[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 150 (Friday, October 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13520-S13524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--
Continued
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield some time at this moment to the
Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Labor-HHS
Subcommittee for his commitment to children and health. He stood with
many of us many times. Unfortunately, the Labor bill that is now before
us simply doesn't make the grade. I believe a number of our colleagues
on this side of the aisle will be speaking against this and voting
against this in the hopes that when the President vetoes it, the
Senator from Pennsylvania, chairman of the committee, will work out
some of the things about which we care deeply.
When you leave something for the last minute, you can't do it
justice. This Congress has left our investment in educating our
children, in protecting our American workforce, and in ensuring the
health of the people of this country for the last minute, and the
failures are pretty obvious. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill should
have been the first bill we brought to the floor--not the last.
This Congress has tried every trick and every gimmick to play games
with the budget. I am here to say we are nearing the end of this game;
and for the American people who are watching this Congress, they must
wonder how serious we are about addressing their concerns. If this
flawed proposal passes, the American people will be the ones who lose
out.
I am on the floor to say this combination D.C./Labor-HHS conference
report--with its irresponsible across-the-board cuts--fails to make the
vital investments we need, the investments our constituents are asking
for.
Mr. President, I will vote against this conference report, and I will
tell you why. First, and most important, this bill will not guarantee
that we reduce class size.
Now, last year, this Congress, the House and Senate, Democrats and
Republicans, made a bipartisan commitment to help our districts hire
and train new teachers. We did that because research shows students who
learn in classes where there are fewer students in the early grades do
better throughout their educational careers. They learn the basics--
math, science, and English--and they have fewer discipline problems. We
did that because it was a goal of all of us to make a concerted
national effort to make sure that young children learned the basics,
reduced the discipline problems, went on to college, and would be
viable contributors to our economy when they graduated.
Last year, we made that bipartisan commitment and promised the
parents of this country we would give their schools targeted money for
smaller class sizes for the next 7 years. This bill walks away from
that commitment. That is not acceptable. Not only does it walk away,
but it broadens the use of the money so much that it could open the
door to using vital, public education, class size dollars for private
school vouchers.
Now, the President has said he will veto this bill if it does not
keep our commitment to hire more teachers to reduce class size. I am
proud that 37 Senators have joined with me to sign a letter saying they
will back up that veto because we know that guaranteeing smaller
classes for our children is worth fighting for.
The Labor-HHS bill's failure on class size is glaring. But to me it
is just a start of many things that need to be fixed once this is
vetoed and sent back to us in order for Democrats to be supportive.
It also fails to help families gain the literacy skills they need.
When the Senate passed its version, we were able to provide an increase
of $103 million, which would have taken thousands of people off of
waiting lists for literacy services. But in this conference agreement,
they cut the Senate number by $43 million. Those families were just
about to get the skills they needed to rejoin our economy, and this
agreement pushes them to back of the line.
This bill fails to make kids safer in our schools. In a year when the
tragedy
[[Page S13521]]
at Columbine High School is still fresh in our minds, this bill cuts--
cuts--$31 million from the Senate bill for the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools Program. Local educators tell me we should double our funding
in this area which is vital. Cutting it is just not acceptable.
This bill also fails the children who depend on the Head Start
program. Head Start often makes the difference between success and
failure in school for so many disadvantaged children. This bill does
not do right by them.
This bill also cuts basic skills education for disadvantaged
students. And it underfunds education technology programs at a time
when we know all of our students need to get the skills in technology
so that they can get the jobs that are open and waiting for them in so
many communities across our country. It also cuts the vocational
education program at a time when we know we need to make sure our kids
graduate with skills to help them get jobs.
This bill does not do enough to support the Reading Excellence Act
and bilingual education. This bill underfunds several important
programs that build access and success for higher education students by
not adequately funding Pell grants and vital programs like GEAR UP,
LEAP, and TRIO.
I could go on. But it is clear that on education this bill is a
missed opportunity. I am sure many people will try to claim that this
agreement is ``a victory for education.'' But I can tell you as a
former teacher and a former school board member that it is a hollow
victory.
Mr. President, on labor issues, the Labor, HHS bill fails to
adequately protect American workers and to promote universal
employment.
This bill cuts funds for vital organizations, like the National Labor
Relations Board--by 5 percent--and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration--by 6 percent--below the administration's request. I
don't want to be any part of a bill that could harm our ability to
enforce the labor and workplace laws that protect the health and safety
of our country's workers.
