[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 42 (Thursday, April 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2270-S2339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 101, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 101) setting forth 
     the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary 
     levels for fiscal year 2000.

  Pending:

       Stevens amendment No. 2931, to strike certain provisions 
     relating to emergency designation spending point of order.
       Stevens amendment No. 2932, to strike certain provisions to 
     congressional firewall for defense and nondefense spending.
       Byrd/Warner amendment No. 2943, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on the continued use of Federal fuel taxes for the 
     construction and rehabilitation of our Nation's highways, 
     bridges, and transit systems.
       Roth amendment No. 2955, to strike the revenue assumption 
     for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) receipts in fiscal 
     year 2005.
       Robb amendment No. 2965, to reduce revenue cuts by $5.9 
     billion over the next 5 years to help fund school 
     modernization projects.
       Durbin amendment No. 2953, to provide for debt reduction 
     and to protect the Social Security trust fund.


                           Amendment No. 2953

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Durbin amendment, 
amendment No. 2953. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The minority yields 20 minutes off the resolution to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 20 
minutes, with the time coming off the resolution.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid and Senator 
Lautenberg for yielding me this time.
  The amendment I have offered is a straightforward opportunity for 
Members of the Senate to go on record in reference to the proposed tax 
cut by George W. Bush, the nominal candidate for President on the 
Republican side.
  The reason I am offering this amendment is I believe it offers a 
clear choice to the Members of the Senate and certainly to the people 
of this Nation. Every one of us understands we have been going through 
a period of unprecedented prosperity in America. In fact, I believe we 
have set records in terms of the period of economic growth without 
recession. This is not an accident. It is by design of an 
administration that has been determined to continue to bring Federal 
spending under control, to keep interest rates manageable, and to 
encourage growth in the economy. This policy of the administration is 
complemented by the policies of the Federal Reserve Board under 
Chairman Alan Greenspan.
  We are now at an unusual point in our history where we are 
considering the possibility of surpluses. That is something that would 
have been unthinkable a few years ago in Washington when we were 
drowning in red ink with deficit after deficit piling on to our 
national debt. It reached such a point of desperation that a proposal 
was made in the Congress to amend the Constitution of the United States 
and give to the Federal judiciary the power to rein in the spending of 
Congress.
  It was an unprecedented transfer of power to the judiciary away from 
the legislative branch of Government. Some people were so despondent 
and so desperate, they were prepared to back such a constitutional 
amendment for a balanced budget. It is hard to imagine that was only 
about 4 years ago.
  Today in the course of debating the budget resolution, our focus is 
the use of the surplus, the revenues we will generate from our economy 
far and above what is necessary for the needs of Government and current 
programs. There is a difference of opinion about what to do with this 
surplus.
  On the Democratic side, we believe the first priority should be the 
reduction of our national debt. We collect each day in America $1 
billion in taxes from individuals, businesses, and families, and that 
money is used for the sole purpose of paying interest on our national 
debt. That $1 billion does not educate a child; it does not build a 
road; it does not make America any safer. It pays interest on debt, a 
debt primarily held by foreign bond holders.
  We believe on the Democratic side that our first priority should be 
to

[[Page S2271]]

bring down this debt and reduce these interest costs so we can say to 
our children: You are not going to inherit our mortgage, a mortgage 
which we incurred for our needs in our generation. We are going to give 
you a better chance to build your America in the vision of your future 
instead of being saddled with our old debt.
  That is the highest priority on the Democratic side, and my 
colleagues will hear it expounded by the Democratic leader, Senator 
Lautenberg, when he offers his Democratic alternative to the budget.
  The way we reduce this debt is by investing money in Social Security 
so that system will be available for seniors and the disabled for 
decades to come and also, of course, and by investing in Medicare. 
Medicare is a word which many people in this Chamber fear to use. They 
are afraid on the other side of the aisle to even make reference to 
Medicare and its future. But for 40 million-plus Americans, Medicare is 
an important word in their everyday life. That Medicare system provides 
health insurance for the elderly and disabled of America. It has been, 
frankly, one of the most successful programs in the modern era because 
it represents a commitment by the Federal Government that no one, when 
they have reached a certain age, will go wanting when it comes to 
quality health care, and it has worked.

  In the 40 years since the institution of Medicare, our seniors have 
lived longer; they have had a better life; they are more independent; 
they are healthier; they are stronger, and Medicare has a lot to do 
with it. We on the Democratic side believe that part of the surplus 
generated in this economy should be dedicated to Medicare's future to 
make sure this health insurance is around for many years to come.
  We also believe we should target tax cuts. We think we can take an 
appropriate amount of this surplus and convert it into tax cuts which 
families really need. I will give two specific examples. We on the 
Democratic side believe that we should have a targeted tax cut so 
families can deduct college education expenses. How many families do we 
know that have sent a son or daughter off to college and then worried 
about how much debt that child incurred in the course of their higher 
education?
  By providing the deductibility of college education expenses as a 
targeted tax cut on the Democratic side, we will provide some relief to 
these families, up to, say, $2,800, for example, each year which will 
defray the cost of college education expenses. I hope it will be more 
in the future, but that depends, of course, on the economy and how it 
is moving and whether the surpluses continue.
  Secondly, the largest growing group of Americans are those over the 
age of 85. People who have parents and grandparents who are now 
reaching their golden years find they need additional care, in many 
instances. Whether it is in the nature of a visiting nurse or in a 
nursing home, this additional care can be costly. We have proposed on 
the Democratic side a targeted tax cut that will allow families to 
defray some expenses of long-term care for a parent or aging relative. 
We believe this is sensible and reflects what modern families have to 
deal with and struggle with on a daily basis. So our targeted tax cuts 
come right behind our plan for debt reduction.
  Finally, the last piece in our proposal on the Democratic side is our 
investment in our future. We understand, and most historians will 
agree, the 20th century had a lot to do with education. We want to make 
certain the 21st century is an American century as well, and that means 
investing in our children to make certain they have the very best 
education, the very best teachers, and the schools are modernized so 
they can accommodate the new technology.
  Along with the President, we invest money for education, as well as 
for an important program I have found to be immensely popular across 
Illinois and around the Nation. That program is a prescription drug 
benefit. The idea behind it, of course, is we will find a way under 
Medicare to provide a prescription drug benefit for the elderly and 
disabled that will help them pay for their drugs and also keep them in 
a position, if they have an expensive pharmaceutical bill, of not 
having to choose between food or medicine.
  We also believe the cost element is important in this debate on a 
prescription drug benefit. We believe prescription drugs in America 
should be fairly priced. Pharmaceutical companies are entitled to a 
profit--they need it for future research--but when we hear stories 
about exactly the same drug made in America costing half as much in 
Canada and costing less if one buys it for their dog than if they buy 
it for their aunt, people are saying this is an outrage. We ought to 
have prescription drugs fairly priced so this benefit under Medicare 
will work.

  That is a condensation of the Democratic approach to our surplus, our 
future, and our budget priorities.
  On the other side, George W. Bush, the Governor of Texas running for 
President of the United States, has a much different view of America. 
He believes we should change dramatically and radically the path we 
have followed over the past 7\1/2\ years.
  He has proposed, instead of reducing debt, investing in Social 
Security, investing in Medicare, targeted tax cuts, education, and 
health care, that we should have a massive tax cut, a tax cut primarily 
for the wealthiest people in America.
  Take a look at the first year of this tax cut and one can understand 
this graphic. This graphic shows the American economy moving forward, 
steaming into the ocean. Look at this tiny little $168 billion cap of 
an iceberg. This is the first year of the George W. Bush tax cut. Look 
what comes and follows. This tax cut grows in size and eventually, I 
believe, could endanger the economy and its growth.
  My position on that is not unique nor is it partisan. Chairman Alan 
Greenspan has said: Tax cuts are not our highest priority in America. 
Our highest priority is debt reduction. That is the Democratic 
alternative. I think Chairman Greenspan is right. I think George W. 
Bush is wrong.
  The amendment which I offer is an up-or-down vote by the Members of 
the Senate about whether they want to follow the course that has led to 
such economic progress or whether they want to sign up for the George 
W. Bush tax cut.
  Let me tell you what this tax cut would cost America. It would cost 
us, in the first 5 years, $483 billion; then, over a 10-year period of 
time, more than $1.2 trillion. It is a substantial investment in tax 
cuts.
  As I have said many times on the floor, every politician likes to 
stand up and call for a tax cut. It is one of the most popular speeches 
we can make. But it may not be the most responsible thing to do. The 
American people are thinking twice about this promise by George W. Bush 
of a tax cut of this magnitude because they understand that every 
proposal has its cost.
  Let me show you a chart.
  The impact of the Bush tax plan is to not only spend the surplus that 
we have discussed but to reach beyond the surplus, which we are 
generating in our Government, and to call on spending the Social 
Security trust fund for the George Bush tax cut.
  Those on the Senate floor who want to vote in favor of the Bush tax 
plan are really saying we should reach into the Social Security trust 
fund surplus and take the money out of Social Security to fund this 
George W. Bush tax plan.

  This chart shows that in the first 5 years of the George Bush tax 
cut, we have a non-Social Security surplus of $171 billion. George Bush 
would spend not only that but another $312 billion to fund this tax 
cut. Where does he find the additional money? He has to take it from 
the Social Security trust fund. In raiding the Social Security trust 
fund, I believe he breaks faith with a promise made, on a bipartisan 
basis, by Congress that we would make certain the fund is protected.
  Let's take a closer look at what it means in terms of the Republican 
budget resolution, as well.
  Recalling again the $171 billion non-Social Security surplus, on the 
Republican side, in their budget resolution, they call for a tax cut in 
the neighborhood of $168 billion to $223 billion over a 5-year period. 
You will note, this is perilously close and in many instances exceeds, 
again, the non-Social Security surplus.

[[Page S2272]]

  In order to fund this plan, they will either have to reach deep into 
the Social Security trust fund or, as an alternative, will have to make 
cuts in spending.
  Cuts in spending may sound harmless today, but when we put them on 
the spot and ask, ``Where will you cut,'' they refuse to point to it. 
Many of us believe that investments in education, in our 
infrastructure, and in our Nation's defense are too important to be 
left in this uncertainty.
  Looking again at the Bush tax cut--the original figure of $483 
billion that he proposed, plus an additional $60 billion in interest--
it shows you the disparity between the non-Social Security surplus and 
the Bush tax cut. This is the tax cut I am asking my colleagues in the 
Senate to vote on yes or no today. I will be voting no. I will be 
voting against a tax cut which threatens the Social Security trust 
fund. I hope my colleagues will stand up and be counted as to whether 
they believe the Bush tax cut is good policy for the future of America.
  Let's take a closer look at what this tax cut means to American 
families. Most families who I represent could certainly use a tax cut. 
I think, in many instances, it would be helpful to them to meet their 
expenses and to provide for their future.
  Take a close look at the Bush tax cut and the winners and the losers. 
Families making over $301,000 a year, under the George Bush tax cut, 
would see an annual tax break of over $50,000. Think of it--a family 
already making $300,000 a year, plus a $50,000 tax break under the 
George Bush tax cut. Sixty percent of working families in America, with 
incomes below $39,300, would see an annual tax break, under the Bush 
tax cut, of $249.
  My colleagues in the Senate will have their choice. Do they want to 
support the Bush tax cut, which threatens Social Security by raiding 
the Social Security trust fund, and provides virtually no tax relief to 
60 percent of America's working families, at the same time providing a 
generous $50,000-plus tax cut for those making over $300,000 a year?
  Many on the Republican side have already appeared with George W. 
Bush, put their arms around him and endorsed him. If they endorse his 
tax cut, they have a chance to vote for it today.
  Twice in the Senate Budget Committee they ran away from this 
decision. They refused to face a vote, up or down, on the Bush tax cut. 
Today they will have another clear choice, a choice as to whether or 
not they believe America is moving in the right direction--whether we 
should take the Democratic alternative of reducing debt, investing in 
Social Security and Medicare, with targeted tax cuts for families, with 
investments in education--or whether they will take what I consider to 
be a risky and dangerous course and follow the suggestion of the 
Presidential candidate of the Republican Party, George W. Bush.
  This morning's Roll Call newspaper spelled out that the George Bush 
tax plan makes it virtually impossible for him to meet the needs of 
America's future--to fund the prescription drug benefit, to fund 
additional medical research, things that Americans understand to be an 
important part of our future.
  George W. Bush has made his choice. He has decided this tax cut is 
more important than those other things. It is time for the Senate to 
make its choice. It is time for the Senate to stand up and be counted.
  I hope, unlike in the Senate Budget Committee, my colleagues in the 
Senate--whether they are for or against this tax cut--will stand up and 
be counted. If they believe, as I do, that America is moving in the 
right direction and that taking this risky strategy could imperil our 
future, I hope they will join me in voting no on this tax cut.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we scheduled 
to vote at 10:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senate is scheduled to have 
a 10-minute debate at 10:30 a.m., which will be followed by a vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is there a vote following that, also?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Following that vote, there will be a 2-minute 
debate on the Roth amendment, which will be followed by a vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I hope all Senators heard that. Let me repeat it. We 
will have a 10-minute debate starting at 10:30 on the Byrd amendment, 
to be followed by an up-or-down vote. When that vote is completed, 
there will be 2 minutes to debate the next amendment.
  What did the Chair say the second amendment is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Roth amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Roth amendment on ANWR. After 2 minutes of debate, 
there will be a vote on or in relation to that. So Senators ought to 
know that is going to occur.
  I say to the Senator, I am at some point going to use some time. I 
could take 5 minutes now--or 10--and discuss it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, Mr. President, let me see if I understand the 
amendment Senator Durbin has offered, which he claims to be Governor 
Bush's tax proposal.
  On page 4, line 4, what I note is that there is a reduction in 
revenues in the resolution by $4.8 billion. I wonder if the Senator 
would confirm that that is correct. I am reading it off the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I do not have a copy. I sent my copy to the desk. I will 
have a copy in a moment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. On page 4, line 4, revenues in the 
resolution are reduced by $4.8 billion. Is that correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. On page 4 of this amendment? I am sorry, I say to the 
Senator, I do not see that reference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On the bottom of the first page of the amendment, it 
says: ``On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,843,000,000.'' Is 
that correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could you tell me what year that is?
  Mr. DURBIN. It begins in the year 2002.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 2001?
  Mr. DURBIN. 2002. I am sorry, it is 2001. I stand corrected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator know there is no tax cut in 2001 in 
the Bush proposal?
  Mr. DURBIN. Governor Bush has offered two proposals. The first 
proposal is the one that we have followed in offering this amendment. 
He has come back to offer a second proposal starting with 2002. We 
stuck with his original proposal, which is the period of time which 
this budget resolution we are considering on the floor addresses.
  Mr. DOMENICI. My next question was going to be, did you know that 
Governor Bush's tax plan covered 2002 through 2006? You have it 
starting in 2001 with almost $5 billion, but you have given an 
explanation for that. There are two plans out there, and you chose one 
over the other.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. I chose the first one he offered, the 
one that mirrors this budget resolution in terms of the period of time 
that we are addressing.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it fair to assume that a candidate for President is 
not bound by the economic assumptions that we make in the Senate or 
that the CBO makes or OMB makes?
  Mr. DURBIN. I conclude that a Presidential candidate can assume 
anything he or she wants to assume. In fairness, if somebody is going 
to make the cornerstone of their campaign a tax cut, it should make 
sense and should hold up when anyone analyzes it. With the figures I 
brought to the floor today, I suggest that Bush's proposed tax cut 
would invade the Social Security surplus by virtually any estimation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me make a point to the Senator, and I thank the 
Senator for yielding. Presidential candidate George W. Bush had three 
of the best economists in America working with him on this tax 
proposal. Interestingly enough, they made economic assumptions 
different from the Congressional Budget Office, or the OMB, for the 
next 5 years.
  Interestingly enough, the assumptions of the Congressional Budget 
Office and the OMB have been wrong, and most of the time they have been 
wrong by underestimating the performance of the economy. They have 
underestimated the growth in the economy, underestimated the revenue 
stream, and each year, we have come along later on and had to make 
adjustments to it. He is entitled to use his economic assumptions, 
which I have read and are very

[[Page S2273]]

realistic. And that makes a very big difference if one has slight 
economic assumptions of a positive nature higher than one would assume 
in our budget.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Which assumptions did the Senator use in drawing up the 
budget resolution he proposes today?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am bound by the rules of the Senate to use the CBO. 
The President doesn't, however. He uses OMB. Frequently, we are 
different. As a matter of fact, over the last 3 years, we have gone to 
the President's numbers, and we have gone back to CBO's numbers because 
we are trying to find out which is more apt to be right. So there is 
nothing precise about this. One is entitled--just as President Clinton 
did when he ran for office--to use his own economic experts as he puts 
his plan together.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator saying, then, that Presidential candidate 
George W. Bush is using assumptions that come from neither the CBO or 
OMB, but much more optimistic ones to justify his massive tax cut?

  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely, except they are not markedly different, but 
they are different. There is only one Bush plan, as far as the Senator 
from New Mexico knows. It is December 1, 1999. I have a copy of it in 
front of me. What has been offered in the Senate is not the Bush plan. 
Nonetheless, I don't want to argue that exclusively. I can let 
everybody know that it isn't the Bush plan.
  I think what is more important is that soon-to-be-President Bush is 
entitled to put a budget and a tax plan together, and he is entitled to 
use his best economic advisers. Let me suggest something. I honestly 
believe that if George W. Bush were the President instead of Bill 
Clinton being the President, there would be a couple of huge changes 
this year that would make it a lot easier to achieve the Bush tax plan.
  First of all, we would not have a President recommending that 
domestic spending grow at 14 percent a year. That is what we are 
fighting with here--not with a President who is trying to have small 
Government so he could give some relief to the taxpayers. We are 
arguing with a President who has the largest increase in discretionary 
spending since the Jimmy Carter years. That is a lot, when you can beat 
one of those years with inflation in double digits. This year it is 14 
percent. That is what he is asking for. We have to compete with that in 
our budgets. We can't just do what a Republican President, who isn't 
elected yet, would recommend as to how we spend money.
  As a matter of fact, I have already said that I believe this budget 
resolution is kind of a holding budget resolution because I believe 
either man--Bush or Gore--when elected, will ask us to dramatically 
change this budget. I know George W. Bush will because he will find 
ways to consolidate and change the priorities of domestic spending in a 
significant way. When he does that, I have no doubt that he will be 
able to recommend to the Congress a very good tax plan.
  Frankly, if we wanted to debate the value of a tax plan and its worth 
in society, its soundness, we could have a debate on his precise plan. 
It is a pretty good plan. Frankly, it does a lot of things that a huge 
majority of this Senate would like to see done to the Tax Code of the 
United States.
  So we will have a vote on this amendment. Everybody should understand 
that it is not really the Bush plan. Everybody should understand that 
Bush will do his own plan. He will do his own plan on taxes, and he 
told us what it probably will be. He will do his own budget. It is very 
important we understand that. It won't be this budget because we have 
to work off a President's budget with increases of the type I just 
explained to you. He will have his own budget to work off of. I believe 
he didn't start his tax cut until one year later because he wanted the 
opportunity to work on a budget and a fiscal plan for this Nation along 
with a tax plan.
  At some point in time, we will either have a vote in relationship to 
the Durbin amendment, or we will have a second-degree amendment to it. 
If he insists later on, he can have a vote on his. That is ultimately 
the way the rules work.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
charged to the quorum call I will soon initiate be charged equally to 
both sides under this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield all of our time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to announce that there 
will be two minutes equally divided on the Byrd-Warner amendment at 
10:30.


                           Amendment No. 2943

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Byrd-Warner amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Amendment by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. In 
supporting this Amendment, however, I would like to make clear my views 
on the question of the repeal of the federal gas tax.
  I do not think that, under present circumstances, repeal of the 
federal gas tax is necessary or warranted. Yes, gas prices have gone up 
precipitously over the past several months--to more than $2 a gallon in 
California--but there is some evidence that prices may now be easing.
  More important, I have discussed this issue with the chief executive 
officers of several major U.S. oil companies, and none could promise 
that any of these savings would be passed on to consumers. Market 
forces--supply and demand--dictate how much, if any, of a fuel tax cut 
would be seen at the pump.
  For California, repealing more than 9 cents of the federal gasoline 
tax merely triggers an automatic increase in the state gasoline tax. 
Under the California tax code, if the federal gas tax drops below 9 
cents per gallon and if Federal Highway Trust Fund payments to 
California are reduced accordingly, the state tax goes up.
  In other words, if all federal fuel taxes are eliminated and funding 
for the highway trust fund is therefore reduced, the overall tax will 
remain the same in California and Californians hurt by high gasoline 
prices will not benefit.
  I am also concerned that repeal of the federal fuel tax may endanger 
the Highway Trust Fund and imperil important highway projects. The 
highway trust fund, which is funded by the federal fuel tax, provides 
about half a billion dollars a year for California, money which is used 
to seismically retrofit bridges to protect them against earthquakes; 
replace the I-80, which was destroyed by the 1992 earthquake; repair 
potholes; and otherwise maintain our roads and bridges.
  The bottom line is that the current spike in gas prices is due to a 
supply squeeze: There is simply not enough oil in the market to meet 
demand. Although I was pleased that members of OPEC, as well as Norway, 
Mexico, and Venezuela, have agreed to increase production somewhat, it 
is still unclear if these production increases will be sufficient to 
meet demand over the next several months.
  For that reason, I think it is important to underscore that just as I 
do not feel we should repeal the federal fuel tax now, I do not believe 
we should precipitously foreclose our options.
  Alongside initiatives to increase fuel efficiency and develop 
alternate sources, suspension or repeal of a portion of the federal 
fuel tax in a way that benefits the consumer and does not harm highway 
spending may be necessary later if this crisis does not ease, and I 
intend to continue keeping a close eye on this issue.

[[Page S2274]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 2 years ago Congress enacted landmark 
transportation legislation, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century. In that legislation we restored the trust to the highway trust 
fund and we set forth highway funding levels that State and local 
governments could expect to receive over the 6-year life of TEA-21.
  There are efforts now to reduce the gas tax revenues going into the 
highway trust fund, thereby endangering the promises we have made 
regarding funding levels for the Nation's highways and bridges.
  This amendment puts the Senate on record in opposition to any efforts 
to repeal or to reduce gas tax revenues, either temporarily or 
permanently. In adopting this amendment, the Senate will confirm the 
position that it took in enacting TEA-21, that all gas tax revenues 
should go to the States for critical transportation infrastructure 
needs and that we meant it when we said we were restoring the ``trust'' 
to the highway trust fund.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again I commend the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue--not only this 
particular measure before the Senate, but it goes all the way back to 
when I was privileged to be bringing to the floor the ISTEA, TEA-21 
legislation. Then, in the course of that deliberation, we took the 4.3 
cents out of the general revenue and put it in the highway trust fund 
for the express purpose to improve our Nation's highways.
  I commend the leadership.
  I also express my gratitude to the myriad organizations, from the 
National Governors' Association, the League of Cities and Communities, 
and hundreds of others that have worked so hard to keep the Congress 
well informed about the needs of our infrastructure, of transportation.
  I wish to add one word, and that is ``stability.'' This Nation must 
have stability in the funding to make this program successful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2943. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?--
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Abraham
     Biden
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thurmond
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 57, I voted ``aye.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be recorded as a ``nay.'' This would not affect the outcome of 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank the 64 
Senators who joined this morning in making an affirmative statement in 
opposition to any reduction in the gasoline tax. The vote this morning 
on
the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond amendment represented 
a defining victory for those Senators that want to keep the ``trust'' 
in the Highway Trust Fund and assure that every penny of highway 
spending is backed up by fuel taxes deposited into that Trust Fund. It 
was a defeat for any effort to reduce the gas tax or substitute gas tax 
revenues with general revenues in the distribution of federal highway 
funds.
  I especially want to thank the original cosponsors of my amendment 
who joined with me to protect the Highway Trust Fund. It is no 
coincidence that all of these original cosponsors are members of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee that has jurisdiction over the 
Trust Fund. They are the experts in this area. They know better than 
anyone the threat that is posed by reckless proposals to alter the 
funding stream to the Trust Fund. They know better than anyone that 
monkeying around with the funding stream to the Trust Fund poses great 
danger to our ability to provide our states, counties and cities with a 
consistent, predictable and growing allocation of federal dollars for 
the repair and expansion of their highways and bridges.
  During the debate over the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, Senator John Warner served as the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee. Senator Max Baucus served as the Ranking 
Member of that subcommittee as well as the full Environment and Public 
Works Committee. It would be impossible to overemphasize the 
contributions those two Senators made to that landmark legislation. 
Senator Warner permanently altered the long-standing debate over so-
called ``donor'' states by guaranteeing each state a fair return on its 
investment to the Trust Fund. Senator Baucus saw to it that the 
legislation recognized the unique circumstances of the rural Western 
states, those states with relatively few citizens but a great many 
miles of highway. When Senator Gramm of Texas and I developed an 
amendment to assure that the 4.3 cent gas tax would be fully spent on 
highway construction, we were just two non-Committee members with a 
good idea. When Senators Warner and Baucus agreed to join as original 
cosponsors and lend their prestige and expertise to our amendment, our 
good idea became a genuine movement that garnered 54 co-sponsors and 
would eventually result in our adding close to $26 billion in 
guaranteed spending to the highway bill.
  Senator Voinovich was not in the Senate during the debate over TEA-
21. He was, however, one of the most outspoken governors on the 
importance of adequate transportation funding. He has been diligently 
attentive to transportation issues since he assumed the Chairmanship of 
the Surface Transportation Subcommittee from Senator Warner. I 
appreciate very much his leadership in this area.
  Senator Lautenberg, like Senator Bond, has the unique role of serving 
on both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Indeed, Senator Lautenberg 
has served either as the Chairman or the Ranking Member of that 
subcommittee for more than a dozen years. As such, his name is always 
at the center of every transportation debate. He represents the most 
congested state in the nation and, as such, has been a national leader 
in protecting and expanding our nation's rail and transit systems. 
Senator Bond should be credited for his longstanding efforts at 
streamlining the environmental review processes that govern our highway 
construction enterprise. As a Senator from

[[Page S2275]]

a mountainous state that is sorely in need of improved highways, I 
applaud his efforts at ensuring that our highways can be built more 
expeditiously but in an environmentally friendly manner.
  Mr. President, our victory this morning was the result of the 
leadership of these fine Senators as well as the efforts of our other 
cosponsors--Senators Robb, Bingaman, Reid, Lincoln, and others. It was 
a victory for every American that drives on our nation's highways. It 
was a victory for the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund. It was a 
defeat for any proposal to de-link our federal highway spending from 
the level of gas tax revenues.


                           amendment no. 2955

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes, equally divided 
between the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware in voicing my strenuous objections to opening the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, and in urging our 
colleagues not to sacrifice this natural wonder at the altar of short-
term economic expediency.
  I recognize that ANWR is once again a tempting target at this moment 
of record high oil and gasoline prices and low consumer patience. 
Proponents of drilling, as they have many times before, hold out the 
promise of a quick fix to this recent price spike and a long-term 
solution to our dependence on foreign oil. They go so far as to portray 
the refuge as a kind of energy security blanket that will protect us 
from the whims of foreign producers.
  But appealing as that sounds, the truth remains that ANWR is not the 
answer to our current oil woes. Opening this pristine place of 
wilderness to drilling will not bring down gas prices months or years 
from now, let alone in the immediate future. And it will not yield 
anywhere near the amount of crude needed to successfully wean us from 
our addiction to OPEC in years to come. What it will do, we know from 
plenty of analysis and experience, is immeasurable and irreversible 
damage to one of the last pure preserves of its kind in the world and 
one of G-d's most awesome creations. That is the real price at issue 
here, and it is far too high to pay for the modest benefit it will 
bring to our domestic oil supply and to those who produce it.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that ``modest'' is a generous 
characterization. The fact is that we have no guarantees about the 
potential recovery of oil in ANWR. More than 20 different independent 
and federal studies have been completed on the amount of oil in ANWR, 
and estimates vary wildly. One of those, completed during the Reagan 
Administration, determined that there was only a one in five chance of 
finding any commercially recoverable oil at all. More recently, an 
assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 5.2 billion 
barrels of oil would be ``economically recoverable'' from the refuge 
for the rest of its life. Compared against projections of the potential 
for an aggressive program to produce biomass ethanol to displace oil--
2.5 million barrels per day by 2030 and over 3 million per day in 
2035--the oil promise of the Refuge is minuscule. The Refuge would 
probably never meet more than a negligible percentage of our Nation's 
energy needs at any given time.
  In exchange for this minimal return, we would threaten one of the 
most unique animal and plant habitats in the world. Consider the fate 
of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, for which the Coastal Plain within the 
refuge is an important calving ground. An Environmental Impact 
Statement issued by the Interior Department in 1995 shows that 
development of ANWR will likely have significant negative effects on 
the PCH, displacing them to areas of higher predator density, reducing 
the amount and quality of forage species available during calving, and 
restricting the animals' access to areas where they can get relief from 
insects. Experts predict similar risks await polar bears, muskoxen, 
brown bears, snow geese, wolves, seals, and whales.
  That is if all goes well with the drilling, which is not a safe 
assumption. Data from the Alaska Department of Conservation show that 
the Trans-Alaska and Prudhoe Bay oil fields have caused an average of 
427 spills annually since 1996. The most common spills involve crude 
and diesel oil, but more than 40 substances, from acid to waste oil, 
could be released. What is more, current oil operations in Alaska's 
North Slope emits about 56,427 tons of nitrous oxides, which contribute 
to smog and acid rain, and about 24,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse 
gas, per year. Drilling for more oil in ANWR thus compounds the serious 
problem of global climate change, generating methane emissions in 
addition to the carbon dioxide emissions that result from increased 
dependence on oil resources.
  It is this lopsided tradeoff--uncertain dividends for likely 
devastation--that has generated cries of outrage from practically every 
environmental group every time Congress has attempted to open ANWR to 
drilling, generated several veto threats from President Clinton, and 
prompted editorials in newspapers from Seattle to Tampa to Des Moines 
to Atlanta questioning the wisdom of such a move. It was not right 
then, it's not right now, and it won't be right come the next price 
spike.
  Nor is it right to mislead the public into thinking a quick fix 
exists. The reality is we don't have any easy answers to our foreign 
oil addiction. There is no untapped domestic oil oasis out there that 
will end our dependence on foreign oil and minimize our vulnerability 
to fluctuations of the global market. But that is not to say we are 
helpless. In fact, there are several steps we as a nation could take 
over the next year that would go a long way toward curing our OPEC 
addiction.
  The solution, I would argue to my colleagues, is nurturing 
alternative energy sources and improving our energy efficiency. First, 
we should invest more in exploring the power potential of wind and 
geothermal energy, fuel cells, and organic materials, and developing 
long-range strategies for harnessing these renewable energy sources. We 
have made a good start this year by passing legislation sponsored by 
Senator Lugar to spur more research into harvesting energy from common 
crops. I hope we will build on that progress by adopting the 
President's budget recommendation of increased funding for research, 
development, and deployment of renewable energy technologies by 30 
percent. Second, we should take stock of the domestic energy market and 
evaluate national and individual consumer decisions affecting our own 
energy supply and efficiency. In some areas the results are 
encouraging. As the President has noted, conservation measures taken by 
U.S. businesses have significantly improved the efficiency of the 
overall economy. During the crisis of the 1970s, nearly nine percent of 
our GDP was spent on oil, compared with only three percent today. But 
we can and should do better.
  The promise of this approach was spelled out in detail by leading 
experts at a recent hearing held by the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee. To cite just one example, Dr. John Holdren, the Director of 
the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard 
University's Kennedy School of Government, and Chairman of the 
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, stated 
that if the U.S. increases its efficiency by 2.2 percent per year, it 
could reduce its dependence on oil by more than 50 percent, 
approximately 5.5 million barrels of oil per day. This goal is more 
than realistic, for as Dr. Holdren noted, the U.S. decreased its energy 
intensity by 1.7 percent from 1972 to 1979 and by 3.2 percent from 1979 
to 1982.
  In short, we don't have to defile the Alaskan wilderness to declare 
our energy independence. Assaulting ANWR is bad energy policy, it's 
even worse environmental policy, and it's simply not necessary to help 
the American consumer and protect our economy. For that reason, I 
implore my colleagues to once again stand as firm as the tundra and 
uphold the ban on drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to 
address the assumption in the budget of oil leasing revenues from 
activities within the Section 1002 area of Alaska.
  First, however, I think it's important to understand just a few of 
the facts surrounding the current state of the Clinton energy policy. 
In 1977, the Carter Administration and Congress responded to the energy 
crisis by creating the Department of Energy and

[[Page S2276]]

charging it with increasing U.S. energy security and reducing our 
reliance on foreign oil. In the early 1970's, our Nation relied upon 
foreign oil to meet roughly 35 percent of our needs. Today, after 
investing billions of dollars into the Department of Energy, our Nation 
is now reliant upon foreign oil to meet almost 60 percent of our needs. 
That reliance will increase to 65 percent by 2020.
  Those numbers are real, they're tangible, and everyone has been able 
to see it happening. The Clinton Administration has had seven years to 
respond to our growing reliance on foreign oil and to increase our 
domestic energy security. So you might ask, what have they done to 
improve the situation? I regret to say they've done very little. Since 
1992, U.S. oil production has decreased by 17 percent while at the same 
time our energy consumption has increased by 14 percent. In 1990, U.S. 
jobs in oil and gas exploration and production were roughly 405,000 
today those jobs have been reduced to roughly 290,000, a 27 percent 
decline. And in 1990, the U.S. was home to 657 working oil rigs. Today, 
there are only 153 working oil rigs scattered across the Nation a 77 
percent decline.
  Likewise, since coming to office, President Clinton has known that 
the U.S. Department of Energy was obligated by contract to pick up and 
remove spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear reactors across the 
country. In my home state of Minnesota, the Department's failure to 
remove nuclear fuel could force the shutdown of two nuclear reactors 
and the loss of 20 percent of Minnesota's generation capacity. Again, 
not only has this Administration failed to respond, I believe they've 
made the situation even worse by rejecting legislation that has passed 
both Houses of Congress with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities. Those 
bills would have not only moved waste from states, thereby fulfilling 
the Department's obligation, they would have helped ensure the 
continued use of emissions-free nuclear power well into the future.
  As if that weren't enough, the Clinton Administration has taken a 
very hostile approach to coal-fired generation, they've termed 
hydropower a non-renewable resource and are now working to breach dams 
in the Northwest, and they've closed vast areas of land to exploration 
for natural gas reserves.
  When confronted with the truth about high oil costs and increasing 
reliance on foreign oil, the only thing this Administration can say is 
that they support renewable energy sources. Well, I too, am a strong 
supporter of renewable energy technologies. I've been a strong 
proponent of the development and promotion of ethanol and biodiesel as 
a means of reducing our reliance on foreign oil and improving the 
environment. I was a cosponsor of legislation signed into law last year 
extending the tax credit for electricity generated from wind and 
expanding that tax credit to electricity generated from poultry waste. 
I have written letters in each of the past two years to Senate 
appropriators supporting significant increases in renewable energy 
programs, and I was one of 39 Senators to vote in support of a $75 
million increase for renewable energy programs last year. I wrote to 
President Clinton this year asking him to include more money for 
renewable energy programs in his budget. However, I know that simply 
calling for increased funding for renewable energy can't even approach 
the loss of generation in hydropower, nuclear, coal, and other sources 
that this Administration has pursued through its energy policies.

  I think it's clear that, since coming to Washington in 1993, this 
Administration has been asleep at the wheel in developing a coherent 
energy policy. They're more interested in pursuing the limited agenda 
of a few interest groups than in planning for the energy needs of a 
growing economy.
  Instead of strapping on the same blinders that narrowly guide the 
Clinton Administration, I believe Congress must put all of our options 
on the table and begin to plan for the long-term energy needs of our 
nation's consumers. One of those options is clearly the topic we're 
discussing today, our nation's tremendous oil reserves in the Section 
1002 area of Alaska.
  Mr. President, history shows that for two decades, Congress has 
placed special consideration upon this area because of its potential 
for significant oil and gas reserves. In 1980, Congress passed the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--or ANILCA. In addition 
to setting aside over 100 million acres of Alaska for National Parks, 
Refuges, and Wilderness, the ANILCA legislation specifically left open 
the future management of a 1.5 million-acre area on the coastal plain 
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The legislation also required 
the Department of Interior to undertake geological and biological 
studies of the Section 1002 area and report back to Congress.
  After more than five years of conducting these studies, the 
Department of Interior, in 1987, recommended to Congress that the 
Section 1002 area be made available for oil and gas exploration and 
production, and that it be done in an environmentally sound manner.
  Congress has responded to this recommendation a number of times since 
receiving it from the Department of Interior. In fact, both Houses of 
Congress passed an authorization for oil and gas leasing in the Section 
1002 area as part of the 1995 budget reconciliation legislation, but it 
was eventually vetoed by President Clinton.
  Today, as a result of increasing prices for oil and decreasing 
domestic oil and gas production, we find ourselves again debating some 
decades-old questions. Do we move forward in an environmentally sound 
manner to develop domestic oil and gas reserves, or do we ask other 
nations to produce oil for us without similar environmental safeguards? 
Do we keep American jobs and investments inside our borders, or do we 
ship our jobs and industries to foreign nations? Do we increase our 
energy and national security while we have a chance to do so, or do we 
run around the world begging friend and foe alike to ``feel our pain'' 
every time we have an oil supply disruption? For me, the answer is 
simple.
  This budget resolution assumes that we're going to move forward to 
develop oil and gas reserves in the Section 1002 area of Alaska--our 
nation's most promising deposit of recoverable oil and gas. In 1998, 
the U.S. Geological Survey produced an assessment of estimated in-place 
oil resources reaffirming previous studies that showed the tremendous 
potential of the Section 1002 area. In fact, it showed that Section 
1002 contains as much as 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil--enough 
to offset 30 years worth of Saudi Arabian imports. Clearly, this area 
has great potential for easing the growing vulnerability we have to oil 
supply disruptions abroad.
  I think it is important to note that we're not talking about turning 
the Section 1002 area over to oil companies and then walking away 
forever. If we're going to allow oil and gas exploration and 
production, it will be done in an environmentally sound manner and with 
due consideration to the needs of fish and wildlife populations. 
Senator Murkowski has introduced legislation that accomplishes those 
very goals. S. 2214--The Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security 
Act--contains a number of provisions to protect the environment. The 
bill directs the Secretary of Interior to issue regulations that 
protect fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and 
the environment of the Coastal Plain of Alaska. The bill provides the 
Secretary with the authority to close areas of the Coastal Plain, on a 
seasonal basis, to protect caribou calving and other fish and wildlife 
species. The bill would also require those obtaining federal leases to 
comply with federal and state environmental laws, reclaim leased lands 
to the condition in which they were found, and ensure the protection of 
fish, wildlife, and the environment. To ensure these actions are done, 
the Secretary will require bonds to any lands and surface waters 
affected and conduct semi-annual inspections of every facility to 
ensure compliance with all environmental regulations.
  To my colleagues who oppose exploration of the Section 1002 area, do 
you think other nations on whom we rely for our oil supplies are 
employing similar protections? Do you think Iran, Libya, or Iraq are 
going the extra mile to protect wildlife? Do you think the OPEC nations 
are holding themselves to these stringent environmental standards? We 
all know the answer is an emphatic NO. Yet this Administration is 
opposing any exploration of the

[[Page S2277]]

Section 1002 area for environmental reasons, while at the same time 
begging Iran, Iraq, Libya and others to increase their production for 
us. I ask my colleagues, who are the real environmentalists here? 
Certainly not the Clinton Administration. It's clear to me that this 
Administration's policy against exploration in the Section 1002 area, 
when compared against its policy of begging for increased oil 
production abroad, is a net loss for American jobs, family checkbooks, 
domestic energy security, and the environment.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at the 
intellectual dishonesty of refusing to explore our domestic oil and gas 
reserves for environmental reasons, while asking other nations to find 
and produce more oil with significantly fewer environmental protections 
than we require. I support the inclusion of this assumption in the 
budget resolution and I hope we vote to maintain it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there will be 2 minutes of debate, and 
then we will have another vote. Votes don't count against this time. So 
if you take 20, 30 minutes on a vote, we just have to add that much 
more to the resolution because we are not counting vote time under the 
statute. I hope you will stay around and vote shortly, after the debate 
is completed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, my amendment would simply protect the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. Following in the footsteps 
of conservationist President Theodore Roosevelt, President Dwight 
Eisenhower set aside this Arctic wilderness area for all time and all 
generations.
  While my amendment protects a wilderness, it also protects a legacy. 
It is a legacy forged of foresight and conservation that has been 
handed down from generation to generation. I hope we will pass this 
legacy on today to future generations--just as we have received it from 
past ones. My amendment will insure that we do.
  This is not a partisan debate. The President I have named were both 
Republicans. I am joined in support of my amendment by many Democrats. 
Together, both parties have a stake in this wilderness area. I hope 
today that both parties will join hands in protecting it. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. This is truly a bipartisan effort. 
As this budget stands, it is the most antienvironmental budget in 
history because it is the first time any budget resolution has called 
for drilling in a wildlife refuge. We know that when President 
Eisenhower declared this a refuge, he never envisioned drilling in it. 
Drilling in a refuge is not only unnecessary; it is destructive.
  Please support the Roth-Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret to do this, but my colleague 
from Delaware is wrong. I was there. President Eisenhower set aside an 
arctic wildlife range that was open to oil and gas exploration. It was 
not until 1980 that it was designated an area subject to oil and gas 
exploration. An environmental impact statement was provided by the 
Congress. It was not set aside by President Eisenhower or anybody as 
wilderness yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, is 
recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had this issue in the budget 
package before. Make no mistake, if the amendment of the Senator from 
Delaware is adopted, the Senate will go on record in support of a 
failed energy policy that rewards the price fixers in OPEC and the 
military ambitions of Saddam Hussein.
  The Department of Commerce has indicated that our 56-percent reliance 
on foreign oil threatens the national security. One out of two barrels 
is imported. Our growing dependence on imported oil will mean 30 giant 
supertankers loaded with 500,000 barrels of crude oil will dock in this 
country every single day of the year. That is more than 10,000 ships a 
year. That is surely an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
  America has the highest environmental standards and laws in the 
world. By increasing energy imports, we are simply exporting 
environmental problems to other countries.
  Former Senator Mark Hatfield said, ``I would vote to open up that 
small sliver of ANWR any day, rather than send American boys overseas 
to risk their lives in a war over oil.''
  Mr. President, yesterday the issue of exports of Alaskan oil came up 
on the floor. I indicated at that time that when export contracts are 
completed this April, British Petroleum has assured me that it will 
cease exports of Alaska crude.
  I have a letter dated March 23, 2000, from BP's Vice President for 
U.S. Government Affairs, Larry Burton, reiterating BP's pledge on 
exports. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               BP Amoco Corp.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2000.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to respond to your inquiry 
     regarding BP Amoco's plans concerning Alaska North Slope oil 
     exports. Pending completion of contracts due at the end of 
     April, at this time we do not have subsequent plans to 
     export.
       We applaud the Administration and the Congress for its 
     wisdom to permit the market to work and to remove an 
     historical penalty imposed on Alaska North Slope oil. The 
     West Coast is part of the global crude market. The ultimate 
     destination of Alaskan crude has no effect on either West 
     Coast supply or gasoline prices. Once our acquisition of ARCO 
     is complete, we would expect to run all of our Alaska crude 
     through ARCO's excellent West Coast refining and marketing 
     network.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Larry D. Burton.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the motion to table amendment No. 2955. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2953

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Durbin 
amendment. There are 32 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S2278]]

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on the Durbin 
amendment.


                Amendment No. 2973 to Amendment No. 2953

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on proposals ``to 
 accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal 
       combustion engine over, say, a twenety-five year period'')

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2973 to amendment No. 2953.

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

     FEDERAL REVENUE TOTALS

       On page 4, line 3, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $1.

     FEDERAL REVENUE CHANGES

       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $1.

     NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY

       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $1.

     BUDGET OUTLAYS

       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $1.

     NET INTEREST BUDGET AUTHORITY

       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 19, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by $1.

     NET INTEREST OUTLAYS

       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 12, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 20, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 26, line 24, increase the amount by $1.

     PUBLIC DEBT

       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $1.

     DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC

       On page 6, line 5, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 6, line 6, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 6, line 7, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $1.

     TAX CUT

       On page 29, line 3, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 29, line 4, increase the amount by $1.

     DEFICIT INCREASE

       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $1;

     and insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION 
                   ENGINE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that the Senate will not, on behalf of Vice 
     President Al Gore, increase gasoline and diesel fuel taxes by 
     $1.50 per gallon effective July 1, 2000, and by an additional 
     $1.50 per gallon effective fiscal year 2005, as part of ``a 
     coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal 
     of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine 
     over, say, a twenty-five year period'' since ``their 
     cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a 
     mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more 
     deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again 
     likely to confront.''

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for offering his 
version of the tax cut proposed by Governor Bush. I believe he will get 
an opportunity next year to vote on it. I look forward to having that 
opportunity. I intend to vote for it when it is offered by then-
President George Bush. I hope and believe it will pass the Senate by an 
overwhelming margin.
  But let me try, if I might, to explain the dilemma we have in terms 
of trying to do the Bush tax cut now, as if this were a serious 
proposal. Then I want to discuss my substitute.
  Quite aside from the fact the years do not actually match up because 
if George Bush is elected President, he will take the oath on January 
20 of next year, and therefore his tax cut would begin in fiscal year 
2002 in all probability, but let me explain the problem. I am grateful 
for the opportunity because it tells a story that miraculously the 
general public does not appear to understand; that is, why can't we 
have Clinton's budget and George Bush's tax cut?
  The reason we cannot--it is an old fact of life--you can't have your 
cake and eat it too. President Clinton has proposed a budget that, in 
the 5 years from 2002 through 2006, would spend, relative to what we 
are spending now, an additional $494 billion. For the years that this 
tax cut amendment would be in force, the President's budget that was 
submitted this year, if enacted, would raise spending by $494 billion.
  During that same period, the Bush tax cut, if adopted, would reduce 
taxes by $483 billion. That gives rise to two points. First of all, we 
cannot increase spending on some 80 new programs and program expansions 
which President Clinton has proposed, increasing spending by half a 
trillion dollars in 5 years--we cannot have the Government spend all 
that money and at the same time give it back to working families so 
they can spend it. We cannot do both. We are going to have to choose.
  The question we are all going to have to answer--and by ``all'' I do 
not mean just 100 Members of the Senate; I mean every voter in 
America--the question we are going to have to answer is: Do we want 
these 80 new programs and program expansions so we can spend in 
Washington another $500 billion over the first 5 years of the new 
Presidency, or would we rather eliminate the marriage penalty?
  Today, Americans meet, fall in love and get married and they discover 
they end up paying about $1,200 of additional taxes for the right to be 
married. Let me make it clear. My wife is worth $1,200--a bargain at 
the price. But it seems to me she ought to get the money and not the 
Federal Government.
  How can it make sense in America, if you have a janitor with three 
children and a waitress with two children, they meet, their dreams come 
true, they fall in love--under the American Tax Code they both lose 
their earned-income tax credit and they are suddenly in the 28-percent 
tax bracket? So they look at the dollars and cents and many of them 
decide not to get married.

