[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14840-S14848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  A CHALLENGING SESSION OF THE SENATE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate, we hope today or perhaps 
tomorrow, will be bringing this session to a close. It has been a 
session which has involved some historic decisions by the Senate. Of 
course, it began with an impeachment trial of the President of the 
United States, which ended in a bipartisan decision of the Senate not 
to convict the President. Then, shortly thereafter, we faced a rather 
historic challenge in terms of our role in Kosovo. So we went from one 
extreme in the Constitution, involving an impeachment against the 
President, to the other extreme, where this Senate had to contemplate 
the possibility, the very real possibility, of war. That is how our 
session began, at such a high level with such great challenges.
  There were so many other challenges that were presented to the Senate 
during the course of the year. I am sad to report that we addressed 
very few of them. Things that American families really care about we 
did not spend enough time on, we did not bring to a conclusion. So, as 
we return to our homes, States, and communities after this session is 
completed and we are confronted by those who are concerned about their 
daily lives and they ask us, What did you achieve during the course of 
this session? I am afraid there is very little to which to point.
  This morning, I received some letters from my home State of Illinois 
from senior citizens concerned about the cost of prescription drugs, as 
well they should be, because not only are these costs skyrocketing, but 
we find gross disparities between the charges for prescription drugs in 
the United States and the cost of the very same drugs made by the same 
companies if they are sold in Canada or in Europe.
  In fact, in the northern part of the United States, it is not 
uncommon for many senior citizens to get on a bus and go over the 
border to Canada to buy their prescription drugs at a deep discount 
from what they would pay in the United States. That is difficult for 
seniors to understand; it is difficult for Senators to understand as to 
why that same prescription drug should be so cheap if purchased 
overseas and so expensive for American citizens in a country where 
those pharmaceutical companies reside and do business.
  The senior citizens have asked us, as well as their families who are 
concerned about the costs they bear, to do something. Yet this session 
comes to an end and nothing has been done--nothing has been done--
either to address the spiraling cost of prescription drugs or to amend 
the Medicare program and to make prescription drugs part of the 
benefits.
  Think about it: In the 1960s, under President Lyndon Johnson when 
Medicare was created, we did not include any provision for paying for 
prescription drugs. We considered it from a Federal point of view as if 
prescription drugs were something similar to cosmetic surgery, just an 
option that one might need or might not need, but certainly something 
that was not life-threatening.
  Today, we know we were wrong. In many instances, because of the wide 
array of prescription drugs and the valuable things they can do for 
seniors, we find a lot of our senior citizens dependent on them to 
avoid hospitalizations and surgeries and to keep their lives at the 
highest possible quality level.

[[Page S14841]]

  Last week, I went to East St. Louis, IL, the town where I was born, 
and St. Mary's Hospital and visited a clinic. I walked around and met 
groups of senior citizens and asked them how much they were paying for 
prescription drugs. The first couple took the prize: $1,000 a month 
came in from their Social Security; $750 a month went out for 
prescription drugs. Three-fourths of all the money they were bringing 
in from Social Security went right out the window to the pharmacy.
  There was another lady with about $900 a month in Social Security; 
$400 a month paid in prescription drugs.
  Another one, about $900 a month in Social Security; $300 a month in 
prescription drugs.
  The last person we met, though, told another story. He was retired 
from a union job he worked at for many years, a tough job, a manual 
labor job, and he, too, had expensive prescription drugs, but he was 
fortunate. The union plan helped him to pay for them. Out of pocket, he 
puts down $5 to $15 a month and is happy to do it.
  Think of the contrast between $750 a month and $15 a month. One can 
understand why people across America, seniors who want to continue to 
lead active and healthy lives, have turned to Congress and said: 
Please, learn from the President's lead in the State of the Union 
Address that we should have a prescription drug benefit.
  This Senate--this Congress--will go home without even addressing that 
issue. That is sad. It is a reality facing American families. You will 
recall, as well as I, a few months ago we were all in shock over what 
happened at Columbine High School with the killing of those innocent 
students. This Senate made an effort to keep guns out of the hands of 
children and criminals with a very modest bill that said if you were 
going to buy a gun at a gun show, we want to know your background.
  The bill passed. It was sent over to the House of Representatives. 
The gun lobby got its hands on it, and that was the end of it. End of 
discussion.