This bill's irresponsible across-the-board spending cut would also
hurt many vital job programs. For example, it would cut the Department
of Labor's Youth Activities formula grants by $9.7 million, closing the
door to almost 5,700 disadvantaged young people as they seek job
training, summer employment, and educational opportunities. That is not
acceptable to this Senator.
Mr. President, when it comes to protecting the health of our
citizens, this bill is a mixed bag. While it does offer important
support for the National Institutes of Health, for telemedicine for
Children's Hospital in Seattle, poison control, and community and
migrant health centers, the areas where it fails are so significant and
so glaring that I cannot support the underlying bill.
This bill fails to address the human and social costs of AIDS and
HIV. This bill's arbitrary and irresponsible across-the-board cut means
that AIDS patients and their communities will suffer because it doesn't
meet the growing need for services--services like drug assistance and
pediatric AIDS care.
Similarly, the D.C. appropriations bill will hurt our ability to halt
the spread of the disease because the bill continues to prohibit public
funds from being used for clean needle exchange.
This bill also reduces our commitment to reproductive health care and
family planning. I find it painfully ironic that last week, 48 Senators
went on record against the principles of Roe v. Wade, claiming that
abortion should not be a choice for women. Yet when it comes to
reducing unintentional pregnancies or providing health care services
for pregnant women, those same Senators are simply not there. This bill
means that 40,000 women will be denied access to basic reproductive
health care. It will reduce women's access to critical pre-natal care.
This bill's irresponsible across-the-board cut will also weaken our
ability to respond to domestic violence. This bill would spend less
money than we are spending this year on programs under the Violence
Against Women Act. That means less money for rape prevention and for
battered women's shelters.
Many communities in my State are struggling--struggling--to help
women and children affected by rape and abuse. Reducing the Federal
commitment in this area is simply unacceptable.
Some people will say this bill's across-the-board cut won't hurt
anyone. They are wrong because denying emergency shelter to a battered
woman and her children is painful. Denying access to reproductive
health care services to 40,000 women is painful, and denying access to
life-saving drug therapies for AIDS patients is worse than painful, it
is deadly.
Mr. President, we still have an opportunity to do the right thing for
our children, our families and our communities. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this bill so the President can veto it and we can fix
it--by undoing its damaging across-the-board cut and keeping our
commitment to reduce class size. Let's show the American people that
even though this Congress has failed--throughout the session--to do its
work in a timely, responsible way, we still have the wisdom to get
things right at the end.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Labor-HHS bill
which has been attached to the D.C. appropriations bill. I will not
have any comments on the D.C. appropriations bill; I leave that to my
friend and colleague, my leader, Senator Durbin from Illinois.
Privilege of the Floor
I ask unanimous consent Jane Daye, Mark Laisch, and Dr. Jack Chow,
detailees to the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, be permitted on the
floor during consideration of the D.C. and Labor-HHS-Education
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Today we are bringing up--and I guess the vote will be
held on Tuesday--the conference report that accompanies the D.C.
appropriations bill. This report, as we now know, also includes the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill
negotiated by the House and Senate appropriators.
I regret very much that the conference agreement includes a poison
pill inserted by the House Republican leadership, an irresponsible and
indiscriminate across-the-board cut against all discretionary programs,
projects, and activities. Later I will discuss that at length.
First, I commend the work of my colleague and chairman on the
appropriations bill, Senator Specter. He and I have had a great working
relationship through the years, a true partnership every year on this
bill, first when I was Chair and he was ranking member and now he is
Chair and I am ranking.
Senator Specter has a deep commitment to the vitally important
health, education, labor, research, and other initiatives in this bill.
Senator Specter and his staff have always treated our side fairly. I
want him and them to know how much I appreciate that. I not only
appreciate it; I understand how important it is in terms of completing
our Nation's business.
A few weeks ago, the Senate passed the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill by an overwhelming vote of 73-25; 41 Democrats and
32 Republicans voted for it. This is an exceedingly strong vote. It got
this strong vote because Senator Specter and I worked together and we
worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle to craft a bill that
truly reflected our Senate priorities. It was a good bill. It provides
a major increase for medical research. It provides $500 million more
than the President requested for education. It maintained our
commitment to worker safety provisions.