[[Page S2279]]

  How does it make sense? If two people get out of college, meet, and 
fall in love and get married, forming the most powerful bond for human 
happiness and progress in world history, why is that a taxable event? 
Why is love and marriage taxed by the Federal Government?
  Governor Bush says it should not be taxed. If he is elected 
President, he wants to repeal the marriage penalty so love and marriage 
are not taxable events.
  If you agree with Senator Durbin, and if you agree with the Vice 
President, Al Gore, then you believe you can spend that money in 
Washington better than all of those married couples could spend it, and 
you do not want to eliminate the marriage penalty. You want all these 
new government programs.

  Rather than starting a new spending spree, spending $494 billion on 
some 80 new and expanded programs, Governor Bush has proposed that he 
would rather eliminate the death tax.
  What does the death tax do? Death is a taxable event under the 
American Tax Code. Americans work their whole lives, they build up a 
small business, they build up a family farm, they pay taxes on every 
dollar they earn in their lives. Yet when they die and leave their 
life's work to their children, the people they built the life's work 
for, too often in America those children have to sell the farm or sell 
the business to give Government up to 55 cents out of every dollar of 
their life's work. They paid taxes on every dollar they earned, but 
because they accumulated, because they saved, because they sacrificed, 
their children end up having to sell the business and sell the family 
farm in order to give another tax to Government.
  Senator Durbin and Vice President Gore say: Don't do that. Don't 
repeal the marriage penalty. Don't repeal the death tax. Let us spend 
this money for you in Washington.
  You think that by keeping the farm your daddy and mama worked a 
lifetime for that you would be better off, but they say: You would not. 
Let us take your farm because we are going to give you all these 
Government programs.
  They say: Look, you think you know how to spend an extra $1,200 on 
your children, but you are wrong. Al Gore and Senator Durbin know 
better how to spend that money than you do.
  This amendment is really about choice. President Clinton gives us one 
choice, and George Bush gives us another.
  President Clinton's choice is, between 2004 and 2006, some 80 new and 
expanded programs will get $494 billion. That is what he wants to do. 
He can spend this money and make everything wonderful for you and your 
family, and if you believe that, you ought to elect Al Gore as 
President because that is his program. In fact, he wants to spend far 
more than President Clinton does.
  Governor Bush believes you can spend that money better than the 
Government. So rather than giving the Government another $494 billion 
to spend--we are not talking about Social Security; we are not talking 
about Medicare; we are talking about spending basically on 
discretionary programs.
  The President's discretionary nondefense budget goes up by a whopping 
14 percent when one makes the adjustments for all the phony revenues 
and shifting when somebody is paying and when they are not paying.
  If you believe President Clinton and Vice President Gore are right, 
that we would be better off spending the $494 billion in Washington on 
your behalf to help you and your family, then you ought to be for 
spending this money. But if you believe repealing the marriage penalty 
and repealing the death tax so your family can keep more money to spend 
on their children so you don't have to sell your farm or sell your 
business--and 73 percent of small businesses do not make it into the 
second generation, in part because of death taxes. If you believe you 
would be better off spending $483 billion, along with every other 
family in America, than having Washington spend $494 billion for you, 
then you are going to get to vote on it. This is going to be on the 
ballot in November, but it is going to have Al Gore's name next to the 
spending and it is going to have George Bush's name next to the tax 
reductions.

  How people are being confused is that many of our colleagues and the 
Vice President and President say George Bush wants to give $483 billion 
in tax cuts, he wants to stop penalizing couples for getting married, 
he wants to stop taking farms away from people when they die, and he 
wants to reduce tax rates across the board, and that is dangerous.
  I say to Senator Domenici, they say it is dangerous to give back $483 
billion in tax refunds to working people, but they do not say it is 
dangerous to spend $494 billion. I ask the question: If it is dangerous 
to give it back to the American people and let them spend it, how come 
it is not dangerous to spend it right here in Washington, DC? How can 
it be irresponsible for Governor Bush to be talking about $483 billion 
in tax reductions, letting working people keep more of what they earn, 
and how come it is not irresponsible for President Clinton to be 
talking about spending $494 billion more in Washington?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to make an observation and see if 
my colleague agrees with me. As a matter of fact, if we took President 
Clinton's budget and adopted it--and it has a 14-percent increase in 
nondefense discretionary spending; that is, 13 appropriations bills 
less defense and military construction. It has a 14-percent increase. I 
believe it was the Senator who found that is the highest increase in 
domestic discretionary spending since the years of Jimmy Carter's 
Presidency when inflation was rampant.
  Mr. GRAMM. Exactly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How many years does my colleague think it would take to 
eat up all the surplus and be right there ready to use the Social 
Security surplus if we increased that spending 14 percent a year for 
the next few years? How many years?
  Mr. GRAMM. It would take 3 years to consume the entire surplus. Why 
is it less dangerous to let them spend the whole thing in 3 years than 
giving a tax cut and giving most of that surplus back? The reason this 
amendment is so important is that I do not think we are ready to debate 
the Presidential campaign on the floor of the Senate.
  The point is, our colleague from Illinois has offered an amendment 
that he claims will have us voting on the Bush tax cut. Here is the 
dilemma: We cannot have Clinton spending and the Bush tax cut. We have 
to choose between the two. That is what the election is about. If you 
want this spending, you ought to vote for Al Gore, and if you would 
rather repeal the marriage penalty so we do not charge young couples 
$1,200 a year for the right to be married, if you think we ought to 
repeal the death tax so that you do not have to sell your daddy's and 
mama's farm when they die on which they spent a lifetime and paid taxes 
on every dollar they earned, plowed money back into that farm, skimped 
for it, sacrificed for it--or if you are a small business--if you think 
you should not have to sell it just because they die, then you ought to 
vote for Governor Bush.
  We cannot adopt the Bush tax cut now because we have the Clinton 
budget before us. We are going to get an opportunity next year to have 
a Bush budget and the Bush tax cut. At that time, I hope we will get 
votes from some of our Democrats. I predict today that we will get at 
least 15 of them who will vote for it.

  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield. Let me talk a little bit about 
my amendment, and then I will yield.
  Now that we are into Presidential politics, I have offered a 
substitute, and that is, we ought to vote on the Gore tax increase. As 
many of my colleagues know, because they probably received a signed 
copy, our Vice President has written a book, ``Earth in the Balance.'' 
The principal proposal of this book is as follows:
  He wants a coordinated program to accomplish the strategic goal of 
completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, 25 
years. That means the pickup you have your umbrella and gun slung 
across the back of is going to be gone. That means this new car you 
either have today or are hoping to buy is going to be gone.

[[Page S2280]]

 Eliminating the internal combustion engine is a pretty dramatic 
change, especially over a 25-year period.
  He goes on to say the reason he wants to do this is--talking again 
about these cars and these trucks:

       Their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing 
     a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more 
     deadly than any military enemy we are ever again likely to 
     face.

  There is no way we can eliminate the internal combustion engine 
without starting out over the next 5 years, maybe now with a $1.50-a-
gallon tax, maybe in 4 years another $1.50, and to get rid of the 
internal combustion engine we would have to get gasoline up $10, $20, 
$50 a gallon.
  Since our colleague from Illinois decided today was the day we ought 
to begin to debate the Presidential campaign on the floor of the 
Senate, I thought we ought to have an opportunity for Senators to go on 
record saying they do not agree with the Vice President; they are not 
quite ready to kiss the internal combustion engine goodbye. I am still 
hoping to get a four-wheel-drive truck. I am not ready to let Al Gore 
come in and impose his values that say it is OK for my people who live 
in rural areas of my State and commute 40, 50 miles a day to work to 
try another mode of transportation to get rid of their car or pickup.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am not ready to do that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. The Senator will get his 30 minutes. I have my 30 minutes, 
with all due respect.
  What I have done is offer an amendment that says it is the sense of 
the Senate we should not to be doing this; we should not be raising 
gasoline taxes so the Vice President can get rid of our cars and our 
trucks.
  Since the Senator from Illinois decided today we ought to vote on the 
two alternatives, his argument is that it is OK for President Clinton 
in his budget to spend a new $494 billion in taxes but it is not all 
right, it is risky, I say to Senator Domenici, it is terribly risky if, 
instead of us spending it, we let the taxpayers spend it. I do not get 
it. I do not understand how it is not risky for us to spend it but 
somehow it is risky to repeal the marriage penalty or the death tax.
  So what I have offered, since we cannot do the Bush tax cut until 
George Bush becomes President--and I would like to hurry the day; if we 
could do something today that could make it come sooner, God knows, I 
would sign on as a cosponsor. But I do not think we are going to be 
able to do it before the Constitution says we can. In any case, what I 
have done, since we have started this debate, is I have taken the Vice 
President's book, and I have put in the first installments of what 
would be required to get rid of all the internal combustion engines, 
and the first installment would be a $1.50 tax on gasoline today, then 
another $1.50 tax 4 years from now. That would only start it. We would 
have to go up from there. But I want to take a conservative approach, 
as I always do.
  Finally, for those who say, OK, the Vice President wrote this book, 
but he did not mean it. This book was written for environmentalists. He 
meant it for them, but he did not mean it for people in Texas or New 
Mexico--let me read his response when he was asked about it.
  He said, ``There is not a statement in that book that I don't 
endorse, not one.''
  I do not endorse them. I am against raising gasoline taxes. I am 
against taking away my pickup truck. I am opposed to it.
  I thought this was going to be saved for us to vote on in the 
election. But since our colleague from Illinois decided to debate the 
Presidential campaign today, let's debate it.
  Let me conclude with this remark, and then I will reserve the 
remainder of my time and let our colleague speak.
  I am happy to say the man I support for President wants to cut your 
taxes. I am proud of it. I want the world to know it. I suspect our 
colleague from Illinois is not going to be proud of the fact that Al 
Gore wants to raise gasoline taxes as part of a program for a 
``coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of 
completely eliminating the internal combustion engine.''
  So we are offering a sense of the Senate today to say we are not for 
that. He may be for it. Al Gore is for it. He says he is for it. He 
wrote the book. He said he was for it as late as 4-26-99. The point is, 
not that he is not for it--he is for it --but that we are against it. 
That is the purpose of this amendment.
  Should we be debating the Presidential campaign on the floor of the 
Senate? I do not know whether we should or not. But since our colleague 
from Illinois decided to bring it up, I thought we ought to give people 
an alternative. It is the same choice they are going to have on 
election day, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 
of this year.
  It is a profound choice. The lives of every American family will be 
changed if we repeal the death tax, if we repeal the marriage penalty, 
if we cut tax rates. The life of every American family will be changed 
if we have confiscatory taxes on gasoline to achieve some extremist 
goal of eliminating the internal combustion engine.
  Improve it? Yes. Make it more efficient? Yes. Make it more 
environmental friendly? Yes. But kiss it and modern civilization good-
bye as part of some extremist environmental agenda? I say, no. I say, 
no. I believe the Senate will say no today. They are going to say no 
today. I would not be surprised if all 100 Senators said no.
  The American people are going to say no in November.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the statements of the Vice President that my 
good friend from Texas referred to are certainly valid. He stands by 
those.
  I am wondering if the Senator from Texas stands by the statement he 
made on August 5, 1993, when we were working on the budget Deficit 
Reduction Act, which has set this economy on fire doing great things 
for the economy.
  My friend from Texas, speaking about the President's deficit 
reduction plan, said:

       This program is going to make the economy weaker. Hundreds 
     of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs as a 
     result of this program.

  He also went on to say:

       I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose 
     their jobs as a result of this program. I believe that Bill 
     Clinton will be one of those people.

  He further said:

       I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill 
     the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger, 
     the deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is 
     today and not lower. When all is said and done, people will 
     pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs, 
     Government will spend more money, and the American people 
     will be worse off.

  I yield to the Senator, under the resolution, 20 minutes. If the 
Senator needs more time, it is available.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield so I can respond?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Texas would not yield for a question. 
But I would like to ask him a question. I hope I am not inviting a 
speech. It is a very simple question.
  I am holding Vice President Gore's book, ``Earth in the Balance'' in 
my hand. Can the Senator from Texas tell me which page he refers to 
when he says that Vice President Gore has called for a $3 gasoline tax 
increase? I want to turn to that page immediately. Can the Senator give 
me the number of the page?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to respond by saying he calls for the 
elimination of the internal combustion engine over 25 years. Does 
anybody believe that you could achieve that without taxes driving up 
the price of gasoline? I think----
  Mr. DURBIN. I reclaim my time.
  Mr. GRAMM. He tells us what he wants, but he does not tell us the bad 
news about how we get it.
  Mr. DURBIN. I reclaim my time, Mr. President.
  If you have been around politics for about 5 minutes 30 seconds, you 
know

[[Page S2281]]

that when you do not have an answer, you answer a question with a 
question. That is what has happened.
  Vice President Gore does not propose a $3 gasoline tax increase. He 
never has. The Senator from Texas knows it. He is coming to the floor 
trying to suggest a tax increase that he has dreamed up of $3 a gallon 
because he does not want to face the music when it comes to the real 
tax increases and cuts proposed by the Republican candidate for 
President, his Governor from the State of Texas, George W. Bush.

  That is for real. That is the cornerstone of his campaign. You cannot 
stand it, Senator, but it is a fact. You make up taxes and put it in 
the mouth of Al Gore. We take the words spoken by George Bush.
  When I ask the Senate to vote on George W. Bush's tax cut--the 
mainstay of his campaign--you would think the Republicans would rally 
behind George W. Bush. This is their man. This is the one they want to 
see elected to the White House. But they run, in the words of our 
former Senator Dale Bumpers, like the devil runs from holy water, when 
it comes to a vote on the George W. Bush tax cut. They cannot stand the 
thought of going on record for what the Senator from Texas says he is 
so very proud of. He is so very proud of George W. Bush's tax cut, he 
has offered a substitute to it. He does not want to be on the record. 
He does not want to go back to Texas and try to explain that tax cut. I 
do not blame him. It is a bad idea. It is bad policy.
  I make no apology for bringing to the floor of the Senate the major 
issues in the Presidential campaign. For goodness sakes, what would the 
world think if the Senate stopped talking to itself and talking about 
issues that are being debated in America? This is the No. 1 issue in 
the campaign. I make no apology for bringing it to the floor, asking 
Democrats on this side and Republicans on the other, to go on record: 
Do you support it or don't you?
  I make no apology for the progress we have made in this Nation over 
the last 7\1/2\ years under the Clinton-Gore administration. I tell the 
Senator from Texas and anyone following this debate, I would gladly run 
on the record of this administration and our economy. I would take it 
to every State in the Union because we know what has happened: 
Unemployment is down, housing starts are up, business creation is up, 
inflation is under control. We have seen America prosper in a way that 
has never happened in our history.
  It bothers my Republican friends to acknowledge this fact. They think 
it dropped out of Heaven. They do not think the President had anything 
to do with it. We know better. We know that on the floor of this 
Senate, and in the House of Representatives, President Clinton's budget 
plan, that started reducing the deficits and moving us in the right 
direction, was passed without a single--not one--Republican vote in 
support. It kills them.
  Senator Gramm was just quoted on the floor. He said it would be the 
end of--I have forgotten his exact words--but the end of civilization 
as we know it if the Clinton plan passed. Well, guess what. It did 
pass, and America got a lot better. American families know we are 
moving in the right direction. It is interesting to me that my 
Republican friend from Texas just loves this Bush tax cut to pieces, 
but he can't bring himself to go on record to vote for it. He doesn't 
want to have to go back home and explain it--even in Texas, Governor 
Bush's own State.

  I am offering the Bush tax cut as he has proposed it in his own 
words. Senator Gramm is offering a figment of his imagination about 
what Al Gore might have said. When I ask him for a specific page in 
this book, where there is a $3 gas tax increase, I get a question back 
to me. Well, if you have been through the first grade, you know how to 
open a book and go to the right page. That is what the teacher teaches 
you. Senator Gramm can't take us to the right page in Vice President 
Gore's book referring to a $3 gas tax because it isn't there. He is 
making it up.
  Look at what the so-called fair Bush tax cut means to American 
families. If you happen to have an income of $31,100 a year, it means a 
$500-per-year tax break under the Bush tax cut. But, boy, if you are in 
an income category over $300,000, there is a $50,000-a-year tax cut 
coming from the Bush proposal, the one for which I want the Senate to 
go on record.
  Is this fair? It isn't fair whether you drive a pickup truck or walk 
along the shoulder of the highway. It isn't fair to working families 
who have to drive pickup trucks to survive. I think we ought to vote, 
and I think the Senator from Texas ought to withdraw his amendment so 
we can vote up or down on something of which he is so proud.
  Look at what happened to the deficits under various Presidents. I 
think the record is clear. I am sure it hurts my Republican colleagues 
to acknowledge the obvious. We have seen the deficits grow under 
Presidents Reagan and Bush. But look at what has happened under 
President Clinton. The deficits have come down.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I quoted the chairman of the 
Banking Committee, Phil Gramm of Texas, where he says, verbatim, among 
other things, on August 5 in the Congressional Record:

       The deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is 
     today and not lower.

  Does the Senator's chart indicate that that statement is totally 
without foundation and not true?
  Mr. DURBIN. It indicates that when you are asking the Senator from 
Texas, Mr. Gramm, for advice on where the economy is going, you ought 
to do just the opposite. He said the deficit is going up but the 
deficit went down.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Illinois, on October 6, 1993, a few 
weeks after he made the statement about the deficit increasing, he said 
this: ``This program''--he meant the Clinton deficit reduction plan--
``is going to make the economy weaker. Hundreds of thousands of people 
are going to lose their jobs as a result of this program.''
  Is the Senator from Illinois aware that we have created 21 million 
jobs since this statement was made that hundreds of thousands of people 
would lose their jobs?
  Mr. DURBIN. I even have it on good authority that they have created 
new jobs in Texas because of the prosperity coming forth from this 
administration. I can't believe the Senator from Texas, who is in close 
touch with his State, hasn't noticed that, and that with the Clinton-
Gore approach on our economy, with the help of the Federal Reserve, 
America is moving in the right direction. Even Texas may be moving in 
the right direction. I don't want to speak for that State.

  Mr. REID. Here is another statement from August 6, 1993: ``I believe 
that hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs as a 
result of this program.''
  He is speaking of the Clinton deficit reduction plan.
  Mr. DURBIN. Who said that?
  Mr. REID. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. He further said, ``I believe 
that Bill Clinton will be one of those people. We have a Presidential 
election coming up soon.''
  Would the Senator comment on the statements made about President 
Clinton losing his job and hundreds of thousands of people losing their 
jobs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Well, of course, President Clinton was reelected in a 
rather decisive victory over former Senator Bob Dole. The American 
people like the way America is moving forward. I am sure it has been 
painful for Senator Gramm and others who opposed the President's 
suggested policy to get America back on track to realize they were 
wrong. The facts have shown them to be wrong. In fact, we have had the 
longest period of growth and prosperity in America's economic history.
  They want to change that, I say to the Senator from Nevada. Their 
Presidential candidate, George W. Bush, doesn't like the way things 
have been going. He thinks that instead of the policies that have 
brought America forward, we ought to change it all--a dramatic, 
radical, and risky tax cut that would go to the wealthiest people in 
America.
  When I asked the Republicans in the Senate to vote up or down on 
whether they want to stand by Governor Bush, they came in with a 
substitute. They want to change the subject and invent a tax that they 
cannot even identify with Vice President Al Gore. Vice President Gore 
has not called for a $3 gas tax increase.
  I think the Vice President is right to heighten our awareness of the 
need to do something to improve air quality in America. I might say to 
the Senator from Texas--he may not know this--

[[Page S2282]]

about 6 years ago, the Vice President, along with President Clinton, 
went to the major automobile makers of the United States and challenged 
them to come up with a more fuel-efficient engine, and it is possible, 
even in my lifetime, that what we know as the internal combustion 
engine will be gone, and we will have something that is cheaper to 
operate and safer for the environment. Whether you are from Texas or 
Illinois, that would be a good change.
  When I listen to the critics of Vice President Gore on the 
environment, I find it hard to believe. I can't believe that even in 
the State of Texas you aren't at least sensitive to air and water 
quality. But to say that anybody who brings up the environment is some 
pinheaded professor that parks his bicycle straight overstates the 
case. The American people, particularly younger people in this country, 
want a cleaner nation, with air that is safe to breathe and water that 
is safe to drink. If the Vice President is heightening our awareness of 
environmental issues, so about be it. All political leaders should do 
that.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, there has been a lot of 
discussion in the last few weeks about the cost of fossil fuel, 
gasoline, and diesel fuel being so expensive. It has come to my 
attention that 56 percent of the fuel that we use in this country comes 
from foreign nations. Does the Senator think the Vice President was 
concerned about that and was trying to do something so we would be less 
dependent on the oil barons of the Middle East?

  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from Nevada is exactly right. It is 
about time America gets serious about an energy policy. I can recall 
that in previous administrations we had statements of fuel efficiency 
on vehicles and on appliances, and, frankly, some people on the other 
side of the aisle thought that was a heavyhanded move by the 
Government. They have been fighting off that information at a time when 
we should have it. We ought to be looking to alternative sources, not 
only alternative sources for fuel, responsible sources in the United 
States, but also alternative fuels. This is not radical thinking. It is 
sensible that we would look for alternatives to our dependence on 
foreign fuel. I think when Vice President Gore raises environmental 
concerns, those are concerns most Americans share.
  Let me go on to another point raised by the Senator from Texas. He 
raised the marriage tax penalty, which is imposed on people who, 
because their combined incomes bring them to a higher tax rate, pay 
more after they are married than before. I say to the Senator from 
Texas--he probably knows this--the Democrats, the Republicans, and the 
President agree that this should be changed. There is no controversy 
here. For him to raise it in the debate baffles me.
  Second, when it comes to the estate tax, do you know what percentage 
of Americans pay the estate tax? I will answer this question. It is 1.3 
percent of the estates that pay the estate tax.
  Now, yesterday, I had a chance to meet a gentleman by the name of 
Bill Gates, who runs Microsoft Corporation. He has had a bad month. His 
net worth went down from $70 billion to $52 billion. When he passes 
away, I don't believe it is unreasonable that he would pay some taxes 
back to the America, which has given him a chance to succeed, to pay 
for education and opportunities for the next generation.
  Obviously, the Senator from Texas thinks that is unfair and unjust. I 
do not. I do concur with his belief that we ought to change the estate 
tax law so that family farmers and family businesses can pass their 
enterprises on without penalty, under most circumstances. I already 
introduced a resolution to that effect in the Senate last year. I hope 
we can do that. But to eliminate the estate tax on Bill Gates doesn't 
strike me as the progressive thinking of the Senator from Texas. He is 
entitled to his point of view.

  Let me talk to you about his conjecture that President Clinton in his 
budget is going to dramatically increase spending.
  The Senator from Texas will never tell you on what specifics 
President Clinton wants to spend money. You would think it is a 
wasteful expenditure here, there, and the other place. My guess is, if 
you take a close look at the specific areas of spending, you will find 
that most American families agree. There are areas where we should 
spend more taxpayer dollars.
  Let me give you a couple of illustrations.
  Can we start with education? Is there anyone who couldn't believe we 
should invest in education, hold the teachers and the establishment of 
education accountable for what comes out of the classroom but give them 
the resources to do a good job; pay teachers a decent salary; put the 
computers and technology in the classroom so they can teach adequately; 
and make sure schools are modernized for the 21st century?
  I think that is one of the ``wasteful'' programs the Senator from 
Texas would have us eliminate so we can give a tax cut to the 
wealthiest people in American.
  Look at some of the proposals by President Clinton for spending. I 
guess the Senator from Texas should have taken a look at this list. It 
appears he wants to spend some more money on additional defense for 
America. I don't think that is altogether a bad idea. I think that is 
part of the preamble of the Constitution--that the United States wants 
to provide for the common defense. And I am glad President Clinton has 
shown leadership there.
  When it comes to foreign assistance, he, for example, wants to invest 
money to make America's embassies overseas safe from terrorism. Is that 
a wasteful expenditure we should do away with in the name of a $50,000-
a-year tax cut that George W. Bush proposes for people making over 
$300,000 a year?
  The list goes on and on.
  Environmental toxic cleanup: The President wants to spend more on 
that. So do I. I don't want those toxic chemicals in the soil leeching 
into ground water and contaminating water supplies across America.
  The President is right, and the American people know it.
  In the area of agriculture, we had an effort to help our farmers 
across America struggling through the most difficult times. Yes. That 
is President Clinton's proposal for spending. Is it a valid one? You 
bet it is. For 2 straight years, we have passed emergency 
appropriations for farmers.
  I take it the Senator from Texas doesn't believe we should do that; 
instead, we should take the George W. Bush tax cut and give a $50,000-
a-year tax break to some of the wealthiest people in this country.
  The list goes on and on.
  Investments in transportation: So that the FAA can have modern 
equipment; so that when we get on an airplane with our family we have 
peace of mind that the best technology is available.
  Yes, President Clinton wants to spend money on that, and apparently 
the Senator from Texas thinks that is wasteful.
  I don't know how he gets back and forth to Texas. When I travel to 
Illinois, it is on an airplane. I want it safe for me and my family and 
for all of the other people who use it.
  In the education area, the President's proposal would not only 
modernize our classrooms but increase the number of teachers so we have 
smaller class sizes.
  A national literacy program that both Presidential candidates agree 
on so kids by the third grade can read and write: Is that a good 
proposal and a goal for the 21st century? I think so. But the Senator 
from Texas, obviously, takes exception. He thinks that is another 
wasteful Government expenditure.
  He would rather give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America. I 
think that is wrong. That is what elections are about.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. The Senator outlined very clearly the importance of certain 
spending taking place in this country. I would like the Senator to 
comment on the fact that when President Bush took office, the yearly 
deficits, not counting the Social Security surpluses which made the 
deficit look smaller, were about $300 billion a year.
  In addition to the President requesting some spending that the 
Senator outlined so clearly, what is the status of the deficits of this 
country since President Clinton became President?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am glad the Senator asked. As Senator Byrd carries the

[[Page S2283]]

Constitution in his pocket, I carry with me a card which has a record 
of what is happening under the Clinton-Gore administration. Record 
budget deficits have been erased.
  In 1992, the deficit was a record $292 billion. The Congressional 
Budget Office said it was going to grow to $455 billion by the year 
2000, this year. Instead, we have a projected $167 billion surplus, the 
third one in a row. That is $622 billion in savings not drained by the 
Government in 1 year alone. And we have had the largest paydown of debt 
in the history of the United States--$297 billion.
  All the deficit hawks on the other side of the aisle hate to hear 
these numbers, but they are the facts.
  Under the Clinton-Gore administration, we have addressed the deficit 
situation. We are no longer talking about a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget but are moving in the right direction. The American 
people want us to continue doing that.
  We have people who visit this Capitol at this time of year, usually 
classrooms from across America. These young men and women who come to 
watch this Senate and visit our offices deserve an America with a 
reduced national debt. That is the goal of the President's proposal and 
his budget. It is one not shared by George W. Bush. He believes we 
should give a massive and risky tax cut across the board. We believe 
targeted tax cuts make more sense and deficit and debt reduction are 
absolute priorities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. REID. I yield the Senator from Illinois an additional 15 minutes 
under the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Historically, my friend from Illinois talked about what has 
happened since Bush was no longer President and how the deficit came 
down. From where did this huge national debt of $5 trillion come?

  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from Nevada can remember that we 
accumulated more debt in the history of the United States with the 
election in 1980 of President Reagan until President Clinton, and about 
1994 or 1995 started to turn the corner, than we had accumulated in the 
entire history of the United States, more debt than we had accumulated 
in our entire history.
  We collect $1 billion in taxes every day to pay interest on the debt 
that we accumulated during the Reagan-Bush era. President Clinton has 
finally moved away from that. We are starting to reduce that debt, and 
we think that is the highest priority. But it isn't the highest 
priority of Gov. George W. Bush. He believes the highest priority is a 
tax cut--a tax cut for some of wealthiest people in this country.
  We believe we should target the tax cut to the families who need it. 
For example, a lot of families send their kids to college. They know it 
is a very expensive undertaking.
  We propose on the Democratic side that you be able to deduct from 
your taxes college education expenses. This gives a helping hand to 
middle-income families across America so that the kids will finish 
school with less debt, and maybe no debt.
  I think that is a targeted tax cut that makes sense. It makes a lot 
more sense than a $50,000-a-year tax cut for somebody making $300,000 a 
year. That is the George W. Bush tax cut.
  We also want to target the tax cut to help pay for long-term care. 
Families know when their parents and grandparents are elderly that it 
is expensive to care for them. They want to give them the best. It 
takes a lot from their savings. We give a tax cut for that purpose--a 
targeted tax cut to help pay for long-term care. That is a sensible 
approach.
  We think the highest priority should be debt reduction. We are not 
the only ones who suggest it. For anyone who believes this is a 
partisan proposal, take a look at this particular article that appeared 
in the Washington Post. This is from the business section. Alan 
Greenspan, not known to be a Democrat, the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve Board: ``Pay down the debt first.''
  That newspaper was obviously not delivered in Texas because neither 
the Senator who is speaking today on behalf of his amendment nor the 
Presidential candidate on the Republican side heard the news. Greenspan 
said debt reduction should be the highest priority--not in their book. 
From their point of view, the highest priority is making sure the 
wealthiest people in this country pay less in taxes. That to me doesn't 
make sense. Let us pay down this awful debt that has been accumulated 
during the Reagan-Bush years.
  Let us try to put this behind us so future generations have more 
flexibility in their own lives; so that we have less demand for 
capital; and interest rates coming down.
  So those who are following the debate understand where we are, I put 
forward on the floor the Bush tax cut asking the Democrats and 
Republicans to go on the record one way or the other. The Senator from 
Texas says: No. Let's try a substitute. He dreams up a gas tax increase 
and cannot point to one page in Vice President Gore's book that 
enumerates that increase, and he wants us to vote on that.
  I encourage my friends on the floor to turn down the Gramm gas tax 
increase. We don't need a $3 increase. Nobody on this side of the aisle 
called for it.

  I think Senator Gramm should understand at this point in time it 
would be devastating. That is what he wants to vote on because he 
doesn't want to vote on the Bush tax cut, which is well documented. 
That is painful, I am sure, but I think it is important we do it.
  Back to the estate tax for a second. In 1995, approximately 2.3 
million people died in America; 31,000 out of 2.3 million ended up 
paying the Federal estate tax, 1.37 percent. The vast majority of our 
Nation's citizens simply do not leave estates valued at $600,000 or 
more, which is the present annual tax threshold, which is going to 
increase to $1 million, which I support.
  The Senator from Texas would have us believe everyone passing away 
has as their last act, before the undertaker wheels them out, filing a 
Federal tax form for the Federal estate tax. It doesn't happen. The 
vast majority, over 98 percent of the American people, don't pay this 
tax. Some of the wealthiest people in this country do. He thinks we 
should wage this Presidential campaign over the 1.37 percent of the 
population. I think that is a mistake.
  I think, honestly, those who have done well in America and prospered 
and made millions of dollars and left huge estates owe something back 
to America. That is part of the cost of living and prospering in this 
country, as far as I am concerned. We see that differently.
  The Senator wants to preserve and protect those in the highest income 
categories, give them the Bush tax cut, and turn his back on things 
such as education spending--which he thinks is wasteful government 
spending. I disagree.
  There are some radicals on his side of the aisle who want to 
eliminate the Department of Education. That is a serious mistake. I am 
not going to put those words in the mouth of any single Senator, but we 
have heard it over and over from the other side of the aisle. They 
would take away the authority of the Department of Education to provide 
for the 5, 6, or 7 percent of Federal aid to education across America. 
I think that is a mistake, too.
  The President understands, as most American families do, that 
education is critical for our future. If the Senator from Texas wants 
to walk away from this commitment to education, I think he is walking 
away from a commitment which is important for our children to make sure 
they have the skills and education not only to prosper in this Nation 
but to be able to compete in a global economy. He may think a tax cut 
for wealthy people is more important than making certain that our kids 
are well educated, but I disagree with that. I think most American 
families understand they get one chance to educate their kids, and they 
want to do it right.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. We have talked about income taxes; that is what the Senator 
from Texas talked about and that is what the Bush tax cut mainly talks 
about, the Federal income tax.
  Is the Senator aware of the article that ran in the Washington Post 8 
or 9 days ago, and then ran all over the country, indicating that the 
Federal

[[Page S2284]]

income tax now is at a 40 to 50-year low?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, the Senator from Nevada is correct. Despite all the 
statements to the contrary, Federal taxes have been going down on 
American families and they have been held to the 1970 level. We have 
been making real progress in that regard.
  What we have tried to do when the Democrats had a voice in the 
process is make sure that tax cuts went to working families. Those are 
the folks who need a helping hand. If there is an increased tax burden 
in this country, it comes primarily from State and local sources and 
from payroll taxes associated with the Medicare and Social Security 
programs which, quite honestly, we have to sustain until we address 
meaningful reform.
  On that subject, let me add, President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore are talking about investing this surplus back into Social Security 
and back into Medicare to reduce their debt and to make certain those 
programs will be here for decades to come. The Republican side of the 
aisle does not want to address those issues, and they should. Instead, 
they want the George W. Bush tax cut. Instead of putting this money 
into debt reduction and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, 
providing for prescription drug benefits under Medicare, they would 
give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country. That is the 
clear choice in the Presidential campaign.
  The Senator from Texas does not believe I should raise this issue on 
the floor of the Senate. He says since I have, it is open season for 
debate on it. I welcome the debate. For goodness sakes, if we cannot 
come to this floor and debate the issues that are central to the most 
important choice Americans will make in the year 2000 in the 
Presidential election, then this great deliberative body has lost its 
way. I think it is important that all Members come to the floor and be 
recorded on this vote.
  I invite the Senator from Texas to withdraw his substitute amendment 
so he can have an up-or-down vote on the Bush tax cut. Surely Gramm 
wants to go back to Texas and see your Governor and say: I stood by 
you. I was with you to the bitter end. I defended you against your 
critics. I am for the Bush tax cut.
  Certainly you don't want to go back and say to your Governor: I 
didn't want to vote on your tax cut so I put up a substitute. I dreamed 
up an Al Gore gas tax. I did my darnedest to avoid being on the record.
  I am certain Texas pride demands standing by your Governor, as many 
on your side of the aisle, I am sure, want to do. In order to do that, 
you have to take away the substitute amendment. You have to face the 
music. You have to understand that if you are going to buy this tax cut 
from George W. Bush, you have to go on the record and do it and not 
just make speeches when you are off the Senate floor.
  I yield back the time offered to me by Senator Reid under the 
resolution.
  Mr. REID. How much time did the Senator have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He had 5 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President after listening to that, I feel like a 
mosquito in a nudist colony. I don't know quite where to hit.
  Let me start at the beginning. Bill Clinton's plan was not just the 
largest tax increase in American history; it was a stimulation package 
of $16 billion where spending exploded before the tax increase ever 
went into effect. Republicans in the Senate killed that stimulation 
plan.
  Bill Clinton's plan was to have the Government take over and run the 
health care bill. I remember distinctly somebody standing up and saying 
the Clinton health care bill will pass over my cold, dead, political 
body. That political body is still alive and the Clinton health care 
bill is dead.
  Bill Clinton, when he sent Congress a budget in 1995, proposed a $200 
billion deficit, and his budget had a $200 billion deficit through this 
year. Who lost their jobs? When we killed the Clinton health care bill 
and defeated the stimulus package, they lost their jobs. We elected a 
Republican majority in both Houses of Congress. When we elected a 
Republican majority, we rejected the Clinton budget and the deficit 
started to go away and we have a surplus today.
  In terms of a reasonable policy to protect the environment, forgive 
me, but completely eliminating the internal combustion engine is not a 
reasonable policy to protect the environment. It is an extremist policy 
that deserves to be rejected and it will be rejected. They are ashamed 
of it.
  I ask the following question: How is he going to eliminate the 
internal combustion engine? Maybe they are just going to confiscate the 
cars or trucks. Maybe they are going to take us off to prison.
  If you don't do it with taxes, how do you do it? The point is, they 
don't know how you would do it--at least they don't know before the 
election. The American people are going to want to know.
  They are for eliminating the marriage penalty--baloney. Where's the 
beef? Their tax cut actually raises taxes for 5 years. Middle-income 
Americans would get virtually no tax relief under their policy.
  Finally, as to this ``tax the wealthy,'' what a phony issue that is. 
In the President's first budget, they proposed raising taxes on people 
earning $25,000 a year who were drawing Social Security. That is what 
they call ``rich.''
  They were able to take a family making $44,000 a year and under 
Clinton's first budget make it $75,000 by saying: To tax somebody, you 
count the rent value of the home they own; you count the value of their 
life insurance; you count the value of their parking place.
  To the Democrats, anybody who works and makes money is rich. Whenever 
we try to cut anybody's taxes, they are always rich. They have every 
excuse in the world to do anything except to give the American people a 
tax cut.
  Finally, let me say again the part of the story that they are not 
telling is the following: Their budget, which they support, proposes 
that over the next 5 years we spend $494 billion on new and expanded 
programs. That is the Clinton budget.

  What Governor Bush is proposing is that rather than spend all this 
money on these programs, we give part of it back to working families. 
Why is it not risky for us to spend $494 billion on new programs, which 
is the Clinton budget that they support, and why is it risky for 
Governor Bush to propose giving less than that amount back to families 
to let them spend it?
  I have 3 minutes remaining. I yield to Senator Domenici.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have heard an interesting political 
discussion today. The idea we should be debating the Bush tax cut on 
the Senate floor is totally political. It brought a political answer. 
So we are now engaged in a Presidential election instead of a budget.
  The truth of the matter is, we do not have before us a Bush budget. 
What we have before us is the budget of the President of the United 
States. For those on the Democrat side who are talking about Bush's 
budget, let me say they have never offered the President's budget. 
Nobody has dared offer it because it is so bad that even they know they 
would not get the votes for it.
  That is not the kind of budget we are going to get next year, if 
George Bush is President. He is going to give us a budget that calls 
for less Government but priorities in Government. There is going to be 
sufficient money left over in his budget to have a tax cut, tax relief 
for the American taxpayer, and take care of the Social Security trust 
fund. There is no doubt in my mind he will present that kind of budget.
  We can argue all we want today about what fits in this year's budget. 
We are operating against the competition of a budget from the 
President. We are not working with a President who wants to have tax 
relief. As a matter of fact, this President's budget sets the way to 
increase taxes in the first year, not decrease them, and to increase 
them over the first 5 years, not decrease them. As a matter of fact, it 
is a tax increase budget. We have to compete with that and try to get 
our business done, having to work with him in the appropriations 
process. Now we have somebody coming down here telling us Bush's budget 
does not fit in ``your'' budget. Of course, it doesn't fit in our 
budget because we have not yet seen what President-elect Bush would 
submit to us to do with all these duplicative programs. We heard there 
are

[[Page S2285]]

342 programs in economic development. He is not going to leave those 
around. He is going to provide a completely different tone, a different 
kind of budget with high priorities in education and the issues he has 
described.
  I want to close by saying it is somewhat of a lark to come down here 
and talk about how big the deficit got following Jimmy Carter. Ronald 
Reagan had to take over an America whose military had gone right down 
the drain, an America that had an economy that was dead weak. He had to 
sit there and let the inflation come out of that and then, yes, build 
back defense and provide some tax relief for the American people. That 
was a great economy. He took over when it was a basket case.
  If we want to debate things past, I will conclude by saying: Does 
anybody believe this robust economy of America was made robust because 
Bill Clinton and the Democrats increased taxes $293 billion? Does 
anybody really believe that? I am certain a majority of American 
economists would say it was coming back strong, we plunked this on top 
of it, and it didn't break the economy; it just let it go ahead. It 
probably would be stronger if we had not adopted the $293 billion. That 
is my guess.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Is there time remaining with the majority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All their time has expired.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield back my time.


                Amendment No. 2985 To Amendment No. 2953

  Mr. DURBIN. I send a perfecting amendment to the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Is that amendment in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment. Therefore, a second-degree amendment would not be in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't understand. We have a second-degree pending. 
What kind of amendment is he sending? Is it amending the second-degree 
amendment or the underlying amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a second-degree perfecting amendment, 
but it is an amendment to his own amendment which the Senator has the 
right to modify. It can be accepted as a modification.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my friend, I did not think we were going to be 
doing this. That is what you kind of said to me. But that is all right. 
I thought we were going to vote on second degrees, you would have 
another round of votes on your own, but it is OK if you want to change 
that now.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Mexico, we are not changing 
anything. In all due respect, if their amendment had been prepared 
properly, there wouldn't have been an opportunity for us to do our 
amendment. We think there should be an up-or-down vote. We said all 
along we are going to get an up-or-down vote, no matter how long it 
takes, whether the majority is going to approve their Presidential 
nominee's tax cut; it is as simple as that. We asked for an up-or-down 
vote for the last 24 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it an 
appropriate time for a Senator to send an amendment to the desk? Is it 
appropriate for a Senator to send an amendment to the desk unrelated to 
the pending amendment, the one that has just been debated, and ask it 
be placed in the queue for consideration?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be placed in the 
queue for consideration.
  Mr. REID. Objection--just lining it up for later on? OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't know what the words ``queue it up'' mean. We 
ought to get it straight. I don't object to his sending an amendment to 
the desk, but I do object to gaining any kind of preferential treatment 
for that amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have not requested any preferential 
treatment. I simply wish to send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to submit an 
amendment. The amendment is submitted. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2985 to Amendment No. 
     2953.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provisions of this resolution the 
     following numbers shall apply:

     FEDERAL REVENUE TOTALS

       On page 4, line 3, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,843,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $35,146,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $65,248,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $99,450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $128,552,000,000.

     FEDERAL REVENUE CHANGES

       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $4,843,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $35,146,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $65,248,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $99,450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by 
     $128,552,000,000.

     NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY

       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $15,334,000,000.

     BUDGET OUTLAYS

       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $15,334,000,000.

     NET INTEREST BUDGET AUTHORITY

       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 26, line 19, increase the amount by $8,785.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by 
     $15,334,000,000.

     NET INTEREST OUTLAYS

       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, increase the amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $15,334,000,000.

     PUBLIC DEBT

       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $4,979,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $36,426,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $69,434,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $108,235,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $143,886,000,000.

     DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC

       On page 6, line 5, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 6, line 6, increase the amount by $4,979,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, increase the amount by $36,426,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by $69,434,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $108,235,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $143,886,000,000.

[[Page S2286]]

     TAX CUT

       On page 29, line 3, increase the amount by $4,843,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, increase the amount by 
     $333,239,000,000.

     DEFICIT INCREASE

       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $4,979,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $36,426,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $89,434,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $108,235,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $143,886,000,000

  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before I relinquish the floor, might I ask what this 
amendment is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is the perfecting amendment to the 
underlying Durbin amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So Senators would like a vote on the Durbin amendment? 
Is that what all this is about? Is that it?
  Mr. REID. That is it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let's just do it.
  Mr. REID. That will be perfect. We think that would be very 
appropriate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we agree we are going to vote on the Gramm 
amendment and then we will vote on the Durbin amendment, regardless of 
what happens to the Gramm amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
  Mr. REID. I think the staff is preparing an appropriate unanimous-
consent agreement. I think we can work this out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What we are going to do is have a vote on Senator 
Durbin's amendment, then have a vote on Senator Gramm's amendment?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from New Mexico to yield for a moment.
  Mr. REID. We yield time under the resolution.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from New Mexico allow us, despite all 
the debate this morning, to describe our actual amendments before the 
actual vote?
  Mr. REID. We usually have 2 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. That will be fine. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
relative to the following amendments be scheduled to occur at 2 p.m. in 
the sequence listed, with no second-degree amendments in order, where 
applicable, prior to the votes, and there be 2 minutes prior to each 
vote for explanation, and all votes after the first vote in the 
sequence be limited to 10 minutes. The amendments are as follows: Reid 
amendment No. 2985, which I understand is a Durbin amendment, 
essentially--is that correct, Senator?--and then Gramm amendment No. 
2973--and Senator Gramm is here. it is the same amendment to which he 
has been speaking--and then Durbin amendment No. 2953, as amended, if 
amended.
  I also ask unanimous consent that following the allotted 1 hour of 
debate, the pending amendments be laid aside until the stacked votes. 
It may be that there is no time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand Senator McCain has an 
amendment. We have agreed heretofore on the floor--the minority and 
majority--that he would proceed as the next amendment. To do that, we 
have to yield back time that we have on the pending amendment. I yield 
back any time I have.
  Mr. REID. As does the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand that the pending amendment has been set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2988

               (Purpose: To end the ``Food Stamp Army'')

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2988.