  As we return home to face parents who say, what have you done to make 
America safer, to make communities, neighborhoods, and schools safer, 
the honest answer is nothing, nothing.
  Take a look at campaign finance reform. Senator Feingold of Wisconsin 
is on the floor. He has been a leader on this issue with Senator McCain 
of Arizona. They had a bipartisan effort to clean up this mess of 
campaign funding in America. Yet when it came to a vote, we could 
muster 55 votes out of 100 favoring reform, which most people would 
say: You have a majority; why didn't you win?
  Under Senate rules, it takes more than a majority. It takes 60 votes. 
We were five votes short. All of the Democratic Senators supported 
campaign finance reform, and 10 stalwarts on the Republican side came 
forward. Yet when it was all said and done, nothing was done. We will 
end this session never having addressed campaign finance reform, 
something so basic to the future of our democracy.
  On a Patients' Bill of Rights, there is a term which a few years ago 
American families might not have been able to define. I think they 
understand it now. It was an effort on the floor of the Senate to say 
that families across America and individuals and businesses would get a 
fair shake from their health insurance companies; that life-and-death 
decisions would be made by doctors and nurses and medical 
professionals, not by clerks at insurance companies. It is that basic. 
Mr. President, you know as well as I, time and again, a good doctor 
making a diagnosis, who wants to go forward with a procedure, first has 
to get on the phone and ask for permission.
  I can recall a time several years ago in a hospital in downstate 
Illinois where I accompanied a doctor on rounds for a day. I invite my 
colleagues to do that. It is an eye-opener to see what the life of a 
doctor is like, but also to understand how it has been changed because 
health insurance companies now rule the roost when it comes to making 
decisions about health care.
  This poor doctor was trying to take care of his patients and do the 
right thing from a medical point of view, and he spent most of his time 
while I was with him on the phone with insurance companies. He would be 
at the nurses' station on a floor of St. John's Hospital in 
Springfield, IL, begging these insurance companies to allow him to keep 
a patient in the hospital over a weekend, a patient he was afraid might 
have some dangerous consequences if she went home before her surgery--
her brain surgery--on Monday. Finally, the insurance company just flat 
out said: No, send her home.
  He said: I cannot do that. In good conscience, she has to stay in the 
hospital, and I will accept the consequences.
  That is what doctors face. Patients who go to these doctors expecting 
to get the straight answers about their medical condition and medical 
care find they are involved in a game involving health insurance 
companies and clerks with manuals and computers who decide their fate.
  When we tried to debate that issue on the floor of the Senate, we 
lost. American families lost. The winners were the insurance companies. 
They came here, a powerful special interest, and they won the day. They 
had a majority of 100 Members of the Senate on their side, and American 
families lost.
  Thank goodness that bill went to the other side of the Rotunda. The 
House of Representatives was a different story. Sixty-eight Republicans 
broke from the insurance lobby and voted with the Democrats for the 
Patients' Bill of Rights so that families across America would have a 
chance. But nothing came of it. That was the end of it. The debate in 
the House was the last thing said; no conference committee, no bill, no 
relief, no protection for families across America.
  I will return to Illinois, and my colleagues to their States, unable 
to point to anything specific we have done to help families deal with 
this vexing problem.
  The minimum wage debate is another one. Senator Kennedy, who sits to 
my right, has been a leader in trying to raise the minimum wage 50 
cents a year for the next 2 years to a level of $6.15. He has been 
trying to do this for years. He has been stopped for years. We are 
literally talking about millions of Americans, primarily women, who go 
to work in minimum-wage jobs and try to survive. Many of them are the 
sole bread winners of their families. We will leave this session of the 
Congress--the Senate and the House will go home--and those men and 
women will get up and go to work on Monday morning still facing $5.15 
an hour.
  In a Congress which could come up with $792 billion for tax breaks 
for the wealthiest people in America, we cannot find 50 cents for the 
hardest working men and women, who get up every single day and go to 
work, as people who watch our children in day-care centers, as those 
who care for our parents and grandparents in nursing homes, as those 
people who make our beds when we stay in hotels, service our tables 
when we go to restaurants. They get up and go to work every single day. 
This Senate did not go to work to help those people. We could find tax 
breaks for wealthy people, but when it came to helping those who are 
largely voiceless in this political process, we did nothing. We will 
return home and face the reality of that decision.
  If there is any positive thing that came of this session, it emerged 
in the last few days. Finally, after an impasse over the budget that 
went on for month after weary month, the Republican leadership sat down 
at the table with the President. The President insisted on priorities, 
and you have to say, by any measure, he prevailed. And thank goodness 
he did.
  Let me tell you some of the things that are achieved in the budget we 
will vote for. It has its shortcomings--and I will point out a few of 
them--but it has several highlights.
  The President's 100,000 COPS Program across America has had a 
dramatic impact in reducing violent crime and making America a safer 
place to live. There was opposition from Republican leadership to 
continue this program. But, finally, the President prevailed, and we 
will move forward to send more police and community policemen into our 
neighborhoods and schools across America to make them safer. That is 
something achieved by the President, in negotiation with congressional 
leaders at the 11th hour and the 59th minute.
  In the area of education, the President has an initiative at the 
Federal level which makes sense from a parent's point of view. If we 
can keep the

[[Page S14842]]

class sizes in the first and second grade smaller--rather than larger--
teachers have a better chance to connect with a child, to find out if 
this is a gifted child who has a bright future, or a child who needs 
some special help with a learning disability, or perhaps a slow learner 
who needs a little more tutorial assistance to get through the first 
and second grade.
  You know what happens when those kids do not get that attention? They 
start feeling frustrated and falling behind, and the next thing you 
know, it is even a struggle to stay in school, let alone enjoy the 
experience and learn from it. The President has said: Let's take our 
Federal funds, limited as they are, and focus on an American initiative 
to make class sizes smaller in the first and second grade.
  I went to Wheaton, IL, and I saw a class like this. Believe me, it 
works. Don't take my word for it. Ask the administrators at the school, 
who applied for it, and the teachers who benefit from it. And the 
parents are happy that it is there.
  The Republican side of the aisle resisted the President's initiative. 
But thank goodness, in the closing minutes of the negotiations, the 
President prevailed. Common sense prevailed. And we will continue this 
initiative to reduce class size.
  The way we are paying for some of these things is very suspect; I 
will be honest with you. We had this long debate during the course of 
the year about the future of the Social Security trust fund. Some on 
the Republican side said: We will never touch it. Well, historically we 
have touched it many times. The money, the excess and surplus in that 
fund that is not needed to pay Social Security recipients has been 
borrowed by President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton, 
with the understanding it would be paid back with interest.
  Now that we have gotten beyond the deficit era in America, when we 
talk about surplus, we hope we do not have to borrow from it in the 
future. So this year, to avoid directly borrowing from the fund, 
Republicans argued that they have done some things that are fiscally 
responsible.

