets this test--but, in at 
least one area of this crime front, I believe the Budget Resolution 
must be clarified.
  The amendment does exactly that--by clarifying that it is the sense 
of the Senate that the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund will continue 
through fiscal year 2002.
  First, let me point out that it is Senator Byrd who, more than 
anyone, deserves credit for the crime law trust fund. Senator Byrd 
worked to develop an idea that was simple as it was profound--as he 
called on us to use the savings from the reductions in the federal 
workforce of 272,000 employees to fund one of the nation's most urgent 
priorities: fighting the scourge of violent crime.
  Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to 
``put our money where our mouth was.'' Too often, this Senate has voted 
to send significant aid to state and local law enforcement--but, when 
it came time to ``write the check,'' we did not fund nearly the dollars 
we promised.
  Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, 
Senator Domenici and other Senators passed the Violent Crime Control 
Trust Fund in the Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden 
Crime Law.
  Since then, the dollars from the Crime Law Trust Fund have: Helped 
add nearly 70,000 community police officers to our streets; helped 
shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children; focussed 
law enforcement, prosecutors and victims service providers on providing 
immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends to ``love'' 
them; forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing and 
treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain free 
on probation with no supervision and no accountability; constructed 
thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and brought 
unprecedented resources to defending our southwest border--putting us 
on the path to literally double the number of federal border agents 
over just a 5 year period.
  The results of this effort are already taking hold--according to the 
FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is down and down 
significantly--leaving our nation with its lowest murder rate since 
1971. And the lowest murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at 
the hands of their ``intimates'' to an 18-year low.
  In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by 
being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our ``money where our 
mouths'' are--we have actually cut violent crime.
  Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant 
against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Gramm amendment before the 
Senate offers one modest step towards meeting that challenge--By 
confirming the Senate's commitment to fighting crime and violence 
against women will continue to at least 2002. By confirming the 
Senate's commitment that the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund will 
continue--in its current form which provides additional federal 
assistance without adding 1 cent to the deficit--to at least 2002.
  The Biden-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: Stand up 
for cops--or don't; stand up for the fight against violence against 
women --or don't; stand up for fighting the scourge of youth violence--
or don't; stand up for building new prisons--or don't; stand up for 
increased border enforcement--or don't.
  Every member of this Senate is against violent crime. Now, I urge all 
my colleagues to back up with words with the only thing that we can 
actually do for the cop walking the beat, the battered woman, the 
victim of crime--provide the dollars that help give them the tools to 
fight violent criminals and help restore at least some small piece of 
the dignity taken from them by a violent criminal.

[[Page S3094]]

  Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not 
continue the Trust Fund, we will not be able to continue such proven, 
valuable efforts as the Violence Against Women law. Nothing we can do 
today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence 
Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000.
  But, mark my words, if the Trust Fund ends, the efforts to provide 
shelter, help victims and get tough on the abusers and batterers will 
wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a 
clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with 
it, the historic effort undertaken by the violence against women act 
that says by word, deed and dollar that the Federal Government stands 
with women and against the misguided notion that ``domestic'' violence 
is a man's ``right'' and ``not really a crime.''


                 statement on the market access program

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Market 
Access Program. This program continues to be a vital and important part 
of U.S. trade policy aimed at maintaining and expanding U.S. 
agricultural exports, countering subsidized foreign competition, 
strengthening farm income and protecting American jobs.
  The Market Access Program has been a tremendous success by any 
measure. Since the program was established, U.S. agricultural exports 
have doubled. In Fiscal Year 1997, U.S. agricultural exports amounted 
to $57.3 billion, resulting in a positive agricultural trade surplus of 
approximately $22 billion and contributing billions of dollars more in 
increased economic activity and additional tax revenues.
  For example, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture received 
$125,000 of Market Access Program funds during the past year. These 
funds were used to promote Idaho and Western United States agricultural 
products in the international markets of China, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico, 
Guatemala, and Costa Rica. One particular activity, the promotion of 
western U.S. onions in Central America, required $15,000 of MAP funds 
and generated inquiries for onions valued at $150,000.
  Demand for U.S. agricultural products is growing 4 times greater in 
international markets than domestic markets. MAP has been an enormously 
successful program by any measure in supporting this growth. Since the 
program began in 1985, U.S. agricultural exports have more than 
doubled--reaching a record of nearly $60 billion in 1996; contributing 
to a record agricultural trade surplus of $30 million; and providing 
jobs to over 1 million Americans.
  MAP is a key element in the 1996 Farm Bill, which gradually reduces 
direct income support over 7 years. Accordingly, farm income is now 
more dependent than ever on exports and maintaining access to foreign 
markets.
  Two years ago, European Union (EU) export subsidies amounted to 
approximately $10 billion in US dollars. The EU and other foreign 
competitors also spent nearly $500 million on market promotion. The EU 
spends more on wine promotion than the US spends for all its 
commodities combined.
  Mr. President, the Market Access Program should be fully maintained 
as authorized and aggressively utilized by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to encourage U.S. agricultural exports, strengthen farm 
income, counter subsidized foreign competition and protect American 
jobs.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of amendment No. 2268 to 
S. Con. Res. 86 introduced by Senator kempthorne, expressing the Sense 
of the Senate that funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) should 
be fully maintained as authorized and aggressively utilized by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to encourage U.S. agricultural exports, 
strengthen farm income, counter subsidized foreign competition, and 
protect American jobs.
  The MAP is an important trade promoting program that truly benefits 
the diverse agriculture of Washington state and the nation. The MAP is 
a partnership with private agriculture to promote U.S. agricultural 
goods around the world. It helps to level the playing field for our 
growers in a global marketplace made increasingly competitive by 
subsidies foreign governments provide to their growers.
  This Sense of the Senate resolution corrects the misguided direction 
of the Budget Committee to cut the MAP. This proposed cut was one among 
many reasons that I voted against this Budget Resolution when it was 
passed out of the Budget Committee.
  Since moving towards market-based agricultural programs under the 
1996 FAIR Act, research and trade have become the new safety net for 
our growers. Without continuous and vigorous trade promotion, our 
growers will see market share decline and farmgate prices drop. Our 
growers are already suffering under depressed prices, they need us to 
maintain the MAP and other agricultural trade initiatives to remain 
competitive. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support the Market Access 
Program. I urge my colleagues to support the sense of the Senate 
amendment, offered by my colleague Senator Kempthorne, to assure 
funding for this very important and effective agricultural export 
program. I would like to point out to the Senate why this Market Access 
Program (MAP) is so important for agriculture in my State of 
California, and many other states as well.
  Using the MAPs $90 million annual funding level as a fractional 
offset for the now $214 billion transportation package, has an enormous 
negative impact on American agricultural export efforts at the very 
time when our farmers are contending with constricted markets in Asia 
and increased EU help for competing agricultural exporters seeking to 
displace American products in the marketplace.
  My objection is not against transportation needs but the termination 
of an important agricultural export tool.
  The purpose of the MAP is to increase U.S. agricultural project 
exports. This increase in such exports helps to create and protect U.S. 
jobs, combat unfair trade practices, improve the U.S. trade balance, 
and improve farm income.
  The MAP is an important tool in expanding markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. Continued funding for this program is an 
important step in redirecting farm spending away from price supports 
and toward expanding markets.
  The MAP program has been significantly reformed over the last several 
years to meet congressional expectations--now only small business, 
farmer cooperatives and associations and state departments of 
agriculture can participate in the program. The funding level has been 
substantially reduced to a third of its former cost. It is a cost share 
program, requiring participants to provide matching funds to qualify 
for federal funding help.
  And MAP works. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that each 
dollar of MAP money results in an increase in agricultural product 
exports of between $2 and $7. The program has provided much needed 
assistance to commodity groups comprised of small farmers who would be 
unable to break into these markets on their own.
  Mr. President, the Market Access Program has been an unqualified 
success for California farmers. For many California crops, the MAP has 
provided the crucial boost to help them overcome unfair foreign 
subsidies. I would like to share two of the successes of this program 
in California.
  California produces about 85% of the U.S. avocado crop on over 6,000 
farms that average less than 8 acres per farm. Between 1985 and 1993, 
California avocado growers utilized $2.5 million of their own money, 
combined with $3.4 million of MAP funds to achieve over $58 million in 
avocado sales in Europe and the Pacific Rim. This is better than a 17 
to 1 return on our MAP investment that means jobs for Californians.
  The growth of California walnuts exports also illustrates the success 
of this program. Since 1985, the year before the MAP began helping 
walnuts, 90% of the growth in California walnut sales has come from 
exports. And 90% of this export growth has been to markets where 
California walnuts have had MAP support. The total value of these 
exports in 1985 totaled $36 million. The total export value has now 
grown to $119 million.
  We should not unilaterally disarm our export promotion program for 
agriculture when we are only months away from the commencement of WTO 
agricultural trade negotiations scheduled to commence in 1999.

[[Page S3095]]

  Mr. President, the MAP is a wise investment in American agriculture 
and I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kempthorne's amendment to 
support needed funding to USDA's Market Access Program in the Budget 
Resolution.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator 
from Idaho, Mr. Kempthorne, expressing the Sense of the Senate that 
funding for the Market Access Program should be fully maintained.
  The Senate has on several occasions debated funding for the Market 
Access Program. Most recently, on July 23, 1997, the Senate voted 59-40 
in favor of tabling an amendment to reduce the Market Access Program 
from $90 million to $70 million. The Senate, recognizing the importance 
of this program, firmly rejected the suggestion to reduce it by even 
$20 million. I hope the Senate will, by an even greater margin, express 
its support that the budget should not assume the reduction of this 
program.
  The Market Access Program is one of the few tools that the Department 
of Agriculture has to combat the unfair trading practices of other 
countries. Since its inception in 1985, the Market Access Program and 
its predecessors, the Targeted Export Assistance Program and the Market 
Promotion Program, have assisted nearly 800 U.S. cooperatives, trade 
associations and corporations in promoting their products overseas.
  Our agricultural exports have more than doubled--from $26.3 billion 
in 1985 to a forecast level of $58.5 billion in 1998. In large measure 
this moderate increase, even in the face of the Asian currency crisis, 
signifies the results of efforts we have made since the mid-1980's to 
enhance our export competitiveness and develop new markets overseas.
  In fact, it is remarkable that the value of U.S. exports will 
increase slightly over last year and are only slightly below record 
1996 levels even with the dire situation in Asian markets. U.S. farmers 
are particularly vulnerable to the instability of key Asian markets 
which account for 40 percent of our exports. The Market Access Program 
and other export programs are crucial to our farmer's ability to 
compete in a global marketplace.