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

       On page 9, line 2, increase the amount by $2,500,000.
       On page 9, line 3, increase the amount by $2,500,000.
       On page 9, line 6, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 9, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 9, line 10, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 9, line 11, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 9, line 14, increase the amount by $4,200,000.
       On page 9, line 15, increase the amount by $4,200,000.
       On page 9, line 18, increase the amount by $2,800,000.
       On page 9, line 19, increase the amount by $2,800,000.
       On page 9, line 22, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 9, line 23, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $2,500,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $4,200,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $2,800,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $2,500,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $4,200,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $2,800,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $2,500,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $4,200,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $2,800,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Reid 
for allowing me to propose this amendment. I don't intend to take a 
very long time. I know there are many other pending amendments.
  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the 
Congressional budget resolution for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 that 
would provide the funding necessary to end the ``food stamp army'' once 
and for all.
  This amendment increases the defense budget by $28 million over five 
years--an average of less than $6 million per year--to pay for an 
additional allowance of $180 a month to military families who are 
eligible for food stamps. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates the amendment would save millions of dollars in the food 
stamp program by removing servicemembers from the food stamp rolls for 
good.
  Last week, I introduced S. 2322, the ``Remove Servicemembers from 
Food Stamps Act of 2000'', that will provide junior enlisted 
servicemembers who are eligible for food stamps in the paygrade E-1 
through E-5 an additional subsistence allowance of $180 a month. A not-
yet-published Department of Defense report estimates that approximately 
6,300 servicemembers receive food stamps, while the General Accounting 
Office and Congressional Research Service place this number at around 
13,500. Regardless of this disparity, the fact that just one 
servicemember is on food stamps is a national disgrace, and this 
situation cries out for repair.
  In recent years, annual military pay increases have barely kept pace 
with inflation--lagging at least 8 percent behind the pay increases in 
the private sector during the same period. To put the impact of such 
trends in plain dollar amounts, the lowest enlisted rank, an E-1, 
currently earns as little as $12,067 per year, plus $2,766 in 
allowances, which is well below the poverty level for a family of four. 
In fact, the

[[Page S2287]]

number of men and women in the military earning less than $20,000 per 
year constitutes 45 percent of the Army, 46 percent of the Marine 
Corps, 26 percent of the Navy, and 18 percent of the Air Force. Of 
these servicemembers, 111,600 have families and 6,515 are single 
parents.
  Because of this serious disparity in military versus civilian pay, 
the Congress took action last year to significantly increase military 
pay across the board. The Senate-passed military pay bill, S. 4, 
included the same food stamp relief plan in S. 2322, and it was also 
approved by the Senate as part of the National Defense Authorization 
bill. However, I was greatly disappointed when the Senate-approved food 
stamp relief provision was rejected by conferees from the House of 
Representatives despite the strong support of Admiral Jay Johnson, the 
Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jim Jones, the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps. With thousands of military families on food stamps, and 
possibly thousands more eligible for the program, I cannot understand 
the Congress' refusal to rectify this problem in last year's National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  It is outrageous that Admirals and Generals received a 17 percent pay 
raise last year, while enlisted families continue to line up for free 
food and furniture. Last year, we poured hundreds of millions of 
dollars into programs the military did not request and that were not 
identified by the Joint Chiefs as a priority item. It is difficult to 
reconcile how Congress could waste $7.4 billion on pork-barrel spending 
in the defense budget last year alone, yet refuse to provide a few 
million dollars to get military families off food stamps.
  It is unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to 
sacrifice their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to 
make ends meet, and it is an abrogation of our responsibility as 
Senators to let this disgrace go on. Sadly, politics, not military 
necessity, remains the rule, not the exception.
  I will not stand by and watch as our military is permitted to erode 
to the breaking point due to the President's lack of foresight and the 
Congress' lack of compassion. These military men and women on food 
stamps--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines--are the very same 
Americans that the President and Congress have sent into harm's way in 
recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and East Timor. They 
deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, and a living 
wage.
  S. 2322 is supported by The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the Disabled 
American Veterans, The Retired Officer's Association and every enlisted 
association or organization that specifically supports enlisted 
servicemember issues in the Military Coalition and in the National 
Military/Veterans Alliance. Associations include the Non Commissioned 
Officers Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet 
Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the U.S. 
Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the Enlisted Association 
of the National Guard of the U.S., and the Naval Enlisted Reserve 
Association. I ask unanimous consent to include their letters of 
support in the Record following my remarks.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to the budget 
resolution that provides the funding for the food stamp relief in S. 
2322. It is a step in the right direction toward meeting our 
responsibilities to our servicemembers and their families.
  Mr. President, we must end the days of a ``food stamp Army'' once and 
for all. Our military personnel and their families deserve better.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from various 
service organizations in support of this amendment be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of more then 4 million 
     members of The American Legion family we want to thank you 
     for introducing S. 2322, the ``Remove Servicemembers from 
     Food Stamps Act of 2000.'' This critical legislation provides 
     junior enlisted servicemembers in the pay grade E-1, through 
     E-5, who are eligible for food stamps, an additional 
     subsistence allowance of $180 a month.
       The American Legion continues to support quality of life 
     features for members of the Armed Forces and their dependents 
     as well as military retirees. People are the foundation of 
     the Nation's fighting forces.
       Military pay must be reasonably comparable to compensation 
     in the private sector if the Armed Forces aspire to compete 
     for quality volunteers and retain an experienced military 
     force for the long term.
       With military families on food stamps, passage of relief 
     legislation to compensate junior enlisted servicemembers with 
     an additional subsistence allowance is critical to 
     maintaining adequate morale and ensuring retention of 
     America's military families in the Armed Forces.
       American Legion National Commander Alan Lance's first hand 
     observations after meeting with soldiers, sailors and airmen 
     in Kosovo, Bosnia, and aboard the aircraft carrier, USS 
     George Washington serves to reaffirm your resolve in 
     assisting America's enlisted sons and daughters in uniform.
       Thank you again for recognizing the sacrifice of America's 
     men and women in uniform. America's servicemembers stand in 
     harm's way in Somalla, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and East Timor. 
     They deserve continuing respect, unwavering support, and a 
     living wage from a grateful nation.
           Sincerely,

                                           Steve A. Robertson,

                                                Director, National
     Legislative Commission.
                                  ____

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the 2 million members of 
     the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) I 
     thank you for taking the initiative to introduce your bill 
     titled ``Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 
     2000.'' We certainly share your concern that today, 
     regretfully, several thousand enlisted members of our active 
     duty force participate in the food stamp program. They do 
     this out of necessity rather than opportunism.
       In our collective judgment the $180 per month Special 
     Subsistence Allowance (SSA) you propose is an equitable 
     amount of money in addition to the presently authorized Basic 
     Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) paid to those servicemembers 
     with dependents in the rank of E-1 through E-5. We also 
     strongly agree with your proposed termination of date for SSA 
     being after September 30, 2005.
       In closing, and based on the above facts, the VFW will 
     support all efforts to have your proposed piece of 
     legislation enacted immediately in law. It is a national 
     disgrace to require even a few military families today to 
     need food stamps as part of their lifestyle. Thank you again 
     for having the courage and the time to address this 
     unconscionable situation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John W. Smart,
     Commander-in-Chief.
                                  ____

                                          National Association for


                                           Uniformed Services,

                                  Springfield, VA, March 30, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: This letter is being provided to you 
     on behalf of the National Association for Uniformed Services 
     to express our strong support for your bill to establish a 
     special subsistence allowance for members of the Uniformed 
     Services eligible for food stamps.
       It is disgraceful that the level of compensation of any of 
     the nation's warriors is so low that they qualify for food 
     stamps. This legislation would help those with the most 
     serious problems and is a necessary and welcome step toward 
     correcting the inequitable compensation provided to members 
     of the Uniformed Services.
       We appreciate your long-standing concerns for our men and 
     women in uniform and strongly support the ``Remove 
     Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000.''
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard D. Murray,
     President.
                                  ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the Disabled American 
     Veterans (DAV), I commend you for introducing the ``Remove 
     Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000.'' Your efforts 
     on behalf of the men and women who serve our nation in its 
     Armed Forces is greatly appreciated.
       It is indeed unconscionable that the men and women who are 
     willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of our nation and 
     its ideals are forced to depend on food stamps to feed their 
     families. It also effects the nation's state of military 
     readiness when our servicemembers deployed around the world 
     must worry about their loved ones at home,

[[Page S2288]]

     and whether their needs are being met. This is not conducive 
     to a strong national defense.
       These military men and women, who are continually put in 
     harm's way by the President and the Congress, should never 
     have to rely on charity to make ends meet. We must never let 
     our defenders of freedom down, especially when they are 
     deployed in protection of world freedoms.
       The delegates to our last National Convention, held August 
     21-25, 1999, in Orlando, Florida, passed Resolution No. 052, 
     which calls for adequate funding for the defense of our 
     nation, both at home and abroad. I have enclosed a copy of 
     this resolution for your information.
       Thank you again for your efforts on behalf of our nation's 
     military members and for your support of veterans' issues.
           Sincerely,
                                               Joseph A. Violante,
     National Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                             The Retired Officers Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, April 4, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the nearly 400,000 
     members of The Retired Officers Association (TROA), I am 
     writing to express TROA's support for your bill, S. 2322, the 
     ``Remove Service Members from Food Stamps Act of 2000.''
       All Americans are concerned when thousands of younger 
     families serving their Nation in uniform have become eligible 
     for public assistance. TROA believes strongly that the 
     ultimate answer is to increase military pay sufficiently to 
     restore pay comparability with the private sector and wipe 
     out the double-digit military pay raise gap that has 
     accumulated over almost two decades. In addition, housing 
     allowances must be increased to fully offset the cost of 
     adequate housing for each pay grade.
       Until the Executive and Legislative Branches are prepared 
     to allocate the funding required to accomplish these goals, 
     the only way to resolve the food stamp issue is a special 
     allowance such as provided for in S. 2322.
       TROA applauds your concern for the well-being of our men 
     and women in uniform, and particularly for those in lower 
     grades for whom past pay constraints pose the most 
     significant impacts on their standard of living.
           Sincerely,

                                               Paul W. Arcari,

                                              Colonel, USAF (Ret),
     Director, Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                                         NCOA,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 29, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Non Commissioned Officers 
     Association of the USA (NCOA) is writing to state its strong 
     support for the ``Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act 
     of 2000,'' legislation that you are preparing to introduce in 
     the very near future. In these times of unprecedented 
     prosperity in America, it is impossible to reconcile how even 
     one U.S. Armed Forces member should be in the position of 
     qualifying for food stamps.
       The fact that this legislation is needed is a further 
     statement on how Congress and the Administration have allowed 
     military basic pay and other components of the total 
     compensation package to seriously erode. While the Remove 
     Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000 will not solve 
     the underlying problems, NCOA believes it is a positive, 
     compassionate step in the right direction. This legislation 
     demands the full support of all of your Senate colleagues--it 
     is the right thing to do.
       The Association extends its sincere appreciation for your 
     leadership and support for the enlisted men and women of the 
     U.S. Armed Forces. Count on NCOA's support to get this 
     legislation enacted.
       Sincerely,
                                                    Larry D. Rhea,
     Director of Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                       The Retired


                                         Enlisted Association,

                                                   Alexandria, VA.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the 110,000 members and 
     auxiliary of The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA), TREA 
     National President Fred Athans and TREA National Auxiliary 
     President Kay Claman, I would like to express our support for 
     your efforts on behalf of these members of the Armed Forces 
     currently receiving food stamps.
       As we enter into the 21st Century, it is unconscionable 
     that individuals who are serving this great nation are forced 
     to rely on government assistance in order to properly support 
     their families. As you are certainly aware, today's military 
     is ``doing more with less'' than any time in the recent past. 
     Those in uniform are spending more hours on the job with an 
     ever increasing operational tempo, yet many of these 
     soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines cannot properly feed 
     their children. the time has come to address this issue once 
     and for all.
       TREA strongly supports your amendment to the budget 
     resolution which will provide for the Department of Defense 
     to ensure today's military personnel, particularly the junior 
     enlisted force--the future non-commissioned officers, can 
     take care of their families without relying on food stamps.
       In closing, I would again like to thank you for your 
     leadership and attention to this very important issue. If 
     TREA can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate 
     to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mark H. Olanoff,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                    Fleet Reserve Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 29, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Please be advised that the Fleet 
     Reserve Association (FRA) endorses your proposed bill, the 
     ``Remove Service Members from Food Stamps Act of 2000.'' The 
     bill will certainly alleviate the unfavorable publicity 
     concerning junior enlisted members of the Armed Forces who 
     must depend upon food stamps to supplement their meager pay. 
     In addition, the Association understands that the Chief of 
     Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
     support the proposal.
       The unfortunate fact that junior enlisted members are 
     forced to rely on food stamps reflects the inadequacy of 
     military compensation. Although there was progress toward 
     closing the significant pay gap between military and civilian 
     pay levels last year, more must be done and this measure 
     helps address this reality.
       Petty Officers and Non-commissioned Officers are the 
     backbone of the military services and deserve fair and 
     equitable compensation for their great service to our Nation. 
     Retaining these essential personnel must be a high priority 
     and FRA remains committed to improving their pay and 
     benefits.
       FRA salutes you for your strong commitment to the men and 
     women serving in our Nation's uniformed services.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles L. Calkins,
     National Executive Secretary.
                                  ____



                              Air Force Sergeants Association,

                                 Temple Hills, MD, March 29, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the 150,000 members of 
     the Air Force Sergeants Association, I thank you for 
     introducing legislation important to the enlisted men and 
     women of all components of the Air Force. This bill would 
     provide $180 dollars a month to any military member who meets 
     the food stamp income qualification threshold. As you 
     indicated, it is unconscionable that our nation allows these 
     brave men and women to subsist below the poverty level. As 
     such, your legislation would provide some much-needed 
     monetary relief to this group until such time as our national 
     leaders correct the situation.
       Indeed, the lowest ranking members of our Armed Forces 
     often express their dismay as they observe this country's 
     spending priorities. In so many different ways, we fail to 
     thank them for their sacrifice. In so many ways, we 
     communicate to them (by the things we do and don't support) 
     that they are just not very important to this nation.
       Again, Senator, thank you for introducing this legislation 
     to provide those who meet the food stamp program threshold 
     with an additional monthly stipend. The message this 
     legislation sends is, ``We are proud of you, we honor you, we 
     depend on you, and we will support you and your families.' As 
     always, this association is ready to support you on this 
     legislation and other matters of mutual concern.
           Sincerly,
                                                  James E. Staton,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                       Eangus,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 29, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Senate Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Enlisted Association of the 
     National Guard of the United States applauds your efforts to 
     assist our Junior Enlisted members within the military.
       Although we ask these young men and women to endanger 
     themselves for their country, their country does not provide 
     adequate pay and allowances to provide support for their 
     families.
       In the FY 00 Authorization Bill, Congress authorized a mid-
     year increase for supposedly mid-grade service members. 
     However, in some cases, high-ranking officers making tens of 
     thousands of dollars received upwards of a 17% salary 
     increase, while junior grades received a 5.2% increase 
     overall.
       We spend millions of dollars yearly recruiting individuals 
     to join the military. Why can't we find enough monies to 
     enable those who serve in the military to feed their 
     families?
       Senator McCain, we wholeheartedly endorse your legislation 
     to help our Junior Enlisted members.
       Working for America's Best!
                                       MSG Michael P. Cline (Ret),
                                               Executive Director.

[[Page S2289]]

     
                                  ____
                                                    Naval Enlisted


                                          Reserve Association,

                                   Falls Church VA, April 3, 2000.
     Re Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000.

     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Enlisted Sailors, Marines and Coasties 
     who are constituents of the Naval Enlisted Reserve Associated 
     (NERA) are again in your debt for championing their causes.
       Your proposed ``Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act 
     of 2000'' addresses both squarely and collaterally several 
     issues near and dear to the hearts of our members, among them 
     the respect and dignity that must accrue to those who answer 
     the call to service, and pay parity, which detracts from 
     virtually all the services' efforts to attract talent in the 
     junior enlisted ranks, and retain that talent at mid-career.
       Our support for your bill is wholehearted and affirmative.
       Thanks again for being there for us.
                                                Dennis F. Pierman,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to provide a couple of brief 
anecdotes which are sometimes disturbing. In a July 20, 1999, piece in 
the Washington Post entitled ``Feeling the Pinch of A Military Salary; 
For Some Families Pay Doesn't Cover The Basics,'' it starts out by 
describing:

       On a muggy Saturday at Quantico Marine Corps Base, about 
     two dozen Marines and family members quietly poked through 
     piles of discarded furniture, clothing, and household goods 
     in what has become a weekly ritual at the big Northern 
     Virginia installation. At 8 a.m., the patch of lawn was 
     covered with beds, tables, dressers, and desks. Within 45 
     minutes, almost all the furniture was gone. The price was 
     right--Everything was free.
       The items had been gathered by volunteers who go 
     ``trashin'' every Tuesday, scouring garbage left at curbs on 
     the base. Every Saturday, they give away what they collect to 
     needy, eager Marine families.
       ``We're talking about the basics of life here, and they 
     don't have it,'' said Lisa Joles, a Marine wife who created 
     the Volunteer Network 2 years ago. ``Sometimes, they don't 
     have a thing. I didn't know how large the problem was until I 
     got to Quantico.''
       One result is that members of the military routinely work 
     second jobs, often without permission from superiors, 
     military officials acknowledged. Enlisted men and women sell 
     goods at Potomac Mills, flip hamburgers at fast food 
     restaurants, do construction work, and deliver packages for 
     UPS. ``It seems like everybody who has been here a while has 
     a part-time job,'' said Marine Lance Corporal Robert Hayes, 
     who has a second job as a mover. ``You really don't have 
     enough money to make it to the next paycheck otherwise.''
       Several evenings each week, as soon as he finishes duty at 
     Quantico, Lance Corporal Harry Schein darts off base, picks 
     up his 14-month-old son from day care and drops him off with 
     the boy's mother. Then he drives up I-95 to Arlington and 
     joins a group of Marines who moonlight moving office 
     furniture until about 11 p.m. On Saturdays and Sundays, he 
     works from 4 p.m. until midnight as a security guard in 
     Alexandria.

  The stories go on and on. About a year ago, there was a piece on 20/
20 shown out at Camp Pendleton. Enlisted men and women and their 
families were lining up for cartons of food. We have a lot of retention 
problems in the military and we have a lot of recruiting problems. 
These, I know, are going to be well ventilated by the Armed Services 
Committee as time goes on. In my earlier years, it would have been hard 
for me to comprehend these kinds of conditions prevailing among the men 
and women in the military, particularly in the All Volunteer Force.
  Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote on this amendment, and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the managers, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield off his time?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the remainder of my time after Senator Domenici 
speaks, or after anyone else who wants to speak on this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  We will try to stack this vote, if it is all right with the Senator. 
We are going to have the three votes.
  I commend Senator McCain. I hope what he is suggesting on the floor 
happens, because the truth is, the U.S. Department of Defense is making 
it very difficult for this to happen. We have worked with them on a 
number of occasions. You would actually be shocked at some of the 
correspondence I have received.
  I want to quote one piece of correspondence. When I said, why don't 
you tell us how to take care of the food stamp problem, this is what 
the Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Edwin Dorn, wrote 
to me: It would be a mistake to give higher pay to military personnel 
who had ``a larger family than he or she can afford.''
  You can see why that becomes part of the issue, as the Senator from 
Arizona understands. We have an all-volunteer military that we have 
asked to stay on for long periods of time. It is not like draftees who 
spend 2 years in uniform. They have families. They have children. In 
fact, we have not quite figured it out. Maybe the Senator from Arizona 
can figure it out in his committee. With this targeting of money 
today--not a lot of money--we will start solving the problem with those 
who are not earning much. That is the intent of the proposal of the 
Senator from Arizona.
  But essentially it is very difficult for the military to come up with 
a conclusion that we have to make sure we don't penalize big families 
in the military. I never heard of any implication that we had an all-
volunteer military and we were going to start by saying to them: Don't 
have too many children.
  I believe the Senator from Arizona would join me in saying that is an 
absurd policy. What if they have five children? I think that is all 
right. If they want to serve 30 years in the military with five 
children, we ought to give them the benefits they deserve. Because they 
have that many children, we ought not to cause them to be on food 
stamps. That is the basic problem we have.
  I want to put in the Record letters I wrote in 1996, the response I 
received from Edwin Dorn and from Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen.
  I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1996.
     Hon. Edwin Dorn,
     Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 
         Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
       Dear Under Secretary Dorn: I am writing to express my very 
     strong concern about an issue involving the fundamental 
     quality of life of many U.S. military personnel. I am also 
     requesting that as the defense Department official with 
     purview over the 8th Quadrennial Review of Military 
     Compensation you look into the matter and consider solutions 
     as the Review Commission prepares to make its recommendations 
     on the military compensation system to Congress this summer.
       The issue that troubles me is the fact that according to 
     Department of Defense (DoD) estimates, there are currently 
     almost 12,000 active duty military personnel whose families 
     qualify for and receive food stamps. I further understand 
     from DoD research that while pay for single enlisted 
     personnel is sufficiently high such that none qualify for 
     food stamps or other forms of welfare, married personnel with 
     families with as few as one dependent, for an E-1, do in some 
     cases qualify. I also understand that even sergeants and some 
     junior officers can qualify, depending on their number of 
     dependents and pay allotments. Furthermore, many of these 
     military personnel live off base and receive an additional 
     housing allowance in their paycheck and yet their pay remains 
     sufficiently low that they still qualify for food stamps.
       Frankly, I do not believe it is acceptable that the men and 
     women who serve in our Armed Forces and who experience all 
     the rigors of prolonged overseas deployments, family 
     separations, other sacrifices the Nation asks of them should 
     have pay so low that they must accept food stamps, or any 
     other form of welfare. This situation reflects extremely 
     poorly on the ``Quality of Life'' for Armed Forces personnel 
     that is described to be the primary point of emphasis in The 
     President's defense budget. This situation not only fails to 
     reward U.S. military personnel at an appropriate level, it 
     will also exacerbate recruiting and retention problems for 
     the military services, especially as the pool of available 
     quality recruits shrinks and as downsizing in the services 
     has finally ended.
       According to DoD calculations, under the existing military 
     compensation system, a supplemental allowance by family based 
     on grade and number of dependents could put the pay of 
     virtually all current military food stamp recipients above 
     the gross income eligibility criteria for food stamps and 
     would cost $72.6 million. This is, of course, only one 
     possible solution to this problem. Because I know, you and 
     the 8th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation are 
     considering the entire compensation of that complex system, I 
     do not want to presume the optimal solution. I do, however, 
     want to impress on you

[[Page S2290]]

     the need to address the problem and to seek a level of 
     compensation for Armed Forces personnel that precludes 
     overall compensation so low that their families qualify for 
     food stamps or any other form of welfare.
       I very much appreciate your taking my concerns into 
     consideration. I look forward to working with you on this 
     important issue after the 8th Quadrennial Review of Military 
     Compensation makes its report to Congress this summer.
           Sincerely,
                                                Peter V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                   Under Secretary of Defense,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1996.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: Thank you for your May 15 letter 
     about military families on food stamps. I share your concern 
     for this problem and have given a lot of thought to it. For 
     those reasons. I am especially apologetic about the slowness 
     of my response to you.
       The Department has studied this issue twice recently, in 
     1991 and in 1995, and thus I elected not to include it in the 
     Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation. Their studies 
     confirm an insight contained in your letter; the number of 
     military families eligible for food stamps is largely an 
     artifact of a system that does not count the value of 
     military housing when computing food stamp eligibility. If we 
     were to control for value of housing and for family size 
     (another criterion), the number of military families in this 
     category in 1995 would drop from 12,000 to fewer than 5,000.
       This computation does not dispose of the problem. I remain 
     concerned that thousands of military families are eligible 
     for food stamps, and that they are regarded by some as 
     impoverished. However, my concern is tempered by the 
     realization that the military member and his/her spouse have 
     made a decision to increase the size of his/her family. The 
     Department does a number of things to accommodate 
     servicemembers' personal choices. As the number of dependents 
     increases, for example, the member become eligible for larger 
     family quarters. And, there is no limit on the number of 
     minor dependents eligible for the Defense health program.
       This is a difficult issue because it requires us to weigh 
     our concern for military family members against the military 
     member's obligation to exercise judgment. I do not believe it 
     would be prudent to adapt the military compensation system 
     further to accommodate a member's decision to have a larger 
     family that he/she can afford.
       I appreciate and share your concern for the quality of life 
     of military families. If thee is additional information I can 
     provide, I shall be happy to do so.
           Sincerely,
     Edwin Dorn.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 1997.
     Hon. William S. Cohen,
     Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Cohen: During your inaugural press 
     conference on January 31, you were asked a question about the 
     12,000 Armed Forces personnel who are currently using 
     foodstamps. You responded to the question by stating that it 
     is ``not acceptable'' for service men and women to be 
     foodstamp recipients. Responding to the same question, 
     General Shalikashvili stated that he believed that the 
     condition of these military families should be changed. Your 
     and General Shalikashvili's responses to this question were, 
     for me, very welcome news; that so many military families 
     qualify for foodstamps does not indicate that the 
     Administration is serious about ``quality of life'' for our 
     Armed Forces; it indicates the opposite.
       Last year, I had an exchange of correspondence on this 
     subject with under Secretary Dorn, urging him to address the 
     problem. Unfortunately, he chose not to review this matter 
     during last year's Quadrennial Review of Military 
     Compensation. Under Secretary Dorn also seemed to argue that 
     family size is purely a matter of choice to service men and 
     women and that he ``did not believe it would be prudent to . 
     . . accommodate a [service] member's decision to have a 
     larger family than he/she can afford.'' A copy of this 
     exchange of correspondence is enclosed.
       I hope that you will agree with me that the time has come 
     to take action on this matter and to adjust compensation for 
     those enlisted personnel who you judge to be truly in need. I 
     am in complete agreement with you that the current situation 
     is not acceptable, and I would be very happy to work with you 
     to resolve it.
           With best regards,
                                                 Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1997.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Pete: Thank you for your letter of February 11, 
     expressing your concern about military members who receive 
     food stamp benefits. You are correct. I did say that it was 
     unacceptable to have members of the military on food stamps 
     during the January 31, 1997 press conference. However, both 
     General Shalikashvili and I believe that this is a very 
     complex issue, which not only involves the Department's 
     compensation system, but also the structure of government 
     food stamp programs.
       I will continue to closely monitor this issue, as I am 
     committed to ensuring that our service men and women enjoy 
     the quality of life they have earned and deserve.
           Sincerely,
                                                             Bill.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Arizona that 
this is not a lot of money he is asking for here. I guess technically 
you can't direct it in a budget resolution. But I think when we vote 
for this this afternoon--I hope everyone will vote for it--we will be 
saying: Let's begin to solve this problem. Let's not sit around and say 
families within the military are too big. Let's fix it.
  Am I kind of speaking for what the Senator from Arizona is worried 
about? Am I on the right track?
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, yes, he is doing exactly what 
I had in mind. I appreciate very much his long-term commitment on this 
issue. It is long overdue. We should fix it. I share his 
dissatisfaction with the Department of Defense in its responsibility 
towards these young men and women.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe all time has been yielded on our side. Are we 
ready for another amendment?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold the unanimous consent request, 
I want to consult with our leader. I am pretty sure it is OK. I want to 
doublecheck.
  We have so many amendments to be offered, and we know the other side 
is next in line to offer the next amendment. Until their Member shows 
up, we would like Senator Reed to speak off the resolution about an 
amendment which he will offer at a subsequent time.
  Mr. President, the minority yields the time on the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we yield time to the Senator from Rhode 
Island off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Nevada 
for yielding time. I am going to take a moment to discuss an amendment 
that I will propose later today.
  On May 20 of last year, this Senate passed effective, commonsense gun 
safety legislation as part of the juvenile justice bill. The vote was 
overwhelming--73-25. It was in response to the tragedy at Columbine 
High school, a tragedy that shook the very foundation of America's 
sense of security, their sense of the well-being for their children. In 
response to that great tragedy, this Senate acted. It passed a 
commonsense gun control provision that would close loopholes in our 
Nation's gun laws--not only to help prevent future Columbines but to 
try to stop this pervasive wave of gun violence that is sweeping 
America and claiming 12 children each and every day.
  Yet here we are, almost 1 year from the day of the Columbine tragedy, 
and we still have not brought to this floor the conference report so 
that we can vote upon it and send it to the President for his 
signature.
  Leadership, both the House and the Senate, has stood idly by while 
all of America asked us for a very simple request to get on with the 
business we started last May to bring the juvenile justice bill to the 
floor for a vote, for passage we hope, and for the signature of the 
President.
  What happened in the intervening year is that this conference 
committee met only once last August. In effect, the message that I 
think is being communicated is there is a hope and an expectation by 
the Republican leadership in the House and Senate that this problem 
will go away, that people will forget about Columbine, and that people 
will forget about this tragedy. We cannot forget. We have to take 
active steps to ensure that the measure we pass will at least come back 
for a clear vote and, hopefully, come back so we can incorporate it in 
real legislation.

  It is very unusual that a conference would take this long. I can 
recall being part of a financial service modernization bill--very 
contentious legislation;

[[Page S2291]]

legislation that involved numerous interest groups; legislation that 
effectively failed at the very last moment in the last Congress; and, 
again, in this Congress--that was subject to a tumultuous series of 
legislative maneuvers on both sides of Congress. Yet it only took us 3 
months to rationalize, to compromise, and to ultimately pass this bill 
in the conference.
  We just spent 1 month dealing with the issues of transportation in 
the Transportation Act, a $209 billion legislative initiative.
  My suggestion is pretty clear, that this is not routine business as 
usual by taking this long for a conference. It represents a deliberate 
decision not to act, a deliberate decision to try by stalling, by 
delay, by tying this up with the approaching elections so that 
effectively what we will do is end prematurely the important steps we 
began last May 20 by adopting commonsense gun control legislation.
  This is something the American people clearly want. It is something 
that, when they are asked, they will overwhelmingly say are commonsense 
measures.
  A poll was recently conducted in which over 90 percent of Americans 
responded by saying they wanted child safety locks. In this group, 85 
percent of the gun owners responded saying they, too, wanted child 
safety locks. They also want us to close the loopholes on the gun shows 
by an overwhelming majority. Yet despite overwhelming public support, 
despite our already accomplished legislation in this party the bill 
languishes in conference.

  In this debate, there is a great hue and cry that we don't need more 
laws, just enforce the ones on the books. In this debate, law 
enforcement is on our side. They recognize that in addition to 
enforcing the laws, we need other commonsense laws that will give them 
additional tools, that will go to the heart of many issues that have to 
be addressed if we want a sane and peaceful society.
  This chart indicates the number of associations of law enforcement 
officials that are strongly supportive of our initiative, including the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers. Police are on our side. They stand with 
us to demand we take effective, prompt action to send this juvenile 
justice legislation to the President for his signature.
  In addition to that, I was this morning with a group of police 
officers from my home State of Rhode Island and others from Maryland. 
They were quite clear; they want to see prompt action. When we have the 
American people overwhelmingly supporting this provision, when we have 
law enforcement, those men and women who stand most in the line of 
fire, demanding this legislation be passed, it is indeed puzzling we 
are not taking effective steps to pass this legislation.
  Let me briefly review what is at issue in the juvenile justice bill 
so we can be clear about the nature of this legislation. First, in the 
juvenile justice bill we passed an amendment requiring that a secure 
storage or safety device be sold with all handguns. Unlike virtually 
every other product in the United States, firearms produced in this 
country are not subject to regulation by the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission.
  Again, one of the great ironies of present-day America is that a toy 
gun is subject to safety provisions of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission; a real gun that can cause real harm and real damage--death 
in many cases--is not subject to such regulation. As a result, 
manufacturers of firearms produce weapons lacking, in some cases, even 
the most rudimentary safety features designed to prevent the accidental 
or intentional shooting of children or by children.
  The tragic consequences are undeniable. Each year, suicides and 
accidental shootings make up more than half of the tens of thousands of 
gun deaths in the United States. Kids are frequently the victims. This 
is an important point. The gun lobby tries to suggest that the victims 
of shootings are being waylaid by armed desperados who are law breakers 
who will never follow laws. In fact, the reason they are on the streets 
is that the laws are ineffectual for putting them behind bars. More 
than half the shootings are accidents, with no criminal intent, or 
suicide, in which the individual is so depressed and despondent, they 
are seizing a weapon to destroy themselves.
  We have been shocked recently by the tragic death of Kayla Rowland, a 
6-year-old shot by another 6-year-old in Mount Morris Township, MI. I 
believe if a Member came to this floor last May 20 and predicted that a 
6-year-old child would be shot by another 6-year-old child in a 
schoolroom in the United States, we would have been hooted down as 
hysterical demagogs. Sadly and tragically, that has happened.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't want my remarks to interrupt his statement. I 
ask unanimous consent a vote in relation to the pending McCain 
amendment, No. 2988, occur in the stacked sequence under the same terms 
as outlined in the previous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In light of this agreement, there will now be three 
recorded votes at 2 o'clock.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, as I pointed out, we were all shocked by the 
death of Kayla Rowland. That week, People magazine conducted a review 
of other deaths of children which are symptomatic of what is happening 
in America. They don't capture the headlines across the country as the 
tragic death of that 6-year-old did, but they suggest what is happening 
day in and day out--the 12 children in America killed each day.
  I will recite some of the stories in which youngsters were killed by 
firearms. A woman in Carroll County, MD, 18 years old, died of an 
accidental gunshot wound to the head after she and her friends were 
admiring her father's .22-caliber revolver. Her parents were out of the 
country. They were doing missionary work in Costa Rica.
  A simple safety lock on that weapon perhaps could have saved that 
young woman's life. This is one of those classic accidents the gun 
lobby doesn't want to talk about because it can be effective and should 
be passed by our legislation which will put trigger locks on the 
weapons. It is not a question of irresponsible, reckless parents whose 
moral or ethical values contribute to the death of a child. These 
parents are missionaries, literally doing the Lord's work, in Costa 
Rica, when their child accidentally shoots herself.
  A 6-year-old boy and a friend in Shopiere, WI, were horsing around 
with a .22-caliber pistol his mother kept for protection and usually 
stored in her dresser. After posing with the gun for a photograph, the 
boy pointed the gun at his head. It went off, killing him. As his 
grandmother said: It was kid's play, total kid's play.
  Again, would a trigger lock have helped? Perhaps.
  How about the 15-year-old boy in San Bernardino, CA, who found his 
stepfather's handgun while his pregnant mother slept, and he used it to 
shoot himself.
  A 16-year-old girl in Altoona, PA, argued with her father, a gun 
collector, about her curfew, and then took a .22-caliber handgun from 
under his mattress while he was out and shot herself in the head.
  All of these young lives were lost in just 1 week in America. We 
could catalog such deaths every week in America.
  The gun lobby says we don't need gun locks; we don't need gun laws; 
we just have to do a better job enforcing those already on the books. 
How is law enforcement going to save the lives of kids such as those I 
have talked about? They are not hardened criminals. They are not in bad 
families. They are not out robbing banks or terrorizing in gangs.
  The only way they can be helped is through prevention--not 
enforcement but prevention. That is what will save these kids. 
Prevention is the key--not to the exclusion of enforcement; we have to 
enforce our laws and be tough.
  Later today, Senator Durbin will introduce a resolution that will 
amend it and ask us to put more resources into enforcement. I strongly 
support that. But we need prevention and enforcement. We require safety 
caps on bottles of aspirin and bottles of prescription drugs. It makes 
no sense that we don't require the same types of safety devices on 
handguns.

[[Page S2292]]

  We have to do it. It is included in our juvenile justice bill. If we 
maintain it in conference and bring it to the floor, we can save many 
children in this country.
  Regarding gun shows--and I see my colleague from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg, who was the leader in this effort--with the help of Vice 
President Gore, by one vote we were able to pass sensible rules to 
close the gun show loophole to require that background checks would 
always be conducted for all the thousands of gun shows around the 
country.
  Currently at most gun shows, one-fourth or more of the dealers are 
unlicensed. Therefore, they do not have to perform a Brady law 
background check. This is a serious loophole. If someone is a felon, if 
someone has a shady background, if someone is irrational and looking 
for a gun, he or she would go to a gun show, go to a licensed dealer, 
and then the dealer would explain they have to do a gun check. Then 
what would happen? That person would certainly keep looking around 
until he found an unlicensed dealer who had a whole cache of guns and 
say, Do I have to do a background check?
  No, no, not at all.
  We can see in that supermarket, that bazaar of guns, that is where, 
likely, those people who do not want a check can go and today they will 
be able to get a handgun.
  It is just common sense to effectively enforce the Brady law, to make 
sure this gun show loophole is closed, and closed in a way that allows 
for checking those people who should be checked, the ones for whom you 
might have to find State records that are not available on a weekend; 
for whom you might need indeed more than 72 hours to conduct a 
background check.
  Another is the ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons. There 
is absolutely no reason a youngster should have an assault weapon. 
These weapons were designed to kill people.
  I served in the Army at the point where the transition was made 
between the old M-14 weapon, which was a rifle that had great accuracy, 
that was part of what some people derided as the old musket Army of 
aimed fire, and the tactics of the strategists back in the 1960s who 
said: We do not need aimed fire; we just need a weapon that, in close 
quarters, can deliver massive rates of fire, high rates of cyclical 
fire. The whole purpose being not hunting, not target shooting, but 
destroying other people, which is the nature of warfare. That is where 
the assault weapon comes. No child needs to have those.
  A ban on the importation of large-capacity clips is another 
provision. It is illegal for these clips to be produced by American 
manufacturers, but through another loophole they can be imported into 
the country. Once again, if you are a sportsman out hunting, you do not 
need a magazine that can accommodate 45 rounds. People who need these 
types of magazines are folks who should not have them, in a sense, 
because the potential for violence, the potential for criminal activity 
is much more enhanced, I believe, when you have a magazine that has 40 
or 50 rounds rather than those old-fashioned hunting rifles which are 
part and parcel of the American story.
  In addition to these provisions, the underlying legislation would 
increase the enforcement capacity of Federal agents and local agents by 
expanding the successful youth crime gun interdiction initiative to 250 
cities by the year 2003, enhancing the efforts to trace guns used in 
crime and identify and arrest adults who sell guns to children. All of 
these other worthy provisions are there; also, increased penalties on 
so-called straw purchases--those individuals who buy guns knowing the 
ultimate recipient is unable to have the gun either because of a 
criminal record or because of age. It would keep guns out of the hands 
of violent offenders. It would also allow the Federal Trade Commission 
and Attorney General to study the extent to which the gun industry 
markets and distributes its products to juveniles.

  They are all reasonable measures. All should be done. But what has 
been done? Because of the inaction, and deliberate inaction, of the 
leadership, nothing has been done. The American people have waited too 
long. Later today, I will be offering, along with 22 of my colleagues, 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling on the juvenile justice 
conferees to complete and submit the conference report before April 20, 
the first anniversary of the Columbine shooting, and to include in the 
conference report the amendments I have just discussed, that were 
passed by this Senate, seeking to limit access to firearms by 
juveniles, convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from 
purchasing or possessing firearms.
  Will the passage of this amendment stop every gun crime in this 
country? No, but it will save lives, the lives of those children I 
talked about, the lives of children shot accidentally, the lives, 
perhaps, of people who, if they do not have easy access to firearms, 
may think a moment before taking their lives.
  If we do these things: Close the gun show loophole, require safety 
locks to be sold with handguns, if we ban the importation of large-
capacity clips and juvenile possession of assault weapons, we will 
bring some sense to our gun laws and we will provide a meaningful 
memorial to those children who died at Columbine and those children who 
die each day by gun violence.
  I notice my colleagues from New Mexico and from Vermont are here. I 
suspect they would like to speak also. As a result, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator, the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and 
I thank the other Senator from Rhode Island, and I thank the Senator 
from Nevada and the Senator from New Jersey. I am proud to cosponsor 
the amendment to report the juvenile justice conference by April 20. I 
think the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island does the whole 
Senate and the country a service by his amendment.
  Congress has kept the country waiting too long for action on juvenile 
justice legislation. It kept the country waiting too long for action on 
sensible gun laws. In fact, we are almost up to the first-year 
anniversary of the shooting in Columbine High School in Littleton, CO.
  This morning I was watching the news, seeing some of these young 
people talking about what they went through, and the memories all came 
back about what had happened there when 14 students and a teacher lost 
their lives, nearly 12 months ago, on April 20, 1999.
  I mention that date, April 20, 1999, because it has been 11 months 
since then that the Senate passed the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice 
bill. This bill was not a close call. The vote was 73-25. It was a 
bipartisan bill. It included some very modest but, I believe, effective 
gun safety measures. Ten months ago, the House passed its own juvenile 
crime bill.
  Then we did not meet or have a conference; we did not meet to talk 
about it until about 8 months ago. Then we met only briefly. We did 
nothing and recessed for a 4- or 5-week vacation.
  Now it is very easy to see what has happened. By delaying and 
delaying and delaying, some might have the best of all possible worlds. 
They could say: Yes, I stood up and voted for some modest gun safety 
laws; and at the same time they could say to the powerful gun lobby: 
Don't worry, it is not going anywhere. We have that bottled up 
somewhere in a committee, a committee of conference that never meets. 
Nobody even knows where it is. I doubt if there are 10 people in the 
House or the Senate who could even name the members of it.
  The majority in Congress convened this conference on August 5, 1999, 
less than 24 hours before the Congress adjourned for its long August 
recess.
  You do not have to be a cynic to recognize this for what it was: a 
transparent ploy to deflect criticism for delays while ensuring the 
conference did not have enough time to prepare comprehensive juvenile 
justice legislation to send to the President before school began in 
September, 1999.
  This is a serious matter. The Senate Democrats and the House 
Democrats have been ready for months to reconvene the juvenile justice 
conference and work with Republicans to have an

[[Page S2293]]

effective juvenile justice conference report, one that has reasonable 
gun safety provisions, something along the lines of what we passed 3-1 
here in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership would not 
act.
  I know they are facing fierce opposition from the gun lobby. One only 
has to turn on the television set to see an aging actor telling us why 
we should not be protecting our young children. I wish instead of 
listening to somebody who is acting a role and playing a role and has 
made their livelihood acting out other people's fantasies, they would 
listen to the Nation's law enforcement officers. These are the men and 
women whom we ask every single day to put their lives on the line for 
us. These are the people who die protecting us. These are the people 
most concerned about effective gun laws.
  Ten national law enforcement organizations, representing thousands of 
law enforcement officers, have endorsed the Senate-passed gun safety 
amendments, and they support loophole-free firearms laws, from the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs, National Sheriffs 
Association, and on and on.
  I spent 8 years in law enforcement. I know how much they care. They 
believe in keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have 
them. I am not talking about people who use guns for sports and 
hunting. I am talking about criminals and unsupervised children.
  These thousands of law enforcement officers are asking us to do our 
duty. Instead of taking all these recesses and vacations, we should 
stay here a couple of days and pass juvenile justice legislation.
  Every parent, every teacher, every student in this country is 
concerned about school violence. We know there is not any one thing 
that will stop school violence, but we do know that in the Hatch-Leahy 
juvenile justice bill there are provisions that help bring about safety 
in our schools. Don't we owe it to the parents, don't we owe it to the 
students, don't we owe it to the teachers to make this a safer country? 
We do not owe or should not owe anything to any powerful lobby, left or 
right. We owe our privilege of serving here to the people who sent us 
here, and the vast majority of people who sent us here, Republicans and 
Democrats, want us to move forward on this sensible piece of 
legislation.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as a matter of formality, I will yield time 
off the resolution to the manager of this bill. I do it for a specific 
reason. There has been a lot of attention focused in recent months on 
gun violence in America. The Senator from New Jersey, who has decided 
to retire from the Senate, has been the leader on this issue for many 
years. For example, 33,000 people have been prevented from having guns 
as a result of the initial work done by the Senator from New Jersey. 
Those are people who commit acts of domestic violence and are convicted 
of crimes dealing with domestic violence. Those people can no longer 
have permits to carry weapons. They can no longer have handguns.
  One of the few pioneers in the Senate on the Brady bill was the 
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. He was the person who 
initially started the work in the Senate and in the Congress on the 
Brady bill. What does that mean? It means that over 400,000 felons who 
have attempted to purchase weapons have been prevented from buying 
those guns.
  In addition to that, of course, he sponsored a law eliminating 
funding of an ATF program that allowed convicted felons with weapons 
violations to apply for and waive probation. In short, it is very good 
that we have so much attention focused on guns and gun violence and 
legislation dealing with guns.
  Before yielding time to the Senator from New Jersey, I want the 
record to reflect that we are dealing with gun legislation more easily 
today than we were when this man had the vision to act on some of these 
laws. Jim Brady depended on Frank Lautenberg to pass the Brady bill.
  I commend and applaud the Senator from New Jersey for the work he has 
done, and I yield to him such time as he may consume, off the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for 
his courtesy and kind remarks.
  We have done a lot of work. I commend Senator Reed from Rhode Island 
for his leadership. He had a career in the military before he came to 
the Congress. He used that background to understand the problem and to 
put it into perspective. I commend him for his leadership on gun 
violence issues.
  I was pleased to hear from our friend from Vermont, the ranking 
member on the Judiciary Committee. Vermont is known to have a lot of 
hunters. Vermont is known as a place where there are a lot of guns. As 
I heard Senator Leahy say, a lot of these hunters were disappointed at 
the unwillingness of the gun lobby, personified by the National Rifle 
Association, in their organization's unwillingness to step forward and 
make some commonsense adjustments to the law, getting legislation on 
the books that says guns should not be available willy-nilly to people 
who want to buy a lethal weapon.
  I hope we will soon deal with an amendment that will codify our 
interest in controlling gun violence. We are soon coming upon a very 
important anniversary. April 20 is the 1-year anniversary of the awful 
tragedy at Columbine High School. Few can forget that awful day, the 
shock we all felt when we heard about young people in the high school 
being assaulted by gunmen and looking at the pictures on television and 
seeing a young man reaching out for help, fearful for his life, and 
young people running frantically from the school to get out of the way 
of the bullets. The consequences were disastrous: 12 classmates were 
killed, the 2 killers, and a teacher. Twenty-three other students and 
teachers wounded. I shutter when I recall that bloody carnage.
  No parent or grandparent can avoid thanking the Lord for the safety 
of their own families when they see the horror of those moments. Yet 
that assault was not only an assault on Columbine High School, it was 
an assault on the sensibilities of our country--the innocent young 
people scared, desperate, running away from gunmen.
  Frankly, I thought that would be the ultimate outrage; that would be 
the ultimate insult to the lawfulness of our society, to our respect 
for law, to our respect for life; that this would be it and people 
would stand up and say: Enough; we have had enough; we want to make a 
change. The cries of people, the tearful students who lost friends and 
those who lost relatives, sons and daughters, sent an image across this 
country which I thought would shake through the halls of this Congress 
which says: Hey, listen, it's time.
  Poll after poll was done at that time. The numbers were that 80 to 90 
percent of the people said they wanted the gun show loophole closed. 
There are over 4,000 gun shows a year where anyone--any thief, any 
felon, anyone who is listed on the 10 most wanted list of the FBI--can 
walk up, take the money out of their pocket, put it down on the table, 
and nobody asks: What is your name? Where do you live? From what town 
do you come?
  That is not what the American people want. I do not understand the 
NRA and other members of the gun lobby who say this is somehow an 
intrusion on their personal rights. Where are the personal rights of 
the family to know that when their children go to school each and every 
day, they will return home in the same healthy condition as when they 
went to school?

  Everyone here has to be aware that on May 14 we are going to have the 
Million Mom March. I met with people from New Jersey who are 
participating. I will tell you something. If you talk to women's 
groups, talk to individual women across this country about what really 
counts with them, what is the most important thing on their agenda: Is 
it equal opportunity for jobs? Is it to make sure that pay scales are 
the same for men and women? What is it that is the most important 
thing? I will tell you what the most important thing is: To know their 
children are safe when they go to school. The Million Mom March is 
organized around that precept that children should be safe, that this 
society of ours has had enough of guns and the havoc it wreaks in our 
Nation.
  That tragic day, almost a year ago, was enough to offend women across 
the

[[Page S2294]]

country to organize a million person march in State after State where 
it will be taking place.
  But what has the Congress done to answer the anguished cries of 
people who have lost a child? Anybody who knows a family who has lost a 
child, particularly to violence--I guess it does not matter how you 
lose a child; once you lose a child, it is a terrible thing. The family 
never recovers. The circumstances never change. Columbine High School 
will never be the same, even though they had yet another crazy incident 
there.
  What happens to those cries? What happens to those pleas? They fall 
on deaf ears. That is what happens. Not enough people listen, to say: 
You know what. Yes, we understand there is some debate about the 
possession of a weapon. But there is nothing in the Constitution--no 
matter how hard the proponents of guns try--that says you cannot wait a 
few days while we check to see who you are before we give you a gun. 
Before we give you an automobile, we check out who you are.
  What is it that prevents us from saying, look, come on; get together, 
gun lovers, NRA and the others? What is it that says we have to permit 
gun purchases by anonymous buyers? There isn't anything in the 
Constitution that says that. There isn't anything in the Constitution 
that says you should not have to have a license, that you should not 
have to be trained before you buy a gun.
  The Senator from Rhode Island, who is going to propose this 
amendment, as I indicated, was in the Army as an officer. He is a West 
Point graduate. He served in Vietnam. He knows what it is to be in war. 
He served during the period of the Vietnam conflict. I served in Europe 
during World War II when the shooting was going on. I know what the 
purpose of a gun is. I learned how to use it. I have never owned one 
since I got my discharge, I can tell you.
  But what is it that prevents us from taking up the simplest, 
commonsense legislation? It is the gun lobby. The response to the cries 
of the people who want their kids to be able to go to school safely and 
return is: No, we have a greater allegiance to the NRA and the gun 
lobby than we have to families across America. What an outrage. But it 
does not get anything done.
  I am hoping, with Senator Reed's leadership, we are going to get 
something done today.
  Congress has done nothing since that time to protect families from 
gun violence. When I wrote the law to prohibit domestic abusers from 
getting guns, it was said that it was an unnecessary thing, it was an 
imposition of law on our citizens. But 33,000--I thank the Senator from 
Nevada for mentioning it--33,000 domestic abusers have been prevented 
from owning a gun. We know something else.
  We know the statistics show that about 150,000 times a year a gun is 
put to the head of a woman, often in front of her children, and a man 
threatens to blow her brains out. There is no visible wound, but I 
guarantee you, there are wounds that carry through life. The children 
never forget. But we cannot act on it.
  We are now waiting for something to happen. We are waiting for the 
juvenile justice bill, which passed overwhelmingly and went to the 
House, with our gun-loophole-show closer, and it died. The conference 
committee has been appointed, but nothing has happened since that time.
  We have had support in the past from Senators on the other side of 
the aisle on the gun show amendment. Senators DeWine, Fitzgerald, 
Lugar, Voinovich, Warner, and Senator Chafee--who is no longer with 
us--voted for my amendment at that time.
  The final juvenile justice bill, as we heard from Senator Leahy, 
passed by a vote of 73-25. So there was strong bipartisan support for 
moving forward on juvenile crime and trying to reduce gun violence.
  But that was back on May 20--11 months ago. What has happened since 
then? Shootings have not stopped. We saw a 6-year-old murder another 6-
year-old in Michigan.
  From Mount Morris, MI, to Los Angeles, CA; from Fort Worth, TX, as 
youngsters in a prayer session were violated by a gun-wielding 
assaulter, to Conyers, GA; no community is safe from gun violence.
  But while the vast majority of Americans want Congress to act, some 
special interests--the National Rifle Association, the gun lobby--have 
worked with their few allies in Congress, where less than 3 million 
members of the NRA determine what actions we take on behalf of 260 
million Americans.
  It is not right. Sooner or later, the voters are going to rebel and 
say: If you do not vote to put common sense into gun possession in this 
country, we are going to vote you out of office. That is what ought to 
happen. Boy, if one time that happens in an area where this is the 
dominant subject, that would be the end of the gun lobby.
  It is the same old reaction. Every time Congress wants to pass gun 
safety laws, the NRA works hard to prevent its passage. Lately, we 
heard a lot of criticism about the enforcement of gun laws. But this is 
kind of a joke because the rhetoric ignores the facts. The number of 
Federal firearms cases prosecuted by the U.S. attorneys increased 16 
percent from 1992 to 1999--4,754 in 1992 to 5,500 in 1999.
  So the suggestion that law enforcement is not fighting gun crimes is 
just wrong. But more importantly, this rhetoric suggests a false choice 
between enforcement or stronger laws. What we need is both.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, but not without making mention of 
the fact that Smith & Wesson, a prominent gun manufacturer, has agreed 
that they need to do more on gun safety. The company reached an 
agreement with the administration that will incorporate many of the 
measures stalled in the conference committee: Background checks at gun 
shows, child safety locks, and preventing the use of ammunition clips 
with more than 10 rounds.