  Let me give one illustration. This budget agreement contains $38 
billion for education programs. That is 7 percent, $2.4 billion, more 
than last year. However, this increase is due to the fact that the 
agreement includes $6.2 billion more in advance appropriations than 
last year's bill.
  What is an advance appropriation? You borrow from next year. You do 
not take your current revenue; you borrow from next year. So in order 
to provide more for education, we borrow from next year.
  You might assume, then, we are going to have this huge surplus of 
money from which we continue to borrow. It is anybody's guess. We pass 
a bill, we appropriate the money, but we cannot account for its 
sources.
  Let me tell you about Head Start.
  This is a good story. Head Start is a program created by President 
Lyndon Johnson in the Great Society. There were people who were critics 
of the President's initiatives, but Head Start has survived because it 
is a great idea. We take kids from lower income and disadvantaged 
families, and bring them into a learning environment at a very early 
age, put them in something similar to a classroom, and give them a 
chance to start learning. And we involve their parents. That is the 
critical element in Head Start.
  This budget is going to provide $5.3 billion--the amount requested by 
the President--to serve an additional 44,000 kids across America, and 
to stay on track to serve 1 million children by the year 2002.
  Class size reduction, which I have mentioned to you, is one that is 
very important to all of us. Disadvantaged students--there is $8.7 
billion for title I compensatory education programs. That is an 
increase of $274 million, but it is still short of what the President 
requested.
  In special education there is good news. This budget will provide $6 
billion, $912 million--or 18 percent--more than the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations for special ed. In my home State of Illinois, school 
districts will receive $227 million, a 62-percent increase since 1997.
  Keep in mind these school districts, because of a court decision and 
Federal legislation, now bring disabled children and kids with real 
problems into a learning atmosphere to give them a chance. But it is 
very labor intensive and very expensive. I am glad to see that this 
budget will provide more money to those school districts to help pay 
for those costs.
  Afterschool programs: We provide $453 million, an increase of $253 
million, to serve an additional 375,000 students in afterschool 
programs. How important are afterschool programs? Ask your local police 
department. Ask the families who leave their kids at the school door 
early in the morning, and perhaps do not return home from work until 6 
or 7 o'clock at night. They have to be concerned about those kids, as 
anyone would be. And the people in the local police department will 
tell you, after school lets out, we often run into problems. So 
afterschool programs give kids something constructive to do after 
school. I am glad the Federal Government is taking some leadership in 
providing this.
  In student aid, the agreement increases maximum Pell grant awards to 
college students by $175, from $3,125 to $3,300. Since President 
Clinton has taken office, we have seen the Pell grants increase by 43 
percent.
  This is an illustration of things that can be done when Congress 
works together. But we literally waited until the last minute to 
consider the education bill in the Senate. What is the highest priority 
for American families was the lowest priority of the Appropriations 
Committee. When we wait that long, we invite controversy and delay. 
Fortunately, it ended well. The President prevailed. These educational 
programs will be well funded.
  Let me tell you of a bipartisan success story: The 
National Institutes of Health. That is one of the best parts of the 
bill that we are going to vote on. It receives a 15-percent increase 
over last year's funding level. The National Institutes of Health 
conducts medical research. Those of us who are in the Senate, those 
serving in the House, are visited every single year by parents with 
children who suffer from autism, juvenile diabetes, by people 
representing those who have Alzheimer's disease, cancer, heart disease, 
AIDS. And all of them come with a single, unified message: Please, 
focus more resources, more money on research, more money on the 
National Institutes of Health. We increase it this year some 15 
percent.

  Fortunately, one of the budget gimmicks which would have delayed 
giving the money to the National Institutes of Health until the last 48 
hours of the fiscal year was changed dramatically. Because of that 
change, we do not believe there will be any disadvantage to this 
important agency.
  I will give you an example of the life of a Senator and how this 
agency affects it. A few weeks ago, a family in Peoria, IL, who had a 
little boy named Eric with a life-threatening genetic disease called 
Pompe's disease, called my office. Their son's only chance to live was 
through a clinical trial; in other words, an experimental project at 
Duke University, which was being sponsored by a private company.
  Unfortunately, there were not any additional slots available for Eric 
in this clinical trial. The company could only manufacture enough of 
the drug for three patients. Eric would have been the fourth. Eric was 
denied admission to the trial for this rare disease. Sadly, Eric passed 
away. Pompe's disease is rare. Children like Eric frequently rely on 
the Government and its sponsored research for cures because a cure for 
a rare disease is unlikely to be very profitable for a lot of the 
pharmaceutical companies. I am glad to salute Senator Specter, 
Republican of Pennsylvania; Senator Harkin, my Democratic colleague 
from Iowa; and my colleague from Illinois, Congressman John Porter, a 
Republican. They have made outstanding progress in increasing the money 
available for the National Institutes of Health in this bill.

  There is money also available for community health centers. We have 
talked about a lot of things in this Congress, but we don't talk about 
the 42 million Americans--and that number is growing--who have no 
health insurance. Many of these Americans who are not poor enough to 
qualify for Medicaid and not fortunate enough to have a job with health 
insurance go to community health centers, trying to get

[[Page S14843]]

the basic health care which all of us expect for our families in this 
great Nation. These community health centers serve so many of these 
people, and they deserve our support. With a 30-year track record of 
providing quality service to America's most vulnerable, these community 
health centers need to have our support.
  According to congressional testimony by the Health Resources Service 
Administration, which overseas health center programs, 45 percent of 
these health centers are at risk financially, 5 to 7 percent close to 
bankruptcy, and 5 to 10 percent in severe financial trouble. Between 60 
and 70 health center delivery sites already have been forced to close 
their doors. Changes in the Medicaid program have cut the compensation 
for these centers. The Balanced Budget Act, which was good overall, 
made some cuts that really have resulted in deprivation of funds. An 
additional $100 million to community health centers would provide 
health care to another 350,000 Americans. It can open up 259 new 
clinics. This is something we should do.
  Let me point to one thing I am particularly proud of in this bill. It 
is an initiative on asthma. I was shocked to learn of the prevalence of 
asthma in America today. I was stunned when I learned it is the No. 1 
diagnosis of children who were admitted to emergency rooms across 
America. Asthma is the No. 1 reason for school absenteeism in America. 
When I asked my staff to research what we are doing to deal with 
asthma, I found that we did precious little. I started asking my 
colleagues in the Senate about their concerns over asthma and was 
surprised to find so many of them who either had asthma themselves or 
had a member of their family with asthma.
  They joined in trying to find a new approach, a new initiative that 
would deal with this problem. Leading that effort was my colleague from 
the State of Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine. He and I put in an amendment, 
which was funded in this bill, to provide $10 million in funding to the 
Centers for Disease Control for childhood asthma programs.
  What is asthma like? I have never suffered from it, thank God. But 
imagine this illustration: For the next 15 minutes, imagine breathing 
through a tiny straw the size of a coffee stir, never getting enough 
air. Now imagine suffering this three to six times a day. That is 
asthma.
  There have been some innovative things that have been done. In 
Southern California, Dr. Jones, with the University of Southern 
California, has started a ``breathmobile'' moving around the areas and 
neighborhoods of highest incidence of asthma, identifying kids with the 
problem, making sure they receive the right treatment and that their 
parents and teachers know what to do. That is what we have to 
encourage. The $10 million Senator DeWine and I have put in this bill 
for this type of outreach program for asthma can have dramatic positive 
results.
  There is one other thing I will mention. That is a program in which I 
became interested in 1992. I went to Detroit, MI, and saw an effort 
that was underway to provide residential treatment to addicted pregnant 
women. I thought it was such a good program, I asked the directors: 
Where do you get your Federal funds? They said: We don't qualify for 
Federal funds. I went back to Washington and put a demonstration 
project in place so that we could take addicted mothers across America 
out of their drug-infested neighborhoods, put them in a safe 
environment, and try to make certain that the babies they would bear 
would be free from drug addiction.