         National Parks and Environmental Improvement Act Fund

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reaffirm a commitment made 
by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, to 
establish a National Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund in the 
FY'99 Budget Resolution. My colleague, Senator Stevens, and I reached 
an agreement last year with the Budget Committee Chairman to designate 
this fund from the interest derived from an $800 million land 
settlement for the protection and enhancement of our national parks.
  The fund will become a reality upon enactment of this year's budget 
resolution. I believe the reasons for creation of this fund could not 
be more compelling when directed toward the protection of our most 
coveted natural areas. The General Accounting Office found that while 
the park system and park visitation are growing, the financial 
resources available to protect and maintain our parks continue to fall 
short of the need. The estimated unmet capital needs has reached nearly 
$8 billion. In times of budgetary constraint, the interest from the 
fund, which could reach $50 million annually, will allow the Federal 
government to pay for much needed capital improvements within our 
National Parks and begin to address the multi-billion dollar backlog in 
repairs and maintenance. Beginning in FY'99, the interest targeted to 
the fund will allocate 40 percent to national parks, 40 percent for 
state grants and 20 percent for marine research.
  Mr. President, our National Park System is our natural and historical 
heritage, set aside for the benefit of present and future generations. 
The National Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund will help us to 
fulfill our stewardship responsibilities and protect the integrity of 
our natural environment.
  I applaud the leadership of my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Domenici, for including the fund as part of this year's budget 
resolution.
  Mr. MACK. Senator Domenici, I understand that an assumption in this 
Budget Resolution considers that receipts from the sale of the surplus 
public lands could be used to fund recovery efforts on private land for 
endangered species. I would like to clarify that this would in no way 
alter the current arrangement with the Everglades Recovery Program 
which is also funded by land sales.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct, the surplus public land sales assumed 
in the resolution are restricted to excess Bureau of Land Management 
lands, and would not in any way slow progress with recovery of the 
Everglades. The lands proposed in the resolution would be lands that 
have not been designated for another purpose.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator for that clarification.


       federal expenditures to increase u.s. energy independence

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the committee report accompanying the 
budget resolution includes a brief discussion of the Administration's 
so-called Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) request for 
fiscal year 1999 and subsequent fiscal years. Specifically, the 
committee report states on page 22 that, ``[s]ince the President has 
not submitted a treaty or plan to implement the reductions called for 
in the agreement [Kyoto Protocol], providing additional funding for 
these technology programs in the 1999 budget is premature.'' The 
committee report goes on to state that, ``[a]s a result, the resolution 
assumes last year's levels of $730 million for these technology 
programs and does not provide the increases requested by the 
President.''
  I am trying to understand the implication here. Setting aside the 
merit of the Administration's CCTI request, voluntary domestic 
activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including tax incentives 
and research funding for energy efficient technology and renewables, 
are consistent with the existing 1992 Rio Climate Treaty that the 
United States has already ratified. While some use economic arguments 
to oppose any form of government subsidy, prudent investment along 
these lines does not constitute regulation and is in no way a form of 
Kyoto Protocol implementation.
  Therefore, I ask my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, if he and other members of the Budget Committee are arguing 
in the committee report that we cannot take steps to try to increase 
energy efficiency and advance renewables unless and until the Senate 
provides its consent to the Kyoto Protocol?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not making such an argument. If I 
and other members of the Budget Committee believed that, we would have 
eliminated all current funding for energy efficiency and renewables 
technology programs in this budget resolution. I do have some concerns 
about the efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol, but the report language that 
you cited is intended to convey that additional funding for these 
programs is very difficult under existing budget limitations.
  Mr. LUGAR. I welcome the Chairman's remarks. Promotion of energy 
efficiency and renewable energy programs can increase our energy 
security, address a variety of air pollution problems and lead to a 
stronger economy. I am pleased to learn that the Budget Resolution 
accommodates federal initiatives to enhance energy security and 
renewable energy provided that these initiatives can be funded within 
overall budget constraints.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for clarifying the report language. I yield the floor.


          funding for the national institutes of health (NIH).

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President one of my top priorities since coming to 
Congress has been support of programs to eradicate the effects of 
cancer and other diseases that affect the people of the United States. 
I know many here in the Senate share my concerns who have joined me in 
seeking to increase funding substantially for the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH). Indeed, the goal of this group as stated last year is 
to double funding for NIH over 5 years.
  I am pleased that the Budget Resolution takes a substantial step 
toward meeting this goal and thank the Chairman of the Committee, 
Senator Domenici, for recommending a funding increase of $1.5 billion 
in FY1999 and $15.5 billion through 2003.

[[Page S3096]]

  However, I would mention to the Chair that there has been much 
concern expressed by many public health advocacy groups that the Budget 
Resolution levels for the Appropriations' Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education will not support this increase. 
Accordingly, I would ask the floor manager to alleviate these concerns 
by answering a few simple questions for me.
  Has the Budget Committee assumed sufficient funds in their budget 
recommendation to allow the Labor-HHS subcommittee to match its 302(b) 
allocation from last year?
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I would like to state for the record that 302(b) 
allocations for the Committee on Appropriations are solely within the 
purview of that committee. The Budget Resolution is an expression of 
the Senate's priorities, and as such, makes recommendations to 
committees. However, the Budget Resolution assumptions do not bind the 
Appropriations Committee to any particular course of action, other than 
meeting the discretionary caps.
  That being understood, the Budget Resolution assumes a substantial 
increase over the Freeze Baseline for the Labor-HHS subcommittee. The 
Freeze Baseline levels are based on FY 1998 appropriations action.
  Mr. MACK. Does this assumed funding level also provide additional 
increases for shortfalls created due to forward funding in last year's 
Labor-HHS bill?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Freeze Baseline already includes spending 
previously approved by the subcommittee, including forward funding and 
advance appropriations.
  Mr. MACK. Finally, does the assumed level also provide increases to 
match the Budget Committee's recommendation for increased NIH funding?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The assumed increase exceeds the $1.5 billion increase 
for NIH in FY 1999 and is intended to fund other initiatives as well, 
such as IDEA.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee. I believe he 
has been more than generous to the Labor, HHS Subcommittee and I hope 
that the Appropriations Committee will treat the subcommittee equally 
well.
  To help that process, I sent to the desk a Sense of the Senate 
amendment, which provides that the Senate should provide such funds to 
match the recommendations for increased NIH funding as set forth in the 
Budget Resolution.


                         market access program

  Mr. GORTON. I am concerned about one program which has been slated as 
an offset for transportation increases--the Market Access Program. The 
Market Access Program is a USDA cost-share program which provides 
assistance to U.S. agriculture when competing against subsidized 
nations overseas.
  In the State of Washington we have seen a dramatic increase in apple 
exports from 4.5 million boxes to over 25.1 million--an increase of 
over 500 percent. Export sales now total well over $300 million. This 
success is due, in part, to the Market Access Program. MAP is 
absolutely essential if U.S. agriculture is to remain viable and 
competitive in the international marketplace.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I fully understand your concern, and the agriculture 
community's concern, about the current position of MAP in the Budget 
Resolution. During the Conference on the Budget Resolution we will have 
an opportunity to take another look at this issue. In that event, I 
will commit to working with you to find alternatives. I want to assure 
you, the Committee went to great lengths to identify offsets for 
highway spending. As you know, we included MAP because it is one of 
several export programs through USDA.
  Mr. GORTON. Thank you for your commitment to this effort. I look 
forward to working with you during the Conference Committee to see that 
this issue is resolved in a favorable manner.


                                sec fees

  Mr. GREGG. I rise today to discuss efforts that were made to insert 
assumptions into the Budget Resolution that would hurt the Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary (CJS) Subcommittee. Those assumptions 
sought to amend the securities legislation that we negotiated with the 
Senate Banking Committee and House Commerce Committee in 1996. 
Specifically, they assume reductions in NASDAQ transaction fees. The 
result being that the Appropriations Committee pick up the cost of $73 
million.
  Prior to 1996, the 6(b) fees were paid by corporations to register 
securities. Some interests felt that the 6(b) fees had grown too large. 
During negotiations with the White House and the authorizing committees 
it was agreed that over the next ten years 6(b) fees would be reduced. 
The creation of the NASDAQ transaction fees was a concession made to 
the CJS subcommittee as part of a larger compromise that led to a 
phasing out of the Section 6(b) registration fees. The intent was to 
minimize the impact on the Appropriations process.
  Since 1934, Section 31 transaction fees had been imposed on exchange 
listed securities but not on those sold in the Over the Counter (OTC) 
market. As part of the agreement in 1996, extending the section 31 fee 
to the OTC market allowed the 6(b) registration fees to be reduced 
while retaining adequate fee collections to support and offset the 
SEC's appropriation.
  In arriving at the compromise that resulted in the ten year funding 
mechanism, it was acknowledged that surpluses over the SEC's funding 
would likely exist until the end of the ten year schedule. After that 
time the SEC was to be fully funded by direct appropriations.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from New Hampshire should know that we do 
not have any assumptions in the Budget Resolution, before the Senate, 
that in any way changes or reduces the fees collected by the SEC.
  Mr. GREGG. I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his effort 
on this important issue. We must preserve our ability to fund the SEC 
in the future, when we may not be so fortunate to have such a good 
economy.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, earlier today I supported an amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator 
Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller's amendment to the Budget Resolution 
would have restored $10.5 billion to the Veterans' Affairs Subommittee, 
offsetting that restoration by reducing funds allocated to the 
Transportation Subcommittee.
  As we all know, the Senate ISTEA bill, now awaiting conference 
deliberations with the House, authorized approximately $217 billion for 
transportation over 6 years--about $171 billion for highways, about $41 
billion for transit and about $2 billion for safety. These levels 
represent a 38 percent increase for transportation over the previous 
ISTEA bill. Under the Budget Resolution considered today, a significant 
portion of this increase is financed by a $10.5 billion reduction in 
funds set aside to pay for smoking related illnesses among veterans.
  Mr. President, I believe we need to do more for infrastructure 
development--our investment in roads, bridges and transit must increase 
if we hope to maintain our quality of life while keeping up with the 
demands of the economy and the changing nature of our cities and towns. 
That said, veterans should not have to pay for that investment. It's 
not right, and perhaps more importantly, it's not necessary.
  The ISTEA bill vastly increased transportation funds and took some 
big steps to improve the longstanding equity problem between those 
states that contribute more in gas tax revenues than they receive and 
those states that receive more than they contribute. However, while 
improving the donor state problem to some extent, the bill also 
provided generous increases in funding to many donee states. I would 
argue that we were too generous to those states. It was unacceptable to 
me that despite a 38 percent increase in the amount of funds made 
available for transportation, the ISTEA bill continued to have donor 
states give significantly more than they get back, and donee states get 
significantly more than they give. We could've done better. And if we 
had provided less of an increase to donee states, we could have avoided 
the need for controversial offsets, such as the reduction in veterans 
benefits that Senator Rockefeller sought to restore. We all know that 
sometimes fairness is painful to swallow, and it seemed to me that in 
the highway bill, we simply gave everyone more in order not to inflict 
pain on some. Today we voted on whether veterans should feel that pain. 
But why

[[Page S3097]]

should we limit programs for our veterans in order to be even more 
generous to those who are already in an advantageous position under 
transportation formulas? Simply put, we should not. A more responsible 
course of action would have been to distribute highway dollars more 
fairly, limiting the increase overall by limiting the increase to 
states that were already getting more than their fair share.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to be on the floor today as we 
discuss a budget that is balanced and does have a planned surplus for 
as far as the eye can see. It was only a few short years ago when we 
were here on the floor debating budgets that anticipated deficits well 
into the future. While I support the fiscal responsibility assumed in 
this budget, I have to rise in opposition. This budget does little to 
prepare for the next century and it allows the federal government to 
turn its back on our children. This budget is a failure for our 
children and our economic future.
  During Committee consideration and floor debate, I attempted to amend 
this Resolution in an effort to ensure that children remain a top 
priority of the federal budget. Unfortunately, the Republicans chose to 
ignore the education and early development needs of our children. The 
Republican budget strategy is to spend for today and do little to plan 
for tomorrow.
  As a new Member of the Senate Budget Committee in 1993, I was 
committed to reducing the deficits and restoring fiscal order to 
federal spending. I knew that it would be a tough challenge and a 
difficult task, but I also knew we owed our children this much. We had 
to end deficit spending and stop borrowing from their future.
  I stood on this floor during the summer of 1993 when we debated the 
Deficit Reduction plan, which many of my Colleagues on the other side 
predicted would drive our economy into recession and do little to 
reduce the deficit. As we debate the fiscal year 1999 Budget 
Resolution, I am pleased to report that the discussion has gone from 
how to reduce the deficit to how to invest the surplus. The economy is 
strong and all indications show that economic growth will continue. 
Unemployment is at an all time low and interest rates are not raging 
out of control.
  I am proud to have worked to get our fiscal house in order without 
jeopardizing our economic prosperity. I also welcome the new challenges 
of how to invest the surplus and maintain our investments in our 
future.
  I am pleased that the Republican budget does do the right thing on 
Social Security. As called for by the President, the Resolution 
currently before us today does dedicate any budget surplus to saving 
Social Security. This is the kind of bipartisan work that I am pleased 
to be part of. Saving Social Security is important for current workers 
and future retirees.
  Social Security is the most important anti-poverty program ever 
implemented by the federal government. As a result of the enactment of 
Social Security, far fewer seniors live in poverty when they retire. 
For many, having Social Security gave them the ability to 
retire. Without Social Security, old age would mean economic insecurity 
and instability. The program has been an unqualified success and we 
must continue this proud legacy.