  Congress ought not be trailing behind gun manufacturers when it comes 
to gun safety. The conference committee ought to complete its job. I 
support Senator Reed's resolution. When it is presented, I hope that 
all of my colleagues will vote for it.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2985

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes available, evenly divided, 
on the Reid amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Senator Reid yields to Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment and urge the Senate 
to go on record opposing the George W. Bush tax cut. It is a risky 
proposal. It threatens our economy. It raids the Social Security trust 
fund. It provides no funding protection for Social Security or 
Medicare. It eliminates needed investments in education. Sadly, the tax 
cuts go primarily to the wealthiest people in America. The Bush tax cut 
is a $50,000 tax cut if you make over $300,000 a year. For 60 percent 
of American families, it is a tax cut of $249.
  Some of my Republican colleagues who say they have endorsed George W. 
Bush and his plan have a chance to follow the admonition of that noted 
political philosopher, Tammy Wynette, who said: ``Stand by your man.'' 
But for those who want this economy to continue to prosper, and America 
to continue to be strong, vote ``no'' on the George W. Bush tax cut.
  (Mr. VOINOVICH assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, even though Senators Reid and Durbin 
have been talking about it for a couple of hours, and Senator Gramm and 
I spoke on it for about a half hour, essentially, the tax plan George 
W. Bush has is not part of the President's proposal, but it will be 
part of President-elect George W. Bush's budget. So we wait for him to 
deliver his budget, which will indeed accommodate his tax cut. All this 
is a political scuffle here today in advance of his budget. He hasn't 
even had a chance to give us one and tell us what kind of Government he 
wants.
  They want us to adopt this while we are fighting over a Clinton 
budget that increases spending beyond anything President George W. Bush 
would do. I commend soon-to-be-President-elect Bush for suggesting a 
major tax reform. When the American people actually see it, they are 
going to think it is good for America. It will fit in his budget. That 
is an important time.
  I move to table the Reid amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S2295]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the motion to table amendment No. 2985. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Roth
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2973

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to close the debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to make my statement.
  Senator Gramm came to the floor and waved Vice President Gore's book, 
saying it calls for a $3 tax increase but could not point out the page. 
It is not in there, nor is there a statement made by the Vice President 
to that effect.
  Because of the political pain my Republican colleagues have 
experienced in just voting against the tax program which Governor 
George W. Bush proposed, they are asking Members to vote against a tax 
program which Vice President Gore has never proposed.
  This is easy. Vote yes; save a copy of the last roll call.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in his book ``Earth in the Balance,'' the 
Vice President calls for the complete elimination of the internal 
combustion engine.
  I have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we should not 
undertake that activity, that raising the price of gasoline to the 
degree that would be required to achieve that goal would be devastating 
to the American economy.
  I believe the Vice President saying we should have a policy to 
completely eliminate the internal combustion engine in 25 years is 
irresponsible policy. It ought to be rejected. The only way to achieve 
it would be astronomical taxes, rationing, and confiscating people's 
cars or trucks. I want the world to know and the Vice President to know 
we are against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2973. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Roth
       
  The amendment (No. 2973) was agreed to.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 2953, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2953, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2953), as amended, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2988

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the McCain amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will take the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not think anybody objects to this 
amendment. This is an effort to say to the Department of Defense we 
want them to fix the problem of food stamps in the military. It adds a 
small amount of money over the years to target the solving of the food 
stamp problem in the military.
  That is essentially the McCain amendment. We should adopt it. He 
wants a rollcall vote. I believe the yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am not sure who controls time in 
opposition. I do not oppose it, but I would like 30 seconds. I ask 
unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to vote for the amendment--I 
believe most Members will--but we want to make sure we do not create an 
inequity, an unfairness in the process. We will be paying different 
amounts of money to the same people, same rank, and we may actually be 
giving the extra money to the wrong people.
  Senator McCain's amendment, it seems to me, has exactly the right 
purpose: to get rid of food stamps going to some members. But we have 
to do it right. Senator Warner is going to be holding hearings in our 
committee on this whole food stamp situation. We, hopefully, can 
accomplish this goal in a way which does not create a discriminatory 
situation.
  I have one last fact. We all should be glad to know the number of our 
service members on food stamps has gone down, from 19,400 in 1991 to 
11,900 in 1995, to 6,300 in 1999. The number of people on food stamps 
has been going down dramatically, not only numerically but also as a 
percentage of the force.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2988. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller

[[Page S2296]]


     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Roth
       
  The amendment (No. 2988) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Alaska will withhold, I 
yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New York for a request involving 
another Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Schumer pertaining to the introduction of S. 2370 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, regular order.


                           Amendment No. 2931

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment previously 
proposed.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) for himself, and Mr. 
     Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Campbell, and 
     Mr. Cochran proposes an amendment numbered 2931:
       Strike Section 208.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have at the desk another amendment, the 
third one I mentioned previously. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
put in line after the second one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, because of time circumstances, I ask 
unanimous consent that this amendment be temporarily laid aside so that 
Senator Robb may offer his amendment.
  I understand arrangement has already been made on that and that we 
will proceed. It is my understanding that my amendment would be pending 
when the Robb amendment has been disposed of. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that be the procedure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2965

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes equally divided. The 
Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We had an opportunity to discuss and debate this particular amendment 
last night to accommodate Senators. Very simply, this is an amendment 
to reduce the amendment for the tax cut by $5.9 billion over the next 5 
years. It doesn't call for the passage of any specific school 
construction or renovation proposal that has been discussed. It simply 
sets aside the money to pay for them. Five years ago, the unmet needs 
in our schools nationally totaled about $185 billion. Today, those 
unmet needs total over $306 billion.
  We hear a lot about State surpluses. If we used all of the fiscal 
year 1999 surpluses from all of the States, we would still only address 
about 10 percent of the unmet backlog in terms of school construction 
and school modernization.
  I showed this picture last night. I will show this one again. This is 
a picture of Loudon County High School, just outside the beltway. This 
is a trailer being put in place in the parking lot. There are a number 
of trailers in the parking lot. There are over 3,000 trailers currently 
in use in Virginia alone. Loudon County needs 22 new schools at an 
average cost of $18 million each. That is over $400 million for one 
county alone.
  School enrollment is at record levels. Currently, there are 53.2 
million students in the United States. In the next 10 years, it will 
increase by another 1 million students. The average school today is 42 
years old. The last major investment in schools was made back in the 
Eisenhower administration. It was a $1 billion investment then. The 
same amount of money today, in current terms, would be $5.4 billion. 
This amendment simply sets aside $5.9 billion over the next 5 years to 
accomplish at least a portion of the pressing unmet school construction 
needs in this country today. I hope it will be the wisdom of my 
colleagues to agree to this particular amendment and vote for schools.

  I think I adequately covered the amendment last night. I yield to my 
distinguished colleague from Georgia or others who may wish to address 
this particular amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has been 
debating this for an extended period of time. School construction and 
renovation is traditionally the responsibility of local and State 
governments. It traditionally has been and it still is.
  The Robb amendment, in effect, has the effect of raising taxes by 
$4.2 billion over 5 years to have the Federal Government take over part 
of this responsibility. Even under the President's proposal, which 
would cost even more, we would only be able to cover about one-fourth 
of the total cost of improving schools, according to the General 
Accounting Office.
  As we have said repeatedly over the last couple of days, this budget 
resolution includes more money for education than the President--$600 
million more in 2001 and $2.2 billion more over 5 years. We have made 
plenty of room for different options on education policy in this budget 
resolution.
  All of these issues will be discussed and debated in the ESEA 
reauthorization coming up in May. The spending increase in this 
amendment is unnecessary.
  In addition, if the Federal Government is going to become a major and 
direct party in the issue of school construction, along with it will 
come the same kind of intervention that the last two Congresses have 
been endeavoring to undo. They have been trying to make it more 
flexible, not less.
  It is my personal opinion, given the way school construction has been 
managed, that any Federal program of this nature will by necessity have 
the tendency to pick winners and losers because as everybody 
acknowledges, it doesn't get to the total requirement and it will also 
have the effect of rewarding local jurisdictions that have been less 
attentive to the work that they are responsible for or for which they 
are responsible.
  Invariably, districts that have gotten the job done or are in the 
business of doing it will be second-class citizens to those 
jurisdictions that have overlooked or not been attentive to the nature 
of their responsibility of school construction.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 1 minute 40 
seconds and the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes 14 seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield the floor to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I respond to my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia by saying, first of all, this is not an amendment to raise 
taxes. This is simply an amendment to give up $5.9 billion of the tax 
cut that is in the resolution.
  Second, there are no Federal strings attached. One of the benefits of 
this particular approach is we are not dealing with school policy, 
which can be very sensitive. We are dealing with bricks and mortar. For 
the most part, we are doing this through a tax credit that leverages 
the money so they can get a whole lot more bang for the buck. It is a 
way to keep us from being involved in local school policy. It provides 
maximum flexibility in the way the funds are used.
  Finally, with all due respect to my distinguished colleague, he 
talked about less attentive. You can translate ``less attentive'' into 
``less resourced.'' Most of the Federal programs designed to help are 
for those localities and institutions that simply don't have the 
resources to meet the critical needs of their students. This is 
designed to help some of those localities, including localities with 
very old schools that have leaking roofs and simply don't have modern 
heating, air conditioning, ventilation, and other accommodations that 
are part of the modern school system or could not have the modern 
technology.
  This gives them a chance to compete on a more equal footing. I hope 
it will

[[Page S2297]]

be the pleasure of our colleagues to set aside this part of the tax cut 
for the very important purpose of investing ultimately in our children, 
by investing in a nonintervention, nonintrusive way in school policy, 
in the bricks and mortar that will provide the kind of environment 
where they can learn.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the bottom line, whether you call it a 
tax increase or reduction of a tax relief proposal, the net effect is 
between $4 billion and $6 billion is not going to be in the checking 
accounts of American citizens if this amendment is adopted that could 
theoretically otherwise be there. Taxpayers will have less if the 
amendment is adopted.
  The second point the Senator from Virginia makes about underresourced 
has merit. But so does mine. Yes, there are some school districts that 
are underresourced; those are the responsibility of those States, not 
the Federal Government.
  It is equally true that many of these jurisdictions do have the 
resources and for whatever reason have not made that the priority it 
maybe ought to have been. There is no doubt about it. We can name any 
number of jurisdictions that have underequipped schools that sit in 
municipalities or counties that have innumerable resources.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I take a moment to commend my 
colleagues--Senator Robb, Senator Harkin, Senator Lautenberg, and 
Senator Dorgan, for bringing this important amendment to the floor.
  I commend the work they have done and their commitment to school 
modernization which means so much to our communities and the children 
who attend the public schools in this country.
  I have heard the other side say throughout this debate they have made 
a commitment to education. But I am concerned, as I look at their 
budget, that a real commitment is missing. I believe that part of 
making a real commitment to education requires providing resources to 
our schools. Today, my colleagues are offering an amendment as a way to 
offer this choice.
  Today, a record 53.2 million children are enrolled in elementary and 
secondary schools. By 2009, this number will reach 54.2 million. As a 
result, local communities need to build or modernize 6,000 public 
schools, and repair an additional 8,300 public schools. In addition, 
the average public school building in this country is 42 years old. 
These schools need improvements.
  What kind of message do we send to our children when they can go to 
shopping malls, movies theaters, and baseball stadiums that are 
significantly nicer than their schools? What kind of message does that 
send about our priorities?
  This amendment would once again provide us with a clear choice on the 
issue of education. Do we want a tax cut, or do we want to provide to 
modernize our schools. This amendment would allow the federal 
government to take a roll as a partner in helping our districts meet 
the pressing need of modernizing our school buildings.
  The amendment would provide $1.3 billion in grants and loans to help 
schools address urgent facilities issues, and provide tax credit bonds 
to help communities finance the cost of new construction and major 
repairs for schools.
  This Congress has made a commitment over the past two years to 
reducing class size. This program is truly making a difference in our 
schools. I believe we have the opportunity this year to continue the 
efforts to reducing class size, and providing funds for school to make 
sure they have the facilities to provide for these smaller classes.
  A decent sized class in an adequate facility is not too much for our 
children. I hope you are all able to make this choice and support this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROBB. How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine seconds.
  Mr. ROBB. I yield the entire 9 seconds to the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support the amendment of 
the Senator from Virginia. It is what is needed for this country. It is 
a national obligation. We ought to be rebuilding and modernizing our 
schools. The Senator from Virginia has it right.


                Amendment No. 3010 to Amendment No. 2965

(Purpose: To reduce revenue cuts by $5.9 billion over the next 5 years)

  Mr. COVERDELL. I send the substitute to the Robb amendment No. 2965 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3010 to amendment 2965.

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

       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 19, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $1.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $1.
       On page 29, after line 5, insert the following:
       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . (a) The Senate finds that on March 2, 2000, the 
     Senate passed S. 1134, by a vote of 61-37, the Affordable 
     Education Act of 2000, which--
       (1) authorizes up to 2.5 billion dollars a year in new bond 
     authority to allow public-private partnerships to build new 
     schools;
       (2) allows small school districts to build more schools by 
     providing them greater flexibility in dealing with complex 
     IRS regulations;
       (3) allows 14,000,000 families or 20,000,000 children to 
     benefit from Education Savings Accounts, which would generate 
     $12,000,000,000 in new resources for kindergarten through 
     college education;
       (4) allows 1,000,000 college students in State pre-paid 
     tuition plans to receive tax relief to make college more 
     affordable;
       (5) allows 1,000,000 workers studying part-time to receive 
     education assistance through their employers;
       (6) guarantees that every college student and recent 
     college graduate in America will receive a tax break on the 
     interest on their student loans;
       (7) gives all of our Nation's elementary and secondary 
     school teachers needed tax relief for their professional 
     development expenses;
       (8) gives America's teachers needed tax relief by providing 
     them a deduction for their out-of-pocket classroom expenses;
       (9) allows America's classrooms to benefit from new 
     technology by encouraging the charitable donation of 
     computers to the classroom;
       (b) Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that this 
     budget resolution assumes that

[[Page S2298]]

     Congress should pass, and the President should sign 
     significant education tax relief legislation for America's 
     teachers and students.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding that 
with the second-degree amendment before the Senate, there is now an 
hour equally divided on this measure; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the second-degree amendment, that is 
correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the bipartisan education savings 
account which was passed in March and had been threatened by a veto 
from the President makes education more affordable for millions of 
Americans. I might say, during that debate of our proposal to empower 
parents, to empower local school districts and communities, there was a 
similar debate with the Senator from Virginia on a similar subject. We 
prevailed at that time.
  At that time, the Senator from Virginia basically was attempting to 
fund this idea of his by removing the loss of tax revenue that occurs 
in the education savings account. As I understand the amendment now, it 
would reduce the tax relief in the budget resolution. So it is a very 
similar debate that is occurring between the Senator from Virginia and 
our side.
  I want to refresh the Senate on what has passed the Senate and will 
soon find its way to the President's desk. As I said a little earlier, 
the President has at least given an indication that he would veto it, 
so I think it is entirely appropriate that we reassert our position in 
the budget resolution.
  The education savings account starts with the current law, which 
allows families to save up to $500 per year while the interest in an 
account is exempt from taxes as long as the savings are used for 
college education. We have taken the same proposal and expanded it to 
$2,000 per year instead of $500, and we have said a family can use the 
savings in that account anywhere in the education of the child, from 
kindergarten through college--even after college if the student is a 
dependent.
  We have taken what everybody on both sides of the aisle has said is a 
grand idea and expanded it. Everybody is a winner: Public education, 
private education, home schooling education, kindergarten through 
college. It remains puzzling to me that this bipartisan proposal, 
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, is now threatened by 
the President.

  On State prepaid tuition relief, the legislation makes interest 
earned on qualified public and private school higher education tuition 
plans tax free. Some 41 States today--I think soon it will be all--
offer a State prepaid tuition plan to help parents prepare their 
students for the cost of college. The problem is, when those benefits 
come to the student, they get taxed, so it is diminished significantly. 
Under this proposal, that tax would no longer hit the savings account. 
It would be there and available for the family to help that child 
through college.
  The proposal extends employer-provided educational assistance for 
undergraduate studies; in other words, it helps make it possible for 
employers to assist employees in their continuing education. It is 
estimated that some million employees will be the beneficiaries of this 
proposal that has now passed the Senate.
  I failed to mention that it is estimated those who would open 
education savings accounts, such as those we are enumerating here, are 
14 million families who are the custodians, those who are taking care 
of 20 million children. That is about 40 percent of the entire 
population in school in the United States.
  The proposal repeals the 60-month rule on student loan interest 
deductions and allows many individuals to claim tax deductions on 
interest they pay on their student loans without the imposition of a 
time limit. Currently, you have an exemption on that kind of benefit, 
but it runs out after a certain number of years. This removes the time 
limit.
  With regard to school construction, the Affordable Education Act 
contains a provision originally offered by Senator Graham of Florida to 
create a new category of exempt bonds for privately owned, publicly 
operated K-12 schools. So we do not obviate or ignore the issue of 
construction problems in the country. This provision would make 
available up to $2.5 billion each year in school construction bonds, 
enough to build hundreds of new schools in America every year. But it 
would be totally controlled locally. It would not be the Federal 
Government picking which schools, it would be the districts themselves 
deciding whether they wanted to use this new provision in order to deal 
with school construction needs in their district.
  The bill would allow school districts to issue more tax-exempt bonds 
for school construction without having to comply with complex IRS 
arbitrage rebate rules. This would lower the cost of school 
construction for many small and rural school districts.
  The billions of dollars in Federal assistance are on top of what 
State and local governments are already doing to build schools without, 
as I said a moment ago, Federal interference from Washington or any 
selection being made by Federal bureaucrats. According to the U.S. 
Census Bureau, State and local governments spent $13 billion in 1999 on 
public school and university facilities. An American school and 
university survey shows, between 1990 and 1999, public school 
construction expenditures increased by 60 percent--that is without the 
Federal Government; they have done that on their own, making their own 
decisions--while overall economic activity only increased by 32 
percent, and student population increased by only 10 percent.

  So, in summary, what this sense of the Senate does is ask the 
President to recognize how many winners are generated by the Senate's 
idea on the Affordable School Act: 14 million families will benefit, 20 
million schoolchildren; there will be $12 billion in new savings 
without the Federal Government investing a dime; 1 million college 
students in State prepaid tuition plans; 1 million workers receiving 
education assistance; countless schools will be built across the 
country; and countless Americans will receive a break on the interest 
they pay on their student loans.
  Reserving the remainder of my time, I yield the floor so we might 
hear from the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Coverdell 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Under the resolution, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia. I did not see the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' but this reminds me 
of ``Groundhog Day.'' We have been here before. We wasted an entire 
week of the Senate's valuable time on the precise bill that the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia is now presenting to us as an 
alternative.
  I listened as the clerk read the language of the initial part of the 
bill, taking all the amounts that would be put aside to help schools 
and reducing them to a single dollar. In Virginia, we call that the 
shad treatment: You leave the skeleton but you surgically remove the 
entire skeletal structure so there is nothing remaining. Then you 
substitute a piece of legislation that has already passed this body, 
notwithstanding the fact that the authors and proponents of the 
legislation knew from the very beginning this particular bill would not 
be signed by the President.
  With all due respect to my distinguished colleague from Georgia, he 
knew and they knew from the beginning we were wasting a week on that 
particular legislation. To suggest this is a possible new development 
or a surprise now, with all due respect, is a bit disingenuous.
  We have the same problem as before. We are trying to do an end run to 
bring about vouchers. With this legislation, this Senate would be 
finding a way to put a disproportionate amount of money--if I recall 
the figures; I do not have them in front of me--about $37 or so per 
family for those students who, for the most part, are already sending

[[Page S2299]]

their children to private schools or parochial schools and about, if I 
recall, $7 for those in public schools.
  This is designed to get around the difficulty the distinguished 
Senator found in incorporating a voucher provision. Vouchers address 10 
percent of the population. Our responsibility is to the 90 percent of 
the children who are in schools in America who do not have access to 
them. Even if we were to make vouchers available to every schoolchild 
in America, we only have infrastructure that can support a little over 
10 percent of the population. This takes money that would otherwise be 
available, in this case, for much needed school construction which the 
States cannot afford and which, by his own admission, would help 
disproportionately those school districts that do not have the 
resources, that do not get a chance to play on a level playing field.
  It would take the money we could use to leverage to build even more 
schools and renovate even more schools to run the voucher route, again, 
in a bill that will not even go to the President. This particular 
resolution does not go to the President for signature. It will have no 
impact on whatever the President chooses to do about the particular 
legislation the Senator and those who supported his position passed 
last time around.
  Let's not support vouchers in another form to find a way to make it 
impossible for the Federal Government, without strings attached, to 
provide support for bricks and mortar in local school districts and 
divisions that need the assistance. We want to move away from a 
situation where we have trailers instead of classrooms. If colleagues 
support the underlying amendment, they will be supporting school 
construction and renovation. If they support the substitute, they will 
be supporting school vouchers. I hope it will be the pleasure of this 
body to reject the substitute and support the underlying amendment. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, 
Mr. Harkin, off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank our minority whip for yielding me 
this time. I do speak strongly in favor of the underlying Robb 
amendment of which I am a cosponsor.
  Senator Robb has it right when he tries to invest in rebuilding and 
modernizing our public schools. States and local communities are 
struggling right now to renovate existing schools. School construction 
and modernization is necessary for our kids in the 21st century.
  The average school in America right now, as Senator Robb said, is 42 
years old. Technology is placing new demands on our schools. As a 
result of increased use of technology, many schools must install new 
wiring, telephone lines, and electrical assistance. The demand for the 
Internet is at an all-time high, but in the Nation's poorest schools 
only 39 percent of classrooms have Internet access.
  In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report on 
our Nation's infrastructure. The report found many problems with a lot 
of our infrastructure, but the most startling finding was with respect 
to our Nation's public schools.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers reported that public schools 
are in worst condition than any other sector of our national 
infrastructure. This is an alarming fact. I ask unanimous consent that 
a copy of the American Society of Civil Engineers report card be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS--1998 REPORT CARD FOR AMERICA'S
                             INFRASTRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subject                  Grade              Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads.........................  D-              More than half (59
                                                 percent) of our
                                                 roadways are in poor,
                                                 mediocre or fair
                                                 condition. More than 70
                                                 percent of peak-hour
                                                 traffic occurs in
                                                 congested conditions.
                                                 It will cost $263
                                                 billion to eliminate
                                                 the backlog of needs
                                                 and maintain repair
                                                 levels, Another $94
                                                 billion is needed for
                                                 modest improvement--a
                                                 $357 billion total.
Bridges.......................  C-              Nearly one of every
                                                 three bridges (314
                                                 percent) is rated
                                                 structurally deficient
                                                 or functionally
                                                 obsolete. It will
                                                 require $80 billion to
                                                 eliminate the current
                                                 backlog of bridge
                                                 deficiencies and
                                                 maintain repair levels.
Mass Transit..................  C               Twenty percent of buses,
                                                 23 percent of rail
                                                 vehicles, and 38
                                                 percent of rural and
                                                 specialized vehicles
                                                 are in deficient
                                                 condition. Twenty-one
                                                 percent of rail track
                                                 requires improvement.
                                                 Forty-eight percent of
                                                 rail maintenance
                                                 buildings, 65 percent
                                                 of rail yards and 46
                                                 percent of signals and
                                                 communication equipment
                                                 are in fair or poor
                                                 condition. The
                                                 investment needed to
                                                 maintain conditions is
                                                 $39 billion. It would
                                                 take up to $72 billion
                                                 to improve conditions.
Aviation......................  C-              There are 22 airports
                                                 that are seriously
                                                 congested. Passenger
                                                 enplanements are
                                                 expected to climb 3.9
                                                 percent annually to
                                                 827.1 million in 2008.
                                                 At current capacity,
                                                 this growth will lead
                                                 to gridlock by 2004 or
                                                 2005. Estimates for
                                                 capital investment
                                                 needs range from $40-60
                                                 billion in the next
                                                 five years to meet
                                                 design requirements and
                                                 expand capacity to meet
                                                 demand.
Schools.......................  F               One-third of all schools
                                                 need extensive repair
                                                 or replacement. Nearly
                                                 60 percent of schools
                                                 have at least one major
                                                 building problem, and
                                                 more than half have
                                                 inadequate
                                                 environmental
                                                 conditions. Forty-six
                                                 percent lack basic
                                                 wiring to support
                                                 computer systems. It
                                                 will cost about $112
                                                 billion to repair,
                                                 renovate and modernize
                                                 our schools. Another
                                                 $60 billion in new
                                                 construction is needed
                                                 to accommodate the 3
                                                 million new students
                                                 expected in the next
                                                 decade.
Drinking Water................  D               More than 16,000
                                                 community water systems
                                                 (29 percent) did not
                                                 comply with the Safe
                                                 Drinking Water Act
                                                 standards in 1993. The
                                                 total infrastructure
                                                 need remains large--
                                                 $138.4 billion. More
                                                 than $76.8 billion of
                                                 that is needed right
                                                 now to protect public
                                                 health.
Wastewater....................  D+              Today, 60 percent of our
                                                 rivers and lakes are
                                                 fishable and swimmable.
                                                 There remain an
                                                 estimated 300,000 to
                                                 400,000 contaminated
                                                 groundwater sites.
                                                 America needs to invest
                                                 roughly $140 billion
                                                 over the next 20 years
                                                 in its wastewater
                                                 treatment systems. An
                                                 additional 2,000 plants
                                                 may be necessary by the
                                                 year 2016.
Dams..........................  D               There are 2,100
                                                 regulated dams that are
                                                 considered unsafe.
                                                 Every state has at
                                                 least one high-hazard
                                                 dam, which upon failure
                                                 would cause significant
                                                 loss of life and
                                                 property. There were
                                                 more than 200
                                                 documented dam failures
                                                 across the nation in
                                                 the past few years. It
                                                 would cost about $1
                                                 billion to rehabilitate
                                                 documented unsafe dams.
Solid Waste...................  C-              Total non-hazardous
                                                 municipal solid waste
                                                 will increase from 208
                                                 to 218 million tons
                                                 annually by the year
                                                 2000, even though the
                                                 per capita waste
                                                 generation rate will
                                                 decrease from 1,606 to
                                                 1,570 pounds per person
                                                 per year. Total
                                                 expenditures for
                                                 managing non-hazardous
                                                 municipal solid waste
                                                 in 1991 were $18
                                                 billion and are
                                                 expected to reach $75
                                                 billion by the year
                                                 2000.
Hazardous Waste...............  D-              More than 500 million
                                                 tons of municipal and
                                                 industrial hazardous
                                                 waste is generated in
                                                 the U.S. each year.
                                                 Since 1980, only 423
                                                 (32 percent) of the
                                                 1,200 Superfund sites
                                                 on the National
                                                 Priorities List have
                                                 been cleaned up. The
                                                 NPL is expected to grow
                                                 to 2,000 in the next
                                                 several years. The
                                                 price tag for Superfund
                                                 and related clean up
                                                 programs is an
                                                 estimated $750 billion
                                                 and could rise to $1
                                                 trillion over the next
                                                 30 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Infrastructure G.P.A. = D. Total Investment Needs = $1.3
  Trillion (estimated five-year need). Each category was evaluated on
  the basis of condition and performance, capacity vs. need, and funding
  vs. need.
A = Exceptional; B = Good; C = Mediocre; D = Poor; F = Inadequate.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, because of increasing enrollments and 
aging buildings, local and State expenditures for school construction 
have increased dramatically by 39 percent in the last several years. 
However, this increase has not been enough to address the needs.
  The National Education Association recently surveyed States about 
their need to modernize public schools and upgrade education 
technologies. According to their preliminary report, $254 billion is 
needed to modernize school facilities; $54 billion is needed to upgrade 
education technology. In my State of Iowa, for example, $3.4 billion is 
needed for school facilities and $540 million for education technology.
  It is a national disgrace that the nicest places our children see are 
shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and some of the most 
rundown places they see are their public schools. What kind of a signal 
does that send about the value we place on them, their education, and 
their future? How can we prepare our kids for the 21st century in 
schools that did not even make the grade in the 20th century?
  This amendment by Senator Robb provides a comprehensive two-pronged 
response: $1.3 billion each year to make grants and no-interest loans 
for emergency repairs to schools.
  The second part of this strategy is to underwrite the cost of 
building nearly $25 billion of new school facilities. This amendment 
provides the tax credits to subsidize the interest on new construction 
projects to modernize public schools.
  Last year, six Iowa school districts received grants to underwrite 
the cost of building new school facilities. Over and over, school 
officials said the availability of the Federal grant was responsible 
for convincing local citizens to support a school bond issue to finance 
the bulk of the project. Modern, up-to-date school buildings are 
essential for student achievement.
  Studies show students in overcrowded schools, or schools in poor 
fiscal condition, scored significantly lower on math and reading than 
their peers in less crowded conditions.
  This is a very serious national problem. In Iowa alone during the 
1990s, there were 100 fires in Iowa public schools. During the previous 
decade,

[[Page S2300]]

there were only 20. The wiring is getting old, schools are catching on 
fire, water pipes are bursting, and they do not have the new technology 
our students need.
  If there is one thing that cries out for our intervention on a 
national level, it is this issue: to upgrade and modernize our schools 
and to build new schools where needed. All one has to do is read 
Jonathan Kozol's book ``Savage Inequalities: Children in America's 
Schools'' to understand in this system of ours in America where schools 
are financed by local bond issues, that if you have an area with high-
income residents, high property values, you get pretty darn good 
schools. But go to areas where there are low-income people and low 
property values; that is where we find the poor schools.
  Yet a child educated in one of those poor schools does not stay in 
that local school district. That child moves to Iowa, California, 
Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere else and becomes a burden on all of 
society. That is why this cries out for a national solution.
  To hear my friends on the other side, they say leave it up to the 
local school districts and let them handle it. Sure, if you live in a 
rich school district, you are fine.
  But if you live in a poor area of America--rural or urban--you do not 
have the wherewithal to build those new schools and to get the wiring 
and the upgrading that you need.
  That is why it is a national problem. It requires a national 
solution. That is why I hope the Coverdell amendment will be defeated 
and that we could get to the underlying Robb amendment and let the kids 
of this country and their parents and their families know that this 
national effort is going to go forward to rebuild our schools.
  I compliment the Senator from Virginia for his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  The Senator from Virginia and I have an honorable disagreement about 
how the Federal Government ought to respond to being a better partner 
in education. But the one issue that I would take some exception to and 
would like to clarify is the question of whether this is designed to be 
a voucher. It is not a voucher. The good Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Torricelli, who vehemently does not support vouchers, is a coauthor 
because he does not view this as a voucher.
  I would not say that of the 70 percent of the families who would open 
an account who are in public schools, some family somewhere with that 
savings account might not make a change. But it would be statistically 
insignificant. If they did, I think it is a right that they should 
have.
  As the Senator from Virginia said, 90 percent-plus of our students 
are in public schools. I venture to say that 10 years from now, 90 
percent-plus of our students are still going to be in public schools.
  The proposal is not designed to be a disguise for vouchers. It never 
has been. As I said, 70 percent of the people who open these accounts 
are estimated to have children in public schools and 30 percent are in 
some other school.
  Of the $12 billion that will be saved and used for schools, it is 
divided about 50-50. In my view, that is because those families who 
have the child in the private school know they have a higher hurdle, 
that they have to pay the local school taxes and the tuition, so they 
tend to save more.
  It may not be persuasive to the Senator from Virginia, but I did want 
to make the point that I never viewed this, and I think generally 
speaking it has never been viewed, as a voucher.
  I yield the floor. When the Senator from Virginia concludes his 
remarks, I think we are both prepared to yield back time on this 
substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. I request, from the Senator from Nevada, 2 minutes from the 
resolution.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Virginia is given 2 minutes from the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia for the clarification. I did not 
suggest that this was a voucher. I suggested it was an end run around 
the difficulty in establishing vouchers. The fact is that three-
quarters of the benefits under the education IRA that the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia was able to pass through this body, which will be 
vetoed by the President of the United States, would go to people who 
are already enrolled in private schools. So it may not be a duck, but 
it certainly looks, talks, and walks like a duck.
  With respect to the need, I suggest to the Senator from Georgia--and 
I do this in a friendly spirit--looking at all of the schools and the 
current estimates, Georgia faces an $8.5 billion shortfall for school 
modernization, which includes $7.1 billion for infrastructure and $1.5 
billion for technology needs. There is projected a 26.5-percent 
increase in this shortfall in the decade ahead. Georgia would be among 
the States to benefit from this particular provision.
  But the bottom line is that we have a choice between a plan that we 
know the President would support and sign, which would provide some 
6,000 schools built or modernized and some 25,000 schools repaired, as 
opposed to the alternative, where we would have 198 schools built or 
modernized and none repaired.
  At the same time, we would be transferring funds that could be used 
to support public education that would be supporting private education. 
It is as simple as that. I ask our colleagues to reject the substitute 
and support the underlying amendment.
  With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, who has been 
working today with his staff to resolve our vote-athon later, to get 
rid of a lot of these amendments that are around, is yielded 5 minutes 
off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from Nevada.
  I commend the Senator from Virginia for his very thoughtful 
amendment. I listened carefully to what he had to say. Senator Robb has 
the respect of all of us, regardless on which side of the aisle your 
political initiation or interests fall.
  As he said, if it looks like and sounds like and talks like it, then 
we kind of know what it is. I think that is a proper characterization, 
in all fairness to the distinguished Senator from Georgia. If it is a 
tax-saving device that later can be used for contributions to private 
schools, it obviously is. If it is not a voucher, it sure enough 
resembles one so much that the disguise is more than penetrable.
  But I wish to talk about the Robb amendment. Senator Robb talks about 
the need to modernize our Nation's schools. Boy, I salute that. I am 
the product of public education. In fact, my parents barely could 
afford to send me to a free school.
  I have taken an interest in the community from which I came, 
Paterson, NJ. It is industrialized, one of the poorest cities in the 
State of New Jersey--in fact, one of the poorest cities in America in 
ranking.
  I looked at the situation with the schools there, schools that I 
attended. In particular, I looked at one school, a school that we 
called school No. 6, that I attended where they are barely able to keep 
plaster on the walls and keep the place in fit condition. I also went 
to high school in the same city for a while. Knowing my age, one 
recognizes how old those schools might be. The fact is, we both 
weathered storms, the schools and I, over a lot of years. But wear and 
tear shows.
  We look at these schools and see how inadequately prepared they are 
for contemporary times. We question what we ought to do there. Since I 
come out of the computer business, those are my roots. I am a member of 
something that probably is not noticeable on everybody's calendar, but 
I am a member of the Information Processing Hall of Fame, which is in 
Dallas, TX. My former colleague, Bill Bradley, was a Hall of Famer, but 
of a much more recognizable Hall of Fame, also a much more recognizable 
participant.
  But what I know is that unless we go to the Patersons of the country, 
unless

[[Page S2301]]

we go to the cities of the country that are in desperate need of 
improvements in the physical structure of their schools, we are going 
to find ourselves leaving out a significant portion of our population--
whether rural or urban.
  I do not mean to boast, but I personally made a contribution to a 
school in Paterson and stood there and pulled wires with people from 
the telephone company, who, on a voluntary basis, all pulled wires. And 
I paid for some small part of the installation of cable that would 
enable this school, if they ever got the equipment, to at least hook up 
to the Internet and the world outside their physical building.
  That is necessary. It is not that we are being good to these kids. We 
are being good to America. We have to have people who can learn, and we 
don't care what their background is. If they have the capacity to 
learn, we ought to give them the tools, as the most advanced country, 
the largest power in the world that has students who can learn but who 
don't always get the benefits of the proper tools for an education. 
That includes the simplest thing, not just pulling cable to hook them 
up to the Internet, but to make sure the buildings are sound enough to 
provide reasonable temperatures in the summer and the winter.
  Nothing is more discouraging to the learning process than to expect 
someone to function in a school that doesn't have the basic comforts. 
We have all heard the horror stories about sanitary facilities located 
floors away from where the classrooms are, where windows are broken, 
kids can be injured by falling plaster or, worse, even today, asbestos 
still used in the construction.
  I commend the Senator from Virginia for standing up for what is 
right. It is a small cost, when you think about it, as to what we might 
get in return on investment. Those of us who are in the business world 
do look at return on investment, and this is one really good one.
  I hope we are going to get by the partisan divide. We are worried 
about the digital divide, but we also have to worry about the partisan 
divide as we discuss the budget and its requirements. We have to kick 
this football. This is where the game starts, right here in the budget 
resolution. What we ought to do is have a good clean kickoff and make 
sure we do it right. I hope when the roll is taken, we defeat the 
Coverdell amendment and support the Robb amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time on the pending 
amendment? If neither side yields time on the amendment, it will be 
deducted equally from both sides.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on the Coverdell substitute, we are 
prepared to yield back our time. It is the understanding that the other 
side will do the same.
  Mr. REID. I yield back our time.


                Amendment No. 3013 to Amendment No. 2965

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need to 
                    reduce gun violence in America.)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Reed, for 
     himself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kohl, 
     Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, 
     Mr. Biden, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
     Bryan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. L. 
     Chafee, proposes an amendment numbered 3013 to Amendment No. 
     2965.

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

       At the end of the amendment add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NEED TO REDUCE GUN 
                   VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) On average, 12 children die from gun fire everyday in 
     America.
       (2) On May 20, 1999, the Senate passed the Violent and 
     Repeat Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act, by a 
     vote of 73 to 25, in part, to stem gun-related violence in 
     the United States.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in function 750 of this resolution assume 
     that Congress should--
       (1) pass the conference report to accompany H.R. 1501, the 
     Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and 
     Rehabilitation Act, including Senate-passed provisions, with 
     the purpose of limiting access to firearms by juveniles, 
     convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from 
     purchasing or possessing firearms; and
       (2) consider H.R. 1501 not later than April 20, 2000.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will take time now on the resolution to 
say this to the acting manager of the bill so the majority knows what 
we are doing. This matter has already been debated. The Senator from 
Rhode Island came earlier today and debated this amendment. Therefore, 
what we are going to do to use our half hour of time allotted under the 
second-degree amendment is time will be yielded to the Senator from 
Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, who also is going to, at a subsequent time, 
offer an amendment on the digital divide. Her half hour will be on the 
digital divide, not on the Reed amendment. You, of course, would have 
your half hour to speak about anything the majority cares to. I wanted 
to explain that to the majority.
  Mr. COVERDELL. You are essentially using your half hour to deal with 
the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. REID. On another amendment, that's right. Mr. President, under 
the resolution, that is what we are going to do. It should move this 
matter along. The Senator from Maryland--when she gets here--will 
speak.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a minute? I want to make sure 
I haven't inadvertently lost the floor.
  Mr. REID. Without losing my right to the floor, I say to the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, what we have here now is we have filed 
a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment. We have an hour of 
debate, which the Senator from Maryland is going to use at this time.
  Mr. STEVENS. A second degree to my pending amendment?
  Mr. REID. No, the Robb amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have a question. Did Senator Coverdell not offer a 
substitute to the Robb amendment?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we have offered a substitute and we 
yielded back time.
  Mr. REID. The same problem of this morning.
  I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Parliamentary inquiry to my Democratic whip: Am I 
offering my amendment now or only speaking on it?
  Mr. REID. We offered it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am ready to do it anyway. Thanks to you and the 
Democratic leadership, President Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, we are 
talking about a plan to cross the digital divide. A few minutes 
earlier, Senator Chuck Robb of Virginia spoke eloquently and 
persuasively about how we needed to deal with the problem of wiring 
schools in the United States. I absolutely support that Robb amendment 
because we have schools that are deteriorating, and they are in such 
bad shape we can't wire them for the Internet.
  While we are creating a new physical infrastructure for our schools, 
we also need to look to the future. We want to help our children by 
making sure that public education gets them ready for the new future 
and a new economy. This is why I believe very strongly that no child in 
the United States of America should ever face the digital divide.
  What is the digital divide? The divide is between those who have 
access to technology and who have access to learning and how to use the 
technology. If you are on the right side and have access to technology, 
and access to those who will teach you how to use it, both as a person 
and a community, you will feel very empowered and have a bright future. 
But if you are on the wrong side of the divide, where you don't have 
access to technology--Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am still disturbed, if the Senator will 
yield about the procedure.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Point of order: I call for regular order. The regular 
order is my amendment.

[[Page S2302]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this was an amendment in the second-degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has the floor. As 
long as she has the floor, no one else can call for regular order with 
respect to amendments.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have the floor. I in no way mean to 
have sharp elbows with the Senator from Alaska. I was only trying to 
get order to continue my presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is entitled to be heard.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If people want to argue about who has the floor, they 
can go off the floor and continue those arguments. Mr. President, I 
would like, if we are going to have exchanges----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will those who are having discussions in the 
right side of the well take their conversations off the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  What I was talking about was that if you have access to technology 
and access to those who can teach you technology, your future as a 
person, a community, and even our country, is bright. But if you are on 
the wrong side of the divide and don't have access to technology, and 
will never know how to learn to use technology, your future is quite 
dismal and, as a person, you could end up functionally obsolete in the 
United States of America.
  The Presiding Officer comes from the State of Washington, which is 
one of the most robust, high-tech States in the United States of 
America. He knows from his conversations with those tech tycoons that 
what we are facing in the United States of America is a workforce 
shortage of people who know how to use technology. Also, not only in 
the new ``dot-coms'' or the new ``dot-commers,'' what we also face is a 
skill shortage, even in the old economy.
  In my own hometown of Baltimore, where they make steel or build 
automobiles, we have gone from smokestacks to ``cyberstacks.'' Walk 
with me along the minivan plant in Baltimore or come with me in the 
steaming steelmills of Baltimore, and you will see steelworkers and 
automobile workers are now tech workers.
  I want to be sure that every person in the United States of America 
is ready for that new economy. That is why we want to emphasize K 
through 12. We will practice the basics from K through 12. We are going 
to ensure that no child is left out or left behind in this new economy. 
We want to practice in the budget the ABCs. We want to make sure there 
is universal access to technology in schools, libraries, and community 
centers. We want to practice the ``B'' which is the ``best'' trained 
teachers. We also want to practice a ``C'' called ``computer'' literacy 
for every child by the time they finish the eighth grade.

  Those are our national goals. That is what I hope we are able to do. 
But in order to do that, we have to put our resources with our national 
commitment.
  First of all, I truly believe that the Government cannot do this 
alone. That is why an amendment I will be offering later on will put 
aside $200 million in tax incentives to encourage public-private 
partnership.
  Why is this important? Because the Government can't do it alone. The 
private sector is already doing important, exciting work, and improving 
access to technology. But technology empowerment can't be limited to a 
few ZIP Codes, or recycled factories, where great work is being done in 
my own hometown. We need to encourage private sector donations of high-
quality technology, sponsorship of community centers, and the 
sponsorship of training. I have seen many examples in my own hometown.
  While we look forward to providing technology, one of the most 
important things is to make sure our teachers are trained. If our 
teachers are not trained, our technology could end up in closets and 
our children could be left not learning what they need to learn. The 
budget amendment calls for $600 million for teacher training.
  Everywhere I go, teachers tell me they want to help their students 
cross the digital divide. But they need the training to do this. 
Technology without training is a hollow opportunity.
  In my own home State of Maryland, the superintendent of public 
education established what we call a ``tech academy'' so that public 
schoolteachers could come from across the State to learn how to use 
this. Guess what. Six hundred teachers came and 400 had to be turned 
away. We now have an incredible waiting list.
  No teacher should have to stand in line to learn how to use 
technology so they can teach children how to use technology. This is 
why we want to make sure that young people coming up in our teacher 
schools learn technology. Those teachers who are the fourth grade 
reading specialists should know as much about technology as some 
computer whiz.
  In addition to that, our amendment provides access--$400 million--for 
school technology and school libraries, for hardware and software 
technology everywhere. We want to make sure our school libraries are 
high-tech media centers.
  Why is this important?
  In my own community, in some schools we have a ratio of one computer 
per five children.
  To the Senator from Georgia, I would note that in some of our private 
schools it will be mandated that every child come with a laptop.
  But I say to my colleague and others who are listening, if you are a 
poor child, it is more likely you live in a poor neighborhood. The poor 
neighborhood has poorer schools. They do not have technology in their 
classroom or a media center in their library.