  It was a demonstration project, and it worked--1,500 children in 1994 
in America were born drug free because of this program which we started 
in 1992. We were about to lose it this year. Imagine, we know a drug-
addicted baby is extremely expensive, let alone, perhaps, a waste of 
great potential in human life. I was able to work with Senators Specter 
and Harkin to put $5 million in the bill to expand our current efforts.
  I say, in closing, there is one area of this bill I find particularly 
troubling. In a world which now has 6 billion people, in a world where 
we see the need for family planning and population control to avoid 
serious poverty, to avoid environmental disaster, and to avoid wars, 
the leadership in the House of Representatives and the Senate has 
turned a blind eye to international family planning. I cannot 
understand how this Republican Party--not all of them but many of 
them--can be so insensitive to the need for international family 
planning. Every year it is a battle. We have to understand that when 
population growth is out of control in underdeveloped countries, it is 
a threat to the stability not only of that country, of that region, but 
of the world and the United States.
  We have to follow the lead of President Clinton and many in Congress 
who have said U.S. involvement in international family planning is 
absolutely essential. We hear arguments and see amendments offered 
because there are some who want to make this an abortion issue. The sad 
reality is that if a woman in a faraway land does not have the 
wherewithal to plan the size of her family and has an unintended 
pregnancy, it increases the likelihood of abortion. So family planning, 
when properly used, will reduce the likelihood of these unintended 
pregnancies. That is as night follows day, for those who care to even 
take a look at this policy issue.
  I am sorry to report that although we are going to finally pay a 
major part of our U.N. dues, which has been an embarrassment to many of 
us for so many years while the Republican Congresses have refused to 
pay those dues, it was at the price of threatening international family 
planning programs. The Republican leadership in the House of 
Representatives insisted, if we are going to pay our U.N. dues, it has 
to be at the expense of international family planning programs. I think 
that is extremely shortsighted. I hope the next Congress will have a 
little more vision when it comes to family planning, when it comes to 
enacting a treaty, for example, a nuclear test ban treaty. The Senator 
from Nebraska, who is now presiding over the Senate, is working with 
Senator Lieberman from Connecticut in an effort to revive that effort 
as well.
  I hope the next session of Congress will be more productive in that 
area and many others.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow the 
Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from Illinois leaves the 
floor, I want to direct a few questions to him. I appreciate very much 
the outline of this congressional session made by my friend from 
Illinois. The Senator from Illinois and I came to the Senate from the 
House of Representatives. I feel a great affinity for my friend, not 
only for the great work he does but because we came as part of the same 
class. I made a number of notations as he gave his speech.
  Isn't it about time we updated, revised, modernized Medicare? I say 
that because it was almost 40 years ago, certainly 35, 36 years ago, 
that Medicare passed. Almost 40 years ago, 4 decades ago, we didn't 
have prescription drugs; we didn't have drug therapies that extended 
lives or made life more comfortable for most people.
  I say to my friend from Illinois, isn't it about time Medicare became 
modern? Isn't it about time senior citizens have a program where they 
can get an affordable prescription drug program to keep them alive, to 
keep them healthy?
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator from Nevada. Isn't it ironic 
that if you bought a hospitalization policy now, as an employee of a 
company, you would expect some sort of prescription drug benefit as 
part of it, that goes along with most policies?
  Medicare does not include that. Seniors find themselves at a distinct 
disadvantage. Many of the seniors I talked to the other day in East St. 
Louis, IL, had heart problems. Back 35 years ago, we didn't have the 
wide array of potential prescription drugs to deal with blood pressure 
problems, for example. Now we do. The fact that these prescription 
drugs are available means longer and better lives for seniors.

[[Page S14844]]

  Mr. REID. Also, while we are talking about prescription drugs, I 
offered an amendment in the Senate, which passed, that said for Federal 
employees--I tried to broaden it to cover all insurance policies but 
was unable to do that--health insurance programs, the people who are 
allowed to get prescription drugs should be allowed to get 
prescriptions for contraceptives. The reason is that there are 3.6 
million unintended pregnancies in the United States and almost 50 
percent of those wind up in abortion.
  So if people really care about cutting back the number of abortions, 
we should have prescription drugs available in the form of 
contraceptives for people. But what the Senator didn't mention is 
hidden in this huge bill is language to lessen the effectiveness of 
this program. For reasons unknown to anyone, other than a way to 
attempt to help the insurance companies, they have said there is going 
to be a conscience clause for pharmacists. I say to my friend, I 
understand there should be a conscience clause for physicians who might 
prescribe these drugs, but does the Senator see any reason why you 
should weaken this most important piece of legislation in law and have 
a so-called conscience clause for pharmacists?
  Mr. DURBIN. I do not. I agree with the Senator from Nevada that it is 
extremely shortsighted. Perhaps we are striking a moralistic pose when 
we say we are not going to allow prescriptions for contraception. In 
other words, we will acknowledge all of the other needs a woman may 
have, but not provide for birth control pills. That seems to me to be 
out of step with what American families expect us to do. Let them make 
the decision with their doctor. Instead, we are imposing on them what 
may be viewed by many as a moralistic point of view that should not be 
in our province. This is the first I have heard of this conscience 
clause, where a pharmacist, for example, might refuse to fill a 
prescription for birth control pills. Under this amendment that is 
being put in the bill, he or she is not required to do so.
  Mr. REID. It is in this bill on which we are going to vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think it really stretches credibility to think that a 
pharmacist, in this situation, would be allowed to make that decision 
and perhaps disadvantage a woman who may not have easy access to 
another pharmacy.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has said it all there. Not everybody lives in 
metropolitan Chicago, where they can go to two or three different 
pharmacies within a matter of a few blocks. In some places, there is 
only one pharmacy.
  I also say to my friend it seems unusual--while we are talking about 
health care--and the Senator did an excellent job in talking about the 
Patients' Bill of Rights. We passed a patients' non-bill of rights. We 
passed a bill here that is a bill in name only. If you read the 
Patients' Bill of Rights, the Senator knows it is not a Patients' Bill 
of Rights.
  It is unusual in this country--and the Senator and I are both 
lawyers, and I know sometimes the legal profession doesn't have the 
greatest name, unless you need a lawyer. But in our great society, this 
country that we admire--and we salute the flag every day--it is 
interesting that the only two groups of people you can't sue in America 
are foreign diplomats and HMOs.
  Doesn't the Senator think that should be changed?
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree completely with the Senator from Nevada. If we 
did nothing else but change that to say these health insurance 
companies could be held liable in a court of law before a jury of 
Americans for their decisions on health care, it would have a dramatic 
overnight impact on their decisions also. They would think twice about 
denying a doctor's recommendation for a surgical procedure or a 
hospitalization. They would think twice about delaying these decisions.
  I have noticed, and I am sure the Senator from Nevada has noticed as 
well, many times, poor families I represent in Illinois will get into a 
struggle with an insurance company to try to get help, for example, for 
a child with a serious illness or disease, and the struggle goes on for 
months; ultimately, the family prevails; but during that period of 
time, the poor child is suffering and the family is suffering. I think 
that giving those families across America the right to sue health 
insurance companies and saying to the health insurance companies that, 
like every other business in America, you will be held accountable for 
any wrongdoing, is just simple justice. To do otherwise is to suggest 
that we are going to create some special, privileged class of companies 
and that, literally, the health insurance companies are above the law. 
That is not America.