It did have one major flaw. It did not fund the President's class
size initiative in an acceptable manner. Nonetheless, I argued strongly
for its passage. At the time, I told Members on my side of the aisle I
would work to resolve the class size issue in conference. We had a good
Senate bill. We had a strong Senate vote, with 73 votes on the Senate
side.
The House of Representatives, on the other hand, was not able even to
produce a bill. The Appropriations Committee on the House side reported
out a bill. It cut education, cut job training, had a whole lot of bad
labor riders dealing with workers' safety protection. But the full
House never even took it up.
Several weeks ago, we began something I had never ever engaged in
[[Page S13522]]
around here; we began a nonconference conference. We could not have had
a conference because the House never passed a bill, but we met with the
House appropriators. Congressman John Porter, the chairman of the
Labor-HHS subcommittee on the House side--Senator Specter and I, and
our staffs, met with him in an effort to move the process forward. When
our committee was working on it, we made good progress. We worked
together to produce an agreement that was very close to the Senate
bill.
Again, I compliment and commend my colleague on the other side of the
aisle in the House, Congressman Porter, for working together in an open
and constructive manner to produce a bill I believe could have garnered
votes and could have passed. If we could have ended the conference at
that point, I would be here today speaking in favor of the Labor-HHS
and Education bill. However that is not the case.
With regard to the class size reduction issue, I raised the point in
our negotiations with the House that 38 Senators encouraged the
President to veto the conference report if it did not include this
initiative. However, I was not able to convince the negotiators on this
point. I am, however, convinced this issue will be addressed in any
final bill. But putting this class size initiative aside, we had put
together, I thought, really a pretty good agreement. We included a
large increase for biomedical research, $100 million for community
health centers, and a big increase for Head Start. None of what I term
``the offensive House riders'' the House had put on for labor, health,
and safety--none of those were included. Largely, it reflected most of
the priorities of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, both
Republican and Democratic.
As I said, if we could have ended it there, we probably would have
had a pretty good bill. But then Republican House leadership got
involved. First, they insisted key programs be cut. They insisted
afterschool programs be reduced by $100 million. They insisted the
small increase we had for critical family planning services be
eliminated. They insisted on cutting Goals 2000. Why? I don't know,
unless it was because it was a Presidential priority.
Next, they insisted on further delayed obligations. We had some
delayed obligations, but I think they were delayed obligations with
which we could have lived, with which the Departments and Agencies
could have lived. But the delayed obligations the House leadership put
in, I think, will cause some real problems at the National Institutes
of Health.
I have long said not only do we have to increase the money going to
the NIH, that we had to double their budget over 5 years--of which I
have been very supportive--but that we need continuity, so grants could
go out to researchers that are not interrupted, so when researchers
start on a program and a research project they can continue.
With the delayed obligations and the extent to which we have them in
this bill, it appears that NIH will not be able to fund these research
programs on a longer term basis. It is just going to be from 1 year to
the next. As any person familiar with research can tell you, that is
not the best way to conduct research. I think the delayed obligations
are going to cut back on the good that we did in terms of increasing
the funding for NIH.
Next, the House leaders also put in a $121 million reduction in
salaries and expenses. That was over and above the reductions we had
already made on the Senate side. We cut pretty deeply in the salaries
and expenses and administrative costs of the Departments under our
jurisdiction, but the House leadership cut another $121 million. I
believe that is unacceptable.
After that, the House leadership added--over, I might say, the
opposition of most of the appropriators--the poison pill across-the-
board cut. The House Republican leaders repeatedly said this cut will
give each Department the ability to cut fraud, waste, and abuse. I take
a back seat to no one in this body or the other body or on either side
of the aisle when it comes to fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in
government programs, but that is not what this provision says, nor
would it accomplish that. This is not a 1-percent cut that can be taken
from any broad array of programs. Every program, project, and activity
in this bill has to be cut by 1 percent.
So when you see the House Republican leaders on television saying: 1
percent, that's nothing, we can take that out of fraud, waste, and
abuse--sorry. That is not the way the provision is written. The
provision is written it is 1 percent. It is not 1 percent of the
increase; it is 1 percent of the total that goes to each line item in
this bill, every single line item has to be cut.
You might say that is not, that 1 percent--that doesn't sound like a
lot. When you put it in the Social Security system and the offices that
administer Social Security, it cuts it big time. It cuts millions of
dollars out of veterans' health care. It cuts Meals on Wheels,
community health centers, afterschool programs; it cuts education.