  Please, in the United States of America, with all the money we are 
going to spend in this budget, let's put $400 million to be sure our 
schools and our libraries do have the hardware and software where they 
need it.
  Our children don't only learn in schools and in libraries, though 
those are crucial places. Many of them learn out in the community. This 
is why our amendment will provide $100 million to create 1,000 
community technology centers. Community leaders have told me that we 
need to bring technology to where the children learn. They don't learn 
only in schools; they learn in communities.
  I saw for myself what technology meant to a community center at a 
public housing project. The adults learned technology during the day 
and the children learned technology through structured afterschool 
activities sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs in the afternoon.
  In my own town of Baltimore, I spoke to the Urban League to see what 
they were doing to help get our children ready for the future. They 
told me they had to forage for funds, and there was not one Federal 
dollar available to help the Urban League help those children get ready 
for the future.
  Certainly, if we can spend $18,000 a year on one person in prison, we 
can spend the money to create 1,000 community centers to keep our 
children in school and get ready for the new economy.
  Mr. President, in addition to that, speaking of the Boys and Girls 
Clubs, we are including in our amendment Senator Biden's excellent 
proposal to provide $20 million to place computers and trained 
personnel in those Boys and Girls Clubs. What a tremendous opportunity.
  In April we are celebrating Boys and Girls Clubs Month. There are 
great alumni from the Boys and Girls Club. Michael Jordan is one; 
President Bill Clinton went to one when his mother worked as a nurse 
and the Boys and Girls Clubs was one of his afterschool activities. 
Boys and Girls Clubs have been training and helping young people stay 
on the right track for a number of years. We not only want to teach 
them about hoop dreams; we want to team them about technology. This is 
why this is so crucial.
  We will also provide $25 million to create an e-Corps within 
AmeriCorps. This will provide funds for 2,000 volunteers to teach 
technology in their schools and community centers.
  In addition, we want to make sure we provide private sector 
deployment of broadband networks in underserved urban and rural 
communities. We need these funds to build the super information highway 
with on and off ramps for all.
  I have in my State the Mountain Counties, a nice tourism word for 
Appalachia. With the old economy fading in coal mining and without the 
railroad jobs and so on, we are trying to

[[Page S2303]]

create a super information highway there. Guess what. If you are a 
constituent in Cumberland, your on and off ramp is in Pittsburgh. This 
makes service slow and unreliable. It slows down e-commerce and 
prevents new jobs from coming to an area that badly needs them. These 
funds will be used to help the private sector bring the super 
information highway to every corner.

  We need to test new ways to bring technology into the home, with 
innovative applications. We need to look out for Native Americans. We 
are living in a very exciting time. The opportunities are tremendous to 
use technology to improve our lives, to use technology to remove the 
barriers caused by income, race, ethnicity, or geography. If we can 
help every one of our children and make sure they cross this digital 
divide, this will be the most important legislation this United States 
can pass. It will be as important as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
Technology is the tool, but empowerment is the outcome.
  It could mean, through the work we do here, the death of distance as 
a barrier for economic development. But it also could mean the death of 
discrimination because poor children and children of color would be 
able to leapfrog into the future.
  My amendment takes the Federal dollars and makes public investments 
in our schools, our community-based organizations, our libraries, our 
teachers, and, most of all, our children. At the right time, I will be 
offering my amendment. That is, indeed, a brief summary of this 
amendment.
  Obviously, this isn't the most compelling thing on Senators' minds, 
and it is disappointing I have had to speak in an environment where 
everybody else's conversation was more important than the person 
speaking. That is OK because deep down I know America is listening. 
Deep down, I know this is a very important coalition issue. It brings 
people together of all different geographies, rural and urban, whether 
poor white or a child from a family of African, Latino, or Native 
American background. It also means if you are disabled, you will be 
able to learn the tools needed to ensure, though you might have a 
physical disability, you will not have barriers.
  This amendment is about hope. This amendment is about opportunity. 
This amendment is about one more rung on the opportunity ladder of the 
United States of America. I think it has broad-based appeal on a 
bipartisan basis. I hope when the time comes to offer my amendment and 
when we have a rollcall vote, the men and women of the Senate will vote 
to ensure that our children can have a future and many children can 
leapfrog into the future, leaving behind the legacies of poverty.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National 
Digital Empowerment Amendment to be offered by my colleague, Senator 
Mikulski. Let me begin by expressing my deep thanks to Senator Mikulski 
for her leadership in the Senate in crafting this initiative. And I 
should mention that she has not only worked with her Senate colleagues 
on this, but has reached across to the House of Representatives, 
joining with the members of the Congressional Black and Hispanic 
Caucuses, to ensure that it addresses the digital divide in a 
comprehensive and extensive way. She has also sought out the opinions 
of parents, teachers, children, business people and working people all 
across our State and the Nation to ensure that every community can reap 
the benefits of technology.
  Moreover, I am pleased that members of the technology sector of our 
economy are participating so fully and have played such a key role in 
helping to develop this initiative. With the technological giants 
joining us in this effort, we are off to a great start in helping to 
ensure that every man, woman and child in our country will have the 
opportunity to access the Internet.
  I believe we have a tremendous opportunity right now, with our 
economic prosperity, to begin closing this digital divide. We have the 
lowest unemployment rate and the lowest inflation rate in our country 
in more than 30 years. In our African-American and Hispanic 
communities, unemployment has fallen to some of the lowest levels in 
history.
  And to help sustain this economic recovery, we must provide the tools 
to enable our people to obtain the skills necessary to compete in a 
global economy--an economy that is growing by leaps and bounds in part 
due to the technology sector and the opportunities it presents.
  We are the world's leader of this technological revolution and our 
children are on the cusp of enjoying the full benefits of what it has 
to offer. In order to assist them in this endeavor, we must move 
forward to empowering each and every community with the technological 
skills and resources it requires. We can take a major step in this 
regard by passing this legislation--America's future deserves no less. 
So I lend my strong support to this amendment and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on amendment No. 3013 of the Senator 
from Rhode Island, Mr. Reid. It is a second-degree perfecting amendment 
to the Robb amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. It was my intention to delay debate on my amendment 
until the Robb amendment and the second-degree amendment were finished. 
As I understand it, a substitute was filed rather than a second-degree. 
I am not sure that process is over. I want to keep our commitment. I 
apologize to the Senator from Maryland; I thought that was over when I 
came to the floor.
  I am prepared to allow my good friend from Georgia to complete this 
process, if that is the desire of the Senate. We will get to my 
amendment when this amendment is disposed of.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska, and the manager of the 
bill, we are still on the Robb amendment. We have whatever time is left 
on our side.
  We have one more speaker on our side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I understand there was confusion. I was yielded 30 
minutes, and I have consumed 16 minutes. I yield my 14 minutes back to 
the Democratic whip to use such time as he deems appropriate.
  Mr. REID. We have no more amendments to offer on this particular 
measure. Does the majority wish to spend more time on this amendment?
  Mr. COVERDELL. We have 30 minutes allotted on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In answer to the question of the Senator from Nevada, 
yes, we have several speakers on the amendment and will probably use 
the majority of the 30 minutes on our side.
  Mr. REID. We don't appear to have any speakers.
  There was no attempt--and I explained this in detail to the Senator 
from New Mexico--to do anything other than complete the work on the 
Robb amendment.
  There are a lot of people I might try to take advantage of, but one 
of them is not the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I was misinformed. 
I apologize to the Senator.
  I want to make certain when the time comes, we get to the floor as 
intended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Reed amendment?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry. Under this circumstance, the time is 
being equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, it is equally divided.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, unless the majority is ready to proceed, we 
have a Senator to speak, and I can yield him some time off the 
resolution. But if the Senator from Idaho is ready to proceed?
  Mr. COVERDELL. We are. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes of our 
time to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask a question of the Senator 
who has been managing? How much time does he have on his amendment?
  Mr. COVERDELL. The full 30 minutes, well, minus--what is it, 25 
minutes?

[[Page S2304]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to be brief, but I think it is 
important to respond for the record because we have had a Senator stand 
up and suggest we ought to instruct the judiciary committees that are 
in conference now over juvenile justice--and he is doing it based on 
guns and guns alone. So for a few moments let me talk about what is in 
the juvenile justice bill that has been covered up by the debate that 
has produced no results for this country and, most importantly, should 
not.
  I know the Senator has not talked about the alcohol prevention for 
minors that is in the bill or the cultural violence issues or the gangs 
or the juvenile Brady bill and the gun safety provisions that were 
already in a bill before Columbine and before Senators came to the 
floor and began to muck up the process of a very well thought out 
juvenile crime bill. There are provisions for juvenile offenders to 
allow the U.S. attorney to prosecute juveniles as adults for violent 
felonies and serious drug offenses. It treats Federal delinquency 
records for serious crimes such as murder and rape and armed robbery 
and assault similar to records of adults and other offenders.
  Why are we stymied? Why has the Congress not rushed to judgment on 
gun laws? More gun laws--adding more to the 35,000 gun laws that are 
already on the books of America's cities, counties, State, and Federal 
Government. Let me tell you why.
  In a recent poll by Zogby, recognized by most as a very creditable 
pollster, here was the question asked of the American citizens: Which 
of the following is the best way to solve the gun violence in America? 
Mr. President, 52 percent said prosecuting criminals who use a gun in 
the commission of a crime--well over a majority of the American people 
are saying no more laws; Attorney General Janet Reno, go after the 
criminal who misuses his or her rights under the Constitution.

  Then 15 percent said having parents and schools teach self-control. 
Now we are up to 67 percent of the American people who, when asked the 
question, are saying: Don't pass more laws; enforce the ones you have. 
Work on the cultural problems that America has. Only 2 percent of the 
American people say Congress should legislate more gun laws--only 2 
percent.
  So when the Senator from California brought this amendment to the 
floor some time ago, and it was defeated, that was the reason it was 
defeated. Now the Senator from Connecticut comes forward with the 
identical amendment and is going to ask the Senate to repeat the 
action. A political ``gotcha'' is what they think it is.
  America is very aware of what we are doing here. It is not what we 
are not doing here. They know we are not passing more gun laws. They 
know the reason is because that does not work. Only 2 percent of the 
American public are willing to suggest that somehow the Congress can 
miraculously change the culture of our society or the violence in 
America. The juvenile justice bill itself, absent what was put on it by 
this Senate, will go a great deal further in curbing juvenile crime 
than anything else.
  The Senate will vote its will on this issue, and it should. That is 
appropriate. But it will not be voting the will of America, an America 
that is saying to this Justice Department: Get busy and enforce the 
law; saying to the parents of school-age children of America: Get 
involved in the lives of your children. Work with them in developing 
self-control. Work with your schools and your communities. That is not 
passing a law. That is changing your schedule as a parent. That is 
taking time out of your busy lives to get involved with your kids.
  That was the tragedy of Columbine and that is the tragedy of America 
today. Somehow we have become so busy we cannot give our children time. 
When violence erupts in America as a result of a juvenile offender and 
a misdirected child, we run to the Congress of the United States and 
say: Fix it.
  We cannot fix these kinds of things, and the American people innately 
know it. That is why they so clearly said to the Senator from 
California or to the Senator from Connecticut or to other Senators: 
Stacking up laws and stacking up law books does not a safer world make. 
That is why the Senate has rejected it. That is why the House has 
rejected it. That is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
gain absolutely no value and political traction on this issue--because 
the American people have it figured out.
  I am not surprised. The American people are collectively much 
brighter than most of us. I ask the Senate to reject this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from California for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader 
for this time. I came to talk about the Mikulski amendment, which I was 
honored to carry for her in the Budget Committee. But I also feel the 
need to respond to my friend from Idaho, who is an eloquent voice for 
the status quo when it comes to gun violence.
  The Senate did act, the Senate did act on five sensible gun laws. The 
fact is, we should be pushing for them because over his opposition we 
did pass those laws and they are stuck in the conference committee. The 
Reid amendment would simply call on the conference committee to do its 
work and report these laws out so we can turn around the tragedy that 
is meeting too many families, too many children.
  I heard a statistic the other day: 75 percent of all gun murders of 
children in the world occur in the United States of America, the land 
of the free and the home of the brave. It does not matter how brave a 
child is. Twelve a day are killed. I say to my friend from Rhode 
Island, I appreciate him offering his amendment.
  Also, I say to the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, I was honored 
to offer a very similar amendment in the Budget Committee. The good 
news is that amendment was adopted unanimously, and Chairman Domenici 
accepted it. The difference between Senator Mikulski's amendment, which 
I cosponsor with her, and the one in the committee is that this one has 
solid numbers behind it. The amendment in the committee was a general 
vow of support from the Budget Committee to bridge that digital divide. 
We offer in this amendment a comprehensive approach to building human 
capital and physical infrastructure that is needed for sustained 
success in this century.
  I want to make two points about the great need we face for our 
children. We have a public education system in this Nation that is 
essentially a great equalizer. It gives all children a chance to grow 
up and be what they want to be, in my case a Senator. I want to see 
that occur for all of our children. It will not occur if they do not 
have access to computers and teachers who understand how to use the 
computers.
  I come from a State that boasts Silicon Valley. In Los Angeles, we 
have a similar high-tech area. In San Diego, we have a magnificent 
high-tech area, and it is moving all over our State. Those companies 
have to go to foreign countries to get human capital. People are being 
offered very high salaries to come to America. Therefore, we must train 
our young people or all those good jobs will not go to Americans, and 
that will be a very sad situation, indeed.
  The last point I will make is that if you have young children or if 
you have grandchildren--and I am fortunate to have a grandchild--you 
can see that 2- and 3-year-olds find their way on computers. A lasting 
memory I have of my grandson is at the age of 2\1/2\, with his thumb 
stuck in his mouth, his blanket hanging down, and the other hand on the 
mouse figuring out how to use the computer. Now he is 5. I hate to 
admit it, but he understands computers probably as well as I do. At 
least when the computer freezes up, he figures out a way to make it 
work.
  If children are gravitating in that direction and they can understand 
at that age--because their brain capacity is expanding at amazing rates 
at age 3, 4, and 5--we have to make sure our families can give them 
this opportunity. It is the right thing to do for them. It is the right 
thing to do for our education system. It is the right thing to do for 
our Nation.
  The Mikulski-Boxer amendment, which is supported by many others too

[[Page S2305]]

numerous to mention, is so important. Since we can look back at the 
budget vote and see that a similar amendment was, in fact, adopted 
across the board by the committee in a bipartisan vote, this is the 
logical next step--to put the numbers behind the idea that every single 
child in America should come on board this information age and do well 
in school, do well in the family, and do well in a future career.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my assistant minority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield up to 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia and welcome the opportunity to share a few remarks about 
violence in America and what we can do to make our streets and 
communities safer and, specifically, what we ought to do about firearms 
in America.
  Over half the homes in America have a gun. It is a traditional part 
of American life, and it will always be. It is protected by the second 
amendment to the Constitution. It provides the right to keep and bear 
arms. That is a tradition and a legal right given to the American 
people, unless it is taken away by an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States.
  However, even though we have firearms, firearms are dangerous and 
they should not be in the hands of people who are dangerous.
  We have a string of laws that help us deal with that, laws that I 
used to enforce for 15 years as a Federal prosecutor, and 12 years as 
U.S. attorney. We had a project under President Bush called Project 
Triggerlock, which he promoted and I promoted in my district. I sent 
out a newsletter to every sheriff and every chief of police telling 
them that we were willing and able to use tough Federal firearms 
legislation to help them crack down on crime where firearms were used; 
that we would prosecute people who had been convicted of a felony who 
possessed a firearm; that we would, indeed, prosecute them aggressively 
if they wanted to bring those cases to the Federal prosecutors. We 
increased those prosecutions substantially. I believe that helped 
reduce crime. I believe it helped make our communities safer.
  Years went by and President Clinton took office. I expected, since he 
talked so much about illegal guns and stopping guns--they talk about 
this inanimate object, a metal firearm as if it is an evil force, when, 
obviously, the person behind it is the one who causes the trouble. I 
thought we would see a further step-up of the prosecution of laws.
  As one can see from the chart behind me, exactly the opposite 
occurred. It is astounding to me. I left office in 1992, and under 
President Bush's administration, there were 7,048 prosecutions of 
criminals for illegal use of guns under existing laws then, and we have 
more laws today than we had then. Look what happened. They steadfastly 
set about to reduce those gun prosecutions to 3,807 in 1998. I find 
that astounding.
  I came to this body 3 years ago. I know how to pull out the 
Department of Justice statistics book. I used it every day as a Federal 
prosecutor. I could see how my district was doing and other districts 
were doing. I looked at the numbers. It was stunning to me.
  In the last 3 years I have been here, I do not believe I have missed 
one opportunity to call those numbers to the attention of the Attorney 
General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United 
States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, or the 
Chief of the Criminal Division. It has been 10, 15, or more times. Most 
of the time I have had this very chart with me.
  I said: I am astounded.
  They said: The States are prosecuting more cases, and we are trying 
to go after big gun cases.
  Fundamentally, the numbers went down. The intensity of the effort 
went down.
  Then an experiment occurred. The U.S. attorney in Richmond, VA, 
appointed by President Clinton, got with the chief of police in 
Richmond, who is a young, aggressive African American, to do something 
about gun violence in Richmond. So they attempted to do what we called 
Project Triggerlock. They called it Triggerlock with Steroids. They 
prosecuted the types of cases we were doing, and they ran TV 
advertisements and announcements. They thought the combination would 
help.
  They credited their efforts in Richmond, VA--President Clinton's own 
appointee--with a 30-percent reduction in the number of deaths and 
murders in Richmond, VA--40 percent. It may be more than that over 2 
years, but 30 percent was the number they testified to in a hearing I 
held.
  Oddly enough, the day before the hearing, which was going to be on a 
Monday, the President, the Department of Justice, and Janet Reno tried 
their best to put off the hearing. They did not want to go into these 
numbers. They did not want to talk about them. Finally we said: We are 
going to have this hearing; we have been talking about it for years.
  So we set it and went forward. Then that Saturday before the hearing 
was to be held, President Clinton dedicated his national radio address 
to Project Exile in Richmond and bragged about how good it was. He said 
in that radio address: I am directing the Attorney General of the 
United States and the Secretary of the Treasury--which has the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that does most of the 
investigations--to step up their prosecution of criminals with guns.
  A month or so later, the Attorney General came before the committee 
on another matter, and I asked her about it. She apparently had not 
done anything about it. I remember asking her: How did she get the 
message from the President? Did she have to turn on the radio or did he 
send it to her in writing? He said it on the radio: I am directing you 
to enhance these prosecutions. He should; but it has not been done.
  A lot of other laws have been passed in recent years that are 
supposed to work. I am telling you about the 7,000 prosecutions of 
felons who were in the possession of a gun during the commission of a 
crime, the 7,000 prosecutions of felons, in the possession of automatic 
weapons, lying on their forms when they applied to buy one, and that 
sort of thing. That is the bread and butter of prosecuting gun cases. 
That is the meat and potatoes of it. We passed a lot of other laws.
  They want to pass another law to go even further than what this 
Congress has passed to restrict the sale of guns at a gun show saying 
it is going to affect crime in America. That is absolutely bogus. That 
is baloney. That is politics.
  We tried to reach a reasonable agreement, but I am not going to vote 
for some sort of restriction on gun shows that says to people who have 
been doing this for 50 years that they have to wait 3 days before they 
can sell a gun. By then the show is closed and has gone back to a State 
somewhere far away. That is not necessary.
  We have tried to reach an accord with the White House on that. They 
do not want an accord. They think they can get a political issue.
  Let me show you what I am talking about, what is really important on 
guns.
  They passed a law called 922(q), title 18, involving the possession 
of firearms on school grounds. That was a few years ago before I came 
to the Senate. It was not too many years ago.
  In 1997, they had five prosecutions in the whole United States. In 
1998, they had eight prosecutions in the whole United States. They 
passed a law that it is unlawful to transfer firearms to juveniles. I 
support that law. I support the one on the possession of firearms on 
school grounds, too. But, look, in 1997, they prosecuted five of those 
cases; and in 1998, six of those cases.
  Another law deals with the possession or transfer of a semiautomatic 
weapon; that is, the assault weapons. You remember we had to have this 
assault weapon ban. It was worthy of debate.
  An assault weapon looks like a military M-16, an AK-47, but it really 
is not. The assault weapons are semiautomatic, not fully automatic as 
are the military weapons. If it is fully automatic, if it is a machine 
gun, an automatic weapon, it has been illegal since the days of Al 
Capone. I do not believe I have ever failed to prosecute a case in

[[Page S2306]]

Alabama when a person had an automatic weapon, a machine gun.
  We did not need these new laws to prosecute that. But if they had a 
weapon that looked like an M-16, they wanted to make it illegal, even 
though it fired one shot. That was eventually done. That was going to 
stop crime in America. Right?
  In 1997, there were four prosecutions; in 1998, there were four 
prosecutions.
  Look, we want to reduce crime in America. We want to reduce the 
incidence of illegal weapons. Children do not need to be playing with 
weapons. Everybody who has a weapon in their home needs to keep that 
weapon locked up.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield another 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we want to do the right thing. But there 
is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms in this country. How 
far do we want to go? These laws that are not being enforced, does that 
suggest this administration is guilty of hypocrisy?
  They said this was so important, that we had to pass it, and we were 
going to enforce these laws. But their prosecutions have plummeted 
under the administration.
  I say to the people of America, and the Members of this Senate, if we 
replicated, throughout this country, Project Exile in Richmond, and if 
it were carried out under existing laws, that all these laws and those 
gun laws were enforced steadfastly--if criminals who are using guns are 
given enhanced sentences, as Federal law requires; if you carry a 
firearm during a drug deal, you must receive 5 years without parole 
consecutive to any sentence you receive for the drug offense--the word 
starts getting out.
  It did in Mobile, AL, where I prosecuted. Drug dealers quit carrying 
guns because if they carried a gun, they would be taken to Federal 
court, and when they were prosecuted, they would be sentenced and sent 
off, in exile, to some Federal prison way out of the State.
  It does work. It worked in Richmond. That is what we need to do. We 
need to be skeptical of the news media that always judges whether or 
not somebody is against gun violence by whether they vote for every 
bill the Clinton administration proposes. If you do not vote for every 
bill they propose, then you are for gun violence.
  I was a prosecutor. I prosecuted a lot more cases, firearms cases, 
than the Clinton administration did and my brother U.S. attorneys did. 
So that offends me. I do not believe it is right.
  This amendment that has been proposed, this sense of the Senate, is 
just a political deal. I worked hard with Senator Hatch, and others on 
the Judiciary Committee, to pass a juvenile crime bill that I believe 
will work to reduce crime in America. It has some gun amendments on it 
that restrict gun use in America. It makes it a felony to sell one of 
these assault weapons to a young person. And there are other offenses 
we added to that. But they are not going to really affect crime in 
America, frankly. Certainly, they will not if they do not get enforced.
  I suggest that what we need to do is to enforce the laws we have. I 
know Mr. Wayne LaPierre, the executive director of the National Rifle 
Association, made the comment that the President wanted violence in 
America, and that is why he would not enforce these laws. He got so mad 
about it, he said he thought it was deliberate. I do not agree with 
that.
  But I will say to you right now what I said in the hearings before my 
committee: There have been good and decent people all over America who 
are dead today because this administration will not enforce and carry 
out a proven program such as Project Exile in Richmond, VA, to target 
criminals who are using guns to kill people.
  They claim they have had a 30-percent reduction in murder in 
Richmond. Think what would happen if every city in America could 
achieve that by carrying out such a program. It could be done if the 
Attorney General would direct it, if the President would insist on it, 
and we would get about that business--instead of just talking about 
guns, talking about some new esoteric law, some wording in some 
transaction at a gun show, as if that is going to make a difference.
  Trust me. I have been there. I prosecuted these cases. I care about 
this issue. I believe we need to quit playing politics. We need to pass 
that juvenile crime bill. It is a good bill. It is being held up 
because we will not go as far as the President wants to go on gun show 
legislation. The House voted it down substantially, with some 
Democratic opposition. We need to get that legislation passed, quit 
playing politics with this issue, and get on with the business of the 
Senate.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, from the resolution, I yield 5 minutes to 
the Senator from Rhode Island, the sponsor of the legislation which is 
the subject matter of this discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  My resolution is very clear. It asks that the conferees return the 
report back to us on the juvenile justice bill so we can vote up or 
down on the measures we passed on May 20 of last year, in response to 
Columbine, which provide for safety locks on handguns, ban large clips 
for automatic weapons, and would also close the gun show loophole. All 
of these measures are supported by an extraordinary majority of 
Americans.
  Nearly 90 percent of Americans favor requiring child safety locks on 
all new handguns, including 85 percent of the gun owners who were 
surveyed. In addition, 89 percent also favor background checks on all 
sales at gun shows. This is what the American people want. It is not 
what the gun lobby wants. That is why we have waited 1 year, not in 
principles compromise and debate but essentially trying to strangle 
this measure we passed so that it won't come back to the floor.
  There has been one meeting of the conferees, which is just trying to 
kill it off by indifference, hoping we will forget about Columbine, 
that we will forget about the violence that is plaguing the country.
  Anyone who is suggesting that these measures are designed to end 
crime in America is being slightly hyperbolic. What it might do is 
prevent those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of deaths a year by handguns 
through accidents, through suicides, through the mishandling of 
weapons. That in itself will be a great achievement.
  I had the opportunity this morning to talk about some of the 
incidents involving children, young people, who might have been 
deterred, not from criminal activity but gun accidents, gun violence. I 
was particularly shocked in my home community of Providence by a bunch 
of young people, 16-, 17-year-olds, horsing around, getting into a 
little bit of an ego contest. What happened? They were in a place 
where, when they turned around, somebody in the crowd had a gun. Not 
the two young people wrestling but somebody had a gun. They got the 
weapon. One person, out of a sense of just total irrationality, fired, 
hitting the other young man in the head, critically wounding the young 
man, and was so distraught by remorse for what he had done that he ran 
into a backyard and killed himself.
  That is what we are talking about in terms of gun violence. There is 
no law that would prevent that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REED. I would like to finish my remarks.
  We can do much more, and we should do much more. I have heard people 
say all weapons should be secured in the home, if they are stored 
there. The child safety lock will ensure that takes place.
  On the gun show loophole, the GAO has done a report that suggested, 
under the Brady instant check, 73 percent of these background checks 
are finished almost immediately, conducted almost simultaneously with 
the request, that 95 percent of all checks are completed within 2 
hours. It is only those checks that raise serious questions that go 
beyond 2 hours, which will in no way interfere with the operation of a 
gun show. It is in those checks where the most likely violations occur 
in terms of getting a weapon which you should not have. In fact, 
those people are 20 times more likely to be unable to acquire a weapon.

[[Page S2307]]

  In the nature of a gun show, many of the dealers at gun shows are 
licensed gun dealers. They are subject to the Brady law. They have to 
do the background check. We can't abandon reason when we come to the 
floor. If you are looking for a weapon and you know you are going to 
face a Brady check when you go to a gun show, where are you going to 
go? You will go not to the licensed gun dealer but someone who is 
selling guns and doesn't have to do a background check. Then you will 
hope, if any check is done, it will be done so arbitrarily that you 
won't be caught. That is what the statistics show in the GAO report.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield on one point?
  Mr. REED. I would like to finish. My colleagues want to speak on 
other matters. Let me say something about this mantra about 
enforcement: You just have to enforce the laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. REED. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. REID. Two minutes under the resolution.
  Mr. REED. The NRA, the gun lobby, talks about enforcement. They have 
persistently, over decades, frustrated real enforcement. For 10 years 
they refused to support the Brady bill and told their members it would 
effectively destroy the right to bear arms in America, resulting in 
total, strict gun control on all Americans.
  With respect to the operation of inspections, in 1986 the McClure-
Volkmer Act was supported strongly by the NRA--$1.5 million of lobbying 
activity. That legislation limits ATF's ability to conduct unannounced 
inspections. If you want to enforce the law, that is fine. Then why 
does the gun lobby go ahead and try to constrain the law so that we 
can't effectively enforce laws that are on the books already? If you 
look at the number of ATF agents, it has declined. Fortunately, they 
have increased over the last year. As a result, we have more 
prosecutions, more referrals.
  The Wall Street Journal suggests, based upon evidence from a Chicago 
investigation:

       While firearm-rights enthusiasts argue that there are 
     enough gun laws on the books, and the problem is merely lax 
     enforcement, the Chicago case illustrates that in some areas, 
     the gun laws have holes and enforcement is harder than one 
     might think.

  That is the Wall Street Journal, not some radical newspaper in this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to yield time now to Senator 
Graham of Florida. Senator Graham and some of his colleagues--Senator 
Bayh, Senator Edwards, Senator Landrieu--have a very important 
education amendment they have been waiting to offer. They will not be 
able to offer it now, but they will offer it at some subsequent time. 
The 25 minutes remaining under this amendment are going to be divided 
among them to speak on this very important education amendment. I yield 
5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a Senator who wants to speak on 
the actual amendment itself, Mr. Hatch.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to wait for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. We have other people to speak. We will hear from Senator 
Graham and then go to you. How much time do you wish to take?
  Mr. HATCH. How much time do we have left on this side?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do we have 6 minutes remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield Senator Hatch 4 minutes of that.
  Mr. REID. Senator Graham is going to speak for 5 minutes, and then 
Senator Hatch is going to speak on the Reed amendment. Then we will go 
back to the other individuals.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment, which is 
described as Graham amendment No. 1, in which I am joined by Senators 
Lieberman, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Breaux, Robb, and Edwards, which 
relates to a new approach to the Federal role in primary and secondary 
education.
  This is the first major legislative initiative of the Senate New 
Democrats. We are a group of Democrats who feel passionately about the 
importance of a partnership between the Federal Government and the 
State and local school districts for the benefit of our children, but 
we feel pragmatic as to the means by which we can achieve that 
appropriate partnership.
  We are going to advocate that that partnership has several 
fundamental principles. One of those is accountability for student 
results. A second is additional resources.
  If I could put it in a common form, we believe you will not make the 
cow bigger by just weighing the cow every day; that you have to provide 
the resources in order to be able to achieve the goals, the high goals, 
and to meet the accountability standards we believe are necessary to 
set for our children in order to achieve our national objectives.
  We also are believers in the principle of greater flexibility at the 
State and local levels; that our Federal programs should be more 
focused and concentrated. We believe the primary focus of Federal 
programs should be on the children in the greatest need, the at-risk 
children, the children who too often fall through the cracks of current 
American education.
  Individual members of our group will speak to the various principles 
of this legislation. I want to use the remainder of my time to talk 
about the issue of accountability because, in my opinion, that is a 
central and fundamental issue. It is a word that has many different 
meanings. Some people define accountability in the context of an 
accountant--that accountability is to be certain you have properly 
accounted for all of those things that were input into the education 
system; that you have the appropriate number of books in the school 
library, as an example. We believe those are important.
  We do not believe that is the accountability the Federal Government 
should be looking for from States and local school districts. We also 
do not believe that accountability is accountability for student 
performance alone. We recognize that student performance is heavily 
influenced by many factors, particularly the socioeconomic 
circumstances of the family of the student. The challenge, rather, is 
an accountability that focuses on those aspects of the experience in 
the school and the classroom that has contributed to the students' 
educational growth and development.
  So we will be attempting to present an accountability that is school 
based, school focused, but is determined by how much educational value 
the school experience has added to the students' progress.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion 
article that appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat entitled ``Bush Plan 
Grades Students Poverty Levels,'' as illustration of these different 
approaches to the concept of accountability.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Tallahassee Democrat, Aug. 16, 1999]

                Bush Plan Grades Students Poverty Levels

                         (By Walter Tschinkel)

       The Bush administration and the legislature, after months 
     of lobbying, wrangling, dealing and agonizing, has given us 
     the 
     A+ Plan with its school accountability 
     report (www.firn.edu/doe/schoolgrades/account.htm). Upon 
     analysis, it turns out to be merely an elaborate and 
     expensive way to grade schools on the poverty or affluence of 
     their students.
       The Bush/Brogan report assigns each school a grade 
     primarily on its raw, overall standardized test scores. 
     Because standardized test performance is reliably predicted 
     by poverty, the poverty-level of a school is by far the 
     strongest predictor of that school's grade from the governor. 
     In fact, if you tell me the percent of a school's students 
     who are on supported lunch (an indicator of low family 
     income). I will tell you its Bush/Brogan grade with 80 
     percent accuracy.
       If you think I'm bluffing, let me show you that it's true. 
     Let us simply classify schools by their affluence/poverty 
     makeup--very affluent, moderately affluent, moderately poor, 
     very poor--with the most affluent schools get an A, the next 
     group getting a B, and so on. The table shows how closely the 
     grades based on poverty correspond to those assigned by the 
     Bush/Brogan School Accountability Report. Simply by 
     considering

[[Page S2308]]

     school/affluence/poverty, we are able to assign the same 
     grade as the Bush/Brogan `performance-based' system with 26 
     out of 33 schools in Leon County. And we did this without 
     looking at a single test score.


                 scores don't tell us about performance

       Is this a fair, or even a sensible, way to grade our 
     schools? Only if you think poverty should be punished. Does 
     the Bush/Brogan grade tell us anything new about a schools' 
     educational performance? Of course it does not. It tells us 
     what proportion of the student body comes from poor families.
       It is not my purpose to dwell on the poverty-performance 
     link. But no school grading system that does not take this 
     socioeconomic factor into account is useful in telling us how 
     well our schools are really doing. Would it not be much 
     fairer to adjust school performance for poverty before 
     grading them?
       I think it would, and hereby offer the Prof. Walter's 
     Level-Playing-Field School-Grading System as an alternative 
     to the Bush/Brogan School Accountability Report.
       We begin with a so-called regression analysis of the school 
     performance data (three standardized tests) against the 
     poverty level of the student body. This statistical method 
     shows about 80 percent of the test scores are predicted by 
     the poverty level of the student body. I detailed this 
     relationship in a March 14 My View column (also found on my 
     website at www.fsu.edu/biology/faculty/wrt.html). For every 
     percent that poverty increases, the school's scores drop by 
     an average of 1.6 points. The most affluent schools, those 
     with fewer than 15 percent poor students, have scores higher 
     than 230, while the poorest, with more than 75 percent poor 
     students, have scores below 120, less than about half those 
     of the most affluent schools. Next, we take the difference 
     between each school's actual test scores and the test score 
     predicted by the regression for a school of that 
     socioeconomic condition. These differences tell us how much 
     better or worse than average a school tested, given its 
     particular level of poverty. By doing this, we have removed 
     the effect of poverty on test scores. The result is that the 
     maximum difference in test scores has shrunk from 175 points 
     to only about 70 (the lost 105 points are the effect of 
     poverty). Differences less than zero indicate that (with 
     poverty effects removed) a school did less well than average; 
     above zero indicate that it did better than average.
       My scale assigns letter grades as follows: above 25 gets an 
     A; between 5 and 25 gets a B; between -20 and 5 gets a C; 
     between -35 and -20 gets a D; anything below -35 gets an F. 
     The table below lists our elementary and middle schools in 
     the order of the grades assigned by the Bush/Brogan Plan.
       When graded according to the Level-Field system, we can 
     recognize that schools like Riley, Hartsfield, and Woodville 
     are doing relatively well compared to other schools of 
     similar socioeconomic makeup. My system recognizes this and 
     rewards them with A's and B's instead of the C's and D's 
     assigned by the Bush/Brogan system.
       On the other hand, my system also shows that schools like 
     Swift Creek, Buck Lake and Griffin do not deserve their Bush/
     Brogan A's because they are only average as compared to other 
     schools of similar socioeconomic makeup. Hence, the Level-
     Field system assigns them a C, because the Level-Field system 
     does not reward schools for being lucky enough to be teaching 
     mostly affluent students.
       The case of Griffin highlights another flaw of the Bush/
     Brogan plan. Giffin received an A, not because of its 
     terrific performance on standardized tests, but because (1) 
     the percent of long absences or suspensions was below state 
     averages; (2) greater than 95 percent of the student body was 
     tested; (3) no subgroup fell below minimum criterion; (4) 
     reading scores improved without a decline in math and writing 
     over 1998.
       Only the last two can actually be considered academic 
     performance. The first two are bureaucratic tricks. It is a 
     bit like requiring that an athlete run the 100-yard dash in 
     10 seconds, but you credit him with half a second if he wears 
     the right color shorts, and another half second if she pulls 
     her socks up before starting. Neither has anything to do with 
     performance, and both serve to obscure real performance.


                    insist on better grading system

       You may ask, ``Well, how are we supposed to know how our 
     schools are really doing?'' I suggest that we insist on a 
     much more sophisticated analysis of school data by the state 
     Department of Education, instead of letting it just plunk it 
     onto their web site or onto a newspaper page so the public 
     can worry about what it means.
       At the very least, school performance needs to be adjusted 
     for the nature of the student body. Better yet, let us not 
     pretend that a single number can adequately assess the 
     performance of our schools. Performance must be measured, not 
     by any single number, but by the relationship between what 
     goes into a school and what comes out. The large and 
     expensive bureaucracy at DOE can reasonably be expected to 
     explain to the public how the data are related to each other, 
     what they mean and how our schools are really doing. This 
     will allow us to discover what works and what doesn't work, 
     and thus to spend money more effectively.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this group of Senate Democrats appreciates 
this opportunity and accepts the challenge. We understand that 
education is fundamental to the growth of America today and even more 
fundamental to our progress tomorrow. Our willingness to invest 
intelligently in our children is a test of our Nation's intelligence 
about shaping its future. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues in 
this effort and look forward to their illumination on these principles 
of our education proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici, chairman of the 
Budget Committee, for his outstanding leadership on the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I feel compelled to make some short remarks today 
because the topic has strayed away from the budget and focused once 
again on gun control. This topic--and many misleading statements about 
it--are paraded out year after year when the Senate considers the 
budget resolution.
  This year, I hope we can see through the rhetoric and focus on what 
objective observers already know to be true: The statistics prove that 
the Clinton administration has failed to enforce federal gun laws. For 
example:
  Between 1992 and 1998, so-called Triggerlock prosecutions--
prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a 
felony--dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800.
  Despite over 6,000 incidents of children carrying guns into public 
schools last year, the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only eight 
cases under the federal law against possessing firearms on school 
grounds in 1998, and only five such cases in 1997.
  It is a federal law to transfer a firearm to a juvenile, yet the 
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases in 1998, and only 
five in 1997.
  Similarly, for all its talk about the dangers of semiautomatic 
assault weapons, the Clinton Justice Department has an equally abysmal 
record for prosecuting cases under the current laws governing those 
weapons. The Clinton administration brought only four cases in 1998, 
and only four in 1997, under the federal law criminalizing the transfer 
or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons.
  Now, Mr. President, you will not hear the Clinton administration or 
the gun control advocates in Congress talk about these statistics, even 
though it is these statistics--not a wish-list of more laws and 
regulations--that reveal the true story of gun misuse in America. 
Instead, the number that gun control advocates talk about is the 
500,000 felons and other prohibited purchasers that the Brady 
background check prevented from buying firearms since the Brady law was 
enacted.
  Let me point out that with the original Brady law this administration 
wanted was a 7-day delay once you tried to buy a weapon. We reduced it 
to 5 days. We knew that wasn't going to work, so we instituted an 
instant check system so you can find out immediately whether a person 
is capable of purchasing a weapon. It was our instant check system that 
caught these, according to the President, 500,000 people. Actually, it 
was about 400,000 people.
  But even this statistic points out the Clinton administration's lack 
of commitment to enforcing federal gun laws. Every one of those 500,000 
people who were thwarted in their attempts to purchase firearms 
violated 18 U.S.C. section 922(a)(6) by stating under oath that they 
were not disqualified from purchasing a firearm. How many of those 
500,000 were prosecuted between 1996-1999? Only about 200 were even 
referred for prosecution.
  Mr. President, the only thing worse than this poor enforcement record 
is the Clinton administration's disingenuous and concerted effort to 
blame the lack of federal gun prosecutions on a lack of resources. The 
facts demonstrate that, during the period when federal gun prosecutions 
decreased nearly 50 percent, the overall budget of the Department of 
Justice has increased by 54 percent.
  The Clinton administration also tries to hide its failure to 
prosecute gun crimes behind its never-ending calls for more federal gun 
control laws. The irony of the administration's position was evident at 
an oversight hearing last year, when I questioned Attorney General Reno 
about the decline in federal firearms prosecutions. She replied

[[Page S2309]]

that many firearms violations have been prosecuted in state court, and 
she indicated that state court is the proper forum for these cases. As 
chairman of the board of the Federalist Society, I agree that most 
firearms crimes can be prosecuted in state court as well as federal 
court. Nevertheless, I find it ironic and hypocritical for the 
administration to argue that crimes involving firearms should be 
prosecuted in state court at the same time they are calling for more 
federal gun control laws. If the administration really believes that 
its dismal record on gun prosecutions is because gun laws are a state 
issue, it should be consistent and stop pressuring Congress for even 
more federal gun control laws that it does not intend to enforce.
  The relevance of all this to the budget resolution is that there are 
several actions the Justice Department could take right now--with no 
additional laws or resources--that would have a positive impact on 
reducing crime in America. First, the Justice Department should use 
state law enforcement grants to encourage States to enact mandatory 
minimum sentences for firearm offenses based on 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and 
to prosecute such offenses in state court. The key to Project 
Triggerlock is the 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for any 
person who uses or carries a firearm in a crime of violence or serious 
drug trafficking offense. This 5-year prison sentence is in addition to 
the prison term for the underlying crime. As I mentioned earlier, most 
of these gun crimes can be prosecuted in state court as well as federal 
court. By encouraging States to enact stronger penalties for gun 
crimes, there will be less need to prosecute these cases in federal 
court.