  We have made a commitment to today's workers that must be honored. 
When they retire or become disabled, Social Security will protect them 
and their families from economic disaster. We must do everything 
possible to maintain the success of Social Security.
  But I am concerned that there are some who want to use the surplus to 
provide tax shelters to the most affluent. Make no mistake about it, 
simply allowing tax cuts to encourage workers to set up individual 
retirement accounts will not have Social Security. It will give those 
with more income a greater ability to shelter this income, but it does 
little to help Social Security. Keep in mind, Social Security is a 
social insurance plan, not a retirement plan. Insurance works best when 
the risk is spread across the population. Allowing the rich to shelter 
more of their income to save for retirement will not save Social 
Security.
  Please do not hide behind saving Social Security to provide tax cuts 
to the most affluent. The American worker deserves a more honest and 
responsible approach. We can reform Social Security without dismantling 
the program. We need to work in a bipartisan manner to enact real 
reforms, not tax cuts in disguise.
  I also urge my Colleagues on the other side not to fool themselves 
into thinking that dedicated all federal tobacco revenues to Medicare 
will save the program. Medicare's problems go well beyond just a cash 
reserve. Unlike Social Security, Medicare has always been a pay-as-you-
go program. Simply throwing money at the program will do little to 
improve the long term condition of the Medicare program. We all know 
that structural changes are the real answer. We have to improve the 
health of senior citizens before we can hope to improve the financial 
health of Medicare.
  I am pleased that my amendment regarding prevention benefits for 
Medicare beneficiaries was adopted by the Senate. If my Colleagues on 
the other side are serious about saving Medicare, we must increase the 
prevention focus within Medicare. It is simply beyond understanding why 
Medicare will not reimburse for prescription drugs to reduce 
cholesterol, but will pay for inpatient, acute care for by-pass 
surgery.
  A greater focus on prevention will prove that we are serious about 
saving Medicare. Prevention benefits are the kind of reforms needed to 
really save Medicare. It seems almost insincere to target new federal 
tobacco revenues to Medicare and not put these benefits to use in 
improving the health status of senior citizens.
  I think the greatest failure of this budget is the complete disregard 
for enacting real tobacco control legislation. The debate is not just 
about how to spend tobacco revenues, but enacting a national anti-
smoking bill that could potentially wipe out smoking in less than one 
generation. We have an historic opportunity to end the plague of 
tobacco. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass.
  The Republican budget resolution creates huge roadblocks for enacting 
tobacco control legislation. I am concerned that the Resolution will 
block any new revenues for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate 
nicotine as a drug. Without new revenues, FDA cannot enforce youth 
access laws that prevent children from buying cigarettes. Without 
tobacco revenues, FDA cannot regulate an industry known for hiding the 
facts and lying to Congress. How can FDA challenge an industry that has 
creatively targeted our children?
  There can be no anti-smoking national policy without a strong and 
well-financed FDA. Any attempt to pass anti tobacco legislation without 
a strong FDA will only fail. We will never end the tobacco companies 
attack on our children.
  This Budget Resolution fails our children in many ways. Not just 
about tobacco, but in preparing them for the challenges they will face 
tomorrow. We have all seen study after study that proves we need to 
place education as a top priority at both the federal and state level. 
Our children do not have the resources and are not being given the 
opportunity to meet their potential.
  I am disappointed in the lack of any effort in the Republican Budget 
Resolution to deal with overcrowded classrooms and decaying schools. 
How can we hope for high test scores when children have no heat in the 
classroom or windows covered with cardboard? How can we hope to prepare 
our children when there are 45 children in each classroom? How does a 
child receive the individual attention so important to cultivating 
their skills and their self esteem when there are 45 students for every 
teacher? Our classrooms boarder on chaos every day because of these 
deplorable conditions. Yet the Republican response was to simply ignore 
these problems.
  These are not local problems as some may argue. A well educated and 
skilled work force is a national security issue. We cannot remain a 
global economic power without a well educated and skilled work force. 
If we do not dedicate the resources necessary to ensure that every 
child can learn and can learn in an environment that is geared toward 
more than just survival, we jeopardize our own economic stability. 
Education is not just a local concern or a concern of parents. Ask any 
business

[[Page S3098]]

owner about the need to have an adequate supply of skilled labor. I can 
assure you that this is not a local issue, but is becoming a national 
disgrace.
  Ignoring investments in education is simply irresponsible and 
selfish. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and address the 
pressing needs of today's classrooms. We can do better.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague Senator 
Domenici, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, for bringing a 
truly remarkable budget resolution to the Floor of the Senate. I truly 
never thought that I would be standing here during my lifetime 
preparing to vote on a resolution that will bring our federal budget 
into balance, even producing a surplus. This is going to be one of 
those rare occasions when the Congress will actually be following its 
own advice. We will advance beyond the rhetoric of talking about 
balancing the budget and actually balance the budget. And we are doing 
it 4 years ahead of time. This is a truly remarkable achievement.
  If we continue on this course, something even more remarkable may 
begin to happen. The public may start to lose some of the skepticism 
about the Congress which has built up over the years.
  Last year we were faced with many hard choices as we worked on the 
bi-partisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It was a difficult time. The 
decisions which we made then were as tough as any decisions which we as 
legislators have ever had to make. But we joined hands, and for the 
good of the country we made them. Those difficult, sometimes bitter 
decisions are now bearing the sweet fruit of a balanced budget along 
with a possible surplus.
  We should be hearing the blue bird of happiness here in the Senate 
Chamber, and continue to be careful with the taxpayers money. But that 
doesn't seem to be the case. Instead we are hearing the gremlin of 
spend, spend, spend. It seems that the lessons we have learned about 
tightening our belts and living within our means was fleeting at best. 
To make matters worse, we are talking about spending money that we do 
not have yet.
  Another way that we are talking about spending money that we don't 
have in the various votes about spending the tobacco settlement money. 
This is not the appropriate time for this debate.
  In addition, we are putting the cart before the horse. We are 
debating how to spend the money from a tobacco settlement before we 
have made the hard choices required to enact this settlement. What 
about liability limitations, advertising restrictions, billion dollar 
attorneys fees, tax deductibility questions, new federal regulations, 
and antitrust limits? These are just a few issues that must be 
carefully considered before Congress passes any tobacco legislation.
  When we pass tobacco legislation, our goal--our priority--must be to 
eliminate youth smoking. When I can, I discourage people, both old and 
young, from smoking. I recently took my grandson Patrick to a town 
meeting, where Al Gore was speaking, that was organized to alert young 
people to the dangers of smoking. Let's make that clear, there is no 
one in this room who favors youth smoking. Any efforts to characterize 
anyone otherwise are disingenuous and frankly, unhelpful to this 
debate.
  I believe that we must pass tobacco legislation this session. And we 
need to keep our priorities straight when we do this. Our priority must 
be to stop youth smoking, not to coddle the tobacco industry. This 
Budget Resolution protects the chances of passing solid tobacco 
settlement legislation this year. It takes the proceeds from this 
theoretical legislation and puts them in a reserve fund for Medicare--
which pays the health-related costs that the state lawsuits were 
designed to address. It funds the issues won in the settlement--smoking 
cessation programs, health research, and such--from existing funds. We 
believe that these are important enough to fund them without waiting 
for new legislation. This allows us to stop arguing over how to spend 
the money long enough to consider the issues that must be solved for us 
to get this money. This gives us the strongest hand to enact 
legislation that creates a real, effective and lasting regime for 
reducing youth smoking.
  Now is also not the time to talk about new entitlement programs. Now 
is the time to keep entitlements and spending in line with last year's 
bipartisan budget agreement. It is time to make sure the entitlements 
we have already can meet their commitments to the millions of Americans 
who depend on them.
  Again, this is a good budget. This budget paves the way for real 
increases in spending for health research, child care, and other 
important programs. And we do it within the agreed upon budget caps.
  I greatly admire the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the 
skill and expertise which he has shown in crafting this budget 
resolution. This is a good resolution. This resolution keeps the faith 
with the American people as we continue to work to get a balanced 
budget and to keep it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Majority Leader 
Lott, Chairman Domenici and the members of the Budget Committee for 
putting together a balanced fiscal blueprint for the Federal 
Government. The federal budget consists of more than 1,060 spending 
accounts that fund an estimated 113,000 programs, projects, and 
activities. The federal budget and a Congressional budget collapse 
these accounts into twenty budget functions. It was not too long ago 
that we talked about the ever-increasing deficit and the need to for 
fiscal restraint of these functions. Under this resolution, the budget 
would be balanced three years earlier than the Fiscal Year 2002 
deadline set out in the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997.
  The budget we will be voting on provides for the first surplus in a 
generation. After reaching a peak of $290 billion in 1992, the unified 
budget deficit has declined to where the Congressional Budget Office 
projects a surplus in the current fiscal year of nearly $8 billion. 
Current laws and policies left unchanged, and real economic growth 
averaging 2.2 percent annually, the unified budget surplus is projected 
to grow to $67 billion by 2002. The budget achieves this surplus while 
also increasing spending by 3.6 percent over last year.
  Even though the budget calls for increased spending, it maintains the 
principles of the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. This budget we 
have before us today embraces a bipartisan approach of protecting 
federal programs while preserving the principles of fiscal discipline.
  Mr. President, Chairman Domenici has increased funding in some of the 
programs that are important to me as Chairman of the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee. The budget provides an additional $15 billion for 
the National Institute of Health, $5 billion for the IDEA educational 
programs, and $5 billion for Child Care Block Grants.
  The budget provides funding for the $214 billion Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act that the Senate passed on March 12, 1998. 
The State of Vermont would average $118 million a year in highway money 
and $2.5 million for mass transit projects through 2003. Vermont will 
be able to use funds to reconstruct aging rail lines, repair bridges, 
and improve major roads throughout the state. Mass transit funding will 
go to small-town bus systems and minibuses for disabled and handicapped 
people in rural areas.
  Mr. President, even though this budget provides additional funding on 
programs that are very important to me, we still have many challenges 
ahead. The Federal Government still has a $5.5 trillion debt. In Fiscal 
Year 1998, the Federal Government will spend about $250 billion on 
interest on the national debt. One out of every seven dollars in taxes 
goes simply to pay off the bondholders. This money gets diverted from 
important programs that the Federal Government provides. The Clinton 
Administration said that without enactment of any budget agreement, 
debt would have approached $7 trillion by 2002.
  Mr. President, there is $14 trillion in unfunded obligations for the 
retirement and health care benefits of the Baby-boomer generation. That 
generation is now just ten years away from starting to impose its 
unprecedented burdens on its children and grandchildren. We as a nation 
need to begin to agree on a way to ensure the health care and 
retirement security of the Baby-boomer generation retirees.