  Mr. REID. My friend also knows that with part of the public relations 
mechanisms these giant HMOs have, they are going around saying, well, 
what these people in Washington want to do--the Congressmen--is allow 
suits against your employer. Now, the Senator knows that is fallacious. 
Any litigation that would be directed against the wrongful acts of the 
entity that disallows the treatment has nothing to do with the 
employer. Does the Senator understand that?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is right. The Senator probably saw the survey that 
there are people against giving families the right to hold health 
insurance companies accountable in court, and they say, well, if you 
work for an employer who provides health insurance, those families may 
turn around and sue the employer, as opposed to the health insurance 
company. So we looked at that and did a survey; we investigated. We 
found out that only in a very rare situation has that occurred. Here is 
an example.
  In one circumstance, the employer collected the health insurance 
premiums from the employee and then didn't pay the health insurance 
company. So when the family tried to get coverage for medical care, the 
next thing that occurred was they found out the premiums had not been 
paid by the employer. That was the only example we could find. But if 
the employer picks a health insurance company and they make a decision, 
we could not find a single case where the employer was held liable 
because of the health insurance company's bad medical decision.
  So that, I think, is a red herring, one that really does a disservice 
to American families who deserve this right.
  Mr. REID. The Senator also gave an example of one of his constituents 
in Illinois whose child has Pompe's disease, who, as we speak, is not 
receiving treatment for that.
  Mr. DURBIN. The child has passed away.
  Mr. REID. He wanted to participate in what is called a clinical 
trial. Is the Senator aware that HMOs almost universally deny the 
ability of their enrollees to participate in clinical trials?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes. Frankly, during the course of the debate here, the 
Senator can remember that when they referred to reputable medical 
leaders in the United States, such as Sloan Kettering--which is a great 
institution when it comes to cancer treatment and research and is 
respected around the world--they said, after their survey, that 
clinical trials really open the door for new treatments and therapies 
that, frankly, save us money. They found better and more efficient ways 
to keep people healthy. Meanwhile, the health insurance companies won't 
pay for them, and we are literally stopped in our tracks from moving 
forward with this kind of medical research and clinical trials.
  In this case, with this little boy, Eric, who passed away from this 
disease, he was closed out of a clinical trial. Would he have survived 
with it? I am not sure, but because of the health insurance company, he 
never got a chance.
  Mr. REID. On the floor today, right next to the Senator, is the 
Senator from Minnesota, who has been a leader in Congress fighting for 
the rights of those people who are disadvantaged because of mental 
disease. Well, there was a big fanfare a week or two ago about some big 
health entity in the Midwest that had decided they were going to let 
doctors make the decision, rather than checking them out. They looked 
on their accounting and found they could spend a lot of money trying to 
direct care. They said what they are going to do now is let doctors 
make the decision. What they didn't tell us is that this would not 
apply to people who had mental disease, who had emotional problems. Is 
the Senator aware of that?

  Mr. DURBIN. I am aware of it. I salute the Senator from Minnesota, my

[[Page S14845]]

friend, Senator Paul Wellstone, and our colleague, Senator Domenici 
from New Mexico, for their leadership on this issue. It is a classic 
illustration of another problem facing American families which this 
Congress has refused to address. The problem is very straightforward.
  An internist from Springfield, IL, came to see me and said, 
``Senator, I am literally afraid to put in a patient's record that I am 
giving them medication for depression because the insurance company 
will then label them as `victims of chronic depression,' a mental 
illness, and discriminate against them when it comes to future health 
insurance coverage.''
  That is outrageous. Mental illness is an illness, it is not a moral 
shortcoming. These people can and deserve to receive the very best 
care. Unless and until the Senator from Minnesota and others of like 
mind prevail in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, we will 
continue to discriminate against the victims of mental illness. That is 
something this Congress can do something about. We will leave here 
today or tomorrow, again, with that unfinished item on the agenda.
  Mr. REID. I also say to my friend that we were here last year 
wrapping up the congressional session. Is the Senator aware that since 
that time we have had 1\1/2\ million new people in America added to the 
uninsured rolls?
  Mr. DURBIN. The list grows. The Senator from Nevada knows as well as 
I do that unless and until we face the reality that every American 
citizen and every American family deserves the peace of mind of health 
insurance coverage, you will continue to see employers deciding not to 
offer health insurance protection, and working, lower income people in 
America will be without the protection of either Medicaid or health 
insurance at work. These people get sick as other people do. When they 
present themselves to hospitals, they receive charity treatment which 
is paid for by everyone, instead of receiving quality health care from 
the start. Preventive care can avoid serious illness.
  Again, it is an issue that this Congress has refused to address.
  Mr. REID. I wanted to say this--the Senator has said it, but I want 
to underline it and make it more graphic. The Senator who is on the 
floor is the leader for the Democrats. I am the whip for the Democrats. 
We spend a lot of time here on the floor. Have we missed something? Has 
the Senator heard any debate dealing with the uninsured in this 
country?
  Mr. DURBIN. No. We haven't missed it, as the Senator from Nevada 
knows very well. This is the third rail for a lot of politicians around 
here because you have to start to talk about things that cost a lot of 
money. Doing nothing costs a lot more money. People get ill, they have 
to go to the doctor, and to the hospital. When they need to have 
serious treatment, or hospitalization, that is very expensive, too.
  It strikes me that those of us who sought this office to serve in the 
Senate or the House of Representatives did not do it just to collect a 
paycheck and accumulate years toward a pension but to do something to 
help families across this country. This is the No. 1 concern of 
families across the country.
  If you have a child reaching the age of 23, and all of a sudden it 
dawns on you: Where is my daughter going to get her health insurance? I 
can't bring her under my policy. You start thinking. I am sure the 
Senator from Nevada has. I have. As a parent, every day I call my 
daughter in Chicago, who is an art student, and an artist, and say, 
``Jennifer, are you insured this month?'' ``Yes, dad.'' But I have to 
ask the question because health insurance is not automatic.
  This Congress has done little, if anything, to help families across 
America who struggle with this every single day--not to mention those 
with preexisting conditions. If you have a preexisting condition and it 
is a serious one, and you have to change insurers, good luck. Most 
people find themselves being discriminated against.
  I agree with the Senator from Nevada. We have been here day in and 
day out, and I have heard literally nothing suggested by the Republican 
leadership to deal with this.
  Mr. REID. At the beginning of our August break, I traveled back to 
Nevada with my wife. As we flew home, my wife became very sick. We got 
off the airplane and went immediately to the Sunrise Hospital emergency 
room. As we walked in that room--she was wheeled into the room--there 
were lots of people. It was very crowded. We were probably among the 10 
percent of the fortunate ones in that room; we had insurance to cover 
my wife's illness. She was there for 18 days. Ninety percent of the 
people there had no health insurance of any kind. They were there 
because they had no place else to go.
  Those uninsured people get care. The most expensive kind of care you 
can get anyplace is in an emergency room. Who pays for that? You and I 
pay for it. Everybody in America pays for it in the form of higher 
taxes for indigent care--higher insurance premiums, higher insurance 
policies, and higher hospital and doctor bills. We all pay for it 
anyway.