  Mr. President, there is a precedent for the federal government 
encouraging States to increase prison sentences. The Truth-in-
Sentencing Grant Program provides prison construction funds to States 
that adopt truth-in-sentencing laws. Truth-in-sentencing laws require 
violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. Due 
to truth-in-sentencing grants, more than 70 percent of prison 
admissions last year occurred in states requiring criminals to serve at 
least 85 percent of their sentence.
  Another positive step the Justice Department should take is using the 
funds provided in the budget resolution to designate at least one 
assistant United States attorney in each district to prosecute federal 
firearms violations. As the U.S. attorney's office in Richmond, 
Virginia has shown, federal prosecutors, in cooperation with state and 
local law enforcement, can help reduce violent crime. The U.S. 
attorney's offices should focus their efforts on federal firearms 
violations until the States enact stronger sentences for state firearm 
offenses.
  Finally, the Justice Department should place mental health 
adjudications on the National Instant Check System (NICS). It is a 
federal crime for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental 
defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to possess 
or purchase a firearm. Despite this commonsense federal law, mental 
health adjudications are not placed on the NICS system. Consequently, 
mentally ill persons can buy firearms from licensed dealers because the 
dealers are not notified by the NICS system of the mental 
disqualification. The NICS system will never reach its potential until 
mental health adjudications are included. These commonsense ideas would 
go a lot further toward reducing the number of crimes committed with 
firearms than the administration's current practice of ignoring federal 
violations, asking for more gun restrictions, and blaming lack of 
funding for their abysmal record of prosecutions.
  It is pathetic that there are 2,000 laws, rules, and regulations on 
the books that aren't being taken care of now, and now we have some who 
say let's have a political recitation here on this resolution to try to 
embarrass people instead of standing up and doing something about the 
misuse of weapons in our society.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to use my 2 minutes to express to 
the Senate--referring to no singular Senator but all of us--this budget 
resolution idea has become preposterous. Any kind of sense of the 
Senate is in order, including one to instruct the committee that is in 
conference. We are going so far overboard that we are making this floor 
much like a circus. Actually, I am hopeful it won't be too long from 
now that the Parliamentarian will reverse himself. I don't know how we 
will do it. Maybe we will instruct him to do it himself. A 
Parliamentarian ruled that senses of the Senate were in order on budget 
resolutions even if they did nothing to the resolution.
  Now we are dreaming them up. We have a gun amendment on a budget 
resolution. We have instructions to a committee in conference on a 
Budget Committee. I don't know what kind of points people are making, 
but if anybody thinks they are effective just because they win one of 
these sense of the Senates, let me say, constituents and politicians 
don't believe they are effective because they do nothing.
  So if you want to run a TV ad that you got something passed in a 
sense of the Senate, I hope the other guy is smart enough to say that 
is baloney; it did nothing. We would be out of here if we didn't have 
these--out of here as far as substantive amendments. It is getting 
worse, not better, on both sides. On our side, we have 20 sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions. I am going to ask them to file them pretty soon and 
see how many have the courage to call them up and have votes on those.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Indiana to speak on the education amendment that will be offered at a 
subsequent time.
  Mr. BAYH. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues. I 
particularly express my appreciation to Senator Graham, and my 
colleagues, Senators Edwards, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, and others, 
who are also speaking on the issue that has been near and dear to my 
heart for many years. It is the cause of improving the public education 
system in this country and the opportunity that we give to 
schoolchildren across the United States of America.
  Mr. President, for more than 100 years, our Republic has been 
dedicated to the proposition that every child growing up in our 
country--every child, not just a few, not just the privileged and the 
elite--should have access to a quality public education.
  In the 1960s, there was a growing recognition, particularly for those 
children in our country who are less fortunate, that the dream of a 
good education was a promise unfulfilled, and the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act was born.
  We gather here today to say that for too many of our young people the 
dream of a good education is still a promise unfulfilled, the status 
quo is not good enough, that we must do better, that we must have a 
significant rethinking and rededication to the principle that a good 
education is essential for opportunity and for every child growing up 
in our country.
  That is what the Graham amendment is really all about. It begins with 
resources in the recognition that if we don't give our public schools 
the tools with which to get the job done, we can't possibly expect them 
to succeed.
  The Graham amendment calls for setting aside an additional $15 
billion in resources for reform and improvement in public education 
over the next 5 years. This is about one-tenth of the size of the tax 
cut included in the budget resolution before us.
  While I favor cutting taxes, and in fact have sponsored and supported 
several of the measures that would reduce taxes in our country, I 
believe investing in education is just as important to the future well-
being of this Nation.
  I don't think a Member of the Senate can possibly say that cutting 
taxes is 10 times more important than putting quality public school 
teachers in every classroom in this country, or 10 times more important 
than ensuring that the latest educational technology is available to 
our students, or 10 times more important than ensuring that remedial 
help is available to our young people who need to do better reading, 
writing, and basic science.
  Making these investments is vitally important to the important 
challenge of improving public education for every child. But Senator 
Graham's approach does not just throw money at the problem. It deals 
with fundamental reform and starts with accountability and a

[[Page S2310]]

recognition that we need to focus not just upon how much money is spent 
but, instead, how much our children learn.
  We need to focus on outcomes of the process, just as we add inputs 
necessary to achieving additional success. We need to also focus on 
high academic standards that are important to the success of all of our 
children. This is important because there is a growing gap between the 
haves and have-nots in our society, and there is just as much gap in 
knowledge and learning as in anything else.
  We must ensure that every child gets good access to education and is 
held to these high educational standards to ensure that for the first 
time in the history of our Nation we don't experience the creation of 
an underclass characterized by people who do not have enough knowledge 
and learning to participate in the opportunities of the 21st century.
  Just briefly, this approach is targeted on things that are important, 
such as adding good teachers, the latest technology, and focusing upon 
students who are at greatest risk, which is at the heart of the 
challenge we face as a country.
  In closing, let me say this: The cause of educating our children is, 
by definition, the cause of shaping our future. But in doing so, we 
stay in touch with the fullest wellsprings of our past. It was Thomas 
Jefferson, the third President of the United States, who, after his 
public career, founded the University of Virginia and dedicated his 
life to the cause of education, who once said that, ``a society that 
expects to be both ignorant and free is expecting something that never 
has been and never shall be.''
  As we debate this amendment, I urge my colleagues to support it 
because, in doing so, we not only ensure the future well-being of our 
economy, not only what kind of society we will one day have, but the 
vitality of our democracy itself.
  I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last May, in the wake of the Columbine 
massacre, this Senate took action, passing a comprehensive juvenile 
justice bill that would begin the long process of addressing the 
problems that plague the youth in this country.
  Parts of the bill addressed our crisis of violence.
  These provisions included: A comprehensive package of measures I 
authored with Senator Hatch to fight criminal gangs; increased 
penalties for adults who recruit children into criminal activity or 
provide them with firearms; the James Guelff Body Armor Act, an 
amendment I authored, which contains reforms to take body armor out of 
the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of police; and other 
provisions related to juvenile confinement, juvenile record-keeping, 
and countless other important issues.
  Parts of the bill addressed our crisis of guns: a ban on juvenile 
possession of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines; a 
provision to close the gun show loophole; a requirement that safety 
locks be included with every handgun sold in America; and my provision 
to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition magazines.
  But the crisis in leadership remains.
  Despite passage by both Houses of Congress almost one year ago, the 
conference committee on this bill has met only once--in early August of 
last year. No real issues have been discussed. No progress has been 
made. The bills sit in legislative purgatory, apparently never to see 
the light of day again.
  It now seems clear that these bills will die a quiet death at the end 
of this short session. As a result, all of the important issues we 
debated will remain un-addressed. Gang violence, juvenile detention, 
firearm regulation reform, and a host of other problems will remain 
unsolved.
  And nobody within the walls of this Chamber or elsewhere has any 
doubt why this stalemate persists. This bill would have passed months 
ago were it not for those four, simple, targeted gun measures buried 
within the text of the bill.
  This, Mr. President, demonstrates just how deeply this Congress is 
dominated by just one special interest group--these people who 
fervently resist any regulations on firearms, no matter how mild, no 
matter how targeted, and no matter how much the American people want 
it.
  Some argue that we don't need more gun control laws--enforcing our 
current laws would be enough. But those arguments miss the point 
entirely.
  Of course we should be enforcing our current laws. And we are. The 
evidence clearly shows that gun prosecutions are up. In fact; since 
1992, the total number of federal and state prosecutions has increased 
sharply--about 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for state 
and federal weapons offenses now than in 1992 (from 20,681 to 25,186).
  The number of higher-level federal firearms offenders sent to prison 
(those sentenced to five or more years) has gone up more than 34 
percent (from 1049 to 1406) in six years.
  The number of inmates in federal prisons on firearm or arson charges 
(the two are counted together) increased 51 percent from 1993 to 1998, 
to 8,979.
  And we are working to improve this situation.
  Just last week, my colleague Senator Kohl and I introduced 
legislation that would expand Project Exile to 50 cities and provide 
law enforcement with ballistics technology that will make it far easier 
to identify and to punish the perpetrators of gun violence.
  Early last year, I wrote the Secretary of the Treasury several times 
to demand greater attention to those who violate the Brady Law. I asked 
why so few violators had been prosecuted, and I was told that the 
resources just aren't there.
  That is why I support the President's request to fund at least 500 
additional ATF agents and 1,000 new prosecutors to focus on guns.
  But enforcing our current laws has been made tougher by the concerted 
efforts of the NRA to disparage and to destroy the very people tasked 
with enforcing those laws. The NRA called AFT agents ``jack-booted 
thugs,'' in a letter that was completely contradictory to what they are 
saying they want now.
  In fact, every time the opportunity arises to increase federal law 
enforcement capabilities by increasing ATF investigatory ability, the 
NRA fights it tooth and nail:

  The NRA fought the Brady bill for 10 years.
  They successfully defeated all attempts to allow the Consumer 
Products Safety Commission to regulate the safety of firearms.
  In 1986, the NRA got legislation passed which restricts ATF 
inspection of gun dealers to once per year. Even dealers who are the 
source for hundreds of crime guns cannot be routinely inspected more 
than once a year without a special court warrant.
  For years, the NRA has successfully blocked ATF computerization of 
gun sale records from gun dealers that have gone out of business. As a 
result, when a gun is traced as part of a criminal investigation, the 
files must often be retrieved manually from warehouses where the old 
records are kept. This can add days or even weeks to the time it takes 
to start tracking down the perpetrators of gun violence. By the time 
the records are found, the trail may already be cold.
  And most importantly, the NRA fights against funding our law 
enforcement agencies at levels adequate to enforce our current laws. As 
former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton has said, 
``The NRA has strenuously opposed increased financing for the [ATF] and 
has successfully lobbied against giving it the authority to quickly 
investigate the origins of guns sales.''
  The ATF has been left underfunded, understaffed, and unable to 
adequately enforce our current gun laws.
  And the simple fact is that our current laws--even if fully 
enforced--are just not enough. Those laws are riddled with NRA-induced 
loopholes. Guns are still too easy to get. And too many children die 
every day for us to ignore the problem. The Columbine incident shocked 
this nation and this Congress to its core--as did the school shootings 
in Jonesboro, Arkansas; West Paducah, Kentucky; Pearl, Mississippi; 
Springfield, Oregon; and Edinboro, Pennsylvania. And in my own state of 
California, we saw a hateful bigot kill a

[[Page S2311]]

postal worker and then wound five others at the North Valley Jewish 
Community Center in Granada Hills.
  Those incidents were tragic. But countless incidents go relatively 
unreported, but with equally tragic results. Every day in this country, 
another dozen children die of gunshot wounds.
  A new study published in the April issue of the American Journal of 
Public Health found that over a third of American children live in a 
home where there is also a gun--in 43% of those homes, the firearm is 
stored unlocked.
  Who knows how may lives could be saved if trigger locks were made 
available to gun owners?
  The pictures of those young children in Granada Hills being led away 
from the scene of the tragedy were not only heart-wrenching but also 
clearly depicted the trickle-down of gun crimes in this country. The 
victims of gun violence get younger, and younger.
  We must close the gun law loopholes for those children.
  We must pass the juvenile justice bill so that we can at least begin 
the process of solving some of these problems.
  We must pass this bill for the fifth grader from San Francisco who 
wrote me that ``One day I saw a neighbor of mine get shot on her way to 
the candy house. She got shot 4 times. She got shot 3 times in her side 
and once in her leg. Now she's paralyzed for life. That really hurt me 
and a lot of other people. She was only 12 years old and she was a nice 
little girl.''
  We should pass this bill for the other fifth grader who told me 
``every year I hear at least 20 gunshots. I am scared at night because 
I think it's going to be a drive-by. I even sometimes can't go outside 
to recess because gunshots are heard.''
  We must pass this bill for the little girl who wrote me that ``I do 
not like to be locked in my room just because my mom feels I can't be 
safe in my own neighborhood and I think everybody deserves to live just 
like human beings.''
  We must pass this bill so that the next six year old child who 
decides to seek revenge on a classmate is not able to find a gun so 
easily.
  And so that the next kindergartner who gets a timeout from the 
teacher and tries to bring his grandfather's gun to school the next day 
to get revenge is likewise left without a weapon.
  I say, enough is enough. The least this Congress can do is turn to 
the juvenile justice bill and move forward with the Senate-passed gun 
provisions. These provisions are no-brainers. And there is no excuse 
for inaction.
  Before I conclude, I want to talk briefly about the problem of gang 
violence in this country. This is a problem that I have taken seriously 
for many years--every since my days on the San Francisco County Board 
of Supervisors and as Mayor for 9 years when I worked to create the 
city's first anti-gang task force after the infamous gang massacre at 
the Golden Dragon Restaurant in 1977. In those shooting, gang members 
killed five people, including two tourists, and injured 11 others.
  For the last 4 years in the Senate, I have worked with Senator Hatch 
to craft national legislation giving law enforcement the tools they 
need to fight gang crime and gang violence.
  Criminal youth gangs have become a national problem, extending their 
virulent reach and bringing with them murder, drive-by shootings, drug 
sales, intimidation, and destruction of theft of property.
  Gangs plague more than 4,700 cities in all 50 states.
  There are some 25,000 gangs with over 650,000 members, and the 
problem continues to spread.
  In Los Angeles, for example, there are currently 408 gangs with more 
than 64,000 members. This is 15,000 more members than 10 years ago.
  That means that there are currently more gang members in L.A. alone 
than there are people in most of America's cities and towns. For 
instance, the number of gang members in L.A. is almost double the 
population of the largest city in Vermont.
  And these gang members do not stay in California. The state 
``exports'' more gang members than any other state.
  For instance, two of the largest gangs, the Bloods and Crips--with 
more than 60,000 members--are based in Southern California, but operate 
in more than 119 cities in the West and Midwest. In fact, one recent 
survey found gangs claiming affiliation with the Bloods and/or Crips in 
180 cities in 42 states. (Department of Justice)
  The mere existence of gangs is a terrible social problem. Gang 
members are far more likely to commit crimes than non-gang youths, even 
those who may have grown up under similar circumstances.
  This is especially true for homicides; drive-by shootings; using, 
selling, and stealing drugs; auto theft; carrying concealed weapons in 
school; and intimidating or assaulting victims and witnesses.
  In fact, the Los Angeles Police Department has told me that almost 
half of violent crime in the city is committed by gang members.
  And the problem is just as acute in other cities, big and small. Just 
a few months ago in my home city of San Francisco, for example, an 
innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire between two warring 
gangs in the Mission District. He was shot through both legs and may be 
crippled for life. A brave witness assisted police in apprehending the 
perpetrators. But gang members later cornered the witness, held a 
automatic gun to his head and threatened to blow his head off if he 
continued to help the police.
  Also, recently in San Francisco, gang members stuck an assault weapon 
in the face of a victim in an attempted robbery. When the victim 
resisted, he was shot 17 times. The victim survived but will never walk 
again.
  Let me give some specifics about gang-sponsored violent crime.
  Killings: Around the country, every year, gang members kill over 
3,000 people. Last year in Los Angeles alone, there were 136 gang-
related killings.
  Drugs: A survey of law enforcement agencies suggests that about 75% 
of gang members are involved in illegal drug sales; that about one-
third of gangs are organized specifically for the purpose of 
trafficking in drugs; and that gangs make over 30% of crack cocaine and 
marijuana sales. (Department of Justice)
  Guns: Ninety percent of gang members report that their fellow gang 
members carry concealed weapons and 80% report that those members had 
taken guns to school. Worse, the study showed that gang members favor 
powerful, lethal weapons over smaller caliber handguns. (Ohio State 
University study).
  The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill includes a number of key 
measures to address this complex problem. The bill:
  Provides $100 million annually in federal aid for certain intense 
gang activity areas, so those communities can afford to create joint 
task forces with federal and local law enforcement and to support 
community gang prevention efforts;
  Increases sentences for interstate drug gang activity;
  Makes it a Federal offense to recruit youngsters into a gang;
  Enables Federal law enforcement to prosecute gangs who cross state 
lines to commit gang crimes such as drive-by shootings; and
  Increases penalties for transferring handguns to minors.
  Since we passed the juvenile justice bill last May, an estimated 
30,000 people have died from gunshot wounds, including 3,700 children.
  If history is any judge, millions of large capacity ammunition 
feeding devices have been approved for import--in the year preceding 
the juvenile justice bill, more than 11 million of those clips were 
approved.
  All of the commonsense gun, gang, and other provisions in the 
juvenile justice bill are now at risk of disappearing without a trace, 
and I urge the majority to proceed with the conference and come to a 
compromise.
  The compromise should preserve intact the Senate-passed gun control 
legislation, which represents the bare minimum we should do this year 
to stem the gun violence that is increasingly common on our streets and 
in our schools.
  I also urge this body to pass the President's gun enforcement 
initiative. That initiative, which will fund more than 500 new ATF 
agents and 1,000 new prosecutors, is vital to the enforcement of our 
current gun laws.
  The crisis of leadership has come to a head. It is time for this 
Congress to take serious and bipartisan steps to stem the tide of youth 
and gun violence that continues to plague this nation.

[[Page S2312]]

  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes off the resolution to the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg, to speak on 
the Reed amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to consolidate my remarks 
because I know everybody is anxious to complete work on the budget 
resolution.
  I am compelled, as I listen to the discussion here, to talk to the 
Reed amendment and to talk to those who would disparage our efforts to 
have sensible gun violence control in this society.
  I heard it said that what we need in law enforcement is more 
enforcement; that what we need is a more sincere effort, as if to imply 
that President Clinton and his administration want to let criminals 
wander the streets. It is somewhat akin to the argument we hear from 
those who are NRA spokespersons who say President Clinton is looking 
for more killings to make his political case. It is an outrageous 
thing. We hear that all we have to do is note how many laws are on the 
books.
  I ask the question: Is the deciding factor how many laws we have on 
the books?
  I heard someone say today we have 20,000 laws on the books related to 
guns. But in this country we kill more than 20,000 a year with guns. We 
kill over 30,000. That is only a page per victim, if you want to judge 
it on that basis. It is outrageous.
  That is not the problem. The problem is that people here don't 
believe guns kill. People here don't believe a gun is a lethal weapon. 
People here don't believe we ought to know who it is who buys a gun at 
a gun show. That is the problem.
  This morning, I had the privilege of standing with Senator Reed and 
the head of the State police department from Maryland. What he was 
advocating was more law enforcement, more laws to give them the tools 
to work with.
  We had police officers from the area around Providence, RI. They were 
asking the same thing. They said, give us the tools. It is said, you 
have enough tools, like the weight of the number of the bills, the 
numbers of pieces of legislation that you have--again, as if that were 
the yardstick by which we measure the performance of the society.
  Go tell the parents of the kids who were killed in Columbine or those 
who stood in prayer in Fort Worth, TX, or the kids who attended the 
school in Los Angeles who ran away in fear of a gunman's weapon or in 
Conyers, GA. Tell those families we have enough laws on the books. Tell 
them we don't enforce the laws sufficiently--that they will accept that 
as OK. Well, then I can understand the sacrifice that was made in my 
family, my home, and the school.
  I said earlier today that we have a Million Mom March headed for 
Washington on May 14 this year--a million women from across the 
country. What are they saying to us? They are saying to us, if you 
really want to protect women's rights, then tell us our children can go 
to school, enter the school safely, and leave in the same condition at 
the end of the day.
  These are hollow arguments.
  I hear that we don't prosecute enough.
  In 1996, there were 22 percent more criminals behind bars for weapons 
offenses than in 1992. Firearms crimes put 25,000-plus in jail in 1996 
compared to 20,681 in 1992.
  Prosecutions were up 16 percent in 1996 compared to 1992.
  In 1992, there were 4,754 Federal firearm prosecutions; 1999, 5,500.
  The argument misses the point when it comes to talking about law 
enforcement, when in some cases there is no law to enforce. Anybody can 
walk up at a gun show, go to an unlicensed dealer--an unlicensed dealer 
can operate in most gun shows, and he is kind of the piggy bank for 
those who want to escape identity--put their money on the table, and he 
won't ask them a question. He just gives them as many guns as they can 
carry, or maybe more than they can carry, in one trip if they want to 
buy them. Whether you are on the Ten Most Wanted list or you are Osama 
bin Laden, a terrorist who took refuge in Afghanistan, it doesn't 
matter; you can buy a gun.

  We are trying to defend in some peculiar way the right of people to 
buy guns anonymously. We don't know who they are; we don't know where 
they are taking the guns. We do know in the Columbine killing, a young 
woman related to that killing testified before the Colorado 
Legislature. Robyn Anderson testified she and the two boys, Eric Harris 
and Dylan Klebold who killed the other students, went to the Tanner gun 
show on a Saturday. She testified:

       I remember this as being November or December of 1998. When 
     Eric and Dylan had gone the previous day, a dealer told them 
     they needed to bring someone back who was 18. They were both 
     17 at the time. This was a private--not a licensed dealer. 
     While we were walking around Eric and Dylan kept asking 
     sellers if they were private or licensed. They wanted to buy 
     their guns from someone who was private--and not licensed--
     because there would be no paperwork or background check.
       They bought guns from three sellers. They were all private. 
     They paid cash. There was no receipt. I was not asked any 
     questions at all. There was no background check. All I had to 
     do was show my driver's license to prove I was 18. Dylan got 
     a shotgun. Eric got a shotgun and a black rifle that he 
     bought clips for.

  The rest, unfortunately, is history. She says:

       I don't know if Eric and Dylan could have been able to get 
     guns from another source, but I would not have helped them. 
     It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I 
     wouldn't have helped them to buy the guns if I faced a 
     background check.

  We may need a couple more laws. Despite the fact there are some 
20,000 on the books, that hasn't protected approximately 33,000 who 
lose their lives every year. There are 13,000 homicides, a bunch to 
suicides, a bunch to accidents.
  I think the ultimate example of carelessness with guns in our society 
was when the 6-year-old killed the 6-year-old in Michigan. The gun was 
left out casually where the child could reach it. Shouldn't we have 
laws that say a person who owns a gun is responsible for keeping it out 
of the hands of children? I certainly think so.
  We are finding the NRA has a broad reach. It reaches into this 
Chamber. The hand of the NRA muffles sound. It muffles the sound of 
tearful parents--not necessarily those who lost children but those who 
are afraid their children might get lost. Those are the sounds we hear, 
the parents and the grandparents who are saying, in poll after poll: 
For crying out loud, close that loophole; close that gun show loophole.
  It is common sense. It doesn't make sense to the gun lobby because 
they are afraid one inch is a yard. It is ridiculous when we are 
talking about human lives.
  I agree with the Senator from New Mexico that we are doing some silly 
things. But the silliest is to defend against some sensible gun 
legislation. Ask the people around the country. I know what they want 
to see. They want their kids protected, their households protected, 
their communities protected.
  One thing we have yet to try in this country is to know who owns guns 
and where the guns will be. We had an incredible battle some years ago 
when we tried to put the Brady law into place. It is demonstrated on 
this placard: Gun show loophole goes right through the Brady law. Under 
Brady, 400,000 people, judged not fit to own a gun, were denied gun 
permits. We still argue about whether or not there is enough time to 
check applicants' backgrounds sufficiently to make sure they are not 
unfit to own a gun. They want to reduce the time from 3 business days 
to 24 hours. The FBI will tell you; they are out there hunting for 
1,500 guns that were sold improperly because they didn't have time to 
check the information.

  As we near the close of this debate on a budget resolution, citizens 
across this country should be aware not only did we work on the 
numbers, not only did we work on the resources, not only did we work on 
the guns, we also worked on protecting your children when they go to 
school. We know the costs that guns have exacted on our society. Yet we 
cannot pass sensible gun legislation.
  I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for his amendment. I 
sincerely hope we can get past the partisan discussion and look into 
the faces of the families, distant though they are, listen to the pleas 
of the mothers, the fathers, the grandfathers, grandmothers,

[[Page S2313]]

brothers, and sisters and say we have done the right thing--we have 
tried to reduce gun violence in our society.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished minority whip 
for his tremendous cooperation. Without his help and cooperation, we 
wouldn't be where we are. We might, indeed, get this budget resolution 
finished. Many thanks for that go to Senator Reid.
  In the interest of orderliness, I ask consent that all first-degree 
amendments to the pending budget resolution be submitted at the desk by 
7 p.m. this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Members, for first-degree amendments, walk up and file 
them. You don't have to stand on the floor. Just give them to the clerk 
so we can have a list of all of them filed and they will have a number 
and we can work with them in an orderly fashion to finish this task.
  I also ask any subsequent second-degree amendments offered from the 
floor must be relevant to the first-degree amendment that they are 
amending.
  Mr. REID. It would be tremendously helpful, especially to the staff, 
if after the amendment is filed at the desk there be a copy left with 
both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think that is an excellent suggestion. We will 
understand where we are.
  On behalf of the leader, let me one more time say any Member who has 
not submitted their first-degree amendment at the desk must do so by 7 
p.m. in order for it to be available to be called up for consideration 
during the remainder of the budget resolution.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the time on the Reed amendment, I 
offer 10 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina to speak about his 
education amendment or on whatever else he chooses to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I note the presence of the Senator from California, 
Mrs. Boxer.
  During the debate on this ANWR amendment, the distinguished Senator 
stated this was the first budget resolution that ever addressed ANWR, 
and in the meantime called it an antienvironment resolution.
  I clarify, and I think she agrees, that in 1996 in the budget 
resolution we not only referred to ANWR but we reconciled the ANWR 
instruction to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I wonder if 
the Senator would acknowledge that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I absolutely acknowledge it and state that was one of the 
reasons the President vetoed that legislation and we beat it back. We 
will have this fight again. My friend is absolutely right. It is the 
second time that ANWR was put into a budget resolution. He is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Since we are clarifying the record, could I ask the 
Senator from California whether or not she discussed the photograph 
that she displayed on the floor?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, we have gotten confirmation. This has to do with 
Senator Murkowski. We have gotten confirmation from the biologist who 
took that photo, that that photo is in the proposed ruling area, and he 
has sent us chapter and verse of exactly where he was.
  Senator Domenici is correct, this is the second time we had this in. 
We beat it back the last time, and I hope we can beat it back this 
time.
  Mr. REID. Senator Edwards, the Senator from North Carolina, is to be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, first I would like to speak on the Graham 
amendment. The single most important thing we do as a country is 
educate our children. What we should be doing in this debate is talking 
about making this decade the education decade. We have great roads, 
great technology, great airports, a great economy in this country. We 
should be working toward making our schools the envy of the world. 
Instead, we have children who go to the local mall and go to beautiful, 
shiny buildings and stores and then the next morning go to schools that 
are falling down, with roofs leaking, with floors that are covered over 
with patchwork carpet. We have to do better.
  We need to send a clear and unmistakable signal to the American 
people that we are committed and dedicated to doing what is necessary 
to improve our public schools. I have filed a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment that provides for two things: First, that the level of 
education spending will be maintained at the current level, taking 
inflation into account over the next 10 years. Second, that we commit a 
minimum of 10 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to spending on 
education.
  It is a very simple resolution. It is intended to signal our 
commitment to do what is necessary to support our public schools. I 
also, though, want to speak about the Graham amendment which does some 
very important things that need to be done in our public schools. There 
are basically five components to the Graham amendment.
  No. 1, it invests the resources that are so desperately needed in our 
education system; resources that can be used to rebuild crumbling 
schools; resources that can be used to modernize schools where the roof 
is leaking, where kids have to go outside to get to the restroom, where 
kids are going to school in mobile classrooms. Those resources are 
desperately needed. We need to show our commitment, and the Graham 
amendment does that.
  No. 2, it provides for local control. Those of us supporting this 
amendment believe very strongly that the school system should not be 
run from Washington, DC; that, instead, our schools should be run at 
the local level. It is local folks who know what is needed in the local 
schools. That is where the control should be. That is what the Graham 
amendment provides. That is what the American people believe in and 
support.
  No. 3, accountability. Senator Graham talked about accountability. We 
cannot simply continue throwing money at our education system. We need 
to provide those systems with the resources they need for all the 
things we have talked about: crumbling schools, technology, afterschool 
programs, hiring more teachers, and reducing class size so the teachers 
can do their jobs.
  But we need to hold these schools accountable. We need to make sure 
they are performing; that schools that are not doing well are 
improving; that kids who are going to schools that are not performing 
well will be getting the kind of education they need and deserve. 
Accountability is absolutely crucial to making our public education 
system work. The Graham amendment provides for accountability. It is a 
critical component of what needs to be done in our education system in 
this country.
  No. 4, this amendment targets those kids who are most in need, the 
kids in this country who are having the most problems in the poorest 
areas, in the rural areas, particularly in places such as rural North 
Carolina, rural eastern and western North Carolina--chronically 
economically disadvantaged areas where the kids are not on a level 
playing field. They do not have a chance. They do not have self-esteem. 
They don't feel as if they can compete with kids who go to school in 
richer, urban areas.

  We need to give these children a chance. We need to put them on the 
launching pad with all other children so they can compete. That is what 
this amendment does. It targets the money to those kids who most need 
the help.
  Finally, it takes the resources that we are providing them and 
focuses those resources in the places where they will do the most good.
  So these five components are things that all will go toward improving 
our public school system: more resources; local control where we want 
the control to be; accountability, holding school systems responsible 
for performing; making sure the resources are focused; and making sure 
they are targeted at those kids who are most in need.
  We need to show, in this body, that we are committed to the single 
most important thing we do in this country, which is educating our 
kids.

[[Page S2314]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. 
Lincoln, 5 minutes off the resolution; and yield 5 minutes off of the 
amendment to the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in strong support of 
the amendment by my good friend, Senator Bob Graham. There are several 
of us in this body who have come together to build a consensus of a 
commonsense, result-oriented solution to educating our children in this 
Nation. This amendment combines two concepts that are essential to 
improving our system of public education--greater investment and tough 
accountability standards.

  Now Mr. President, before I get into the details of why this 
amendment is so important, I think we have to take a minute to consider 
the current state of education in this country.
  I am not sure how the rest of my colleagues feel, but I think it is 
difficult to deny that the status quo in our education system is simply 
not acceptable. It is not working, and we are not doing a good enough 
job in educating our children. We are certainly not doing the best job 
we could be doing.
  And if we think things are bad now, we should stop and look 10 or 15 
years into the future. I continue to be amazed at the pace of high-tech 
development in this country and the incredible advancements that take 
place every day. This progress is only going to continue, and our 
children are the ones who will be left behind in the global high-tech 
world.
  If we do not do something to change the way we approach education, if 
we do not increase our Federal investment and demand more 
accountability from our system and our educators, then we are only 
fooling ourselves, and we are cheating our children.
  Our children are our greatest national resource, and their education 
is worthy of a significant investment. Unfortunately, the budget 
resolution before us today once again falls short of our responsibility 
to make quality education a top priority in this Nation.
  Under the budget resolution before us, Arkansas would receive $6.6 
million less in title I funds than it would under the administration's 
plan. That means more than 10,000 students in my home State would be 
denied the critical support this program provides.
  In addition to the annual budget, we in the Senate have the difficult 
task before us this year of passing legislation that reauthorizes the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Quite frankly, we need a bold new approach that targets resources to 
the neediest areas, puts decisions in the hands of local educators, and 
maintains national priorities like school safety and educational 
technology.
  I have joined with a group of my moderate Democratic colleagues in 
the Senate to promote a ``Third Way'' on ESEA, one that synthesizes the 
best ideas of both sides into a whole new approach to federal education 
policy.
  Like our ``Three Rs'' bill, the additional funding contained in this 
amendment would allow schools to raise student achievement, implement 
effective professional development programs for teachers, improve 
English language instruction and encourage innovation in the classroom.
  This investment is especially important to rural school districts, 
like many of those in Arkansas, that cannot afford to meet all of their 
needs with limited local resources.
  We must do more than just throw more money at the problem of under-
achievement in the classroom. We also must demand results.
  To qualify for additional funding under this amendment, educational 
proposals authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
would have to contain greater accountability; incentives to set high 
student achievement standards; an emphasis on education for 
disadvantaged students; and funding targeted to our neediest, most 
impoverished schools.
  Congress must do all it can to help our schools meet the challenges 
they face today and will face in the future.
  Our most important responsibility is to help States and local school 
districts raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of 
equal opportunity for all students.
  I believe in the children of this country. I believe that through 
this amendment, we can truly make a difference by making a bigger 
investment and setting our children's education as one of our top 
national priorities. I urge the support of this amendment, and I thank 
my colleagues for their attention. I yield back any remaining time I 
may have to the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we still have time left under our amendment. 
We have 8 more minutes before the other side can offer an amendment. I 
yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut to speak on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with deference to my friend and 
colleague from Louisiana, I am going to be brief.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Senator Graham. This amendment would set aside and protect 
$15 billion over the next five years, holding funds in reserve so that 
resources are available once legislation reuathorizing ESEA is enacted. 
The amendment adds that to qualify for funds, ESEA reauthorization must 
contain a few fundamental elements: (1) increased accountability; (2) 
the ability of States and localities to set high student performance 
standards; (3) the targeting of funds to the most impoverished areas 
and schools most in need of improvement; and (4) the concentration of 
Federal resources on key national goals of compensatory education for 
disadvantaged children, teacher quality, innovative education 
strategies, serving limited English proficient students, student 
safety, and educational technology.
  During the upcoming debate on ESEA, I will join with several of my 
colleagues in offering a new approach that meets these qualifications. 
It is an approach that would refocus our national policy on helping 
States and local school districts raise academic achievement for all 
children, putting the priority for Federal programs on performance 
instead of process, and on delivering results instead of developing 
rules. Our approach calls on States and local districts to enter into a 
new compact with the Federal Government to work together to strengthen 
standards and improve educational opportunities, particularly for 
America's poorest children. It would provide States and local educators 
with significantly more Federal funding and significantly more 
flexibility in targeting aid to meet the specific needs. In exchange; 
it would demand real accountability, and for the first time impose 
consequences on schools that continually fail to show progress.
  In order to implement effective educational policy, we have to first 
recognize that there are serious problems with the performance of many 
public schools, and that public confidence in public education will 
continue to erode if we do not acknowledge and address those problems 
soon. While student achievement is up, we must realize the alarming 
achievement gap that separates minorities from whites and low-income 
students from their more affluent counterparts. According to the State-
by-State reading scores of fourth graders on the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress, the achievement gap between African American and 
white students grew in 16 States between 1992 and 1998. The gap between 
Hispanic and white students grew in nine States over the same period of 
time. Most alarmingly, student data reveals that the average African-
American and Latino 17-year-old has about the same reading and math 
skills as the average white 13-year-old.
  We must also question whether our schools are adequately preparing 
our youth to enter the globally competitive market place when, as one 
report states, ``Students are being unconsciously eliminated from the 
candidate pool of Information Technology (IT) workers by the knowledge 
and attitudes in their K-12 years. Many students do not learn the basic 
skills of reasoning, mathematics and communication that provide the 
foundation for higher education or entry-level jobs in IT work.''

[[Page S2315]]

  We also have to acknowledge that we have done a very good job in 
recent years in providing every child with a well-qualified teacher, a 
critical component to higher student achievement. We are failing to 
deliver teachers to the classroom who truly know their subject matter--
one national survey found that one-fourth of all secondary school 
teachers did not major in their core area of instruction, and that in 
the school districts with the highest concentration of minorities, 
students have less than a 50 percent chance of getting a math or 
science teacher who has a license or a degree in their field.

  While more money alone will not solve our problems, we cannot 
honestly expect to reinvent our schools without it either. The reality 
is that there is a tremendous need for additional investment in our 
public schools, not just in urban areas but in every kind of community. 
Not only are thousands of crumbling and overcrowded schools in need of 
modernization, but a looming shortage of two million new teachers to 
hire and train lurks on the horizon. Add to this, billions in spiraling 
special education costs to meet.
  We also have to recognize the basic math of trying to raise standards 
at a time of profound social turbulence that we will need to expend new 
sums to reach and teach children who in the past we never asked to 
excel, and who in the present will have to overcome enormous hurdles to 
do so. At the same time that schools are trying to cope with new and 
complex societal changes, we are demanding that they teach more than 
they ever have before. Employers and parents alike what better 
teachers, stronger standards, and higher test scores for all students, 
as well as state-of-the-art technology and skills to match.
  It is a tribute to the many dedicated men and women who are 
responsible for teaching our children that the bulk of our schools are 
as good as they are, in light of these intensifying pressures. I 
believe any child can learn--any child--and that has been proven over 
and over again in the best schools in both my home state of Connecticut 
and in many of America's cities.
  There are, in fact, plenty of positives to highlight in public 
education today, which is something else that we have to acknowledge, 
yet too often do not. I have made a concerted effort over the last few 
years to visit a broad range of schools and programs in Connecticut, 
and I can tell you that there is much happening in our public schools 
that we can be heartened by, proud of, and learn from.
  There is the exemplary John Barry Elementary School in Meriden, CT, 
which has to contend with a high-poverty, high-mobility student 
population, but through intervention programs has had real success 
improving the reading skills of many of its students. In addition, 
there is the Side by Side Charter School in Norwalk, one of 17 charter 
schools in Connecticut, which has created an exemplary multiracial 
program in response to the challenge of Sheff v. O'Neill to diminish 
racial isolation. Side by Side is experimenting with a different 
approach to classroom assignments, having students stay with teachers 
for two consecutive years to take advantage of the relationships that 
develop, and by all indications it is working quite well for those 
kids.
  And there is the BEST program, which, building on previous efforts to 
raise teacher skills and salaries, is now targeting additional state 
aid, training, and mentoring support to help local districts nurture 
new teachers and prepare them to excel. The result is that 
Connecticut's blueprint is touted by some, including the National 
Commission on Teaching and America's Future, as a national model for 
others to follow.
  A number of other States, led by Texas and North Carolina, are moving 
in this same direction--refocusing their education systems not on 
process but on performance, not on prescriptive rules and regulations 
but on results. More and more of them are in fact adopting what might 
be called a ``reinvest, reinvent, and responsibility'' strategy, by (1) 
infusing new resources into their public education systems; (2) giving 
local districts more flexibility; and (3) demanding new measures and 
mechanisms of accountability, to increase the chances that 
these investments will yield the intended return, meaning improved 
academic achievement for all students.

  To ensure that more States and localities have the ability to build 
on these successes and prepare student to succeed in the classroom, we 
must invest more resources. That is why we would boost ESEA funding by 
$35 billion over the next five years. But we also believe that the 
impact of this funding will be severely diluted if it is not better 
targeted to the worst-performing schools and if it is not coupled with 
a demand for results. That is why we not only increase Title I funding 
by 50 percent, but use a more targeted formula for distributing these 
new dollars to schools with the highest concentrations of poverty. And 
that is why we develop a new accountability system that strips federal 
funding from states that continually fail to meet their performance 
goals.
  We also agree with those concerned with the current system that 
federal education programs are too numerous and too bureaucratic. That 
is why we eliminate dozens of federally microtargeted, micromanaged 
programs that are redundant or incidental to our core mission of 
raising academic achievement. But we also believe that we have a great 
national interest in promoting broad national educational goals, chief 
among them delivering on the promise of equal opportunity. It is not 
only foolish, however, but irresponsible to hand out federal dollars 
with no questions asked and no thought of national priorities. That is 
why we carve out separate titles in those areas that we think are 
critical to helping local districts elevate the performance of their 
schools.
  The first would enhance our longstanding commitment to providing 
extra help to disadvantaged children through the title I program, while 
better targeting $12 billion in aid--a 50 percent increase in funding--
to schools with the highest concentrations of poor students. The second 
would combine various teacher training and professional development 
programs into a single teacher quality grant, increase funding by 100 
percent to $1.6 billion annually, and challenge each state to pursue 
the kind of bold, performance-based reforms that my own state of 
Connecticut has undertaken with great success.
  The third would reform the Federal bilingual education program and 
hopefully defuse the ongoing controversy surrounding it by making 
absolutely clear that our national mission is to help immigrant 
children learn and master English, as well as achieve high levels of 
achievement in all subjects. We must be willing to back this commitment 
with essential resources required to help ensure that all limited 
English proficient students are served.
  Under our approach, funding for LEP programs would be more than 
doubled to $1 billion a year, and for the first time be distributed to 
states and local districts through a reliable formula, based on their 
LEP student population. As a result, school districts serving large LEP 
and high poverty student populations would be guaranteed federal 
funding, and would not be penalized because of their inability to hire 
savvy proposal writers for competitive grants.
  The fourth would respond to the public demands for greater choice 
within the public school framework, by providing additional resources 
for charter school start-ups and new incentives for expanding local, 
intradistrict choice programs. And the fifth would radically 
restructure the remaining ESEA and ensure that funds are much better 
targeted while giving local districts greater flexibility in addressing 
specific needs. We consolidate more than 20 different programs into a 
single High Performance Initiatives title, with a focus on supporting 
bold new ideas, expanding access to summer school and after school 
programs, improving school safety, and building technological literacy. 
We increase overall funding by more than $200 million, and distribute 
this aid through a formula that targets more resources to the highest 
poverty areas.

  The boldest change we are proposing is to create a new accountability 
title. As of today, we have plenty of rules and requirements on inputs, 
on how funding is to be allocated and who must be served, but little if 
any attention to outcomes, on how schools ultimately perform in 
educating children. This bill would reverse that imbalance

[[Page S2316]]

by linking Federal funding to the progress States and local districts 
make in raising academic achievement. It would call on State and local 
leaders to set specific performance standards and adopt rigorous 
assessments for measuring how each district is faring in meeting those 
goals. In turn, States that exceed those goals would be rewarded with 
additional funds, and those that fail repeatedly to show progress would 
be penalized. In other words, for the first time, there would be 
consequences for poor performance.
  In discussing how exactly to impose those consequences, we have run 
into understandable concerns about whether you can penalize failing 
schools without also penalizing children. The truth is that we are 
punishing many children right now, especially the most vulnerable of 
them, by forcing them to attend chronically troubled schools that are 
accountable to no one, a situation that is just not acceptable anymore. 
This bill minimizes the potential negative impact of these consequences 
on students. It provides the States with three years to set their 
performance-based goals and put in place a monitoring system for 
gauging how local districts are progressing, and also provides 
additional resources for States to help school districts identify and 
improve low-performing schools. If after those three years a State is 
still failing to meet its goals, the State would be penalized by 
cutting its administrative funding by 50 percent. Only after 4 years of 
under performance would dollars targeted for the classroom be put in 
jeopardy. At that point, protecting kids by continuing to subsidize bad 
schools becomes more like punishing them.
  I must address another concern that may be raised that this is a 
block grant in sheep's clothing. There are substantial differences 
between a straight block-grant approach and this streamlined structure. 
First, in most block-grant proposals the accountability mechanisms are 
vague, weak and often non-existent, which is one reason why I have 
opposed them in the Senate. Our bill would have tangible consequences, 
pegged not just to raise test scores in the more affluent suburban 
areas, but to closing the troubling achievement gap between students in 
poor, largely minority districts and their better-off peers.
  It is a commonsense strategy--reinvest in our public schools, 
reinvent the way we administer them, and restore a sense of 
responsibility to the children we are supposed to be serving. Hence the 
title of our bill: the Public Education Reinvention, Reinvestment, and 
Responsibility Act, or the Three Rs for short. Our approach is humble 
enough to recognize there are no easy answers to turning around low-
performing schools, to lifting teaching standards, to closing the 
debilitating achievement gap, and that most of those answers won't be 
found here in Washington anyway. But it is ambitious enough to try to 
harness our unique ability to set the national agenda and recast the 
federal government as an active catalyst for success instead of a 
passive enabler of failure.
  I am pleased to support the Graham amendment which will ensure we 
have the necessary resources in reserve to provide for the kind of 
education reform that I have outlined. Reauthorization of the status 
quo is not the answer. We need real reform that concentrates resources 
around central national goals, targets those resources to the most 
impoverished areas and schools in greatest need, and holds States and 
localities to a new, higher standard of accountability for results in 
raising student academic achievement.
  I am pleased to support the Graham amendment which will ensure we 
have the necessary resources in reserve to provide for the kind of 
education reform that I have outlined. Reauthorization of the status 
quo is not the answer. We need real reform that concentrates resources 
around central national goals, targets those resources to the most 
impoverished areas and schools in greatest need, and holds States and 
localities to a new, higher standard of accountability for results in 
raising student academic achievement.
  I am very grateful for the strong statements that have been made by 
my colleagues in support of this amendment by Senator Graham. This 
amendment is, in a sense, our first statement of support for a major 
reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which we intend 
to offer when that act comes before the Senate in May.
  There are two facts to state about the Federal role in education and 
what is happening throughout the country.
  The first is that we have not achieved what the ESEA was adopted to 
achieve in 1965, and that is to close the academic achievement gap 
between advantaged and disadvantaged children. The proposal that I will 
offer, along with Senators Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Kohl, Graham, Robb, 
and Breaux, is aimed at investing more money in the education of 
disadvantaged children while giving local authorities the flexibility 
to set achievement goals and decide what they think is the best way to 
achieve them, and then to hold them accountable for producing 
measurable results. It will reward those who succeed and, for the first 
time ever, impose real consequences on those who do not.
  The second reality in American education today is that there are also 
cases of magnificent reform happening at the local and State level, 
which we must recognize. These success stories include many of the same 
elements--more accountability, more innovation, more public school 
choice, higher teaching standards, and superb work by great teachers 
and school administrators.
  Our proposal will streamline more than 40 current ESEA programs into 
five performance-based grants that will support and expand these reform 
efforts that are occurring at the grassroots level in America. It is a 
common sense proposal built upon the core principles of reinvestment, 
reinvention, and responsibility that will finally provide the full, 
decent, and equal education we want for all our children, and the 
educational reform that our children need.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Florida for offering this 
amendment. We have a very strong working group in favor of reform. We 
hope this proposal not only represents innovation and change that will 
be a catalyst for broad-scale national education reform, but that it 
will constitute a bridge on which Members of both parties can meet in 
the Senate to accomplish the most sweeping reform of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act in its 35-year history.
  I thank the Chair and my friend from Nevada, and particularly my 
patient and learned friend from Louisiana. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Graham 
amendment. I acknowledge the very helpful comments made by my colleague 
from Connecticut and others who have spoken about this amendment.
  I realize my time is short. I would like to begin by saying that in 
1965, when President Lyndon Johnson first signed the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, it was 32 pages long with 5 program titles. 
Today, the bill is over 1,000 pages and contains over 60 programs. We 
need to get back to basics, and that is what the Graham amendment is 
about.
  If these 1,000 pages of rules, regulations were working. If 
micromanagement of these 60 programs is the answer, then we should be 
satisfied with the status quo. A few minutes ago, my colleague from 
Arkansas spoke about what the status quo means for our children. I rise 
to urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to say no to the 
status quo.
  As the Senator from Connecticut, our leader on this issue, has 
acknowledged, there are many wonderful schools and many wonderful 
teachers, and some wonderful superintendents and active parents. The 
problem is they are becoming the exception rather than the rule. Let me 
just share just a few startling and disturbing statistics.
  In many school districts, 40-, 50-, or 60-percent failure rates are 
the rule, not the exception to the rule.
  Every day in America, 2,806 children drop out of the school system 
because it is not working for them.
  According to the National Education Goals Report, 80 percent of our 
fourth graders scored below proficient in math and 70 percent scored 
below proficient in reading.

[[Page S2317]]

  For every 100 children who start kindergarten each year, only 27 
percent eventually graduate from college.
  If you are happy with these statistics, then do not vote for the 
Graham amendment. I, for one, cannot live with these numbers and am 
here to insist on change for our kids.
  Let me say that although we are all talking about change, there is 
right change and there is wrong change. There is change that gets us on 
the right road, and there is change that takes us further away from 
where we want to go.
  Some Republican leaders offer vouchers as the solution to the dilemma 
I just outlined. Those same Republican leaders also talk about block 
grants, minimal accountability, and then waiting 5 years for results. I 
personally do not think that is the solution.
  On the Democratic side, unfortunately, there are many leaders who 
just want to talk about more programs, more money, more strings, more 
pages, and more micromanagement. But more money and more programs are 
not the answer.
  The Graham amendment is about a clean break away from the old ways. 
Away from sort of the ``romance,'' if you will, of vouchers, which 
really are an abandonment of our public schools and the children who 
need them the most.
  The Graham amendment says we need to talk about performance and 
outcomes. We need to minimize the paperwork, the redtape, the 
regulations. We need to help our schools set high performance 
standards, reward them when they meet those performance standards, and 
make sure there are serious consequences when they fail to do so.
  We cannot have a system any longer that fails a third of our 
children. It is important for us to break with the past. That is what 
this amendment attempts to do.
  It does not do it all. There are many other steps we have to take. 
But it is an important step. A bold step. It talks about real 
accountability. It requires that States and local districts set and 
meet targets for boosting student performance. It will offer awards to 
those who meet their goals and withhold funding from those who 
repeatedly fail to do so.
  The amendment suggests greater flexibility. It acknowldedges that the 
local level has the tools necessary to make these decisions and gives 
them the power to do so. While it does not call for consolidation 
specifically, it does call for us to concentrate our resources around 
broad titles, including teacher quality, professional development, 
smaller classroom sizes
  Finally--I know I am getting to the end of my time--it increases 
funding because it is time that we truly invest in our children's 
future. Derek Bok, Former President of Harvard once said, ``If you 
think Education is expensive . . . try ignorance.''
  I am proud to stand here and support the Graham amendment because it 
is the only way for our Nation to build the kind of foundation we need 
for the future.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, 3 minutes 
off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my colleagues 
in the Senate, our new Democrats, for having so eloquently outlined the 
goals of our amendment and what those goals represent in our vision of 
American public education.
  We believe American public education is fundamental to our Nation's 
progress. We are going to be faced with enormous economic challenges 
from around the world. The only way America will be able to maintain 
its current standard of living and improve that standard for the next 
generation is by an investment in our people, which means an investment 
in public education.
  We believe passionately in the importance of that. We recognize that 
the States and local school districts have the primary responsibility, 
but we think the Federal Government should be a meaningful and 
constructive partner and that the principles in this amendment and the 
principles we will be offering when we debate the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act are critical to achieving that constructive 
partnership.
  The most obvious thing this amendment will do--since we are talking 
about an amendment to a budget resolution--is to reserve an additional 
$15 billion, over the next 5 years, for the purposes of the Federal 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  We do that because we believe that additional amount of Federal 
contribution, particularly with the flexibility, targeted at the most 
in-need students, with an accountability system that relates to student 
performance in the classroom, that that investment is going to be a 
necessary part of lifting the performance of our American students, 
especially those who are most in need.
  If we fail to do that, if we fail, at the Federal level, to make that 
additional commitment to their education, I am afraid we are consigning 
the next decade of American public education to the same critique we 
hear so much of today--that we are not doing an adequate job of 
preparing our children for the future, that we are contributing not 
just to a digital divide but to a socioeconomic divide among our 
children, and that those children who do not have the kind of support 
we have traditionally associated with the family's contribution to 
child development will continue to fall further and further behind 
their fellow students who are more advantaged.
  We believe this is a pragmatic approach to a passionately held goal 
of improved American education.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Off the resolution, I yield to the Senator from Minnesota 
15 minutes. Also, I say the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from 
South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, have an outstanding amendment to be offered 
at a subsequent time. I applaud and commend them for their diligence in 
allowing us to hear the debate on this issue.
  I yield Senator Wellstone 15 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Nevada.
  Mr. President, I hope Senator Johnson--I have contacted his office--
will be down here because I am really joining Senator Johnson who has 
taken the lead on this amendment and has been very involved, going back 
to his work on the Budget Committee.
  Let me, first of all, give credit where credit is due. Over the last 
several years, we have been fighting what is called the flatline 
budget.
  Last year, the administration presented to the Congress a veterans 
budget that was woefully inadequate. This year, they have really 
significantly increased their investment. It is an additional $1.4 
billion over where they were. The Budget Committee has stuck with that. 
That is a huge help.
  But Senator Johnson and I have had the honor and the opportunity to 
work with a lot of veterans organizations--the VFW, the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans--who have put 
together an independent budget. They did this, starting last year, and 
did a lot of good grassroots organizing around the country.
  It went way beyond just veterans coming to Washington, DC, and 
testifying because the message from the Congress to the veterans was: 
We are not just interested in what you are opposed to or what you say 
you need more money for. We want to see a careful outline.
  This independent veterans budget is just such a budget proposal. What 
Senator Johnson has done--and I am pleased to join him--is called for 
an additional $500 million above and beyond the $1.4 billion increase 
from the Senate Budget Committee that would be an investment, 
especially in veterans' health care.