[[Page S3099]]

  The economy of the United States is booming and inflation has all but 
vanished. Unemployment is low and federal budget will be balanced for 
the first time in 30 years. This budget provides the building blocks to 
meet the challenges that lie ahead. I call upon my colleagues to build 
upon the work over the last decade at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue 
and support this budget resolution.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in firm opposition to S. Con. 
Res. 86, the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 1999. I do so with great 
disappointment.
  Mr. President, last year the Congress produced an historic budget 
agreement. We produced a plan to finish the job we started in 1993 of 
eliminating the budget deficit. We worked together--across party 
lines--to balance the budget, to protect our seniors by ensuring the 
solvency of Medicare, and to provide for key investments in education 
and health care. We also provided real tax relief for working families.
  I had hoped we would be able to continue to build off the framework 
of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act and Taxpayer Relief Act. Unfortunately, 
this budget resolution ignores the priorities that were at the core of 
those agreements.
  I will oppose this resolution because it does not reflect the 
principles and priorities that I believe must be part of the budget. I 
want a budget that preserves the safety net for seniors, gets behind 
our kids, provides for safe streets and a safer world, and provides for 
investments in science and technology. I believe this budget is 
defective in each of these areas.
  The Democratic budget alternative that was offered during our debate 
was strong where this resolution is deficient. It would have allowed 
for enactment of a comprehensive child care initiative to improve and 
expand the availability of quality, affordable child care and after 
school programs for school age children. No working parent should have 
to worry about finding suitable care for their child--a safe place with 
well-trained staff. The lack of adequate safe and affordable child care 
is a major concern of America's families. Our alternative would have 
gone a long way to meet that critical need.
  The Democratic alternative was strong on education. It would have 
enabled us to improve the education of our children through initiatives 
to reduce classroom size, hire 100,000 more teachers, and to ensure 
that children attend school in safe and well-maintained facilities.
  Our Democratic alternative was strong on Social Security. It made 
clear that before we spend one penny of any projected budget surplus, 
we should save Social Security first. Social Security is a sacred 
compact with America's seniors. We owe it to every senior citizen to 
ensure that Social Security is there for them, and that it will be 
there for today's workers when they retire.
  Our Democratic alternative was strong on health care. It would have 
provided for vital new investments in health care research. It would 
have ensured that the funds generated by a comprehensive tobacco bill--
a priority for the American people--could be used to fight teen 
smoking, to conduct tobacco-related health research, to provide 
programs for people who want to quit smoking, and to help tobacco 
farmers move to new crops.
  I believe we produced a budget that should have had the support of a 
bipartisan majority. It was a common sense budget--that kept our 
commitment to a balanced budget, while providing for the sorts of 
investments in key priorities that are critical for getting our country 
ready for the next century.
  I am deeply disappointed that our alternative was rejected. The 
Budget Resolution before us now does not meet America's needs. I cannot 
support it.


                        focus on teacher quality

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my 
Sense of the Senate Resolution which I have introduced.
  In believe there is a crisis in teacher education in the United 
States. To me, that means we have to look to new ideas. If we are 
serious about restoring America as an academic power, I believe that we 
have to act immediately to find solutions. In the past, education 
reform has not been bold enough--and our children are suffering very 
serious consequences.
  Some alarming statistics really brought this home for me:
  36% of those now teaching core subjects--like English, math, science, 
social studies, and foreign languages--neither majored nor minored in 
those subjects.
  A study conducted by the National Commission on Teaching and 
America's Future revealed that

       More than one-quarter of newly hired public school teachers 
     in 1991 lacked the qualifications for their jobs, and nearly 
     one-fourth of all secondary teachers did not even have a 
     minor in their main teaching field.

  The Commission also found that

       56% percent of high school students taking physical science 
     were being taught by out-of-field teachers, as were 27% of 
     those taking mathematics and 21% of those taking English.

  This is bad enough--but there's also evidence that the least 
qualified teachers were most likely to be found in high-poverty and 
predominantly minority schools, and in lower-track classes. In fact, in 
schools with the highest minority enrollments, students had less than a 
50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who held a 
license and a degree in the field he or she taught.
  This is a prescription for disaster on a truly national scale. With 
this failure of investment in properly trained teachers, we should not 
be surprised that students are doing so poorly on standardized tests. 
After all, if the teacher does not understand the subject he or she is 
teaching, then certainly the students will not learn what they need to 
know.
  It is inexcusable that a country that leads the world in so many ways 
does not give its children the best academic resources available. The 
truth is, the United States will not remain a world leader unless we 
make a commitment to invest more in teacher quality--and soon.
  I am encouraged that we have bipartisan interest in reforming the 
education system. However, we must address the problem of quality 
teachers before we merely reduce class size and hire 100,000 new 
teachers.
  The answer, in my view, is to only certify quality teachers--and 
furthermore, to get the quality teachers to teach our neediest kids. 
All children, from K to 12th grade, deserve the chance to have well-
educated, qualified teachers who will help them reach the limits of 
their academic potential.
  I have introduced legislation that would provide assistance for the 
creation of teacher training facilities across the United States that 
will help train teachers who are either already in the classroom, or 
about to enter the teaching profession. While it is important to stem 
the tide of unqualified teachers reaching the classroom, we must also 
focus on helping teachers that are already in the classroom and need 
assistance in becoming the best teachers that they can be.
  The Teacher Quality Act is common-sense legislation that will assist 
school districts in their struggle to maintain the highest possible 
academic standards for their children. The idea for this legislation 
developed out of my admiration for the Mayerson Academy in Cincinnati, 
Ohio. The Mayerson Academy was established in 1992 as a partnership 
between the Cincinnati business community and its schools. Its mission 
is to provide the highest quality training and professional development 
opportunities to the men and women responsible for educating the 
children of Cincinnati.
  We also need to tap into the expertise of people who have a lot to 
offer our children, but who haven't trained specifically to be 
teachers. I have introduced legislation that will expand and improve 
the supply of well-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers, 
by helping States develop and implement programs for alternative 
certification or licensure of teachers.
  The Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act will give 
people who would like to teach a chance to do so. These are people who 
can serve as mentors and role models--real-life examples of how a good 
education can make a huge positive difference in a student's future.
  We need to bring the best possible people into America's classrooms--
people who can inspire kids with their knowledge and experience. That's 
what this bill would accomplish.
  When it comes to education, our national task is clear: We have to 
develop

[[Page S3100]]

an education system that will draw the best and brightest students into 
the teaching profession. The States need to be encouraged to provide 
incentives for people to become teachers, and restore a sense of pride 
to this profession.
  Without strong teachers, our children will continue to struggle. But 
if we start attracting the best possible people into the classroom, 
there's really no limit to what our young people can achieve.
  Please join me in voting for this Resolution so that we can begin a 
concerted focus on teacher quality in this country.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today our economy is remarkably 
strong, and this year our budget will balance for the first time since 
1969. In 1993, many of my colleagues and I passed a historic budget 
plan that set the stage for this strong economy. Today, I am proud to 
report that the Congressional Budget Office estimates a surplus of $8 
billion this year.
  In these past 4 years, we've achieved the lowest tax burden for 
working families in 20 years. Unemployment was 7.5 percent in 1992. 
Last month it fell to 4.7 percent, its lowest in 24 years. And since 
President Clinton took office, more than 13 million new jobs have been 
created. We have strengthened the economy while at the same time 
reducing the size of government.
  For the past several days, we have been considering the Budget 
resolution for 1999. This resolution could have provided us the 
opportunity to take the next vital step in creating even a stronger 
economy and addressing some of our nation's most urgent needs. While 
this resolution has several provisions which I do believe will lead us 
in that direction, I also believe that it fails to seize the 
opportunity to address some of our nation's most immediate needs, and 
for that reason, I will not support this budget resolution.
  First, let me say that I am pleased that the drafters of this 
resolution have made provisions for the Senate increases and offsets 
for reauthorization of ISTEA, assuming an additional $2.7 billion over 
five years for mass transit programs, $25.9 billion above last year's 
agreed to levels. In addition, I am pleased to see that an additional 
$5 billion in discretionary budget authority has been provided for the 
Child Care Block Grant, and I am additionally pleased to see provisions 
for the extension of the R&E tax credit, IRS reform, technical 
corrections to 1997 tax bill, and child care tax relief.
  Over the course of this week, however, several good amendments have 
been offered that could have strengthened this budget resolution and 
made it an even clearer expression of our values. Unfortunately, most 
of those efforts failed here on the Senate floor. The majority--who did 
nothing to help erase the red ink our Administration inherited from 
them--continues to cling to failed economic policies.
  For instance, this budget resolution fails to do anything in the way 
of addressing the $112 billion that the GAO reports is needed to bring 
America's crumbling schools up to code, or to address the need to 
strengthen our public school system. There is no greater challenge or 
threat to our nation's future prospects in this technological age and 
global economy than quality education for every American child. Failure 
to respond to that challenge is not only irresponsible, but 
destructive.
  Equally distressing is that fact that this resolution does not do 
enough to address the current status of our Medicare and Social 
Security systems. This opportunity should have been used, I believe, to 
provide retirement security for our seniors. Social Security and 
Medicare have worked well together, bringing poverty among the elderly 
to its lowest level since we have been keeping statistics. Furthermore, 
these programs have helped to increase life expectancy among men and 
women. Millions of senior citizens deserve to have a decent retirement, 
and this budget fails to address their needs.
  Do we need to operate these programs the same way? Of course not--but 
we do need to secure the guarantees they provide for Americans. The 
time for reform of both of these vital programs is now, and we do 
ourselves a disservice by not seizing this opportunity.
  As with education, the issue is whether we are preparing our nation 
for the challenges of the next century.
  We can fix these institutions and remain fiscally responsible. We 
have proven, in passing last year's budget agreement, that it is 
possible to address the needs of our nation and promote economic growth 
and a fair tax system at the same time.
  It is unfortunate that politics prevented us from fashioning a budget 
resolution that could have served the needs of all the American people, 
and not just a few. I cannot in good conscience support this budget 
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the FY 1999 budget resolution is the first 
resolution that has been crafted since the historic balanced budget 
agreement was reached and enacted just 10 short months ago.
  I would first like to congratulate the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Pete Domenici, for bringing us to the point where a balanced 
budget is no longer just a projection at end of some indeterminate 
period of time--but may actually be a reality by the end of the current 
fiscal year. His years of dedication to balanced budgets and his 
ongoing commitment to being a responsible steward of the taxpayer's 
dollar may soon be rewarded--and I am pleased to have had the 
opportunity to serve with him on the Budget Committee during this 
historic time.
  Furthermore, I believe that the resolution that Chairman has crafted 
deserves the support of no less than each of the 76 members who voted 
for last year's bipartisan agreement. This resolution is not only 
consistent with that agreement, but also adds critical funding for a 
multitude of programs that are priorities for many in the Senate: child 
care, health research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
smoking cessation programs, and federal funding for the Individuals 
with Disability Education Act (IDEA), to name just a few. Any member 
who heralded last year's budget agreement--or who voted in favor the 
provisions and spending targets it contained--would be hard-pressed to 
explain why this resolution does not deserve their support this year.
  Mr. President, as I stated during the recent markup of this 
resolution in the Budget Committee, I believe it is important that we 
establish several guiding principles in crafting the FY 1999 budget 
resolution. I am proud to say that the resolution we crafted--and which 
is now being considered by the full Senate--achieves all of these 
goals.
  First, based on the 29-year losing streak we have had in balancing 
the federal budget, we have an obligation to craft a resolution that 
puts us on a credible and prudent path that will keep the budget 
balanced for many years to come.
  Second, we must craft a budget resolution that is based on the 
balanced budget agreement that was enacted 10 short months ago.
  Third, with an eye to the future, we must preserve the Social 
Security program before utilizing any portion of forthcoming surpluses 
for spending increases or tax cuts.
  And, fourth, we must ensure that any monies generated by tobacco 
revenues in the months ahead be utilized to preserve and protect 
Medicare.
  Although it would seem that these principles will be easy to attain, 
Congress' unproven track record of keeping the budget in balance, the 
tenuous nature of our economic assumptions, and the overwhelming desire 
of some individuals to ``spend'' money we don't even have, will make 
this difficult.
  As I said, Congress has been on a 29-year losing streak when it comes 
to balancing the budget--we have no track record of getting the budget 
in balance or keeping it in balance. Therefore, much as I am pleased 
that CBO now projects an $8 billion surplus this year and total 
surpluses of $151 billion over the next five years, I believe we have 
an obligation to prove to the American people that we will ensure these 
projections become a reality not only for the next five years, but 
year-after-year in the future.
  Achieving this goal will be harder than it looks. The simple fact is 
that the current outlook and surplus estimates are based on extremely 
tenuous projections. Therefore, to modify a well known saying, ``we 
shouldn't count our surpluses before they're hatched.''
  First, our estimated surpluses are based on the assumption that we 
will