  But we don't have the direction from the majority here to have a 
debate on what we are going to do with the rapidly rising number of 
people with no health insurance.
  Next year, we are going to probably have 2 million more. It is going 
up every year. We have 45 million people--actually 44 million people 
now--who have no health insurance. Next year, it will be close to 46 
million people. Will the Senator agree with me that it is somewhat 
embarrassing for this great, rich country, the only superpower in the 
world, that 44 million people will have no health insurance?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is an embarrassment, and it is sad. We have spent more 
time this morning on the floor of the Senate talking about providing 
health insurance to the uninsured than we have spent in the entire 
session this year debating any proposals to deal with the problem.
  I would say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that if 
you have an idea, or a concept, or a piece of legislation, come forward 
with it. Let us put our best proposal on the table. That is what the 
Senate is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be a contest of 
ideas, and the hope that when it is all said and done, the American 
people will prosper because we will come out with something that 
improves the quality of their lives. This year we have not.
  Mr. REID. I want the Senator, also, to react to this. If we passed 
all of the programs the Republicans have talked about, the majority has 
talked about, on rare occasions--medical savings accounts, tax breaks 
for employers, and insurance--does the Senator realize that would cover 
less than 5 million of the 45 million people?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Nevada is right. We overlook the 
numbers. The numbers are important. It is good to do something 
symbolic, but it doesn't solve the problem. We know the problem grows, 
as the Senator from Nevada has indicated, by 1 or 2 million a year--
more people without health insurance coverage, more people who are 
vulnerable, and a Congress which has a tin ear when it comes to this 
issue.
  We look at the Time magazine polls where it talks about the concern 
of the American people about health care. It doesn't get through to the 
leadership in Congress, and we will leave this year having done nothing 
to make it better.
  Mr. REID. The Senator made an outstanding statement relating to guns, 
juvenile justice, kids getting killed, and people getting killed. So 
that those people within the sound of our voice understand what we are 
talking about, we are talking about people who purchase a gun shouldn't 
be crazies or a criminal. Isn't that what we are saying?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is very basic. That is it.
  Mr. REID. We are saying that we believe the legislation we passed, 
with the Democrats voting for it and a few Republicans, basically said 
that under this law if you are mentally deranged, a criminal, or a 
felon, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. It should apply to 
pawnshops, and it should apply to gun shows. Is that what the 
legislation we passed said, and we can't even get to conference on it?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is what it came down to. Those who would argue that 
gun control legislation and Capitol Hill want to take your gun away, 
that is not the case at all. What it is all about here is to say if you 
want to purchase a gun in America, whether it is from a licensed 
dealer, a pawnshop, or a gun show, we want to know a little about you. 
Are you a stable person? Do you

[[Page S14846]]

have a criminal record? If the answer is yes to either of those, if you 
are unstable, or you have a criminal record, then we will deny you the 
right to own a gun. Who can argue with that? A person who may in a weak 
moment do something to hurt an innocent person shouldn't be given 
advantage or given an opportunity by the purchase of a firearm.

  We passed that when Vice President Gore came to the floor and cast a 
deciding vote just a few weeks after Columbine. And that issue died 
over in the U.S. House of Representatives when the gun lobby came 
through and said that is an outrageous suggestion--that you would keep 
guns out of the hands of kids and criminals.
  I think American families see this a lot differently. I am hoping 
that when Members of the Senate who voted with the gun lobby go home, 
they will hear the other side of the story.
  Mr. REID. The Senator also mentioned something we have not done--
campaign finance reform. I would like the Senator to reflect a minute 
on how many people live in the State of Illinois, approximately.
  Mr. DURBIN. About 12 million.
  Mr. REID. In the State of Nevada, we have at least 2 million. But yet 
in a Senate race a little over a year ago in the State of Nevada, Harry 
Reid and his opponent spent $20 million; that is, between the State 
party moneys, our own money, $20 million. That doesn't count 
independent expenditures by people who come from someplace and are 
spending money. You don't know who they are, and where they are from--
another probably $3 million. So in a small State of Nevada, about $23 
million.
  Does that sound a little excessive to the Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is more than a little excessive. It is outrageous. In 
Illinois, of course, we are faced with similar demands. If you want to 
buy television time, you have to raise money. If you can't write a 
personal check for it, you have to go out and beg for it.
  Members of the Senate and House of Representatives who spend their 
time on the telephone begging for money from individuals and special 
interest groups are not using their time to represent people in 
Congress. They are, frankly, unfortunately bringing an element into 
this political process that is not positive. And the voters know this.
  Interestingly enough, since 1960, we have seen a dramatic increase in 
spending on Presidential election campaigns, for example. And we have 
seen a dramatic decline in voter turnout and the number of people who 
participate. Voters have decided to vote with their feet and stay home. 
They are sick of the negative advertising. They are sick of the special 
interest groups. They are sick of the fundraising involved in this. And 
they are sick of the process. In a democracy, you can't stand that very 
long because if democracy is going to work, people have to be involved 
in it. And that means cleaning up our acts. When Senators Feingold and 
McCain came forward with campaign finance reform, 55 Senators--45 
Democrats, 10 Republicans--said we agree, at least with respect to 
eliminating soft money. We should go forward with reform.