  We have a real challenge in veterans' health care. We talked about 
this in our millennium bill. What we have authorized is essentially 
decent care for a veterans population that is an aging population. We 
have many veterans who are 75, 80 years old. What we have said--and we 
should be looking at the whole population in this country in the same 
way--is this is a population where there are some huge gaps, some

[[Page S2318]]

huge needs. We need to get serious about it.
  How can we pass legislation saying, veterans, we are going to make a 
commitment to long-term care. We are especially going to make a 
commitment to making sure you are not forced into nursing homes. We 
will make a commitment to making sure that there is the support for you 
to stay at home and live at home in as near a normal circumstance as is 
possible with dignity.
  I was in the VA medical center about a month ago. It was very 
poignant. Quite often the men are World War II veterans. They have had 
a hip operation, a knee operation. If you spend any time out there in 
the lounge and talk to their wives, they are scared to death about when 
their husbands come home because they can't take care of them any 
longer without help. They don't know what they are going to do. Whether 
it be respite care, whether it be public health nurses within the VA 
health care system, we have to get serious about this.
  The $500 million doesn't do the job, but it goes in the direction of 
having a veterans budget that is an honest-to-God response to the needs 
of veterans in this country.
  In my State of Minnesota, I think the real heroes and heroines are 
the county veterans' service officers. They are not a part of the VA, 
but they are on the front lines of veterans' health care. They are on 
the front lines of meeting the needs of veterans and their families. I 
have had several meetings with these county veterans' service 
officers--lots of people come; a lot of veterans come--who are 
advocates for the veterans. In our State, the medical center in 
Minneapolis is really a flagship place, but veterans wait for up to 18 
months for some of the specialized care they need. That is too long a 
wait. We have too long a waiting list. We have staff that are 
overworked, sometimes having to work one shift after another.
  We have an aging veterans population. We have made the commitment in 
the millennium bill, but we have not backed it up with the investment 
of resources. We have too high a percentage of the veterans population 
that is a part of the homeless population. Too many of them are Vietnam 
vets, still struggling with posttraumatic stress syndrome.
  If my colleagues have had any meetings with these vets, they know 
they are the most poignant meetings. Quite often, veterans will be 
sitting in a room with you. People will get up and leave and come back 
and get up and leave. They are struggling; you can see it. Quite often, 
you have substance abuse that occurs with this as well. We are not 
providing the treatment.
  This amendment is a terribly important amendment. I yield the rest of 
my time to my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, who took 
the lead on the Budget Committee. He is the one who introduced the 
amendment. I am proud to be on the floor with him in partnership 
pushing for this.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the right to call for regular 
order, but how much more time is left on this amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I think about 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 6 minutes 7 
seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Wellstone 
of Minnesota, for his extraordinary work on this issue. He has long 
been a champion of veterans in our Nation. I have enjoyed the 
opportunity to work with him on this and many other issues.
  I am appreciative of Chairman Domenici's effort to secure a $1.4 
billion increase in outlays in the budget. We have come a considerable 
distance from a year ago, when I was offering on this floor a $3 
billion increase in veterans' health care appropriations which was 
necessary at that time to catch up after 3 years of frozen VA budgets. 
Of the $3 billion that was passed, ultimately, by the time the 
Appropriations Committee was done, we had about $1.7 billion. Even so, 
it was a significant increase. It has done a lot to breathe additional 
viability into our VA health care system.
  This year, Senator Domenici has proposed a $1.4 billion increase. 
That is encouraging. However, the Authoritative Independent Budget 
produced by 40 different veterans groups and medical societies--
including Amvets and Disabled American Vets, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, and the VFW--reminds us that even then we still need an 
additional $500 million in outlays over the Budget Committee's level to 
raise the funding level to the point where it is requested in the 
independent budget of a $1.9 billion increase for fiscal 2000. This 
amendment pays for this. This amendment would get us to that needed 
level.
  We need to make a fundamental decision in this body about where our 
priorities lie. We are talking now about multibillion-dollar surpluses 
in the Federal budget over the coming years. We ought to be cautious 
about whether they materialize or not, but certainly we can be 
optimistic that we will be in black ink in the coming years.
  The question then is, Are we going to fully fund the veterans' health 
care programs at the level the veterans organizations themselves 
contend--I think rightfully so--is necessary? Are we going to put them 
as a first priority honoring those people who put their lives on the 
line and made our liberties possible or are we going to fall back to 
the point where, again, we only use the dollars that are left over 
after other things have been done?
  To me, this ought to be a first-priority item. We have an opportunity 
on the floor this evening to make it very clear to our colleagues in 
the other body that, in fact, veterans' health care is a first priority 
item and that we will take care of that. When we are done with dealing 
with veterans' health care issues, we will then move on to whatever our 
other priorities might be, whether they be tax cuts, education, health 
care, or other matters facing the country. This ought to be at the top 
or near the top of our agenda as we debate the look of the Federal 
budget in this coming year.
  I applaud the constructive steps that have been taken on veterans' 
health care. I certainly am appreciative of the work of Senator 
Wellstone in helping to raise the visibility of this issue. At this 
juncture, as we shape this budget resolution which creates a roadmap, 
which creates the parameters for where the appropriations committees 
will go next, we need to send them this kind of message that, in fact, 
we want full funding for veterans' health care.
  This is our opportunity to make that statement. We should not let 
this opportunity go by without making it clear that we are committed to 
this reasonable level of funding, after those many years of frozen VA 
budgets, that the VA requires.

  Mr. President, I yield back my time.


                           Amendment No. 2931

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Stevens amendment No. 
2931.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the first of a series of three 
amendments that deals with points of order in the budget resolution, as 
it was reported to the Senate.
  I have the feeling that this is deja vu because every year we face 
the same kind of concept. In the current budget resolution, for 
instance, that we are operating on for this fiscal year, there is, in 
fact, a point of order against emergency spending that requires 60 
votes for emergency spending of a nondefense character. The resolution 
that was reported to the floor extends that to cover defense spending 
also.
  It also has what we call a firewall that covers both budget authority 
and outlays for defense and nondefense. And it has a series of two 
other points of order that deal with delayed obligations and advance 
appropriations. Those make the management of the 13 bills our 
subcommittees work on annually and the supplemental and emergency bills 
that we face extremely difficult.
  We have had a long series of conversations. I told someone I sort of 
feel like Houdini. Every year, I get a different set of chains and the 
configuration of the box I am put in before I am

[[Page S2319]]

put in the water differs, but everybody expects me to get out of it. I 
must say to the Senate, before this year is over, you might find some 
new approaches that help me get out of the chains. But these 
mechanisms, primarily for enforcement, ought to apply to the Senate as 
a whole, not only to the Appropriations Committee.
  In fact, if you examine the rules, as I did early this morning when I 
got up and started thinking about these amendments, I think you will 
find it very interesting. We have a series of rules that govern the 
Senate, and if we ever really followed them, we would not have the 
trouble that we have once in a while here on the floor. The interesting 
thing is that those rules do not apply to the appropriations process in 
most instances because the framers of those rules understood the real 
complexities of the appropriations process and the fact that we do deal 
with emergencies and with various extraordinary circumstances in the 
course of each year's consideration of these 13 bills.
  We were prepared to offer three amendments to delete these three 
sections: 208, 210, and 211. I have had long discussions with my good 
friend, Senator Domenici, the manager of the bill, chairman of the 
Budget Committee, and he has made an offer to us, which I am reluctant 
to agree to, but I have no alternative because no committee needs the 
budget resolution more than the Appropriations Committee. The points of 
order that are in the Budget Act apply to the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. They don't even apply to the House bill because the House 
controls its access to the floor and amendments through the rules 
process.
  We, therefore, have to negotiate with the Budget Committee to obtain 
the best possible regime under which to present the appropriations 
bills for the fiscal year 2001. I am going to yield to my friend. It is 
my understanding that he will offer an amendment and that the amendment 
will be debated here. It is my intention, if it is what I believe it to 
be--as I said, I am reluctantly going to agree to support it, primarily 
because we need this budget resolution, and also because I have great 
trust and faith in the chairman of the Budget Committee. He is seeking 
to get his job done, and I am seeking to be able to do the job that has 
been assigned to our committee.
  Mr. President, I yield to my friend to carry on the discussions. He 
will yield to the Senator from Texas and others. How much time do I 
have on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 49 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. If I have 49 minutes, I yield 45 minutes to my friend, 
and I will reserve 4 minutes in case I have to come back into this 
discussion at some point. It is my understanding that he has the 
authority, then, to yield to other Members on this side who might wish 
to discuss the matter, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my 
understanding that the Senator from Alaska offered an amendment to 
which he has 1 hour, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was not enough time for 1 hour, so it is 
54 minutes to each side.
  Mr. REID. Who is in opposition to the Stevens amendment other than 
the Democrats?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Nobody here is in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader controls the time.
  Mr. REID. So we have 54 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will retain 4 minutes of the time and yield the rest 
of the time to the Senator from New Mexico. He will yield time to my 
friend from Virginia, as well as the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has control of the 
45 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to talk with Senator Stevens for 
a moment. First of all, let me say that there are a couple of Senators 
who want to speak for 2 or 3 minutes on my side. Since I have almost an 
hour, I will yield to them. We haven't been able to have any time 
because of the way things are. Senator Gorton wishes to speak. How much 
time would Senator Gorton take?
  Mr. GORTON. Two minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Gorton.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current 
amendment be set aside and we call up, first, amendment No. 2942, and 
then 3011, both of which have been agreed to by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2942

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
establishment of a national background check system for long-term care 
                                workers)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Kohl, for 
     himself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2942.

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

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 
                   NATIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM FOR LONG-TERM 
                   CARE WORKERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The impending retirement of the baby boom generation 
     will greatly increase the demand and need for quality long-
     term care and it is incumbent on Congress and the President 
     to ensure that medicare and medicaid patients are protected 
     from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment.
       (2) Although the majority of long-term care facilities do 
     an excellent job in caring for elderly and disabled patients, 
     incidents of abuse and neglect and mistreatment do occur at 
     an unacceptable rate and are not limited to nursing homes 
     alone.
       (3) Current Federal and State safeguards are inadequate 
     because there is little or no information sharing between 
     States about known abusers and no common State procedures for 
     tracking abusers from State to State and facility to 
     facility.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget assume that a national 
     registry of abusive long-term care workers should be 
     established by building upon existing infrastructures at the 
     Federal and State levels that would enable long-term care 
     providers who participate in the medicare and medicaid 
     programs to conduct background checks on prospective 
     employees.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is an amendment by Senator Kohl of 
Wisconsin regarding the establishment of a national background check 
system for long-term care workers. It has been agreed to, and I think 
we can take it directly to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2942) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3011

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the price of 
                          prescription drugs)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself and 
     Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 3011.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE PRICE OF 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUGS IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Today, two-thirds of senior citizens in the United 
     States have access to prescription drugs through health 
     insurance coverage.
       (2) However, it is difficult for many Americans, including 
     senior citizens, to afford the prescription drugs that they 
     need to stay healthy.
       (3) Many senior citizens in the United States leave the 
     country and go to Canada or Mexico to buy prescription drugs 
     that are developed, manufactured, and approved in the United 
     States in order to buy such drugs at lower prices than such 
     drugs are sold for in the United States.
       (4) According to the General Accounting Office, a consumer 
     in the United States pays

[[Page S2320]]

     on average \1/3\ more for a prescription drug than a consumer 
     pays for the same drug in another country.
       (5) The United States has made a strong commitment to 
     supporting the research and development of new drugs through 
     taxpayer-supported funding of the National Institutes of 
     Health, through the research and development tax credit, and 
     through other means.
       (6) The development of new drugs is important because the 
     use of such drugs enables people to live longer and lead 
     healthier, more productive lives.
       (7) Citizens of other countries should pay a portion of the 
     research and development costs for new drugs, or their fair 
     share of such costs, rather than just reap the benefits of 
     such drugs.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that the 
     cost disparity between identical prescription drugs sold in 
     the United States, Canada, and Mexico should be reduced or 
     eliminated.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the 
discrimination in the price for prescription drugs on the part of 
American companies between drugs sold in the U.S. and drugs sold for 
less overseas, and it expresses the concern of the Senate about that 
discrimination and the desire that it be reduced or eliminated.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Washington, Senator 
Gorton, has this been approved by the majority and minority, signed off 
on; is that true?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3011) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, Senator Allard wishes to speak. Can 
he do what he wanted to do in 3 minutes?
  Mr. ALLARD. I can.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. Mr. President, frankly, I had no intention to 
come to the floor today, as I received a generous amount of time 
yesterday to debate my amendment concerning the national debt. I 
appreciate the chairman of the Budget Committee giving me some time to 
speak momentarily. After listening to the dialog today and reading the 
content of the sense-of-the-Senate amendment by the Senator from Rhode 
Island, I felt a sincere need to come and speak to you all this 
evening.
  Since last April's tragic events in my home State at Columbine High 
School, the town of Littleton, it seems as though the students and 
community of the Columbine High School have been mentioned almost on a 
daily basis on the floor of the Senate in Washington, DC. This tragic 
event has become a new flag to be waved by those in this body who seek 
to further politicize the issues of crime, law enforcement, and the 
second amendment. I ask you, Mr. President, what has this politicking 
done to help heal the wounds in my home State? I have staff from 
Littleton. I have staff in Littleton, and I have staff in my State 
offices who will go home this very night in Littleton, CO.
  This tragic event shocked the people in that community, and to date I 
fail to see any benefit to those in Littleton from the continued 
publicity and polarization coming from this Chamber.
  I have with me two articles published this week: Denver Rocky 
Mountain News editorial documenting the April 12 visit of President 
Clinton to Littleton:

       It would be utterly tasteless for any politician--from the 
     President to local state representative--to attempt to make 
     political hay over Columbine on the brink of its anniversary.

  Washington Post Article ``Columbine, Reflections of a Painful Past'':

       Students, parents and school officials here are viewing 
     this anniversary with trepidation. They are apprehensive 
     about the emotions it may rekindle--and about the crush of 
     journalists and curiosity seekers expected to arrive.
       A Columbine Senior said, ``It is not the kind of thing that 
     really falls away very quickly. We're healing. But it is 
     always in people's emotions. There is always a hint of it in 
     the background.''

  I am ashamed that part of background noise that disturbs the healing 
of these tender wounds in a Colorado community is the increasing effort 
by some to make this event the driving force behind their own policy 
goals.
  As the chairman of last year's Juvenile Justice Task Force I worked 
closely with a number of members of this body to determine causes and 
solutions for America's juvenile justice problems. The causes are 
intricate and many. We made our recommendations and we contributed to 
the juvenile justice bill currently in conference committee.
  We are here today to work on a budget resolution for the coming 
fiscal year. We have had, and will have again, policy debates on the 
many issues this amendment addresses. We should have those debates in 
the realm of sensible, comprehensive policy. What we should not do is 
continue painful rhetoric that inflames the wounds of the Littleton 
community.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Denver Rocky Mountain News article 
and the Washington Post article mentioned in my statement be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 6, 2000]

              At Columbine, Reflections on a Painful Past

                           (By Amy Goldstein)

       Littleton, Colo., April 5.--One of Matt Varney's best 
     friends is Pat Ireland, a Columbine High School student who, 
     last April 20, was captured on television tumbling, shot and 
     bleeding, out a school window. A year later, Varney said that 
     his friend inspires and sobers him still.
       ``Watching him heal--his everlasting pursuit to get 
     better--has healed me,'' said Varney, a Columbine senior. 
     Yet, he said, ``I have trouble seeing him, knowing these two 
     guys took away so much from him.''
       Varney had left Columbine for lunch two minutes before a 
     pair of fellow students rampaged through the building, 
     murdering 13 people and wounding two dozen others before 
     killing themselves. Tonight, Varney was one of two dozen 
     Columbine students and staff members who volunteered to sit 
     on a stage for a town meeting to describe how the nation's 
     deadliest school shooting has influenced their school and 
     themselves.
       For nearly two hours, they talked of friendships that have 
     tightened. The solidarity of teachers willing to fill in for 
     one another on a difficult day. The solace they draw from 
     faith and family and writing poetry.
       They talked too, of sadness that endures. ``Sometimes, I 
     just want to shout out at night, `I don't know why it was 
     us,' '' said Sergio Gonzales, a senior. ``It isn't the 
     regular life of a teenager.''
       The strains that linger, mental health and school officials 
     say, are mounting in the days leading to the first 
     anniversary of the massacre. The community is responding with 
     a series of events intended to commemorate the occasion and, 
     at the same time, minimize the disruption to a community 
     still striving for equilibrium.
       Tonight's town meeting was the opening event and the first 
     time that the Jefferson County school district has convened 
     students and staff to speak publicly about the shooting and 
     its aftermath. ``Columbine'' suddenly became known worldwide 
     as a synonym for school violence on a late Tuesday morning 
     when a pair of juniors, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, 
     crossed a soccer field and entered the building with guns 
     blazing, fatally shooting a dozen students and a science 
     teacher before turning their guns on themselves in the high 
     school library. They had also laced the building with bombs, 
     most of which never went off.
       Like other commemorative events that will take place this 
     month, tonight's 90-minute forum, ``Conversations With 
     Columbine,'' was tightly controlled, with reporters allowed 
     to request individual interviews with participants afterward 
     only by handing their business cards to school system 
     representatives. Reporters and television crews who want a 
     glimpse inside the school may have one--but only in small, 
     guided tours arranged for them early this Sunday, when the 
     building will otherwise be vacant.
       Students, parents and school officials here are viewing 
     this anniversary with trepidation. They are apprehensive 
     about the emotions it may rekindle--and about the crush of 
     journalists and curiosity-seekers expected to arrive.
       Based on the crowd that thronged Oklahoma City one year 
     after the 1995 bombing of a federal office building there, 
     and the proximity of the Littleton anniversary to Easter 
     vacations, school officials have predicted that perhaps 
     100,000 people will arrive here later this month. Community 
     leaders also have heard reports that members of the National 
     Rifle Association may turn out in force to try to counteract 
     welling support here for tighter gun control measures being 
     debated in the Colorado legislature.
       ``We don't want the masses, but we have to be prepared for 
     the masses,'' Rick Kaufman, a school system spokesman, said 
     this week.
       Outwardly, Littleton has recovered a sense of normalcy. 
     Adjacent to the Columbine campus, the grass has grown back in 
     Clement Park, which last spring became a muddy encampment for 
     dozens of television satellite trucks and a makeshift shrine 
     for students bringing flowers and placards to memorialize the 
     dead. This week, the park was filled with young boys playing 
     lacrosse after school in the spring sunshine.

[[Page S2321]]

       The police tape was removed long ago from the school, a 
     sprawling beige brick structure near the entrance to a quiet 
     residential neighborhood. But there are reminders and 
     frailties, still. The student who walks into class and tells 
     a teacher he had a flashback and ended up crashing a car. The 
     unfailing shivers from the sound of a helicopter whirring 
     overhead. The sight of a few students still propelling 
     themselves down the school's corridors in wheelchairs.
       ``It is not the kind of thing that really falls away very 
     quickly,'' said senior Peter Forsberg, who hid last April 20 
     in the school's Spanish office for hours. ``We're healing. 
     But it is always in people's emotions. There is always a hint 
     of it in the background.''
                                  ____


                 [From the Denver Rocky Mountain News]

                     The Timing of Clinton's Visit

       Would Bill Clinton politicize the anniversary of Columbine? 
     Perish the thought! Why, didn't the president wait three 
     whole days after the Columbine shootings last year before he 
     publicly linked them to a lack of gun control? And didn't he 
     cool his heels a full week before he introduced a package of 
     gun measures that the White House described as ``the most 
     comprehensive gun legislation any administration has put 
     forward in 30 years''? There's sensitivity for you.
       Yes, this president has been the very model of self-control 
     in resisting the temptation to exploit the Columbine tragedy 
     to advance a long-held political agenda. Most impressive of 
     all, he waited a whole month after Columbine--think of the 
     forbearance!--before he called for a Federal Trade Commission 
     probe into the marketing of violent video games and other 
     products.
       That's why we are so shocked that anyone would suggest that 
     Clinton might actually try to politicize the anniversary of 
     Columbine when he visits Colorado on April 12 to campaign for 
     a state initiative that would mandate background checks at 
     gun shows. What on Earth in the president's record raises 
     that unworthy suspicion?
       It would be utterly tasteless for any politician--from the 
     president to a local state representative--to attempt to make 
     political hay over Columbine on the brink of its anniversary. 
     President Clinton, whose tastefulness in all matters is 
     legendary, would be just about the last person we'd expect to 
     resort to such a crude maneuver.
       So by all means, let the public accept the assurances of 
     SAFE Colorado, the gun-control group pushing the ballot 
     initiative, that the timing of the president's visit so close 
     to the Columbine anniversary of April 20 is a mere 
     coincidence and meant to signify nothing. Of course that's 
     true. There are only 52 weeks in a year, after all, and this 
     paltry number puts a terrific strain on the schedule of such 
     a busy world leader. If you wonder why Clinton would come to 
     Colorado barely a week before the Columbine anniversary to 
     attend a political rally on gun control, blame the burdens of 
     the presidency if you must blame something, but please do not 
     blame this man whose very career is a tribute to discretion 
     and respect for private grief.
       As impressed as we are with Clinton's sensitivity, we are 
     also pleased to see that his upcoming visit is evoking the 
     usual carefully reasoned rhetoric from gun-rights advocates. 
     ``I just think (Clinton's) just doing what he always does, 
     wading through the blood of the victims to push his agenda,'' 
     said Bill Dietrick, legislative director of the Colorado 
     State Shooting Association. Dietrick's thoughtful analysis is 
     yet another enlightened contribution to the debate over guns, 
     and it follows a series of equally diplomatic comments last 
     month by the executive vice president of the National Rifle 
     Association.
       Among other things, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre claimed that 
     President Bill Clinton ``needs a certain level of violence in 
     this country. He's willing to accept a certain level of 
     killing to further his political agenda and his vice 
     president's, too.''
       It is heartening to see, as the Columbine anniversary 
     approaches, so much evidence of maturity and mutual respect 
     on both sides in the gun-control debate. Now you see why 
     we're so confident that the exploitation of Columbine is the 
     furthest thing from the minds of Clinton, those who arranged 
     his visit and those who will protest it.
       After all, how could anyone possibly complain about their 
     behavior up till now?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager, Senator 
Domenici.
  Senator Stevens and I have an amendment at the desk calling for a 
$4.1 billion increase in total defense spending.
  We recognize that the House of Representatives is taking similar 
action. This would be parallel action.
  At no time in contemporary history have there been more threats and 
more challenges affecting the security of this country. At the same 
time, at no time in my memory--I have been associated with the military 
as far back as World War II--has there been really less incentive for 
the young men and women of the Nation to join and proudly wear the 
uniform and incentives for those in the middle grades of our military 
to stay in after enormous expenses for the taxpayers to train them. 
When they finish their obligated period and first-term enlistments--the 
first term for officers and oftentimes pilots is 6 to 8 years--they are 
highly sought after by the private sector in our magnificent expanding 
economy.
  We have this coincidence of pressures being put on the military 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on the current version of the 
Stevens-Warner amendment of $4 billion for extra defense spending to 
meet the threats worldwide and to provide the proper benefits and care 
for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families; to 
provide for the increase in procurement for the modernization they need 
with the additional dollars for training.
  This Nation has witnessed the deployment of the men and women of the 
Armed Forces beyond our shores in the last 6 or 8 years, more times 
than any other President has sent them out into harm's way. For too 
many years, the size of our defense budget has been based on 
constrained funding, not on the threats facing our country or the 
military strategy necessary to meet those threats. We began to make 
some progress last year when, for the first time in 14 years, we had a 
real increase in the authorized level of defense spending. We must 
continue the momentum we started last year in an effort to correct the 
most critical readiness, modernization, and recruiting and retention 
problems in our military.

  Any analysis of our defense budget should begin with an analysis of 
the worldwide threat that our military faces--both now and in the 
future. The world remains complex and dangerous, and the United States 
is continually called upon to provide the requisite leadership to 
resolve the many conflicts which continue to erupt in this rapidly 
changing world. The negative impact that the large number of 
contingency operations in which our military is engaged worldwide is 
having on the readiness of our military forces concerns me. We have had 
troops in the Persian Gulf--engaged in active military operations 
against Iraq--for over a decade, in Bosnia for over four years, and now 
in Kosovo--with no end in sight for any of these operations.
  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified that they still have a 
shortfall in funding of $9.0 billion for this fiscal year--fiscal year 
2000; a requirement for an additional $15.5 billion above the budget 
request to meet shortfalls in readiness and modernization for fiscal 
year 2001; and a requirement for an additional $85.0 billion over the 
next five years. These were requirements identified by the Service 
Chiefs as their unfunded, validated requirements--not a set of ``wish 
lists.''
  As the elected representatives of the American people, we have no 
higher responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of our 
people by maintaining a strong and capable military. As chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, I cannot sit idly by--knowing of the many 
shortfalls in defense funding that currently exist--without at least 
trying to address the many urgent needs of our military.
  The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001 took some 
positive steps forward. The Budget Committee added an additional $500 
million, but more needs to be done.
  While the fiscal year 2001 defense budget request does reach the $60 
billion modernization goal set in fiscal year 1995, this goal has not 
kept pace with requirements and has never been adjusted for inflation. 
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have more 
accurately placed the funding necessary to meet modernization 
requirements at $90.0 billion annually, with other organizations 
stating that even larger increases are necessary.
  We must continue the momentum we started last year when the Congress 
provided the personnel incentives necessary to reverse the negative 
trends in recruiting and retention. The Secretary of Defense, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Service Chiefs have all said that 
fulfilling our commitment for healthcare to our military retirees will 
be among the highest priorities this year. I believe, there is 
overwhelming support in the Senate to correct many of the shortfalls in 
the military healthcare system for our service members, their families, 
and our military retirees. it is critical to

[[Page S2322]]

enact the important initiatives contained in the bipartisan healthcare 
legislation introduced by the Senate and the Armed Services Committee 
leadership. Adding the funds in this amendment makes it possible to 
fund this important initiative for military retiree healthcare.
  The increase of $4.0 billion contained in our amendment will allow us 
to bring defense spending to a more appropriate level and address some 
of the urgent unfunded requirements of the military chiefs. By adding 
the funding in this amendment, we will not be forced to fund needed 
increases for defense using emergency spending. Adding these funds now, 
allows the Senate to follow the normal procedures of authorization 
first, and not to forced to deal with added spending as an emergency.
  The challenges that this country will face in the new millennium are 
diverse--new threats, new battlefields, and new weapons. It is 
important that we remain vigilant, forward thinking, and prepared to 
address these challenges.
  Mr. Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, concluded his 
excellent opening statement at a very sobering hearing before the Armed 
Services Committee in January by saying:

       The fact that we are arguably the world's most powerful 
     nation does not bestow invulnerability; in fact, it may make 
     us a larger target for those who don't share our interest, 
     values, or beliefs.

  We must ensure that our military forces remain ready to meet present 
and future challenges.
  I want to express my appreciation again to the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for assisting us on this amendment. I want to also thank the 
highly professional staff members of the Appropriations Committee and 
the Budget Committee for their assistance for working out this 
amendment.
  I also want to thank Senator Domenici and his staff in assisting me 
last evening in working out a solution which will provide for the 
implementation of a Thrift Savings Plan for the active and reserve 
components of our military.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                    Amendment No. 2931, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2931) as modified is as follows:

       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 9, line 6, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 9, line 7, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       Strike page 41, line 5 and all that follows through page 
     45, line 22; and insert the following:
       (g) Exception for Defense Spending.--Subsection (b) shall 
     not apply against an emergency designation for a provision 
     making discretionary appropriations in the defense category.

     SEC. 209. RESERVE FUND PENDING INCREASE OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 
                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The functional totals with respect to discretionary 
     spending set forth in this concurrent resolution, if 
     implemented, would result in legislation which exceeds the 
     limit on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001 set out 
     in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985. Nonetheless, the allocation 
     pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to the Committee on 
     Appropriations is in compliance with current law spending 
     limits.
       (2) Consequently unless and until the discretionary 
     spending limit for fiscal year 2001 is increased, aggregate 
     appropriations which exceed the current law limits would 
     still be out of order in the Senate and subject to a 
     supermajority vote.
       (3) The functional totals contained in this concurrent 
     resolution envision a level of discretionary spending for 
     fiscal year 2001 as follows:
       (A) For the discretionary category: $600,579,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $592,326,000,000 in outlays.
       (B) For the highway category: $26,920,000,000 in outlays.
       (C) For the mass transit category: $4,639,000,000 in 
     outlays.
       (4) To facilitate the Senate completing its legislative 
     responsibilities for the 106th Congress in a timely fashion, 
     it is imperative that the Senate consider legislation which 
     increases the discretionary spending limit for fiscal year 
     2001 as soon as possible.
       (b) Adjustment to Allocations.--Whenever a bill or joint 
     resolution becomes law that increases the discretionary 
     spending limit for fiscal year 2001 set out in section 251(c) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, the appropriate chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall increase the allocation called for in section 302(a) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the appropriate 
     Committee on Appropriations.
       (c) Limitation on Adjustment.--An adjustment made pursuant 
     to subsection (b) shall not result in an allocation under 
     section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that 
     exceeds the total budget authority and outlays set forth in 
     subsection (a)(3).

     SEC. 210. CONGRESSIONAL FIREWALL FOR DEFENSE AND NON-DEFENSE 
                   SPENDING.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, for fiscal year 2001 the 
     term ``discretionary spending limit'' means--
       (1) for the defense category, $310,819,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $297,050,000,000 in outlays; and
       (2) for the nondefense category, $289,760,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $327,583,000,000 in outlays.
       (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--After the adjustment to the section 302(a) 
     allocation to the Appropriations Committee is made pursuant 
     to section 208 and except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     that exceeds any discretionary spending limit set forth in 
     this section.
       (2) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by Congress is in effect.
       (c) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.

     SEC. 211. MECHANISMS FOR STRENGTHENING BUDGETARY INTEGRITY.

       (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``budget year'' means with respect to a session of Congress, 
     the fiscal year of the Government that starts on October 1 of 
     the calendar year in which that session begins.
       (b) Point of Order With Respect to Advanced 
     Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or 
     conference report that--
       (A) provides an appropriation of new budget authority for 
     any fiscal year after the budget year that is in excess of 
     the amounts provided in paragraph (2); and
       (B) provides an appropriation of new budget authority for 
     any fiscal year subsequent to the year after the budget year.
       (2) Limitation on amounts.--The total amount, provided in 
     appropriations legislation for the budget year, of 
     appropriations for the subsequent fiscal year shall not 
     exceed $23,000,000,000.
       (c) Point of Order With Respect to Delayed Obligations.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     contains an appropriation of new budget authority for any 
     fiscal year which does not become available upon enactment of 
     such legislation or on the first day of that fiscal year 
     (whichever is later).
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 
     to appropriations in the defense category; nor shall it apply 
     to appropriations reoccuring or customary or for the 
     following programs provided that such appropriation is not 
     delayed beyond the specified date and does not exceed the 
     specified amount:
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me suggest that this modification is supported by 
Senator Stevens, Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm, and Senator Warner, 
and I understand on the Democrat side Senator Inouye has told Senator 
Stevens he supports it.
  We are obviously trying tonight to complete our work and get a budget 
resolution that we can take to conference with the House of which we 
are proud.
  Frankly, we came out of committee with $595.6 billion available in 
program authority for defense and domestic accounts.
  In addition, we said in that budget resolution that we were 
reinstating what we had used for 3 years: The first 3 years of the 
balanced budget agreement between the President and the

[[Page S2323]]

Congress--to wit, a firewall--so the defense money couldn't be used for 
domestic spending or vice versa.
  In this amendment, we retain that, but we have added $4 billion in 
program authority to defense.
  There will be no mingling of that money with domestic and no mingling 
of domestic money with defense.
  That firewall stays in this modification offered by Senator Stevens 
on behalf of himself and other cosponsors.
  In addition, the budget resolution had a 60-vote point of order for 
emergencies.
  With this amendment, we have returned to the law as it was before 
this budget resolution; that is, last year we had in the budget 
resolution that 60-vote point of order which would apply to domestic 
spending. That is retained, not modified, and it is not expanded to 
include defense.
  In addition, the House of Representatives adopted in the budget 
resolution a limitation on advanced appropriations, a technicality 
often used but not always used by Presidents and Congress as they 
complete their appropriations work. It is a legitimate tool of 
appropriating. The House, in their resolution, has $23 billion as the 
maximum amount allowed in program authority to be advanced.
  Then there is a point of order, if you do more. We are agreeing here 
to do what the House did.
  Senator Stevens has negotiated with us, and we are going to the House 
level on that number. That means for those who are concerned, we are 
keeping some very rigid discipline, but we are going to the House 
number, and the number that was very much discussed in the Budget 
Committee, we are back to that number.
  Senator Gramm of Texas has agreed with their compromise, and he was 
one who wanted to lower the number.
  We are beginning to develop a package that looks to have consensus on 
our side. I wasn't sure any Democrats were going to vote for our budget 
resolution. I hope they do with these modifications. We have Senator 
Inouye agreeing with these modifications. It doesn't mean he is 
committed to the budget resolution.
  There are no nondefense delayed obligations except for those listed 
in the budget and those that are ordinary and historic.
  Senator Stevens made two commitments to us. Frankly, I have committed 
to him. We worked together. He is going to make every effort to stay 
within the limitations in this budget.
  That means there is $289 billion in budget authority, and $327.6 
billion in outlays for the nondefense part of this budget.
  Depending on how you figure it, it is anywhere from a 3.35-percent 
increase--looking at it another way, it may be as much as 6, or 6\1/2\, 
depending upon a couple of things such as a $4.3 billion budget 
authority that is going to be made available when we pass a certain 
bill that was required by the Budget Act of 1997.
  The distinguished chairman is committing to do everything in his 
power to live within the budget resolution. That is all anybody ever 
asked. He has agreed not to violate the $23 billion in advanced 
funding. There would be no reason to put it in the budget resolution if 
we weren't going to do it.
  I express my extreme gratitude to the distinguished Appropriations 
Committee chairman for working with me, working with Senator Gramm, and 
working with Senator Lott and others on our side, and the distinguished 
Senator Warner who carved out this budget enforcement compromise. I 
think it is an excellent one.
  I think we ought to adopt it.
  From what I can understand, all segments of the Republican Party that 
had diverse views on this budget resolution ought to be in concurrence 
on this. I believe it does precisely what most of us would like.
  I remind those who are thinking about domestic spending that we have 
increased the advanced appropriations amounts from $13 billion to $23 
billion. That is a pretty good one that will allow flexibility of 
management, which is what the appropriators are looking for. But it is 
not too high because the House has accepted it also as something they 
can live with based on this year's levels and the levels of last year.
  I think overall it is a good compromise. It is now the pending 
business, as Senator Stevens indicated in his submission to the desk as 
a modification of his original amendment.
  We still have some additional time. The distinguished Senator from 
Texas, who is a valued Member of the Senate and of the Budget 
Committee, with whom I worked very hard to carve the budget resolution, 
is here. I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would hate to have to make a living 
negotiating with Senator Stevens. In the dull moments when we sit here 
and listen to some droning speech and look at the names written in our 
desk drawers--many of which we do not even recognize and never heard 
of--my guess is that someday people will see Senator Stevens' name in 
one of these drawers and they will know who he was.
  I believe we have a stronger budget as a result of this agreement. I 
think we have a stronger enforcement process as a result of this 
agreement because Senator Domenici and I had words written on paper, 
but we didn't have a consensus in the majority party to enforce those 
words. We have that consensus today.
  I take the word of the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska to be 
more powerful and worth more than points of order. When he says he will 
lead the effort to the best of his ability to live within the 
nondefense discretionary numbers of this budget and to stay with the 
limit we have agreed to on advanced appropriations, I believe that is 
the strongest enforcement mechanism we can have.
  We have preserved our 60-vote point of order for emergencies that are 
nondefense in nature. Senator Stevens raised the point that in an 
emergency for defense, you could require a supermajority, and if you 
had a partisan issue on defense, you could deny the ability to meet the 
defense needs of the Nation. A point well made and a point well taken.
  But we have the enforcement mechanism that prevents the piling of 
items of a nondefense nature into bills and designating them as 
emergencies when, in fact, they are not emergencies.
  We kept the firewalls so when we get money for defense, it stays in 
defense. We have adjusted the advanced appropriation level to the level 
we had last year, the level that is in the House, with a strong 60-vote 
point of order to hold it in place. We prohibit nondefense delayed 
obligations, which is an important new power in the budget process. We 
have a unified Republican commitment to live within a discretionary 
budget written here and to stay with that number through the process.
  This has been a long and difficult negotiation. We are dealing with 
people who have jobs to do. I think as a result of this agreement we 
can move forward together to do that job. I thank Senator Domenici. I 
thank Senator Stevens. I believe we have a good product. I believe it 
is worthy of support. I believe we have a fighting chance to hold it 
through the appropriations process. If we do, the Nation will be the 
big beneficiary.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the Fiscal Year 
2001 Budget Resolution, I want to again bring to the attention of my 
colleagues the testimony by General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 
September 29, 1998.
  ``It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets the U.S. 
military apart from all potential adversaries. These talented people 
are the ones who won the Cold War and ensured our victory in Operation 
Desert Storm. These dedicated professionals make it possible for the 
United States to accomplish the many missions we are called on to 
perform around the world every single day.''
  It has been glaringly evident to me, and I suspect to some of my 
colleagues, that there has been little or no mention of national 
security issues during this debate on the budget resolution. Maybe it 
is because defense does not rank very high in the polls which reflect 
the concerns of the American people. Or maybe it is because everyone 
assumes that the defense budget is adequate and there is no reason to 
debate it. I am here today, along with the Chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Warner, and members

[[Page S2324]]

of the Armed Services Committee, to tell you that the level of defense 
spending proposed by the President and this budget resolution is 
inadequate.
  To highlight the problem let me point out that despite the two 
percent increase in the President's budget over fiscal year 2000 and 
another $500 million increase in the budget resolution, the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff have identified a requirement for an additional $15 
billion to meet shortfalls in readiness and modernization for fiscal 
year 2001.
  Mr. President, we have the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines, however, all their professionalism is for naught if they do 
not have the equipment, weapons and supplies to carry out their 
mission. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm, which reflected both 
the professionalism and material quality of our Armed Forces, the 
defense budget has declined by $80 billion. Yet the pace of the 
military operations has not declined, in fact the pace of operations 
exceeds that of the Cold War era. Not only are the men and women of our 
military stretched to the limits, but also their equipment. The $4 
billion increase in the Defense Budget proposed by Chairman Warner's 
amendment will not resolve the shortfall identified by the Nation's 
most senior military commanders, it will however provide the necessary 
funding to improve recruiting, retention, health care, and most 
important readiness.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of Senator Warner's amendment to 
ensure we meet the Nation's security needs. We must not leave the false 
impression that the increase in the President's budget and the 
additional funding proposed in the budget resolution will result in 
increased security for our Nation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains on the amendment as modified?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Smith from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague for yielding this 
time.
  I have an amendment, No. 3031, called prescription drug amendment, 
along with my colleague, Senator Allard. Three or four minutes does not 
give much time to explain a complicated amendment, but I say to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle it meets the criteria of the 
Democrat plan with a couple of additions for improvement.
  It is revenue neutral. It eliminates the need to spend $40 billion in 
the budget. It takes effect as early as 2001, and there is no premium 
increase for seniors. It is voluntary. It is accessible to all Medicare 
beneficiaries. It is designed to provide meaningful protection. It is 
affordable for all beneficiaries. It is administered using the private 
sector. It is consistent with broader Medicare reform. It is revenue 
neutral. It does not increase premiums. It provides full prescription 
drug benefits as early as 2001.
  The cost to the trust fund under Smith-Allard is zero; the cost to 
the trust fund under the Clinton proposal is $203 billion over the next 
20 years.
  It is supported by Mr. King, the former HCFA Administrator, in a 
letter.
  Monthly premiums under the Clinton plan, $51; Smith-Allard, zero for 
drugs; Part B, $45.50, versus $45.50; Medigap, $134 versus $88.
  The total is $230 versus $133. The Smith-Allard premium savings is 
$96.83 a month. It works simply. The annual deductible under Clinton is 
$876--$776 plus $100. Under Smith-Allard, the combined deductible is 
$675. And prescription drugs are in part going toward the deductible.
  In conclusion, this is a very good approach. It saves $40 billion out 
of this budget resolution, with which we could do a lot of things. It 
is revenue neutral. It takes effect as early as 2001. There is no 
premium increase for seniors.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Chafee has been asking for time. I yield 2 
minutes to Senator Chafee.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am sending amendment No. 2944 to the 
desk for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding this is not the time 
to offer amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would require unanimous consent to offer 
the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Rhode Island understands the amendment 
is not in order unless agreed upon on the other side, but I yield time 
for him to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by a 
bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Senators Mikulski, Snowe, and 
Grassley, in offering this amendment.
  In 1990, Congress passed legislation to authorize the Centers for 
Disease Control to pay for screening tests to detect breast and 
cervical cancer on low-income and uninsured women. Regrettably, this 
legislation did not authorize the treatment for those screening tests 
tragically indicating cancer. I cannot believe any legislator would not 
want to correct this omission.
  Diagnosis without treatment is leaving women with the life-
threatening disease nowhere to turn. Screening must be coupled with 
treatment to reduce mortality. Specifically, the sense of the Senate 
mirrors legislation introduced by Senator John Chafee which would give 
States the option to provide treatment through the Medicaid program for 
women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer under the CDC screening 
program. I truly believe this is a corrective measure.
  Yes, this program costs $315 million over 5 years. However, the House 
included funding for this program in its budget 2 weeks ago, and the 
House leadership has committed to a vote on this bill by Mother's Day, 
May 14. This is not a permanent entitlement. Women would only be 
eligible for Medicaid during the duration of treatment. The coverage 
would continue only until the treatment and followup visits are 
completed. Without Medicaid coverage, we are leaving these women to an 
unreliable, fragile, and deteriorating system of charity care where 
they are often unable to get the treatment they need. Only about 6,200 
women nationwide would be eligible for Medicaid under this legislation. 
This small investment stands to save lives for low-income and uninsured 
women with breast and cervical cancer all over America. Since we have 
already made the commitment in Congress to diagnose these women, we owe 
it to them to provide followup treatment.

  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. We must 
finish the job we started in 1990 by filling this gap in a vital 
Federal program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator Chafee in 
introducing the sense-of-the-Senate amendment to urge the Senate to 
pass S. 662, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act.
  This bill was originally introduced by the late Senator John Chafee, 
who dedicated much time and energy to this important legislation. It is 
with great honor that we carry with his efforts for passage of this 
critical legislation.
  I would like to submit for the Record a letter I received from an 
Iowan. Her story illustrates the urgent need for passage of this bill.
  Barbara Morrow of Evansdale, Iowa, was diagnosed in January 1995 with 
breast cancer after being screened by the CDC Early Detection Program. 
Because she had no insurance and no money, she had little hope of 
finding medical care to treat her disease.
  After exhaustive efforts, she was able to secure medical treatment 
from doctors willing to perform charity care.
  Unfortunately, in January 1999, she learned that her breast cancer 
had spread to her lungs. She returned to the same doctor who treated 
her earlier. For 14 months, she has been receiving chemotherapy and is 
alive today.
  Ms. Morrow owes more than $70,000 for treatment she has received. She 
pays what she can each month to the hospital where she receives her 
care. The bills cause great worry and she considers stopping treatment 
to stop the bills.
  She is a mother and a grandmother and she wants to live.

[[Page S2325]]

  It is urgent that Congress pass S. 662 to allow women to receive the 
treatment they need to beat this disease. We have an opportunity to 
make a real difference in the lives of thousands of women and mothers 
across the Nation.
  I urge your support for this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me by Barbara Morrow 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     Hon. Charles Grassley,
      444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing to urge you to pass S. 
     662, The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. In January 
     1995 I was diagnosed with breast cancer after receiving a 
     mammogram through the Center for Disease Control Breast and 
     Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (CDCBCCEDP). I had no 
     insurance and no money to pay for treatment. I have been 
     struggling ever since.
       My struggles began when the results of my CDC mammogram 
     suggested breast cancer. Initially two doctors refused to 
     perform a biopsy because I had no insurance. Finally, Dr. 
     Gerrelts in Waterloo agreed to take me as a patient and 
     perform a biopsy for free. The biopsy was malignant and three 
     to four days later Dr. Gerrelts performed a lumpectomy. Dr. 
     Gerrelts made an appointment for me with Dr. Nadipuram, a 
     Waterloo oncologist. Dr. Nadipuram agreed to provide 
     chemotherapy treatment and a radiologist provided 8 weeks of 
     radiation without charge. I needed a surgically implanted 
     cath-a-port for administration of the chemotherapy. Dr. 
     Gerrelts did this surgery for free. I received six months of 
     chemotherapy ending in September 1995.
       Even though my initial treatment for breast cancer was 
     complete without a lot of bills, the expenses began to mount 
     from then on. I needed a cath-a-port flush every 6 weeks, 
     check ups every six months, and a bone scan every time I had 
     an ache. In January 1999, Dr. Gerrelts sent me for an x-ray 
     of my lungs. It was found the breast cancer had spread to my 
     lungs.
       Dr. Gerrelts once again sent me to Dr. Nadipuram. Dr. 
     Nadipuram sent me to the University of Iowa Hospitals and 
     Clinics in Iowa City for treatment. At the University of Iowa 
     I had many biopsies, scans, and tests. Recurring breast 
     cancer was found in my brain also. University of Iowa told me 
     I did not fit the criteria for their stem cell transplant 
     program and all they could offer me is chemotherapy that 
     would keep me alive for six months.
       I returned to my home in the Waterloo area devastated, with 
     no money, no insurance, and no hope. I once again asked Dr. 
     Nadipuram to treat my recurring breast cancer. He has been 
     treating me with chemotherapy ever since and I am still alive 
     14 months later.
       I applied for Social Security disability benefits after my 
     diagnosis for recurring breast cancer. Over a year later, I 
     will finally begin to receive benefits April 19, 2000. 
     However, my medical bills have accumulated and these bills 
     must still be paid by me. I owe over $70,000. I send what I 
     can each month to Allen Hospital, Covenant Hospital, Covenant 
     Clinic, a radiologist, and Dr. Nadipuram all of Waterloo. I 
     also send money to the University of Iowa Hospitals and 
     Clinics and the doctors at the University of Iowa. In spite 
     of this I continue to be hounded by all of these institutions 
     and doctors asking me to pay more. My bills are so high I 
     often wonder if I should quit treatment so I will not saddle 
     myself and my family with so much debt.
       But, my grandson was diagnosed with cancer at age 9. He is 
     now 16 and my daughter and I continue to care for him. I must 
     stay alive to help my daughter and grandson.
       Breast cancer and it's treatment are overwhelming. Being 
     unable to pay for treatment is devastating. Please pass S. 
     662 so that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer 
     through the CDCBCCEDP can receive treatment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Barbara Morrow.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, using my time, I would be honored if the 
Senator would let me be a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Likewise, I ask the Senator if I might be a cosponsor. My 
father was a medical doctor and devoted much of his career to the very 
subject the Senator addressed in his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve 2 minutes of our time. How much time do we 
have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 18 minutes. 
The Senator from Alaska has 3 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I say to the Senate, I am not sure I will have a 
chance later tonight to summarize this budget resolution that I hope 
sometime tomorrow we are going to adopt, with an amendment that the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and others put 
together, that we have been discussing and of which I was a part.
  Let me first say this budget resolution has the right priorities. It 
increases defense at the same time it increases spending for such 
things as education--at least the equivalent amount of increase the 
President has.
  We leave how the education program is to be structured up to the 
appropriate authorizing committees and the appropriators, but we give 
them plenty of resources to have an increase. With some reform, we may 
be able to do better at education than we have done in the past.
  In addition, we have extra funding for the National Institutes of 
Health--not as much as some people would want but a very substantial 
increase--$1.1 billion. I know some would like more than that, but I 
remind everyone, for the last 3 years we have increased the National 
Institutes of Health more than they have been increased in their entire 
history, year over year. That is why they are doing such remarkable 
things and that is why in a few more years of increases we may find 
breakthroughs in cancer and many other diseases that beset mankind.
  In addition, we have reduced the debt of the United States in this 
budget resolution by $177 billion. It was not too many years ago, 
perhaps Lyndon Johnson's budget, that the whole budget was $177 
billion. This year we are reducing the deficit--the debt owed to the 
public--by $177 billion.
  For those who think our tax relief in this budget is too much, let me 
remind you: In the first year, if we accomplish them, they are $13 
billion. That is $13 billion compared to $177 billion in debt 
reduction. It is pretty good, Americans, pretty good. If we end up in 
that way for the next 7 or 8 years, we will indeed leave a stronger and 
better America with more prosperity than we have today. In addition, if 
you take the whole 5 years, we have eight times as much debt reduction, 
to wit, $1.1 trillion debt reduction, $8 for every $1 in tax relief.
  The tax relief we dream of, and we hope the Finance Committee will 
enact--and we can do nothing more than give them our best advice; they 
will do what they want in the public interest, and it will be right--we 
have the marriage tax penalty. Married couples, new ones and those who 
have been married for a long time, will not have an average penalty of 
$1,200 to $1,400 for having been married and working and filing one 
return as a husband and a wife. They are now punished. We say reform 
the Tax Code now--not 10 years from now. We are putting plenty of money 
on the debt. We ought to put some money on reforming the Tax Code for 
the marriage penalty, for small business changes, and a few other 
things such as that. That is what this budget is going to provide for 
Americans, so I am proud we have it here.