[[Page S3101]]

have no recessions or economic downturns in the coming 10 years. Based 
on the fact that we are now in the midst of one of the longest 
stretches of sustained economic growth in our nation's history, this 
seems to be a fragile estimate at best.
  Specifically, as the chart behind me indicates, the current period of 
sustained economic growth first started in March 1991. If it continues 
until December 1998, it will match the duration of the longest 
peacetime expansion in U.S. history--the ``Reagan expansion''--which 
lasted 92 straight months (i.e. November 1982 to July 
1990). Furthermore, if this expansion continues until early 2000, it 
will be longest period of expansion ever--peacetime or wartime--which 
was set in the 1960's (106 straight months, from February 1961--
December 1969).

  Therefore, If CBO's projection come true and growth is sustained 
through 2008, we will double the all-time record of 106 straight months 
set in 1969. Needless to say, with 61% of the economists surveyed by 
Blue Chip believing a recession is likely to occur before March 2000, 
these estimates of prolonged economic growth leading to substantial 
surpluses should be viewed with a health dose of skepticism.
  Furthermore, our estimates for growth in even the current year are 
predicated on shaky estimates. Specifically, although the impact of the 
Asian economic crisis has seemed only slight up until now, we still do 
not know how severe the overall impact will be--and we certainly won't 
know until later in the year when it's too late to alter the budget.
  Already, just two weeks ago, we learned that the U.S. trade deficit 
for the month of January soared to a new all-time record of $12 
billion, as exports to Asia dropped precipitously. According to a 
recent Washington Post article, many economists expect that because of 
problems in Asia, the trade deficit will widen substantially this year 
from the $114 billion deficit posted in 1997--which was already the 
largest trade deficit our nation had posted in nine years. Needless to 
say, if this situation persists and worsens, there will be a drag on 
the U.S. economy.
  In light of these risks, we would be wise to heed the caution of CBO 
when it comes to touting the budget outlook. As CBO outlined in their 
own January report, the economy is ``highly unlikely to develop 
precisely as the forecast predicts''--and even a moderate recession, 
such as the one experienced in the early 1990's, could lead to the 
budget outlook deteriorating by ``more than $100 billion'' for a year 
or more. In fact, if projected growth is even 0.5% lower than CBO 
projects over the next 10 years, the budget outcome will be $150 
billion worse than projected in 2008.
  It is because of CBO's own cautions that I am especially concerned 
with the economic and budget estimates of OMB. Although the CBO and OMB 
estimates are very close together, the simple fact is that OMB still 
provides a more favorable economic outlook in coming years. 
Specifically, as a result of more favorable growth estimates and lower 
inflation estimates, OMB's estimated surpluses are $66 billion--or 30 
percent--higher than CBO. Therefore, prudence dictates that OMB's 
estimates be viewed with even greater skepticism than the already 
optimistic projections of CBO.

  Clearly, if we are to establish a track record of balanced budgets, 
we must chart a prudent course in the budget resolution. And for this 
reason, we must adopt a resolution that not only follows CBO's more 
modest economic estimates, but that also adheres strictly to last 
year's balanced budget agreement. This body should do nothing to 
jeopardize that agreement, which put in place strict spending limits 
that will improve the chances of projected surpluses becoming actual 
surpluses.
  Regrettably, the President does not seem to share this view. Rather, 
he views the recent favorable estimates as an opportunity to spend 
money, create new programs, and violate the terms and spirit of the 
budget agreement we reached just 10 short months ago!
  By proposing to increase taxes by $105 billion and to increase 
spending by $118 billion, the President's budget would revert to the 
tax-and-spend policies that the American people believed we abandoned 
three years ago.
  Furthermore, although President Clinton has urged that Congress not 
spend the surplus until Social Security is fixed, CBO now tells us that 
the President's own budget would not only spend the surplus, but also 
cause a deficit in three years! Specifically, as CBO stated in their 
March 4 preliminary analysis of the President's budget: ``CBO estimates 
that the President's policies will reduce projected baseline surpluses 
by $43 billion between 1999 and 2003--and will temporarily dip the 
budget back into red ink by a small amount in 2000.''
  Needless to say, these aren't the kind of policies that Congress 
agreed to when we crafted the bipartisan balanced budget agreement last 
year--and that's not what the American people were led to believe would 
happen when President Clinton unveiled his budget proposal in February.
  While some may argue that the President is not bound by last year's 
budget agreement because the budget may be balanced sooner than 
expected, I have only one thing to say: I don't remember any clause in 
the agreement that read: ``If a balanced budget is achieved prior to 
2002, the terms and spending limits of this agreement are automatically 
waived.''
  Fortunately, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Pete Domenici, 
understands the need for prudence, and crafted this resolution 
accordingly.
  As the budget before us demonstrates, the Chairman believes that we 
have an obligation to treat this favorable budget news as a chance to 
prepare for the future and address the long-term demands that retiring 
Baby Boomers will place on our budget in 10 short years.
  Specifically, this resolution adheres to the budget agreement we 
struck 10 months ago. Also, he leaves every dime of every future 
surplus to the Social Security Trust Fund--which is just as the 
President urged us to do, though his own budget does not. And, finally, 
he ensures that Congress does not forget or ignore the plight of 
Medicare--a critical program that will be insolvent in 2008, which is 
long before Social Security will be insolvent, and sooner than many 
would like to remember.
  To achieve this final goal, the Chairman has wisely walled-off any 
monies we receive from tobacco legislation and dedicated it to 
Medicare. In comparison, the President would like to target these 
monies to a host of new programs that he believes will have popular 
appeal. Perhaps targeting windfall revenues to a program that our 
elderly rely on for their medical needs isn't as appealing as handing 
out new ``goodies'' in an election year, but I certainly believe it 
would be more responsible and prudent.
  In addition, when considering the cost of smoking-related illnesses 
on the Medicare program each and every year, linking any forthcoming 
tobacco revenue to the Medicare program is imminently appropriate. As 
the chart behind me indicates, Columbia University found that smoking-
related illnesses cost the Medicare program $25.5 billion in 1995 
alone. In fact, of the various forms of substance abuse that affect the 
Medicare program, tobacco-related illnesses accounted for 80% of the 
approximately $32 billion total costs in 1995.
  Therefore, even assuming that these costs have not risen since 1995--
which is doubtful--then the President's budget, which assumes tobacco 
revenues of approximately $13 billion in each of the coming five years, 
will not even come close to covering the costs of tobacco on the 
Medicare program. In fact, the President's assumption would cover only 
slightly more than half of these annual costs. Needless to say, the 
budget resolution's assumption that these monies be used to shore-up 
the Medicare program is more than justified when considering these 
facts.
  Now, some members have expressed concern that walling-off tobacco 
revenues in this manner will harm our efforts to pass comprehensive 
tobacco legislation later this year. As a member of the Senate Commerce 
Committee--the Committee that will soon be marking-up this 
legislation--I cannot emphasize enough that this concern is unfounded.
  The tobacco reserve fund does not imperil comprehensive tobacco 
legislation, as some members on the other side of the aisle will 
contend. Rather, just the opposite is true: It will protect future 
tobacco legislation.

[[Page S3102]]

  The simple fact, Mr. President, is that the more uses we identify for 
possible tobacco revenues in the budget resolution, the more the urge 
to spend money will become the driving force for tobacco legislation. 
If that happens, the only winners will be the tobacco companies, 
because Congress will have lost sight of the true goal of that 
legislation: reducing--if not eliminating--teen smoking.