  The Senator from Nevada, though, points to another problem: Even 
eliminating soft money will not eliminate the expense of campaigns, 
until we find a way to put legitimate candidates on the television 
without the extreme costs they run into now.
  (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the chair.)
  Mr. REID. Let me say to my friend from Illinois to show how the 
system has frayed, I was interviewed in Washington by a Reno TV station 
for a half hour interview. During the interview, they said: How do you 
feel about the present Senate race? The person I had the good fortune 
of being able to beat is running again for the Senate; Senator Bryan is 
not running for reelection. I said nice things about my opponent. I 
said I have known him; he is a nice man; I have known his family, and 
they always supported me. I said nice things about my opponent and I 
said nice things about the person who is going to be the Democratic 
nominee.
  The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee issues a press release 
they poured out to Nevada saying, ``Reid endorses Ensign,'' because I 
said something nice about my former opponent. They stooped to the level 
of saying, Reid endorses John Ensign.
  I like John Ensign; he is a nice man.
  The system has gotten so callous. After this came out, a radio talk 
show host called me and said, I am a Republican but I want you to know 
I think what the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee did is 
despicable. I think it is, too. We now are suspect because we say 
something nice about somebody who is running for office. Shouldn't it 
all be nice? We should be in a contest where we can determine who will 
be the best for the State of Nevada, the State of Illinois, the State 
of Minnesota--not the worst.
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator from Nevada. He came to 
Congress, as I did, in 1983. There has been a dramatic and palpable 
change in the atmosphere on Capitol Hill in that period of time. I know 
he can remember in the early days when there was real civility between 
the political parties and real dialogue and parties at night. We went 
to dinner together even if we fought like cats and dogs on an issue on 
the floor.
  That has changed. The well has been poisoned by the obsession with 
negative politics. I think that is one of the reasons the American 
people are checking out. They said if that is the best that can be 
done, you professionals in the business, we would just as soon stay 
home and watch professional wrestling. Occasionally professional 
wrestlers are involved in politics. The point they make is they don't 
approve of what is happening as we sink to lower and lower depths in 
the Democratic or Republican campaigns.
  I agree with the Senator from Nevada. If one can't say something 
honest and complimentary about someone across the aisle without another 
person looking for a political advantage, that is a sorry commentary on 
the state of political affairs in America.
  Mr. REID. I very much appreciate the Senator's statement on 
education. The Senator talked about how important it is to have 
additional teachers in America to reduce class sizes.
  My daughter is a second grade teacher. She said she can tell within 
the first few days with these little kids who the smart ones are and 
those who are not so smart. The problem is classes are so big, what can 
be done about those in between, the average kid? Most people are 
average. What happens to the average kids? Many times they are lost in 
our present system.
  No matter how teachers struggle, work long hours, and prepare their 
lessons, they don't have time to do it all because the classes are too 
big. What we have been able to do as a result of the President hanging 
in there is get more teachers to reduce class size. That is a positive 
step.

  One thing the Senator didn't mention, and I know we have spoken about 
it, is the problem we are having in America with high school dropouts. 
Every day we have about 3,000 children drop out of high school, half a 
million a year. We have no specific programs to address that. The 
Senator from New Mexico and I have introduced legislation two 
successive years. Last year, it passed; it was killed in the House when 
the Gingrich Congress killed it. It would have set up within the 
Department of Education a dropout czar who would have been able to work 
on programs that have been successful in other parts of the country 
and, in effect, give challenge grants to local school districts--they 
would still control the programs, of course--giving them guidance and 
direction in keeping kids in school.
  This year on a strictly partisan vote the majority killed the 
Bingaman-Reid amendment.
  Would the Senator acknowledge the fact we have to do something about 
high school dropouts, we need to do something to keep kids in school?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Nevada knows that is the source of many 
problems. At juvenile justice facilities across America, whether in the 
courts or in the correctional system, we will generally find the kids 
who are there dropped out of high school. Having dropped out, with time 
on their hands and no skills to get a job, many of them veered toward 
drugs and crime and a life that is not productive.
  We end up paying for that over and over and over and over again. The 
old saying about an ounce of prevention is true. The Senator from 
Nevada has been a leader on this, telling the Nation we have to look at 
high school

[[Page S14847]]