Again, I point out it does not just cut the increases; it cuts many
important programs actually below last year's level.
I will read from a list here of some programs that actually will have
less than last year because of this across-the-board cut. Adult job
training--we saw the other day our economy is booming at unprecedented
rates. But the economy is changing. For example, we had an announcement
the other day in Iowa a major packing plant was closing its doors 5
days before Christmas. I will not go into that right now, but talk
about heartless; 5 days before Christmas, Iowa Beef Processors is
closing its doors, and over 400 people are being thrown out of work. We
need to retrain those people. We need to retrain them for the new kind
of economy we have. The bill before us cuts adult job training to less
than what we had last year. It is the wrong way to go.
Youth opportunity grants, community service jobs for senior citizens
are cut below last year's level. Family planning, AIDS prevention,
substance abuse block grants, child welfare and child abuse programs
are all cut to less than what we had last year. This is not a cut in
the increase, this is a cut below what we had last year.
Teacher training: I met with some educators in my office yesterday
who were here from Irving School in Dubuque. They were getting an award
as one of the blue-ribbon schools of America, a great award. I
mentioned the teacher training program was being cut to less than last
year. They said: How could this possibly be? This is the program, the
Eisenhower math and science program, that keeps our teachers up to par
with what is happening so they can better teach their students. You can
vote for this bill if you want, Mr. President, but if you do, you are
voting to cut teacher training programs for Goals 2000, the literacy
programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this list of cuts that I have
just enunciated be printed in the Record in tabular form.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Sample of Programs Cut Below a Hard Freeze Under Conference Agreement
\1\--Compares Labor-HHS Items From Fiscal Year 1999 Level to Fiscal
Year 2000 Level
Program Total cut in millions
Department of Labor:
Adult Job Training..............................................$7.38
Youth Job Training..............................................10.01
Youth Opportunity Grants.........................................2.50
Comm. Service Jobs for Seniors...................................4.40
Department of Health and Human Services:
Family Planning..................................................2.14
CDC AIDS Prevention..............................................1.34
CDC Epidemics Services...........................................0.85
Substance Abuse Block Grant.....................................15.34
Medicare Contractors............................................33.52
Child Welfare/Child Abuse........................................2.82
Department of Education:
Goals 2000.......................................................4.91
Teacher Training (Eisenhower)....................................3.35
Literacy.........................................................0.65
\1\ Includes 1 percent across-the-board cut.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the House Republican leadership and others
have argued this across-the-board cut was needed to protect Social
Security. We all agree we want to protect the Social Security surplus.
But the Congressional Budget Office says even with the across-the-board
cut, they are going to have to tap Social Security by $17 billion. So
leaving that aside, an across-the-board cut is not the answer. Let's
protect Social Security. Let's do it in the right way. Let's make the
tough decisions, not hide behind an across-the-board cut.
Frankly, there are other offsets we could use. I say we should impose
a penalty on tobacco companies that fail
[[Page S13523]]
to meet targets for reducing youth smoking. In fact, I have in my hand
a specific proposal to do just that, to set a goal of reducing teen
smoking by 15 percent. That is a modest goal. If they fail to meet that
modest goal, they would have to pay a penalty. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that this proposal would raise almost $6 billion in
fiscal year 2000.
That is $2.8 billion more than is saved by this across-the-board cut.
It would have the added benefit of protecting our kids from the deadly
addiction of tobacco.
I want to be very clear--my esteemed friend from Illinois is sitting
here--this is not a new idea. We have voted on this before. In fact,
this was part of a proposal the Senator from Illinois and the Senator
from Ohio proposed and which actually passed this body. So why don't we
do this rather than having an across-the-board cut in teacher training,
the substance abuse block grant, health programs, AIDS prevention
programs. Let's do something we already said we ought to do--cut teen
smoking. And if the tobacco companies cannot meet it, they pay a
penalty. Unfortunately, the conference report we have before us does
not take this path.
With all the respect, admiration, and friendship I have for Senator
Specter--and he has worked doggedly on this bill; he has worked hard to
protect education and health and research programs; he and his staff
have worked openly with me and my staff--reluctantly I will have to
vote against this conference agreement.