  Tobacco companies would like nothing more than for those of us who 
are committed to passing comprehensive tobacco legislation to argue 
about how money will be spent. The simple fact is that if we divvy-up 
the pot of potential tobacco money in this resolution, we will face 
enormous pressure to simply pass a tobacco bill at all costs, 
regardless of its merits. Such a bill could well-contain many weak 
provisions that favor tobacco companies--but the pressure to ``spend 
the money'' will drive members to overlook the inherent flaws of such a 
bill.
  As the Washington Post stated in a February 3 editorial: ``Mr. 
Clinton would pay for a fair amount of his program with a tobacco bill 
that he has thus far not submitted. He is relying on Congress to write 
it. He says that as a deterrent to smoking, it should raise the price 
of smoking $1.50 a pack in real terms over 10 years, and he proposes a 
division of the revenue. The problem with that will be if the money 
becomes more important than the rest of the bill, and the tobacco 
companies are able, as is their intent, to buy weaker legislation than 
might otherwise be passed.''
  That's not an outcome that I want for tobacco legislation--and that's 
not the outcome that I believe the American people want either.
  Unfortunately, those who would attempt to push for an advance-
divvying of the tobacco ``piggy-bank'' drive us toward that outcome.
  The fact of the matter is that the Chairman's mark will ensure that 
tobacco legislation to reduce teen smoking is able to move forward 
based on sound policy--not politics. Limiting the use of the federal 
share of future tobacco monies to Medicare is not an impediment to 
tobacco legislation--it is an enabler.
  Mr. President, if I understand the argument of the minority 
accurately, they believe that limiting the use of the federal share of 
tobacco monies to Medicare will impose an additional hurdle to tobacco 
legislation. They are saying that it will prevent tobacco monies from 
being used for important tobacco-related purposes, such as smoking 
cessation programs and health research.
  As the Chairman has outlined, his budget resolution does more for 
these programs today than any theoretical tobacco bill is able to do. 
This resolution provides $800 million for tobacco cessation and 
prevention programs, and $15 billion for research at the NIH. That's 
real money--not the illusory money that we simply hope tobacco 
legislation will generate in the future.
  Now, some may argue that this budget simply does not provide enough 
for these or other smoking-related programs, and that any forthcoming 
tobacco legislation should provide additional monies for these 
purposes. That's a legitimate argument.
  But the simple fact is that this budget will not prevent additional 
monies from being provided for such purposes if a tobacco bill is 
passed. In fact, the budget resolution will not even prevent tobacco 
monies from being diverted to programs that have nothing to do with 
tobacco.
  The bottom line is that if tobacco legislation is brought up on the 
floor of the Senate and members wish to divert monies for any number of 
purposes--either related to smoking or not related to smoking--they can 
do that. It will simply take 60 votes to waive the point of order that 
this resolution would create against such spending--which is the same 
margin of votes that will be required to end debate on that same 
tobacco bill (achieve cloture).
  Therefore, in light of the fact that it will take at least 60 votes 
to end debate on a tobacco bill and--ultimately--to pass a tobacco 
bill, this point of order is not onerous. It simply ensures that we 
keep our priorities straight from the start (Medicare), and ensures 
that the various ways we spend tobacco monies will have the same level 
of support as the tobacco bill itself.
  The bottom line is that if Congress believes that more money is 
needed from the tobacco bill to pay for smoking cessation and other 
tobacco-related programs, garnering 60 votes to waive the point of 
order will not even be an issue. Therefore, arguing that this 
requirement--which is no more onerous than the 60-vote margin that will 
be required to end debate and pass the tobacco bill--endangers tobacco 
legislation, is completely inaccurate.
  The bottom line is that this resolution seeks to protect tobacco 
legislation from being weakened or undermined by a ``rush for the 
money.'' So I hope that those who are concerned about tobacco 
legislation will join us in this effort to keep the focus of tobacco 
legislation on reducing teen smoking--not on spending money.
  I want a strong, effective tobacco bill--I don't want it undermined 
and weakened because the ``politics of spending'' got in the way of 
good policy.
  Mr. President, these and other principled decisions that are embodied 
in this resolution will undoubtedly be challenged by those who would 
like to open the fiscal floodgates and start spending at will or pass 
another round of tax cuts. However, I believe that as we move from a 
period of deficit politics to surplus politics, we should exercise 
discipline and prudence to ensure expectations are met--not re-open the 
federal credit card account that got us into so much trouble in the 
first place.

  At the same time, maintaining fiscal discipline and adhering to last 
year's balanced budget agreement does not mean that we must ignore 
important issues confronting our nation today. Specifically, within 
existing budget constraints, we can and should address the educational 
needs of our children and tackle the child care crisis that is 
affecting countless families nationwide.
  But funding these and other priorities doesn't require that we 
violate last year's spending caps--rather, they require that we 
prioritize our spending and have the will to target our spending 
accordingly.
  In particular, I would like to highlight the manner in which the 
Chairman properly accommodated one such priority--child care--in this 
resolution. As the leaders of both parties an the Administration have 
demonstrated through a variety of proposals, improving child care 
should be a priority during the current Congress. And in light of the 
ever-expanding need for child care assistance, such a decision is not 
surprising.
  In 1995, 62 percent of women with children younger than 6 years of 
age--which means 12 million children--were cared for by someone other 
than a parent during working hours, and the numbers have not improved. 
Yet the supply of child care does not meet demand, and existing child 
care is often unaffordable. In fact, on average, child care costs range 
from $3,000 to $8,000 per year, and can be even higher for infant care.
  Safety is also a factor that looms heavily on parents' minds--in 
fact, a U.S. News and World Report article last August found that 76 
children died in day care in 1996. This is tragic and should not be the 
case. Placing children in child care should be an act of confidence, 
not a leap of faith.
  Finally, many families who wish to care for a young child at home--
even for a short period of time--cannot afford to forgo the second 
income, while other families undertake great scarifies to do so. But 
what many American families share is that terrible feeling that they 
have no option. And it should not be this way.
  That is why the assumptions of this budget resolution are so 
critical. Not only would this budget double funding for the Child Care 
Development Block Grant (CCDBG)--going from $5 billion to $10 billion--
over the coming five years, but it would also ensure that any tax 
package subsequently passed by the Finance Committee provide tax relief 
to families struggling with child care. I believe that these are 
policies that both Democrats and Republicans alike can and should 
embrace.
  In January, I introduced a comprehensive bill--the Caring for 
Children Act--with Senators Chafee, Hatch, Roberts, and Specter, that 
is designed to increase the availability of a safe and affordable child 
care. That legislation would expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit, and 
for the first

[[Page S3103]]

time make this credit available to families where a parent stays at 
home to care for a child. It also encourages public-private 
partnerships, provides increased funding for quality, and doubles 
funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant.
  Although the budget resolution does not advocate any particular child 
care bill, I am pleased that the assumptions included in this budget 
would comport with our bill, and I hope that policies along these lines 
will be enacted in the coming months.
  I know that other child care bills have been introduced in the 
Senate--including a bill introduced by Senator Dodd, along with 
Senators Murray and Conrad. I truly believe that we are not that far 
apart in terms of policy, and I look forward to a time when we can work 
together to bridge these differences.
  At the same time, I also know that there are those who will be 
adamant that the increased funding provided in the budget resolution 
for the Child Care Development Block Grant be mandatory in nature. 
However, I believe that the large increase in discretionary funding 
provided in the resolution is the most fiscally responsible approach to 
this nation's child care needs--and is quite an accomplishment when 
considering the fiscal constraints imposed in last year's bipartisan 
balanced budget agreement.
  To those who will say that the Appropriations Committee will not be 
able to locate additional funds within the discretionary caps for child 
care, say, If child care is truly a priority, then it is simply a 
matter of having the will--and casting the votes--to ensure that an 
additional $1 billion per year is identified during the appropriations 
process for child care as we weigh our spending priorities. And 
considering that the President has proposed more than $47 billion in 
non-defense discretionary cuts over the coming five years, this is 
hardly a practical impossibility--it is only a matter of will.
  Mr. President, this decision to dramatically increase funding for 
child care is but one of many decisions contained in this resolution 
that will address shared priorities. While some may argue that the 
recent favorable budget outlook gives us leeway to fund these 
priorities out of surplus monies or hoped-for tobacco revenues, the 
bottom line is that Republicans and Democrats alike fought hard for, 
and agreed to, this bipartisan agreement only ten months ago.
  We should not take steps now to violate not only that agreement, but 
our trust with the American people. We have a responsibility to abide 
by this agreement, and the Chairman provided very generous funding 
within these constraints to ensure that child care and other priorities 
are properly addressed.
  The bottom line is that this resolution abides by last year's 
balanced budget agreement; provides increased funding for critically 
needed priorities; preserves every penny of every surplus over the 
coming five years to protect Social Security; and ensures that any 
windfall revenues from tobacco legislation will be used to buttress the 
Medicare program.
  The fact that this budget resolution abides by last year's agreement 
should be reason enough for each of the 76 members who voted for last 
year's agreement--including 36 Democrats--to vote for this budget plan. 
And the fact that it contains these other strong provisions should lead 
to even stronger bipartisan support. Therefore, I urge that my 
colleagues support this soundly-crafted resolution.
  Mr. President, there is a saying: ``Money's only something you need 
if you're around tomorrow.'' While this may be true for an individual, 
it doesn't make for good federal policy. Therefore, I congratulate the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee for recognizing that being a good 
steward of the federal budget requires that we ensure there is money 
around tomorrow--even if we are not.
  Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to make decisions 
today that will ensure they are not left with a mountain of unpaid 
bills and a host of unresolved problems on the horizon. The budget that 
you have crafted--and that is now before this body--would protect them 
from both of these dangers, and I congratulate you for your continued 
foresight. Thank you, Mr. President, and I look forward to voting in 
favor of this resolution.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will approve a budget 
which will go beyond a balanced budget and create a surplus for the 
first time in more than a generation. This has been a key objective for 
me since I came to the Senate in 1985. So there is reason for some 
satisfaction and relief tonight. However, as we balance the budget, the 
picture is not entirely appealing. Unfortunately, we have failed to 
provide adequate support for the critical needs of our nation's 
children.
  The Federal government has run a deficit continuously for more than 
30 years. It soared to dangerous levels in the 1980s during the Reagan 
and Bush Administrations. As a result of these deficits, our national 
debt has multiplied several times, exacting a toll on our economy, 
increasing interest rates, squeezing federal spending and making debt 
service one of the largest expenditures in the Federal budget.
  In 1993, following President Clinton's election, we began the long 
journey back from crushing deficits and toward fiscal responsibility by 
passing an enormously successful economic plan. The power of our 
economy was unleashed and our nation has benefitted greatly: 
unemployment is at record low; interest rates are subdued; the stock 
market is surpassing all expectations; and economic growth continues to 
be robust. This path culminated in last year's agreement to balance the 
budget and provide substantial broad-based tax relief for working 
American families and small businesses. The 1999 Budget Resolution is 
another step on the path to fiscal responsibility. I commend the 
leaders with key roles in bringing us to this point: President Clinton 
and his advisers, The Senate Republican and Democratic leadership, and 
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee.
  I strongly support the fact that the budget resolution produces a 
surplus which we can use to begin to restore the financial credibility 
of the Social Security system or pay off our federal debt. But that is 
far from the only measure that should be applied to a budget. Deficit 
elimination is a vital objective, but it is neither an economic policy 
nor a statement of priorities for our nation or its government.
  How we balance the budget is just as important as whether we do so.
  This budget unfortunately will leave some critical American needs 
unmet. It misses a unique opportunity in America's history to assist 
children and families and resolve many of our most pressing problems in 
education, child care, health care and environment.
  Our children face real problems, and although there are a number of 
areas where we could improve this resolution, I want to focus my 
remarks on its effect on our nation's children. The out-of-wedlock 
birth rate is too high. While the Gross National Product has doubled 
over the last two decades, the child poverty rate has increased 50 
percent. An American child drops out of school every eight seconds, is 
reported neglected or abused every 10 seconds; and is killed by guns 
every hour and a half. As a society, we are creating these problems for 
our children. Yet we know that scientific evidence conclusively 
demonstrates that enhancing children's physical, social, emotional, and 
intellectual development will result in tremendous benefits for 
children, families and our nation.
  America's children especially need support during the formative, 
preschool years in order to thrive and grow to become contributing 
adults. However, adequate child care is not affordable or even 
available for too many families. That is why I believe we must provide 
more help to working families to pay for critically needed, quality 
child care, an early learning fund to assist local communities in 
developing better child care programs, and sufficient funding to double 
the number of infants and toddlers in Early Head Start. President 
Clinton shares this view and included in his 1999 budget proposal my 
recommendations on this issue. However, the Republican leadership 
rejected this approach and included no additional mandatory funding for 
either child care subsidies or early childhood education. Further, the 
resolution goes out of its way to exclude child care from the tobacco 
reserve fund. Instead, the budget tentatively promises a $5 billion 
increase