dropouts not just as a sad reality but as a challenge to all to do 
better.
  I look at some of the things I have learned recently about the 
American workforce. When I visited Dell Computer in Austin, TX, last 
week and talked to their officers and leaders in their company, they 
said they hired some 6,000 people in the previous 3 months to work for 
Dell Computer in Austin and Nashville, TN. I find their complaint or 
request similar to those I have heard in Illinois. We can't find enough 
skilled workers. That says to me that our educational system has to be 
better, it can't let any child fall behind and be forgotten. We have to 
address dropouts. We have to address skilled training. We have to 
address the kind of educational reform that goes way beyond the 
question about who wears a uniform to school and who doesn't. But we 
haven't done it in this Congress.
  I am glad the Senator from Nevada has been a leader on this issue of 
dropout.
  Mr. REID. If for no other statistics, we should look at the 
penitentiaries and jails in America. Eighty-three percent of the people 
sentenced for crimes in America today are high school dropouts, 83 
percent. That says it all as far as I am concerned as to why we need to 
do something about dropouts.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Judge Rick Solum from Minnesota told 
me--and I have to have this confirmed; it is dramatically jarring--
there is actually a higher correlation between high school dropout and 
incarceration than between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It is 
quite predictable.
  The Senator from Nevada was talking about his daughter's experience 
as a second grade teacher. In many ways we harp on the complexity of it 
all to the point it becomes the ultimate copout, but a lot of these 
kids by kindergarten are way behind. There is a learning gap and they 
fall further behind and then they drop out of school and wind up all 
too often in prison.
  It does seem to me this is a full agenda that we barely touched.
  Sorry to interrupt. I am enjoying listening to the discussion.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate hearing from the professor.
  I want to talk with my friend from Illinois about Social Security. 
The Senator mentioned Social Security. One of the things that puts a 
smile on my face is when I hear the majority talking about having saved 
Social Security. If that doesn't put a smile on your face, nothing 
would because the Senator will recall a few years ago here in the 
Congress we were debating something called the constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget. As the Senator will recall, I offered the first 
amendment to say, fine, we want a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget; let's exclude the Social Security trust fund from the 
balancing.
  The Senator is aware they defeated that because they wanted to have 
their calculations applying the vast surplus that we have had the last 
several years with our Social Security fund, they wanted to apply that 
to balance the budget.
  Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I remember that debate. Frankly, I think that was really 
the critical debate, when it came to the future of that amendment and 
when the Republican majority rejected our attempts to protect the 
Social Security trust fund in the balanced budget amendment debate. 
That was the end of the debate. As I recall, that amendment lost by one 
or two votes at the most. I voted against it. I think the Senator from 
Nevada did as well. If it was not going to protect Social Security, 
then we should not go forward with it.
  As I reflect on it, it is a little over 2\1/2\ years ago that the 
battle cry on Capitol Hill was: The deficits, the balanced budget 
amendment, let the courts step in and have Congress stop spending; that 
was our only hope. Now we are in the era of surpluses. We have changed 
so dramatically without that constitutional amendment.
  The Senator from Nevada recalls accurately the Social Security trust 
fund was a viable issue at that point.
  Mr. REID. The Senator was also part of this Congress when, in 1993, 
without a single Republican vote, we passed the budget to address the 
deficit. It passed. We had to have the Vice President come down and 
break the tie. The Senator recalls at that time clearly, we had 
deficits of about $300 billion a year. Since then, we now have 
surpluses. We have done very well with low inflation, low 
unemployment--40-year employment highs in that regard. We have created 
about 20 million new jobs. We have about 350,000 fewer Federal 
employees than we had then. We have a Federal Government about the same 
size as when President Kennedy was President.
  We could go on with other things that happened as a result of the 
hard vote we cast, without a single vote from the Republicans. Does the 
Senator remember that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I was in the House of Representatives and cast a vote in 
favor of the President's program. I can tell you, literally, there were 
Democratic Members of the House of Representatives who lost in the next 
election, in 1994, because of that vote they cast. It was a really 
courageous effort on their part. It was exploited by those who said 
they were going to somehow destroy the economy and raise taxes across 
America. Yet look at what has happened. From 1993 to the current day, 
we have seen the Dow Jones index go from 3,500 to over 11,000, and all 
the things the Senator from Nevada has alluded to.
  So that decision by President Clinton, supported exclusively by 
Democrats on Capitol Hill, had a very positive impact on America and 
its future. We have gone through one of the longest and strongest 
economic growth periods in our history. I think it relates back 
directly to that 1993 vote.
  I can recall a number of my colleagues--Congresswoman Mezvinsky, a 
new Congresswoman from Pennsylvania who only served one term because 
she had the courage to cast that vote. If she had not, America might 
have gone on a different course than we have seen recently.
  Mr. REID. I apologize to my friend from Minnesota. I want to end by 
asking one final group of questions to the Senator from Illinois.
  We are here in kind of a celebratory fashion. We are going to 
complete this bill tonight, unless certain Members of the Senate keep 
our staff in all night long. Otherwise, we will finish it very quickly.
  Does the Senator understand getting to this point has been really 
difficult and we, the minority, have had to hang very tough?

  Remember, in an effort to get where we are, there have been a number 
of ways the majority has attempted to get to this point. You remember 
the Wall Street Journal article where they talked about the two sets of 
books the Republicans were keeping? They would, for certain things, go 
with the Office of Management and Budget and for certain things go with 
the Congressional Budget Office. Does the Senator remember that?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. You can't keep two sets of books. The Senator recalls that 
didn't work. Does the Senator remember that?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I do.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator also remember they came up with this 
ingenious idea that they would add a month to the calendar? Does the 
Senator remember that?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is right, 13 months.
  Mr. REID. I remember the Senator from Illinois saying that is a great 
idea because we can just keep adding months to the year and we will 
never have a Y2K problem.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is right.
  Mr. REID. That was something also where we said: That is not fair, we 
are not going to do it. That didn't work.
  Does the Senator also recall when they decided, with the earned-
income tax credit, the program that President Reagan said was the best 
welfare program in the history of the country, where you would give the 
working poor tax incentives to keep working--does the Senator recall 
they wanted to withhold parts of those moneys to the poor in an effort 
to balance the budget?
  Mr. DURBIN. I remember there was a certain Governor from Texas who 
admonished the Republican Members in the House and Senate, the House in 
particular, for their insensitivity. He said you should not balance the 
budget

[[Page S14848]]

on the backs of working people, and that was about the time they 
abandoned that particular gimmick.
  Mr. REID. Then there was the across-the-board cut. Does the Senator 
understand when they were doing that, and it was decided to do all 
these things, they did it without the offsets that would take an 
across-the-board cut of 7 or 8 percent, but now they are declaring a 
victory because they got an across-the-board cut--except the President 
can decide what is going to be cut--of .37 percent? Does the Senator 
from Illinois understand that crying victory over having a .3-percent 
across-the-board cut where the President can decide what would be cut 
is not something they should be crowing about victoriously?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is a face-saving gesture on their part. Once we got 
into the budget negotiations and the Republican leadership was faced 
with actually saying, no, we won't add additional teachers, we will not 
have additional cops on the beat to address the crime problem across 
America, they could not do it. They ended up saying we actually won 
because we got this so-called across-the-board cut of .37 percent.
  I might say to the Senator from Nevada, as he well knows, this is 
entirely within the discretion of the President, so it is not across 
the board. He can decide which areas of Federal spending to reduce to 
reach this target.
  Mr. REID. I have enjoyed very much visiting with my friend from 
Illinois. As the session is drawing to a close, I want to express 
appreciation, on behalf of all the Democratic Senators, for the Senator 
being our floor leader. He has done an outstanding job. He has been 
here. He has been able to express himself very well, as we all know he 
can. I want to personally tell him how much I appreciate it. And on 
behalf of the Democratic Senators, for all of them, I tell the Senator 
how much we appreciate every word he has spoken, everything he has 
done, and I will make sure the majority keeps their ear to what the 
Senator from Illinois is saying. He has done extremely well in 
expressing what I believe are the views of the majority of the American 
people.

  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. It could not have been done without 
Senator Daschle and Senator Reid and the leadership of my colleagues 
who have joined me. I also say it could not have been done without 
having such good, strong issues the American people support, that we 
can come talk about on the floor each day, pointing out that in this 
session of Congress they have not been addressed.
  I thank the Senator for his kind words.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.

                          ____________________