The poison pill across-the-board cut did it. I do so with reluctance
because I believe we crafted a good bill in the Senate, and it would
have avoided all kinds of political maneuvering if we had the bill we
passed in the Senate. If we followed that bipartisan path Senator
Specter and I worked on and set up in the Senate that was reflected in
a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, we would have had a much
different result.
It is very clear to everyone, if this conference agreement is passed
by the Senate, it will be vetoed by the President, and that veto will
not be overridden. When that happens, I plan to work very hard with my
chairman, Senator Specter, and will be sitting at that table to help
craft a bill with our House colleagues and, of course, with the White
House, that reflects congressional priorities but does not make these
inordinate, mindless across-the-board cuts and that has offsets that
truly do reduce teen smoking and help us meet our goals of not invading
the Social Security trust funds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to make a unanimous consent request because
I have been waiting to make a statement on the floor. Several of my
colleagues have come to the floor with requests for short periods of
time. If there is no objection, I ask that the Senator from Washington
be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, as in morning business, followed by
the Senator from West Virginia for 10 minutes, and then that I be given
the floor at that moment in time for 15 minutes to address the bill
that is pending before us.
Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, I am not speaking in
morning business; I am speaking on the bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Sorry.
Mr. GORTON. While I think it would be about 10 minutes, I do not want
to be called down if I go over 30 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to amend the unanimous consent request
to accommodate whatever time the Senator would like, if he would
specify a time.
Is there a time the Senator would like to set?
Mr. GORTON. It will be approximately 10 minutes. It will be on the
bill. If the unanimous consent request is amended in that form, I am
perfectly happy with that.
Mr. DURBIN. I want to give the Senator from Washington every
opportunity to speak on this bill. I misunderstood when I spoke with
him. But I would be happy to yield to him. As part of the unanimous
consent request, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Washington be recognized on the bill for up to 15 minutes.
Mr. GORTON. Fine.
Mr. DURBIN. Then the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for up
to 10 minutes in morning business, and then I be recognized for 15
minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is a landmark Labor, Education, and
Health appropriations bill. It is a landmark in more than one respect.
From my perspective, however, it is especially notable for two features
relating to our assistance to the education that is being provided to
children all across the United States of America.
The first is this bill, in reaction to the President's budget message
of much earlier this year, ends any dispute about the generosity of
support for education on the part of either the President or the
congressional majority. In fact, this bill includes some $300 million
more for education purposes than did the President's budget message
earlier this year; $2 billion more than last year--$35 billion in
total.
Mr. President, $35 billion is not an inconsiderable sum. But of that
portion that goes to our common schools from kindergarten through 12th
grade, it still will represent only about 7 percent of the number of
dollars that go into providing an education for future generations of
Americans. But there is not a dispute in this bill over whether or not
we should fund education with this relative degree of generosity. In
that respect, this is a landmark bill.
But as we deal with the question of education, I believe it to be a
landmark in more than just that respect. This bill, in its present
form, represents the first modest turn from a direction that we have
taken for three decades or more. During the last 30 or 35 years, the
Congress and Presidents of both parties have piled one categorical aid
program for education on top of another. Each of those programs has its
own rules for eligibility. Each has its own rules as to how money
should be spent. Each carries with it its forms to be filled out and
its audits to be performed and to be examined after the fact.
The President's proposed budget added a number of new categorical aid
programs to those already in existence and, I believe, shortchanged a
number of the most vital educational programs that have been a part of
our system literally for decades. As a consequence, this bill provides
considerably more money for impact schools than the President's budget
called for. Impact schools, of course, are those schools on or near
military reservations, Indian reservations, or other Federal property
in which a peculiar and unique burden is placed by the fact that the
Federal Government has employees or beneficiaries in the immediate
vicinity while at the same time owning tax-exempt property that does
not, as property, pay its fair share or any share of the cost of
operating those schools.
Most national administrations, most Presidents of the United States,
have not much liked impact aid. It took me some time to determine in my
own mind why that was. I think it is because once the formula
distributes so many dollars to a school district in impact aid, the
school district decides how the money is going to be spent to advance
the education of its students. There aren't any rules and regulations
from the U.S. Department of Education telling school districts how they
must use that impact aid. As a consequence, it has never had much of a
lobby in the Department of Education or in administrations either
Republican or Democratic.
A second area in which this bill includes more money for education
than did the President's original request is for IDEA, the education
for the disabled. This body proudly reauthorized IDEA just 2 years ago,
including in it a provision that we would come up with 40 percent of
the costs that that bill, for the education of the disabled, imposed on
school districts all across the country--40 percent of those costs.