[[Page S3104]]

only if Congress is willing to cut other worthy programs to do so. That 
is unacceptable to the working families in this country. I joined 
Senator Dodd in offering an important amendment to rectify this 
situation and increase funding for these crucial programs. While this 
amendment secured a majority vote, under Senate rules that was 
insufficient so the amendment did not become part of the resolution.
  Mr. President, we must develop an educational system which prepares 
our children and young people for adulthood. Today, we are failing too 
many of our children. Crumbling schools. Overcrowded classrooms. 
Inadequately prepared teachers. The federal government provides a small 
amount of the total funding for public elementary and secondary 
education--less than seven percent of total public spending on K-12 
education comes from the federal government, down from just under 10 
percent in 1980. We must back up our grand rhetoric with appropriate 
funding for these worthy programs.
  With my enthusiastic support, Democrats offered a number of 
amendments to this resolution to increase the effectiveness of our 
educational system. Among them were amendments to reduce class size 
from a nationwide average of 22 in grades 1-3 to an average of 18, to 
provide funds to help local school districts hire an additional 100,000 
teachers, and to develop federal tax credits to pay interest on nearly 
$22 billion in bonds to build and renovate our public schools, many of 
which are in disrepair with emphasis on the 100 to 120 school districts 
with the largest number of low-income children. Finally, Democrats 
proposed a $2.2 billion increase for after school programs, education 
opportunity zones, and the High Hopes Initiative.
  I am deeply disappointed that the Republican budget resolution does 
not include any of these proposals and that Republicans again and again 
rejected these initiatives. The consequences of the Republican budget 
are clear. Half a million disadvantaged children will not receive the 
extra help they need to succeed in school. Approximately 450,000 
students will be denied safe after-school care in 1999. Some 30,000 new 
children will be denied access to the Head Start program. Some 6,500 
public schools will not have drug and violence prevention coordinators. 
3.9 million attending or wanting to attend college will be denied an 
increase in their Pell Grants. If we are going to talk about education 
being a national priority, then we ought to match our grand rhetoric 
with real money. The budget resolution we are considering today does 
not meet this challenge.
  Access to health care in our nation is also inadequate. President 
Clinton proposed three initiatives to provide Americans aged 55 to 65 
new ways to gain access to health insurance by allowing those aged 62 
to 65 to buy into Medicare, paying a fair premium for the coverage. It 
also would allow displaced workers over 55 access to similar Medicare 
coverage. The third initiative would allow Americans over 55 who have 
lost their retiree benefits access to their former employers' health 
insurance until age 65. These proposals would give many Americans who 
are too old for conventional health insurance yet not old enough to be 
eligible for Medicare access to basic health insurance coverage. 
However, the Republican budget proposal rejects all those proposals 
even though they pay for themselves with changes to the existing 
Medicare program.
  Over the next five years, this Republican budget will spend $4 
billion over five years less than President Clinton proposed for the 
Ryan White AIDS CARE program, drug abuse prevention and treatment, and 
Center for Disease Control prevention activities.
  Last year, I traveled to Kyoto, Japan to attend the Climate Change 
Conference. The vast majority of the scientific community and policy 
makers the world over who have carefully examined the issue of global 
warming have concluded the science is compelling and that it is time to 
take additional steps to address this issue in a more systematic way. 
The Republican budget proposal, however, refuses to fund President 
Clinton's initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions early in the 
next century. This is a shortsighted approach which could pose a 
serious threat to our environment--indeed, to the survival of our 
planet--in future years. We cannot afford to continue avoiding the 
consequences of our own actions, or condemning future generations to a 
despoiled planet.
  I am a strong supporter of President Clinton's Clean Water 
Initiative, an action plan to focus on remaining challenges to restore 
and protect our nation's waterways, protect public health, prevent 
polluted runoff and ensure community-based watershed management. But 
the Republican budget plan ignores this proposal.
  I am pleased and relieved the budget is balanced, but the Senate 
nonetheless has failed to address glaring, fundamental needs of our 
nation and its people. The budget could have been and should have been 
much, much better. For these reasons, with disappointment and regret, I 
will vote no on this resolution, and join others in committing to try 
to alter the misplaced priorities to better reflect and meet our 
nation's real needs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on the 
budget resolution. I commend the Budget Committee on the job it has 
done. Chairman Domenici and Senator Lautenberg should be praised for 
their efforts to bring a bill to the floor that balances the budget for 
the first time in 30 years. And yet, this resolution fails to 
adequately address some of our nation's most pressing priorities, 
including child care, education, and health care.
  First, however, I would like to take a moment to discuss how we 
reached this historic moment when, for the first time since 1969, we 
present the American people with a budget that is in balance. The 
balanced budget we have today is a result of the hard work and progress 
we have made over the past few years to reduce the deficit. The effort 
dates back to 1990 when President Bush--despite strong opposition from 
his own party--boldly endorsed a plan that lowered the deficit by $500 
billion and started us down the road to fiscal responsibility.
  This effort was then continued by President Clinton in 1993 when he 
proposed a far-reaching economic plan, which is more appropriately 
called the Balanced Budget Plan of 1993. This balanced budget plan, 
which I supported, was enacted into law without a single Republican 
vote and has helped to reduce the deficit from $290 billion at the 
beginning of 1993 to an anticipated surplus this year. Despite the 
claims by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that President 
Clinton's plan would doom our economy, this economic plan has put us on 
a road to solid recovery. It has reduced deficits by more than $1 
trillion, led us to the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, created 
15 million new jobs, and resulted in the greatest number of Americans 
owning homes ever.
  Most recently, Mr. President, we finished the job of balancing the 
budget when we enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, which I supported, not only reduced spending, but 
also cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, providing much-needed 
tax relief for working families. I was very pleased to support the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because it protected our priorities such as 
fiscal discipline, child care, education, health care, and the 
environment.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the resolution before us today fails to 
protect these priorities and turns its back on America's families and 
children. It fails to recognize many initiatives important to our 
children and families including quality child care, reducing class 
sizes, renovating and modernizing our children's schools, and promoting 
after-school learning.
  The resolution provides no mandatory funding for either child care or 
early childhood education. Moreover, it explicitly excludes President 
Clinton's proposals to use any revenues from comprehensive tobacco 
legislation to pay for initiatives for children, including child care, 
anti-smoking education, children's health care, and improvements in 
education.
  Clearly, the resolution before us shortchanges children, and that is 
why I offered an amendment to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund.
  The resolution also reduces funding for the Administration's 
education priorities by $2 billion, and as a result, about 450,000 
students could be denied safe after-school care in 1999, some 30,000 
new children could be denied access to the Head Start program, and

[[Page S3105]]

6,500 middle schools would not have drug and violence prevention 
coordinators. And yet, while Republican budget increases funding above 
the President's request for Impact Aid, Special Education, and the 
title VI block grant, these increases come at the expense of many other 
priorities that also strengthen our commitment to children and 
education.
  Mr. President, this budget as a whole ill-serves children and 
families, and that is why I was pleased to support the Democratic 
alternative budget offered by Senator Lautenberg. The Democratic 
alternative would strengthen our commitment to our priorities by 
providing funding for key initiatives such as hiring an additional 
100,000 teachers, creating more after-school programs, and doubling the 
number of children who receive child care assistance. Further, the 
Democratic alternative moves us toward our goal of one million children 
in Head Start by 2002, doubles the number of children in early Head 
Start, and places up to 500,000 children in after school learning 
centers.
  In addition, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative maintains our 
commitment to other Democratic priorities such as cleaning up the 
environment and investing in our transportation infrastructure. 
Moreover, it would expand Medicare coverage to Americans ages 55-65. 
And not least, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative strengthens 
Social Security by reserving the entire unified budget surplus, while 
maintaining strict fiscal discipline by meeting the discretionary caps 
in all years.
  I regret, Mr. President, that the Democratic alternative was 
defeated. And I regret that the resolution before us today is not one 
that I, in good conscience, can support. In my view, the Republican 
budget shortchanges America's working families. I am, however, hopeful 
that as we move forward in the budget process, we will craft 
legislation that focuses on priorities like child care, education, 
health care, and the environment. Finally, Mr. President, in our 
efforts to craft a budget that targets the needs of working families, 
it is imperative that we remain vigilant in our efforts to maintain 
fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Budget 
Resolution. And while I will not vote for the final product, I want to 
compliment both sides of the aisle this year's unique debate over our 
budget blueprint.
  For the first time since I arrived in the Senate, the issue of 
balancing the budget was not an issue. The President started the debate 
this year by proposing a budget that balances this fiscal year--a full 
two years before the proposed Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment 
would have demanded it. The Republican members of the Budget Committee 
countered with the balanced budget before us today, and Democrats 
offered up their substitute, also in balance.
  This year, partisan attempts to play ``pin the blame for the 
deficit'' were replaced by a serious discussion of the government's 
priorities. Hot air gave way to an honest airing of our policy 
differences. We debated the questions that must be answered in the 
budget that will guide our legislative actions for the rest of the 
year--questions about how government should spend its time and energy 
in the coming fiscal year.
  And it is because of the budget answers those questions that I must 
oppose this budget. Though the numbers add up, the policies do not.
  In short, on too many issues of importance to the families of 
America, this budget is more than silent--it stifles discussion.
  For example, the budget forbids consideration of a comprehensive 
child care program for the United States--a plan like that proposed by 
the President, by Senator Dodd, or by Senator Chafee. Senator Dodd 
offered an amendment to fix this, and it was defeated.
  How can we support a budget that does not at least allow Congress to 
consider the child care needs of our youngest children and our hardest 
working families?
  At a time when 60 percent of our preschool age children are regularly 
cared for by someone other than their parents, can we accept a budget 
that will not allow us to debate any proposals to increase the 
accessibility of decent child care?
  At a time when we are learning more each day about the importance of 
brain development in the earliest years of life, can we accept a budget 
that will not allow us to discuss creating more quality early education 
opportunities?
  At a time when the business world is waking up to the link between 
good child care and employee productivity, can we accept a budget that 
will not let Congress also explore how to help working parents work 
well?
  This budget also precludes consideration of any of the various 
proposals to implement the tobacco settlement. Under the budget, the 
Hatch plan, the emerging McCain bill, the Chafee-Harkin bipartisan 
plan, the Conrad bill, or even the initial tobacco settlement between 
the State Attorneys General and the tobacco companies would be out of 
order on the Senate floor.
  This budget silences Congress on two of the most pressing issues that 
face our nation today: How can we give our youngest children the best 
start to their educations and their lives? And how can we free our 
children from the deadly pressure to start smoking?
  Despite these serious objections, I would like to thank the managers 
of the bill, and the whole Senate, for unanimously accepting my 
amendment to the Resolution expressing the Senate's intention to 
protect our nation's elderly and disabled patients from abuse, neglect 
and mistreatment in long-term care facilities.
  And I would like to compliment the drafters of this budget for one 
section. The $30 billion tax cut envisioned in this budget does include 
$9 billion for child care tax credits.
  As many of you know, I have worked hard to establish a tax credit to 
provide an incentive to private sector businesses willing to take 
actions that increase the supply of quality child care.
  My credit will give incentives to large companies--like Wisconsin's 
Johnson Wax or Quad Graphics--that set up state of the art child care 
centers on-site. And it will provide an incentive for smaller 
companies--like the 80 companies in the New Berlin, Wisconsin 
Industrial Park that joined together to build a child care center open 
to the children of all of their employees.
  In addition, my credit is not just for the costs of construction--but 
also for the other substantial costs of providing suitable quality 
child care: the costs of accrediting a center, of setting up a merit-
based pay system for the woefully underpaid child care workers, for 
reserving slots in an existing child care facility, or for hiring a 
resource and referral firm to design the best child care option for a 
given company.
  This proposal has the support of the President, child care advocates, 
the business community, and the 72 Senators who voted for it as part of 
last year's tax package. I am glad to see that the budget before us 
also would support it.
  However, as much as I would like to see us move forward on my child 
care tax credit this year, it is only one part of the solution to the 
shortage of quality, educational child care in this country.
  For years, the Federal budget stole from the future to fund programs 
and pork in the present. The enormous deficits of those years were a 
national shame.
  Today, the budget is in balance and moving toward surplus. We have 
reason to be relieved, but not reason yet to be proud. We have stopped 
stealing from our grandchildren, true. But this budget does not let us 
even consider in a comprehensive way their earliest, and most 
important, educational needs.
  We have an obligation to at least discuss how best to nurture our 
youngest children--and I cannot support a budget that will not allow 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this budget.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate will soon voice its opinion on 
the FY1999 Budget Resolution. The debate on this year's resolution 
offered the American people an excellent opportunity to observe each 
party's fiscal priorities. A budget resolution is essentially a fiscal 
roadmap to the future. Within the confines of scarce resources, a 
budget resolution forces real choices upon the Democratic and 
Republican parties.
  Earlier in the debate, Senate Democrats offered their vision for 
America's

[[Page S3106]]

future. Our plan put Social Security first, lived within the spending 
ceilings established in last year's budget agreement, and contained key 
domestic investments and targeted tax cuts for working families. Our 
budget did all of these things plus one more. According to the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office, it maintained balance in 1999 and 
produced a unified budget surplus for as long as CBO is willing to 
project.
  Before taking a look forward and describing our budget priorities for 
the future, I would like to take a brief look back. Just over 5 years 
ago when President Clinton took office, the budget deficit stood at a 
whopping $290 billion--the highest level in this nation's history. 
What's worse, the deficit was projected to grow to over $500 billion by 
the end of the decade if nothing was done to attack this insidious 
problem. Fortunately, the President and the Democratic Congress, 
without the assistance of a single Republican vote, took action. 
Together we passed legislation in 1993 that began to both stem the flow 
of red ink and target investments and tax cuts toward working Americans 
and their families.
  Our political opponents harshly criticized our approach. Although I 
will not name the names of those who went on record predicting failure 
for our economic policies, it is not an exaggeration to say that many 
were predicting a disaster of near biblical proportions. It can also be 
said that many who publicly predicted economic ruin in 1993 are still 
here today, and many who bravely cast their vote for this package in 
the face of this cascade of criticism are not.
  And today the results are clear to all. The economic plan Democrats 
passed 5 years ago produced the largest amount of deficit reduction in 
our history. The 1993 plan put us in position for what we accomplished 
this year--the first unified balanced budget in 30 years. Our plan also 
provided the foundation for what most economists are calling the 
strongest economy in a generation. About 15 million new jobs have been 
created since its enactment. The unemployment rate is 4.6 percent--a 
25-year low. The core inflation rate is 2.2 percent--the lowest level 
since 1965. And real average hourly earnings have increased by 2.3 
percent in 1997 alone--the fastest annual growth rate since 1976. These 
positive indicators moved Goldman Sachs, a distinguished Wall Street 
investment firm, to conclude in their March 1998 report on the U.S. 
economy: ``the current U.S. economic environment is the best ever--
steady growth without inflation. As the expansion turns seven years old 
this month, there is still no recession in sight . . . On the policy 
side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working 
in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation.''
  The Democratic record on deficit reduction and economic growth is 
clear. Our prescriptions for both have produced unprecedented success. 
And today we come before the Senate with our plan for the future. This 
plan builds on our past success and is based on four key principles. 
First, we will keep the unified budget in balance in 1999 and as far 
into the future as the Congressional Budget Office is willing to 
project. Second, our plan generates unified budget surpluses of $143 
billion over the period 1999 to 2003 and sets the full amount aside to 
shore up Social Security. Third, the Democratic plan gets the CBO seal 
of approval. According to CBO, it complies fully with the spending caps 
established in last year's budget agreement. Fourth, in stark contrast 
to the Republican budget we have been considering on the Senate floor 
this week, our plan provides funding for key domestic investments and 
targeted tax relief for working families and businesses.
  Unfortunately, Senate Republicans defeated this proposal earlier this 
evening. I would like to take a moment now to discuss briefly the 
Republican fiscal prescription and how it differs from the plan we 
offered earlier. These differences are most visible and most important 
in the area of education. The Democratic budget proposes providing 
funds to help local school districts hire an additional 100,000 well-
prepared teachers. This initiative would reduce class size in grades 1 
through 3 from an average of 22 to 18. The Republican budget rejects 
this proposal.
  The Democratic budget proposes federal tax credits for local school 
districts that build and renovate public schools. The Republican budget 
does not even mention school construction.
  The Democratic budget proposes increasing discretionary funding for 
key education and training programs, including a $2.2 billion increase 
in 1999 alone. This funding increase supports the High Hopes 
initiative, after-school learning programs, and educational opportunity 
zones. The Republican budget freezes spending on most important 
education programs. As a result, about 450,000 kids will be denied 
access to safe after-school learning centers. About 30,000 kids will be 
denied access to Head Start. And about 6,500 middle schools will not 
have drug and violence prevention coordinators.
  The story is similar on child care and basic research. Within the 
overall context of a balanced budget, Democrats are proposing important 
initiatives in each of these areas. And the Republicans? Well, they 
just say no. No to education. No to child care. And no to basic 
research.
  The final, but important, difference between the Democratic and 
Republican budgets is each side's approach to ending tobacco's hideous 
hold on young people in this country. The Democratic budget contains a 
comprehensive proposal to end Joe Camel's reign over America's 
teenagers. Our budget fully funds anti-youth smoking initiatives, 
tobacco-related medical research, smoking cessation programs, and 
public service advertising to counter the tobacco's targeting of our 
kids. The Republican budget does none of these.
  It would be bad enough if the Republican budget stopped there. 
Unfortunately for this generation of teenagers and those that follow, 
it does not. The Republican budget goes even farther. It establishes a 
supermajority requirement for any future legislation that attempts to 
tackle teen smoking in a comprehensive manner. If this Republican 
budget as currently constructed is adopted, a minority of this body 
will be able to dictate whether and how the Congress should reduce the 
power of tobacco companies and weaken the industry's hold on our kids. 
In other words, the Republican budget stacks the deck against 
meaningful tobacco reform.
  In closing, Mr. President, the Democratic approach to tackling this 
nation's fiscal and economic problems has delivered results unmatched 
in recent history. Record deficit reduction and economic growth. Our 
budget plan for the future would continue this progress. It would 
maintain fiscal discipline while investing in key domestic initiatives 
such as education, child care and basic research. And the Democratic 
budget is the only plan that allows Congress to construct a 
comprehensive approach to reducing teen smoking and provides the 
resources to do so. At the same time, the Republican budget before us 
rejects many of these principles.
  Therefore Mr. President, it is for all of these reasons that I ask my 
colleagues to just say no to this Republican budget.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank everyone for their patience and in particular 
staff on the Republican side and the Democrat side for the marvelous 
work they have done. Let me say we are going to vote on this shortly. I 
feel rather proud. What we are going to do is move in a strong 
direction toward saving Medicare, saving Social Security, a significant 
tax cut, increases in education, and increases in criminal justice, the 
National Institutes of Health and programs of that sort. Yet we have 
not broken the caps and we will have balanced budgets for quite some 
time if we follow this format as we implement it during the year.
  Once again I thank everyone in that regard.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I am informed by 
staff that, assuming the passage of this resolution, it will be the 
earliest the Senate has ever passed a budget resolution and probably 
the first time that the manager has not lost a single amendment in 
which he was interested.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wanted to make the Members aware of that 
also,

[[Page S3107]]

and also congratulate Senators Domenici and Lautenberg for the way they 
have worked together and the way they moved us through this very long 
process. It has been completed in record time, and I think we all owe 
them a debt of gratitude and appreciation.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Before I yield the floor, so Members will know this before 
we go to the vote, we will be in session tomorrow, but only for wrapup. 
We do have some Executive Calendar nominations I think we can clear. We 
have gotten agreement on the Shipping Act, so we will have debate on 
the bill and on one amendment, but the vote will not occur on that bill 
until we return. We will return on April 20, but the first recorded 
vote will be the morning of Tuesday, April 21. So after this recorded 
vote, that is the final vote for the night and for the week and the 
next will be April 21. Thank you all for your cooperation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will there be opportunity tomorrow to speak as in 
morning business?
  Mr. LOTT. Absolutely.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to also congratulate the 
distinguished chair and ranking member for the great job they did and 
commend everyone for their cooperation. We were able to finish tonight 
almost on time, in large measure because of the cooperation. I 
appreciate that. We come to a different conclusion about the final 
result, but there is no doubt about the cooperation and effort and 
leadership demonstrated by the chair and the ranking member.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might add a word also, to say 
that working with our colleagues on the Republican side, particularly 
the chairman of the Budget Committee with whom I work closely and I 
consider a friend, we try to handle disagreements in a positive 
fashion. Sometimes it gets a little edgy, but rarely.
  I also want to say I thought, and I was discussing it with a couple 
of Senators here, that there was a degree of comity in this 
deliberation that is an improvement, I think, over what we have seen in 
past years. It is a much better way to work. I thank our leader for his 
support and also to say to the majority leader that his steady hand 
helped move things along. It has been an excellent experience. I wish 
we had won more than we did, but we go away knowing that we had a fair 
chance at the deliberation. That is what counts.
  I particularly want to say to Phil Gramm and to Senator Nickles, I 
thank them for their gesture--with the encouragement of the majority 
leader--in kind of righting what we took to be a wrong. I want to 
acknowledge it publicly.
  With that, I thank my friend from New Mexico and hope we will have 
lots of occasions to do these budget resolutions--with me in the 
majority seat. I hope we will be able to do this many times.
  Mr. President, I thank the Democratic staff of the Budget Committee 
for a job well done. They are Amy Abraham, Phil Karsting, Dan Katz, Jim 
Klumpner, Lisa Konwinski, Diana Meredith, Marty Morris, Sue Nelson, Jon 
Rosenwasser, Paul Seltman, Scott Slesinger, Mitch Warren, and, with 
particular thanks, Bruce King.
  Also, I extend my thanks to the Democratic floor staff and the 
Secretary for the Minority for a job exceptionally well done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to S. Con. 
Res. 86, as amended.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FOX. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 86), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  (The text of the concurrent resolution will be printed in a future 
edition of the Record.)
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

                          ____________________