This bill, more generous than the President's budget, actually funds
about 9 percent of those costs. Members of the Congress and the
President got to congratulate themselves on passing a bill mandating
education for the disabled. They got to congratulate themselves on a
promise that, very bluntly, I think, neither side had any intention of
keeping. We do not, in this bill, come close to that 40-percent
requirement, but we do better than the President of the United States
did in his budget submission.
[[Page S13524]]
From my perspective, however, the most important change takes place
in connection with a program that began last year designed to put more
teachers in the classroom, especially more teachers in the classroom up
through the third grade, a proposal that, for all practical purposes,
could be used only for that purpose, whether more teachers in those
primary grades was the primary need for each and every one of the
17,000 school districts in the United States or not.
I don't believe my State is different from many others. My great
friend and frequent ally, the Senator from West Virginia, is on the
floor. I suspect he has a greater percentage of school districts in his
State than does Washington State that don't receive enough money under
this program to hire one teacher because they are simply too small. So
this bill, after an extended debate between the two sides in which one
side said we have to continue the program entirely unchanged, whatever
those school districts' priorities are, and our side that says we have
to trust the school districts to spend that money for any educational
purpose they desire--two rather dramatically opposed points of view--
takes a halfway position between the two.
It states that the primary goal of this $1.2 billion is to put more
teachers in the classroom but that if school districts have other
priorities or if they don't get enough money to do that for even one
teacher, they can, in fact, use it for improving the quality of
teachers they already have through more training or for some other
educational purpose they believe is more significant than the top-down
mandate in this bill.
I hope that will be appealing to the President of the United States.
It does express at least a qualified degree of trust on the part of the
Congress in the dedication and intelligence and knowledge of the men
and women who run our schools, either as elected members of school
boards or as full-time superintendents, principals, and teachers, to
make decisions that will improve the quality of education of their
children.
I have never been quite certain why it is that Members of the Senate
think they know more about the needs of schools all across the country
than do the people who make their entire careers out of providing that
education, but that has been the net result of what we have done. This
is a modest move in the other direction, a reflection of the fact that
early next year, when we debate the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, we will debate exactly that kind of issue: Who knows best what our
young people need, we in Washington, DC, or those who run the hundreds
of thousands of schools in the United States of America.
This bill also begins to keep a promise we made a relatively short
time ago significantly to increase funding for health research through
the National Institutes of Health.
This bill is a landmark in one other vitally important respect. As
generous as this bill is to education, as generous as it is to health
programs and to other programs included within it, it is a part of a
pattern of 13 appropriations bills that spend almost $600 billion in
discretionary money in the course of the next year but do not touch the
Social Security trust fund. Last year, for the first time in decades,
we ended up with a budget that was not only balanced but in surplus to
the tune of $1 billion without touching a dime in the Social Security
trust fund. We are absolutely convinced, I think most of us, that we
should make the year 2000 the second consecutive year in which that
takes place and keep on following exactly those same policies.
We can pass this bill and the other appropriations bills still
unresolved without dipping into the Social Security surplus and without
increasing taxes on the American people. That truly is a landmark. We
thought when we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we might get to
this point in 2002 or 2003. We got to it in fiscal year 1999.
This morning's newspapers printed excerpts of a speech by Alan
Greenspan on the nature of our economy and on the fact that it has
actually been growing more rapidly and is more robust than most of our
statistics had indicated. Chairman Greenspan has made it very clear
that actually balancing the budget and paying down the debt is a key
factor in keeping the economy of this Nation moving forward.
We have a bill that I commend enthusiastically to all of the Members
of this body. It is generous with education dollars, as it ought to be
for one of the highest of all priorities in any society, the education
of its future generation; it provides at least a modestly greater
degree of trust in our professional educators and in our elected school
board members with respect to how to spend that education money; it
deals generously with our need for health research; and it is a part of
a pattern that will continue the 1-year precedent of balancing the
budget without invading the Social Security trust fund, without
breaking the promises we have made not only to those who are retired
today but those who are working today but will depend on Social
Security in the future, that the money they pay into Social Security is
for that purpose and that purpose only. For that reason, I highly
commend this bill to the Senate of the United States and hope it is
passed and approved by the President of the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
____________________