  For the appropriated accounts, all the rest of Government, when you 
take the fact that there were $9 billion last year in items that are 
not recurring, and you take the increase that we have in this budget, 
and $4.1 billion they will get when they pass another bill that we 
ought to pass because it is in the balanced budget amendment with 
reference to Social Security and veterans--it merely changes pay dates 
as required by the balanced budget agreement--they will have a rather 
significant increase that can be done in this very difficult political 
year.
  I wrap my argument up by saying it will be tough, appropriators and 
all of us, because the President has submitted a political budget. Why 
is it political? Because it is a 14-percent increase in domestic 
spending. Really, nobody thinks you can do that big an increase. He put 
it in. It could only be for one reason--to present us with a political 
budget. Then we are going to have to have to match our wits with 
getting something done while he tells the Americans he did more.
  Of course you do more, but if you added 14 percent every year on this 
budget on only domestic spending, you would consume all of the 
surpluses that are accumulated and you would dip into the Social 
Security trust fund to a huge extent, just by adding the amount the 
President offered as an increase this year. So he clearly must not have 
intended it to go on forever. So what was it? It was a submission to 
try to either embarrass us or make us spend precisely what he wants, 
which is way too much.

[[Page S2326]]

  So we will be busy doing that. It will be tough. But if we can get 
out of here tomorrow, leave the Senate and say we did some good work, 
we have a budget resolution, let's go to conference--we are pretty 
close with the House--then the appropriators can start their work.
  My final comments go to Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens and I have 
become friends. I have been here a long time. He has been here longer. 
I am chairman of the Budget Committee; he is chairman of 
Appropriations. I think neither of us thought--at least he waited a 
long time for his chairmanship. Might I say, I believe when we are 
finished today everybody will be thankful he was willing to sit down 
with us and work this out.
  I thank the distinguished majority leader for his help, Senator Lott, 
and I thank the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and all Members who have 
participated in getting us this far.
  There are many more amendments, there is no doubt about that, in the 
vote-arama and otherwise, but I think we will come out with a budget 
resolution we can confer upon that will be very close.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The assistant minority leader.
  Mr. REID. I yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 
Mr. Byrd, 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me preface my remarks by saying I had 
joined with Senator Stevens in two amendments that were at the desk 
earlier, one dealing with section 208, and one dealing with section 
210.
  I understand both of those have been modified. I still want to speak, 
however, to the subject matter here. In doing so, may I say I have no 
closer friend in this body than Senator Stevens. It has been that way, 
and it is going to continue to be that way. He is chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, and I think I have supported him throughout 
all the time he has been chairman, and he has certainly been a great 
supporter of mine. He is the chairman; I am not. He carries some 
responsibilities that I do not carry at this moment. So what I have to 
say is not to be perceived as any criticism of Ted Stevens. I hope no 
one will perceive it as that, and I hope he will not. I merely want to 
speak to the subject matter of the two sections we were about to strike 
and to say why I am opposed to those two sections. I want to make that 
case for at least my side of the aisle, and I want to make it for the 
people out there who are watching. I do not bear any rancor toward 
anyone on the other side of the aisle, but I think these things ought 
to be said.

  I rise, Mr. President, to speak about the two amendments we would 
have offered. The first of our amendments would have stricken section 
208 of the budget resolution. That section would establish a 60-vote 
point of order in the Senate against the use of an emergency 
designation in any spending or revenue legislation.
  Senators will recall that last year's Senate budget resolution 
contained a simple majority point of order against any emergency 
designations on all discretionary spending--both defense and 
nondefense. But, when the budget resolution last year came out of the 
conference with the House, the Senate provision had been changed. The 
conference agreement on last year's budget resolution did away with the 
simple majority point of order and replaced it with a 60-day point of 
order on nondefense discretionary spending only! The conferees chose to 
eliminate the point of order for defense emergency spending altogether. 
When the conference agreement on last year's budget resolution came 
back to the Senate, there was no way to attack that particular 
provision. Budget resolution conference reports are limited as to time 
and, therefore, filibuster proof. The Budget Act sets a time limit on 
their consideration, after which a final vote will occur. The majority 
had the votes to adopt that conference agreement, and did so. That is 
why, for fiscal year 2000, we have the ridiculous and totally 
unjustifiable requirements on emergency spending.
  Let me say that again, Mr. President. When the budget resolution last 
year was acted upon by the Senate, it had a simple majority vote point 
of order, but when it went to conference with the Members of the other 
body, it came back to us with a 60-vote point of order. The House 
conferees had a voice in changing that point of order by which the 
Senate has had to live in the intervening time.
  I think our Members ought to be fully aware of that. It did not leave 
the Senate floor last year with a 60-vote point of order. It went to 
the conference with the other body, and they helped to change the 
rules, if I may use that term, by which we have to live. They are not 
bound by the 60-vote point of order, but we are. It came back to us in 
the conference report which we could not change.
  We ought to be aware of those things when we send these resolutions 
to the other body. I do not blame the other body. I am not criticizing 
them. They may actually have had nothing to do with it, but it was 
changed in conference.
  Here is the perfectly ridiculous aspect of this 60-vote point of 
order requirement under which we have to live here. If your 
constituents suffer from any of the myriad natural disasters that can 
occur at any time, such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, 
earthquakes, or any other catastrophe--maybe an act of God--emergency 
spending for the relief of those constituents is subject to a 60-vote 
point of order in the Senate. The House has no such supermajority point 
of order.
  In the Senate for fiscal year 2000, if any Senator wishes to raise a 
point of order against emergency spending in the nondefense area, it 
will take 60 votes, or that emergency spending will be deleted from any 
appropriations bill or conference report thereon.

  For example, if the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, has a 
catastrophe, if there is an act of God that is visited upon his State, 
he may be perfectly justified in asking for an emergency appropriation 
to deal with that catastrophe. But in the Senate, a 60-vote point of 
order will lie against that funding for the relief of his State, and 41 
Members of the Senate can deny him and deny his people relief. God 
forbid that any catastrophe should hit his State, or the State of the 
Senator from Nevada who is sitting before me. If his State is suddenly 
hit by a catastrophe and they need disaster relief, 41 Members, a 
minority in the Senate, can say no, and the people of Nevada would be 
denied that relief.
  In other words, we can send our brave men and women in uniform around 
the world, whether it be to Bosnia or to Kosovo or to Iraq or anywhere 
else, and provide emergency funding to pay for those operations, 
regardless of the costs, without facing a point of order against such 
spending. But when it comes to helping the people at home, the 
constituents who send us here, when it comes to helping them in their 
dire extremities that have been brought on by an act of God, no, a 
point of order can be made against that funding, and it would take 60 
votes for those people in that disaster-stricken State to get relief.
  That is preeminently unfair. One can say what one wants, but that is 
unfair. I cannot understand why anyone would want to insist on a point 
of order that would require 60 votes when it comes to helping the 
people who send us here, the people who pay the taxes.
  We should not unduly hamstring spending intended to cover either 
defense or nondefense emergencies. While we have discretionary spending 
caps in the law, provisions must be made to deal with the unexpected. 
And we should not encumber the flexibility to answer those emergency 
needs with parliamentary devices which make responding to them 
difficult.

  I should point out, Mr. President, that, as chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee during the time of the 1990 budget summit and 
as a participant in that summit, I worked very hard to include the 
exemption for emergency spending that is now contained in section 
251(b)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. 
That 1990 budget summit between the Bush administration and Congress 
was necessary in order to avoid huge across-the-board sequesters of 
Federal spending that would have otherwise occurred under Gramm-Rudman. 
Those sequesters, or automatic across-the-board cuts, were in the 
magnitude of 40 percent, and could have

[[Page S2327]]

devastated the Nation. And so, we had no choice but to reach an 
agreement. In the end, after months of negotiations both here in 
Congress and at Andrews Air Force Base, an agreement was finally 
reached and subsequently enacted by Congress and signed by President 
Bush.
  An important feature of the 1990 budget agreement was that, for the 
first time, statutory caps were placed on discretionary spending. As a 
participant in those negotiations, I was intimately involved in the 
setting of those discretionary spending caps and the other budgetary 
enforcement provisions contained in the 1990 budget summit agreement. 
In order to agree to those caps, I felt that it was critical that the 
Appropriations Committees be held ``harmless'' for economic and 
technical miscalculations that occur in each year's budget projections. 
In other words, if discretionary appropriations were to be held to a 
specific spending cap each year, that discretionary spending should not 
be automatically cut because of technical or economic miscalculations 
by either the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Another critical exception was the allowance of emergency spending to 
be included in annual appropriations acts, without having the cost of 
those emergencies charged against the discretionary spending caps. No 
human being can determine what nature has in store for the Nation in 
terms of natural disasters, such as, hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, 
floods, fire, or military emergencies around the world. So, we had to 
have some way to address those needs outside of the very stringent 
budgetary caps that were being placed on discretionary spending. The 
result was the enactment of section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act. That Section of the Budget Act has 
by and large worked well since its enactment in 1990. However, in 
recent years, without going into detail, there have been a number of 
instances where such emergency designations might not have been fully 
justified. Therefore, I would support the inclusion in the budget 
resolution, criteria such as those set forth in section 208(a)(2). 
Those criteria read as follows:

       (A) In general, the criteria to be considered in 
     determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change is 
     an emergency requirement are:
       (i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or 
     beneficial);
       (ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;
       (iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;

  These are real emergencies.

       (iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       (v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.

  So, Mr. President, what I object to is not that any emergency 
requirement should have to meet those criteria. What I object to is the 
creation of a 60-vote point of order against all--against all--
emergency designations in any appropriations bill, whether they meet 
the criteria or not. In other words, Section 208 of the budget 
resolution would allow any Senator to make a point of order against any 
emergency designation, even if it met the criteria set forth in section 
208. That point of order could then be waived or suspended in the 
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members duly 
chosen and sworn.
  In other words, a minority of 41 could thwart the efforts of Senators 
or a Senator to deal with a catastrophe that had stricken his State. A 
minority, a minority of 41, could thwart the effort. It takes 60 votes, 
a supermajority.
  Mr. President, this onerous section should be stricken from the 
budget resolution.
  Mr. President, Alexander Hamilton had something to say about 
supermajorities. Let's see what he had to say about supermajorities.
  In the Federalist No. 75, here is what Hamilton said:

       . . . all provisions which require more than the majority 
     of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to 
     embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect 
     one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the 
     minority.

  That is Alexander Hamilton speaking.
  What did Madison have to say about supermajorities? In the Federalist 
No. 58, here is what James Madison said about supermajorities:

       It has been said that more than a majority ought to have 
     been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not 
     in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision.

  That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about the need 
for more than a majority--60 votes for a decision.

       That some advantages might have resulted from such a 
     precaution cannot be denied. It might have been an additional 
     shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle 
     generally to hasty and partial measures. But these 
     considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the 
     opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general 
     good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures 
     to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government 
     would be reversed.

  That is what we are talking about here. Let's read that again. 
Madison said:

       In all cases where justice--

  Any Senator whose State has been hit by a catastrophe would feel it 
is only justice--only justice--that his State receive some disaster 
relief.
  Madison said:

       In all cases where justice or the general good might 
     require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be 
     pursued--

  We are talking about an active measure here. That is what Madison had 
in mind.

       In all cases where justice or the general good might 
     require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be 
     pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would 
     be reversed.

  He is talking about the requirement of supermajorities now. He is 
saying that the fundamental principle of free government would be 
reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule. The power 
would be transferred to the minority. In this instance, in this 
legislation, the power to rule is going to be transferred to a 
minority.
  This is a democratic republic. A lot of people say it is a democracy. 
It is not a democracy. It is a republic. All legislative bodies that 
abide by democratic principles, all republics that abide by democratic 
principles, have as the basis of those principles the principle that 
the majority rules. That is not the case here. If Senator Inouye's 
State needs help because of a typhoon, the majority won't necessarily 
rule. It won't in the State of New Mexico. It won't in the State of 
Senator Reid. It won't in my State. A minority can rule. Forty-one 
votes can come between justice and the people of our States.
  I am against the 60-vote point of order when it comes to nondefense 
or defense spending. That is what we were trying to do in the 
amendments that were originally sent to the desk.
  Madison again is speaking:

       It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the 
     power would be transferred to the minority. Were the 
     defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an 
     interested minority might take advantage of it to screen 
     themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, 
     in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable 
     indulgences.

  Madison foresaw that in situations where supermajorities were 
required, there could be situations in which the minority would extort 
unreasonable indulgences in return for their support.
  So much for Hamilton and Madison for today. They are certainly not 
going to be listened to, I would anticipate.
  Its adoption would severely curtail the ability of Congress to 
respond to the unforeseen urgent needs of the people of this country 
who have suffered devastation caused by floods, severe droughts, 
tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
  Under section 208, a minority of just 41 Senators could prevent the 
enactment of the spending to address all of these needs. What would 
happen under this provision in the case of regional emergencies which 
may only affect one State, such as an earthquake in California or a 
hurricane in North Carolina or floods in North Dakota, or drought 
conditions in Texas? Funding for disasters such as these, which affect 
only one area of the country, could be in danger. If a point of order 
is made by any Senator who may have his nose out of joint for some 
reason--he may just not want to help another Senator to help his 
people--those emergency funding provisions for particular States or 
regions would need 60 votes or funding for disaster assistance would 
not be forthcoming.

[[Page S2328]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time that has been yielded to the Senator 
from West Virginia has expired.
  Mr. REID. How much time does the minority have on this, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes.
  Mr. REID. I yield the Senator 9 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished minority whip.
  This point of order is an unwise and cumbersome device that could 
prevent the committee from responding to the urgent needs of our 
Nation. Now, why do we want to do that?
  The second amendment, which I joined in offering, would have stricken 
section 210 from the budget resolution. That section would reinstitute 
a congressional firewall on defense and nondefense discretionary 
spending for fiscal year 2001. This section of the budget resolution 
would set defense spending for fiscal year 2001 at $306,819,000,000 in 
new budget authority and $295,050,000,000 in outlays. For the 
nondefense category, the cap would be set at $289.7 billion in new 
budget authority and $327.5 billion in outlays.
  In other words, this budget resolution would cap defense spending at 
a level that is $9 billion above what it would take to maintain this 
year's level of spending adjusted for inflation. But the cap for 
nondefense spending would be set at a level requiring a cut. The cap 
for nondefense spending--hear me now--the cap for nondefense spending 
would be set at a level requiring a cut of $19 billion in budget 
authority below this year's spending level. In other words, section 210 
of the budget resolution now before the Senate would take away from the 
Appropriations Committee the ability to determine, through their 
committee markups, what the appropriate levels of defense spending or 
domestic spending should be.
  Imagine that. How silly can we get? The Appropriations Committee is 
being prevented from using the judgment of its members, their 
expertise, to decide even the most basic levels of defense and domestic 
spending for this Nation. Instead, this budget resolution sets that 
figure. I have been on the Appropriations Committee now going on 42 
years. That is longer than anybody has ever served. The budget 
resolution sets that figure for the Appropriations Committee prior to 
their even having finished their hearings. The Budget Committee will 
have usurped all of those decisions with the construction of these 
firewalls.
  I believe this is unwarranted and unacceptable micromanagement on the 
part of some Members. I don't blame all of the members of the Budget 
Committee. I know they have their problems. I have great respect for 
the chairman of the Budget Committee. He has always been very fair to 
me. He sits on the Appropriations Committee likewise. He knows what 
this does to the Appropriations Committee. He is trying to do a good 
job and he does a splendid job. But a lot of these things, those who 
are in the driver's seat at a particular given moment have the votes, 
and those who would do otherwise, such as Senator Stevens, in other 
cases, or Senator Domenici, they have to look at the votes.
  I thought we had all learned our lesson about substituting structural 
devices for human judgment with the Gramm-Rudman experience. Setting up 
procedural barricades often creates more problems than are solved when 
it comes to funding real priorities for a vast and complex nation. 
Autopilot politics amounts to an abdication of our responsibility to 
debate and weigh reasonable alternatives, as we are expected to do and 
as we are elected to do by the people.
  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good 
friend, Senator Stevens, is one of the most knowledgeable experts in 
the history of the Senate when it comes to the funding needs of the 
Department of Defense. Do we have to squander his experience and the 
accumulated expertise of the members of the Appropriations Committee? 
Here sits one on my left, Senator Inouye. He is on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee of the Senate.
  Do we have to squander their experience, their accumulated expertise, 
by constructing these mindless, artificial firewalls which attempt to 
game the funding process before it is even begun? Well, these sections, 
I assure you, my fellow Senators, will greatly increase the difficulty 
faced by the Appropriations chairman in marking up and presenting to 
the Senate the 13 fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills. The speed and 
efficiency sought by all of us to get this essential work done will not 
be aided by these unwise and irresponsible budget barnacles. Let us 
scrape them off before they do their damage.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left of my 9 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I know that my remarks tonight will 
result in no favorable action that will override the die that has 
already been cast. I am confident of that. And to that extent, they 
were remarks made in futility. But for the record they were not futile.
  I think that we should let the people know what is being done here. 
The people out there want us to use our best judgment in the 
Appropriations Committee and to have our hands free when it comes to 
appropriating funds for disaster. We can't foresee those. They may 
strike my State next. They may strike the State of any Senator who sits 
within the sound of my voice; they may be the next. In all my years, I 
have never voted against a dollar for any State that has been hit with 
a disaster, and I don't expect to ever do that.
  I don't think we ought to be handcuffed and gagged and bound foot and 
hand when it comes to dealing with emergencies. Now we are going to 
have a supermajority thrust upon us. We have been laboring under that 
process. I had hoped that we could rid ourselves of those shackles--not 
for ourselves but for our people. Well, Mr. President, the wheel goes 
around and some day perhaps we will come to our senses and throw off 
these shackles and get back to where we are free agents and can act in 
the best interests of our constituents, without having to overcome 
supermajorities such as are being imposed upon us here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator from Nevada yield so I may make one 
comment? I will use 1 minute of my time.
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want the Senator from West Virginia to 
know I appreciate the restraint that he has used in coming out on the 
procedure we followed. In my judgment, there was no alternative. I 
agree with much of what the Senator from West Virginia has said. But 
the necessity for obtaining a budget resolution soon so we can get on 
with our business on appropriations motivated me to join with my good 
friend from New Mexico. I think the Senator understands that problem, 
and I do thank him for his restraint in commenting upon my behavior 
here today.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may retain a minute. I wasn't 
commenting on the behavior of my distinguished friend. I understand his 
situation, and I have no quarrel with him, no complaint; I only have 
admiration for him. I am sorry for the circumstances with which he has 
to deal. I hope those circumstances will change.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the staff of the minority 
leader, and we are going to be here forever tomorrow if we don't get 
copies of the amendments. Both sides should make sure that the other 
side has copies of the amendments. We are now up to 153 amendments that 
will be voted on or disposed of in some manner. We hope they are 
disposed of. So I hope the majority will do everything they can to make 
sure the minority staff has copies of the amendments so we can move on.
  At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York, who has 
been so instrumental in all matters before the Senate during his term.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from New York yield for a unanimous 
consent request first?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that votes 
relative to the following amendments be scheduled to occur at the 
expiration of time on the budget resolution, they occur in the sequence 
listed, with no second-degree amendments in order, and there be 2 
minutes prior to each vote for explanation, and all votes after the 
first

[[Page S2329]]

vote in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes. The amendments are as 
follows: the Stevens amendment, No. 2931; the Robb amendment, No. 2965 
and, if not tabled, then votes in relation to the Reed of Rhode Island 
amendment, No. 3013; and the Coverdell amendment, No. 3010.
  Mr. REID. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Therefore, several votes will occur beginning at 
approximately 8:15, is that correct?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This evening, in a stacked sequence, as just agreed 
upon by the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
York, hoping that next year he will be with the majority.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I would love to call 
him majority whip, a job he would perform as admirably well as he does 
the job minority whip. I thank him for his friendship and leadership. I 
also thank my friend from West Virginia. It is always a pleasure to sit 
on the floor and listen to his words and his wisdom.
  I rise in support of the amendment of Senator Reed, my good friend 
from Rhode Island, who has done such a fabulous job with his leadership 
on this budget, on closing the gun show loophole, the Lautenberg 
amendment, which passed this body a while back. I will address one 
point. My colleagues laid out very well the many reasons to be for the 
Reed amendment. I want to add an additional reason.
  The only argument that we have heard from the National Rifle 
Association, and others, against closing the gun show loophole is that 
allowing for a 3-day waiting period would effectively shut down gun 
shows because they are weekend operations. They argue if somebody 
bought a gun on Saturday morning and it took 72 hours to check, by then 
it would be Tuesday morning and the gun show, which predominates on the 
weekend--something that I stipulate is true--would be closed.
  Fortunately, one of our colleagues--somebody with whom I disagree, 
Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming--asked the GAO to do a report on 
purchases at gun shows. This is what the report said, and I urge my 
colleagues to read it. It didn't get much publicity, but I think it is 
dispositive in this debate. The report debunks the myth that the 3-day 
waiting period will shut down gun shows. This is what the report 
showed, colleagues, and I hope people will listen because I think it is 
important: ``Seventy-eight percent of all the instant checks are 
completed within 3 minutes.'' That means 78 percent of those guns 
checked at gun shows--because we believe they would be no different 
than others--would be purchasable within 3 minutes. And 95 percent are 
completed within 2 hours. So the person would go to a gun show and be 
able to buy the gun in 2 hours. That is 19 of every 20 purchases. And 
only 5 percent take more than 1 day to complete.
  Now, you say, what about those 5 percent? Why should we hold them up? 
Well, let me tell you why, my colleagues. Those 5 percent are far and 
away the most likely Brady checks to turn up a felon. In fact, it is 20 
times more likely that the 5 percent of the checks that take more than 
1 day will show up a felon than in the 95 percent where the check takes 
3 minutes or 2 hours.
  The background check won't affect gun shows more than a pittance. 
Ninety-five percent of all guns will be able to be purchased by people 
who have the right to purchase those guns having passed the Brady check 
within 2 hours.
  My colleagues, there is no reason why we can't pass the Lautenberg 
amendment, as the Reed amendment exhorts us to do, because very simply 
it is not going to close down gun shows.
  Will it stop a good number of felons from receiving guns? By all 
means. That is the purpose. I don't think anybody in this body would 
challenge the fact that we don't want felons to receive guns.
  Second, perhaps tomorrow, probably in the vote-arama, the Senator 
from Illinois and I will offer an amendment on enforcement. I know he 
will address that at great length. But that amendment does just what 
many who disagree with us on gun control have asked us to do. They 
said: Why don't we enforce the present law?
  The fact is, that every time we try to increase enforcement by adding 
ATF agents and giving those agents more authority, we have been opposed 
by the very people who are asking us for enforcement.
  But there is real hope. Something called Project Exile, supported by 
the NRA and by Chuck Schumer, has now sprung up and has done well in 
three cities, including Rochester in my State.
  Last year on this floor, when we debated the budget, we added some 
$50 million to Project Exile. And now four cities in my State of New 
York--Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany --will get the advantage 
of Project Exile.
  The NRA and gun control advocates such as myself have agreed on this 
issue. Perhaps we can agree on more. I hope we will get universal 
support for the Durbin-Schumer amendment.
  Getting back to the other Reed amendment, I hope my colleagues will 
listen to the facts that I gave out. If we would agree to the Reed 
amendment, we would ratify the Lautenberg amendment as passed out in 
the conference, and we would move forward on an issue that is so vital 
for the safety of Americans and for the future of our country.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his generosity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, 
especially for his leadership on the Budget Committee and for his 
efforts in 1997 which greatly contributed to the fiscal policy that has 
led this country from an era of deficits to an era in which we 
anticipate budget surpluses for the foreseeable future.
  He has had a challenging job crafting budget resolutions that balance 
the many real and competing needs of the Nation. He has been a strong 
advocate for education and an even stronger advocate for funding IDEA. 
In fact, last year, I joined him in calling for an increase in 
education funding of $40 billion over five years. Regrettably our 
colleagues on the House Budget Committee did not share this commitment.
  This year he has, once again, taken up the challenge of balancing the 
competing needs. The budget resolution that he has brought before us is 
a product of difficult negotiations between competing viewpoints.
  Because of my deep respect for him, I do not come to the floor with 
an amendment lightly. I come to the floor with an amendment only 
because of my conviction that there is a Federal obligation that must 
now be met in full.
  This amendment, which I will offer tomorrow, has been cosponsored by 
Senators Dodd, Stevens, Kennedy, Collins, Feingold, Snowe, Chafee, 
Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, and Mikulski, among others.
  I will begin my remarks with a question to which I will time and time 
again return. In 1974 we made a commitment to fully fund IDEA. If 25 
years later we cannot meet this commitment in an era of unprecedented 
economic prosperity and budgetary surpluses, when do we plan to keep 
this pledge.
  The American people have a right to ask us--If not now, then when?
  In the early years, when we were running large budget deficits, it 
was understandable that we couldn't meet those commitments.
  During those same years this body, by almost unanimous votes, voted--
99 Members sometimes--that ``when feasible'' we would fully fund our 
commitment to our States and our school districts. That time has come. 
We now have large surpluses with more than enough resources to meet our 
commitment now and well into the future.
  I have behind me a chart which compares the funding levels in my 
amendment with the funding levels in this budget resolution and with 
the levels that will be required to fully fund IDEA. This shows where 
full funding is.

[[Page S2330]]

 This shows the bipartisan amendment I will be offering and how it will 
take us to full funding. And this is where we will be if we do nothing 
but live within this budget that is before us. Make no mistake. The 
budget resolution before us does not fully fund IDEA. Despite the 
repeated pledges we have made to fully fund IDEA, this budget 
resolution sends a clear message that this body has no intention of 
fulfilling this commitment anytime in the next five years.
  I was one of the few, now in this body, that were present at the time 
that P.L. 94-142, The Education of all Handicapped Act was passed. As a 
freshman Member of Congress, I was proud to sponsor that legislation 
and to be named as a member of the House and Senate conference 
committee along with then Vermont Senator Bob Stafford.
  At that time, despite a clear Constitutional obligation to educate 
all children, regardless of disability, thousands of disabled students 
were denied access to a public education. Passage of the Education of 
All Handicapped Act offered financial incentives to states to fulfill 
this existing obligation. Recognizing that the costs associated with 
educating these children was more than many school districts could bear 
alone, we pledged to pay 40% of the costs of educating these students.
  We pledged to pay 40% of these costs but we never have. We have 
continuously claimed that we couldn't afford to. We started in 1976 
with 12.5%. Then we slipped to 6%. Those were tough budget deficit 
times. Lately we have come up to 13 percent--still less than \1/3\ of 
our pledge.

  Today, however, instead of making good on our promise now, those who 
object to my amendment cry, that would be mandatory spending--that's 
bad. How can it be bad policy to fund this vital program that we have 
guaranteed to fully fund--over and over again? It is now feasible. It 
is now painlessly possible and it must be done.
  We must pay our share of educating children with disabilities. No 
more excuses. The time is now.
  I know that there is some disagreement about whether or not a 
commitment was made. I want to tell you as someone that was there at 
the time that we made a pledge to fully fund this program.
  The time is now.
  I didn't have to ask my constituents in Vermont whether the Federal 
government made a commitment. I will show you what I got when I was 
home. This is a petition from every school district in the State of 
Vermont that says: Do what you promised to do; fund IDEA; fund special 
education. The chart behind me shows you what those petitions look 
like.
  Vermonters know that we made that commitment. Passing this amendment 
will do more to help our school districts meet their obligation to 
improve education in this country than nearly anything else we can do. 
Our amendment will triple what they presently receive. We promised. We 
should deliver it. The time to make good on this promise is now.
  Now some of you may think that because you were not here in 1975 that 
you were not party to a pledge to fully fund IDEA.
  In 1997 Congress once again took up this landmark legislation. This 
is a complex bill that has profound impact on classrooms across the 
Nation. With the strong leadership of Senator Lott, Senator Frist, 
Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, Senator 
Collins and others on my Committee, we passed the first reauthorization 
of IDEA in 22 years. It is an accomplishment that we are all very proud 
of.
  At that time, we reaffirmed our commitment to pay 40% of the costs of 
educating these children. We made this pledge to families, to school 
boards, and to the Governors of our States. Over the past three years, 
with the leadership of my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, 
we have made some progress.
  But as he has pointed out several times over the past year, we are 
only supporting 13 percent of these costs. In 1975, we made a pledge 
which we did not keep. In 1997 we made that same pledge once again when 
we reauthorized IDEA.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle; If not now, then 
When?
  In the 105th Congress we felt it important to reaffirm our commitment 
to full funding for IDEA. We added language to the FY 1999 Budget that 
stated that IDEA should be fully funded as soon as feasible. This 
language was adopted unanimously by the Senate. At that time, we still 
faced budget deficits and it was argued that full funding was not 
feasible. Today, however, in an era of unprecedented economic 
prosperity and with budget surpluses projected far into the future, 
full funding is within our grasp.
  If not now, then when?
  In the 106th Congress we continued to press for full funding for 
IDEA. The FY 2000 budget resolution made room for about a $500,000,000 
increase in funding for IDEA. Once again, the Senate adopted language 
that I advocated with Senator Gregg calling for full funding of IDEA as 
soon as feasible. The House of Representatives adopted a bipartisan 
free standing resolution that called for full funding.
  The budget resolution that is before us assumes that funding for IDEA 
will increase by $1 billion in FY 2001 and $2.5 billion in FY 2002. If 
there is time remaining, I will take time later on to discuss my 
concerns about whether these assumptions require cuts in other programs 
that we will not have the will to make at the end of the day. What is 
very clear, however, is that this budget resolution does not claim to 
fulfill our obligation to fully fund IDEA. The budget resolution 
assumes that the Federal government will never fund more than about 20% 
of the costs of educating disabled students. One half of what we have 
promised over and over again.

  If our amendment fails, adoption of this budget resolution will state 
clearly to the Nation that this Congress does not intend to fulfill its 
commitment any time in the next five years.
  Our amendment is simple. It provides a path by which we will achieve 
full funding for IDEA in fiscal year 2005. It sends a clear message to 
the Nation that we, as a body, make good on the commitments we make.
  I want to tell you that I am tired of being party to promises that 
this body hasn't kept. The time is now.
  I urge you to ask your people back in your state. Ask parents, 
teachers, and education administrators. Ask your governors. ``What 
would you prefer--the possibility of a future tax cut, or fully funding 
IDEA so you can have more money for education, and pay less property 
taxes?''
  Fulfill the pledge that you made to your people. I tell you that if 
you want a hero's welcome, you will vote in favor of this. If it wins, 
let me tell you that they will be out on the streets marching to meet 
you when you come home. If you do not, I wouldn't want to go home.
  Tomorrow morning I will have a chance to drive this point home once 
again. Tonight I want to close by thanking my cosponsors for their 
stalwart commitment to fully funding IDEA. Senator Stevens, Chairman of 
the Appropriations, has been a strong advocate for IDEA. Senator 
Feingold has worked closely with me on this amendment and has been 
instrumental to getting us to the place we are today. Senator Collins 
has worked long and hard to persuade members of this body that we 
should fully fund IDEA. I also want to thank Senators Dodd and Kennedy 
and Harkin with whom I have worked for many many years to improve 
educational opportunities for disabled students. Similarly, I am 
grateful for the efforts of Senator Snowe and Senator Chafee. I feel 
confident that with their efforts, our amendment will prevail.
  Thank you.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Jersey 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid of Nevada for 
giving me the time earlier in the debate.
  My colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, rose to remind our 
colleagues that while the flooding earlier in the year may be over and 
not in the headlines of our newspapers, Hurricane Floyd is still a 
reality for many communities around our country.
  Towns such as Bound Brook, NJ--and, as indeed Mr. Edwards pointed 
out, Princeville, NC--Florida to Maine, Hurricane Floyd left a path of 
destruction so large that FEMA declared it to

[[Page S2331]]

be the eighth worst disaster of the decade. In New Jersey by 
comparison, it was worse:
  Two-hundred and fifty-three municipalities in New Jersey, the 
populations of 4.2 million people, were stricken.
  More than 43,000 structures, including homes, schools, and 
businesses, suffered severe damage.
  Over 20,000 residents of New Jersey alone applied for Federal 
assistance, and municipalities submitted over 2,000 requests for public 
assistance to remove debris or to repair damages.
  While FEMA has led an effort of providing assistance to homeowners, 
the greatest problem is how to rebuild their own economic 
infrastructure.
  Bound Brook, NJ, alone, a community that was entirely inundated by 
this flooding, lost 7 percent of its annual revenue and 37 percent of 
its property value. A month after Floyd, the New Jersey government 
appropriated $80 million for disaster relief.
  The reality is that the magnitude of the loss is so overwhelming 
that, without Federal aid, these communities will not simply suffer--
some will actually cease to exist.
  Main Streets were inundated, businesses lost, local governments lost 
revenues.
  They will close their doors and no longer be the communities where 
people live and work.
  The amendment I have offered with Mr. Edwards provides needed 
resources by increasing funding for communities in a regional 
development by $250 million. It includes $150 million for community 
development block grants; $50 million for the EDA; $50 million for 
community facilities block grants.
  This, my colleagues, is not an unusual approach. In 1997 the 
supplemental disaster bill provided flood aid for the upper Midwest of 
$500 million for communities in desperate need in North and South 
Dakota and Minnesota.
  In 1998, the disaster supplemental bill provided $250 million for 
community development block grants in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as they recovered from 
Hurricane George.
  Now we return to those States damaged from Florida to Maine, 
particularly in North Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, New York, and New 
Jersey. Hurricane Floyd destroyed many of our communities. We need this 
Congress to respond again.
  Tomorrow this amendment will be offered. I hope in this budget 
resolution we can make room for this $250 million to respond to the 
need of these communities.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding and I yield the floor.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss very briefly the 
Torricelli-Edwards amendment on hurricane relief. First of all, let me 
say what is happening in North Carolina, 7 months after the hurricane 
hit. We still have more than 8,000 people who live in trailers that 
have been provided by FEMA. We have many other people who are living 
with families and friends. We have roads and bridges that were washed 
out by the flood that are still not repaired. We have, literally, towns 
that have been wiped out, places such as Princeville, Tarboro, all 
smaller towns in eastern North Carolina, that were devastated.
  The people whose lives have been destroyed in North Carolina as a 
result of Hurricane Floyd are completely innocent. They are people who 
for generations have been law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, and for the 
first time in their lives, instead of writing tax checks to go to 
Washington, they are asking for something in return. If our Government 
cannot respond to a crisis such as Hurricane Floyd, we serve absolutely 
no purpose.
  Our people in North Carolina are hurting and they need help. This 
amendment provides for $250 million for those programs that would best 
address the needs of the people in 13 States, not only North Carolina, 
that were devastated by Hurricane Floyd.
  These are the components. First, $50 million for economic 
development. These communities that have been destroyed need long-term 
relief plans, and they need the resources to develop and implement 
those plans. Places such as Princeville and Tarboro that were literally 
completely wiped out by the hurricane have lost wastewater treatment 
plants, plants that have to be replaced. We have to provide the 
resources for that.
  There is $150 million in community block grants. North Carolina has 
imminent emergency housing needs. Our State has responded by providing 
millions and millions and millions of dollars in State money to help 
with these needs. These are people who were in rental housing who have 
no place to live now. That rental housing will never be replaced if we 
do not provide the resources to do it. It is going to leave literally 
thousands of North Carolinians with no place to live, without a home--
families totally wiped out.
  Finally, there is $50 million for community facilities in a grant 
program which is specifically designed to address the needs of 
individual communities. For example, Princeville lost its fire station; 
the town of Windsor lost its library. These are things that need to be 
replaced, and these folks need help.
  My people in North Carolina do not ask this Senate for a handout. 
They are doing everything they know how to do. The people of North 
Carolina have responded heroically to this tragedy. The State of North 
Carolina has responded by providing hundreds of millions of dollars--
unprecedented in the history of this country. All they are saying now 
is that it is time for the Federal Government in Washington to respond 
in a responsible way, and to provide these folks whose lives have been 
devastated, whose communities have been completely wiped out, with the 
help they so desperately need.
  They are not asking for a handout. They are asking us to do what any 
responsible Federal Government would do under these circumstances, 
which is to provide them with the resources to put themselves back on 
their feet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. REID. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee. He has 
done a terrific job. I thank Senator Reid as well for yielding me time 
so I can discuss this very important matter.
  I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Jeffords' amendment to 
finally start on the path toward paying the share of special education 
costs that the Federal Government promised to pay when the legislation 
was passed 25 years ago.
  During the last recess of the Senate, I met with more than 70 
superintendents and principals from northern and eastern Maine to 
discuss education issues. Originally, my thought was to discuss the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but the 
No. 1 issue on their minds was the escalating costs of meeting the 
needs of children with special needs, the costs of special education.
  If the U.S. Government kept the promise it made back in 1975, it 
would mean an additional $60 million to the schools in the State of 
Maine. That is money that would free up other money so that schools 
could meet their own needs--whether this is hiring more teachers, 
improving their libraries, upgrading their science labs or providing 
special professional development--whatever the need of that particular 
school and that particular community.
  If we take this step of starting to meet our obligations under the 
special education law, it will make a tremendous difference not only to 
the schools in Maine but to schools throughout our country. The 
Jeffords-Collins amendment would mean an additional $155 million to the 
schools of Maine over the next 5 years.
  I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor. This has been one of 
my priorities since my election to the Senate. I know it is the No. 1 
priority of the school districts in the State of Maine.
  I thank my colleagues for making the time available to me. If I have 
additional time, I yield it back to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Alaska.


                Amendments Nos. 2932 and 3009 Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to use the remaining time to 
withdraw amendment 2932 and amendment 3009. I ask unanimous consent 
they be withdrawn.

[[Page S2332]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2932 and 3009) were withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank those who listened regarding the 
appropriations process and the actions we have taken to try to assure 
we will have the ability to meet the needs of the Nation. It is a very 
trying process. I think the compromise we have worked out will be 
enough for us to do our work. I am indebted to the chairman of the 
Budget Committee and all who have worked on this matter.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have two observations.
  I wish Senator Byrd were on the floor. He spoke about the 60-vote 
point of order in terms of history, and what great Americans have said 
about supermajority being applicable in the year we are in, and the 60-
vote point of order on emergencies. We have passed very large emergency 
appropriations for agriculture. In fact, I think it might have been as 
much as $8 billion. Nobody raised a point of order. There was no point 
of order voted upon.
  We had hurricane assistance; we had Y2K emergency assistance, all of 
which fell within the purview of meeting 60 votes. Nobody raised it. 
Had they raised it, it would have gotten 60 votes.
  I don't believe what is being predicted will happen. I believe when 
there are real emergencies, they will get adopted on the floor of the 
Senate and nobody will even raise that 60 votes. If they do, they will 
get 60 votes.
  My last observation is we have lots of 60 vote points of order in the 
Budget Act, some of which the distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
has supported in the past. We entered into a 5-year agreement with the 
President, bipartisan, both Houses, with a firewall on defense for the 
first 3 of the 5 years. We lived with it in exactly the way that has 
served the distinguished Senator tonight. But it succeeded. The cap on 
defense was high enough for defense, and none of the defense was used 
for domestic for the first 3 years of the agreement to balance the 
budget.
  I think it will work again, especially with the modifications we have 
added tonight.
  I yield whatever time I had remaining.
  Mr. REID. I miscalculated the time when I spoke earlier, and I still 
have 7 minutes. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Durbin on the Reed 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. April 20, 1999, is a day 
we will remember for a long time in America. That was the day of the 
Columbine High School shooting. Remember when you first heard about it? 
You remember the first time you saw the scenes on television, with the 
high school kids running away from the school? There was one poor young 
man who had been shot, dragging himself out of a window, trying to 
escape the shooting taking place.
  America was stunned. Colorado was stunned. This Congress was stunned. 
We responded by passing legislation, with the help of Vice President 
Gore, which did three things to try to reduce gun violence in America.
  First, a background check at gun shows so that the people who buy 
guns at those shows would be subject to the same questions and 
inquiries as those who go to gun dealers. We don't want to sell guns to 
criminals. We don't want to sell them to kids. We certainly don't want 
to see gun shows as a loophole for selling guns to those who shouldn't 
own them.
  Second, trigger locks so if guns are going to be stored they are 
stored safely and securely so a young child can't pick it up and hurt 
himself or others.
  Third, the prohibition against those high capacity ammo clips that 
were being brought in from overseas that turn an ordinary gun into a 
dangerous, murderous weapon. Three very sensible changes for gun safety 
in America. It only passed because Vice President Gore showed up on the 
floor to break the tie. But we thought the Congress had learned a 
lesson from Columbine, not just for the Members of Congress and 
families across America, but for the students who go to school across 
America and want to be in safe buildings.

  That bill passed the Senate, and it has been sitting over in the 
House of Representatives in a conference committee that refuses to call 
it for consideration. My colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, 
believes that on the anniversary of Columbine we owe it, not only to 
the families in Colorado but across the Nation, to consider this 
important legislation. I support him completely. Close the loopholes, 
keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids.
  Second, tomorrow I will be offering an amendment which addresses the 
gun issue from a different perspective. There are some who say: Oh, you 
don't need to close the loopholes. I disagree with them. I think we 
need to close them. They say, instead, we need more enforcement. Let's 
have people who are going to investigate and prosecute gun criminals. 
Put them in jail.
  Do you know what? I agree with them. But I think we need both. Close 
the loopholes and make sure we have the resources for enforcement of 
gun laws. The amendment I will offer tomorrow, with Senator Schumer of 
New York, my seatmate here on the floor of the Senate, provides the 
President's initiative: 500 new ATF investigators to look after the gun 
dealers across America, to make certain they are not selling guns to 
the wrong people.
  Are they? You bet they are. Out of 80,000 gun dealers across America, 
we have traced gun crimes and found that the guns for 57 percent of the 
criminals in America come from 1,000 gun dealers out of 80,000. What it 
tells us is the overwhelming percentage of gun dealers across America 
are obeying the law. But there are bad people out there who are 
licensed gun dealers who are breaking the law and giving guns to 
criminals who commit crimes with those guns and harass us in our 
neighborhoods and our schools. My amendment creates more enforcement 
authority to keep those gun dealers from breaking the law.
  Next, more prosecutors. It is not enough to arrest somebody. You need 
a prosecuting attorney at the State, local, or Federal level, who is 
going to put that person behind bars. I say to the National Rifle 
Association and all the people who speak for them, if we are going to 
have enforcement, vote for the Durbin amendment so you have the 
resources at ATF and across the Nation to make sure gun laws are 
enforced.
  It is a complementary approach: Close the loopholes, increase the 
enforcement, and let us hope in the near term, in the near future, we 
can say this Congress responded in a way that answers to American 
families that we heard the cries of the parents and the families at 
Columbine and we responded to them. We should not leave ourselves in a 
position where we back off from our responsibility because of any 
special interest group.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 1 minute. The 
Senator from New Mexico has 3 minutes. The Senator from Nevada has 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield my time.
  Mr. REID. I yield the time of the minority.


                Vote On Amendment No. 2931, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back my time and ask for a vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2931, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2931), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2965

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it not correct 
that the Robb amendment, No. 2965, is now pending for a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There are 2 minutes? I waive my minute if the minority 
will waive its minute.
  Mr. REID. We waive our minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Robb amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S2333]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2965. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced, yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that was a 35-minute vote. I apologize for 
letting it go on that long. You can see how hard it is going to be to 
get through a vote-arama if we do that. Our plan now is to have two 
more votes tonight. If Senators would stay in the Chamber or close to 
the Chamber, we could do those votes in no more than 15 or 20 minutes. 
Maybe we could cut the second one down to 10. That would certainly 
help.
  We are now ready to go into the period for the votes on the number of 
amendments that are pending, the so-called vote-arama.
  Having said that, any Senator who has timely filed their amendment at 
the desk can call it up for Senate consideration. However, there is no 
allotted time for debate.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that, as we did last year, in a 
way that I think is the fairest to try to explain what the amendments 
are, in that brief period of time, there be 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to each vote for explanation, and all votes in the vote-arama be 
limited to 10 minutes each after the first vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I just suggest that we 
also ensure that either side has at least a block of five amendments 
that are going to be offered so we can look at them ahead of time. 
Nobody knows, on either side, what the amendments are. If we can at 
least take them five by five, we can analyze them and decide whether we 
will table them, second degree them, or whatever. I think it is very 
important to do that. I suggest that as well.
  Mr. LOTT. I think that is obviously a good suggestion. Let me add to 
this, if I could, Mr. President, that we are going to go forward with 
two more amendments tonight, one on each side--the Bond amendment on 
our side and the Reed amendment on their side. After that, we are going 
to stop for tonight because we still have a large number of amendments 
that have not been able to be worked through. I am going to ask the 
managers on both sides to get all these amendments lined up and to get 
the first five on each side ready for in the morning so we won't have 
to wait until we come in. Also, we will come in at 9 o'clock so we can 
get an early as possible start. Some would like to be able to go home 
or do commitments as early as possible. But as it now stands, because 
of the number of amendments and the fact that we haven't had an 
opportunity to line up all the amendments in order, the managers 
requested we do it this way.

  I emphasize that as soon as we finish the votes on amendments that 
are offered, and a vote is required, when we finish those, we will be 
through. So you may want to take that into consideration as to whether 
or not you insist on your amendment tomorrow. We can finish at 10 or 11 
o'clock, or 12, but we need to go ahead and complete that.
  Having said that, I am looking that way, but I could more easily be 
looking our way. A lot of amendments are still pending on both sides 
that really could be handled in some other way. I hope Senators will 
consider doing that. I thank the managers for the time they spent and 
the cooperation we have been getting from Senator Daschle and Senator 
Reid doing his usual good job. But our managers need this time tonight 
and early in the morning to start getting amendments racked up so we 
can vote on the first five.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader might 
entertain having a 10-minute vote on the first vote now. We have all 
come to vote. It seems we can accelerate that process.
  Mr. LOTT. I will accept that suggestion.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to ask this. Can't we 
limit the clock and keep the promise to 10 minutes instead of having 1 
or 2 persons cause the other 98 to be here?
  Mr. LOTT. We can do that. It requires that Senators stay here and 
that we stay attentive and say ``turn it in.'' We are trying to be 
considerate of both sides. Obviously, we need to stop. If we get 
unanimous consent for it to be 10 minutes, we will stop it. I amend the 
UC so that we may have 2 minutes equally divided on each amendment and 
that this vote and the next vote be 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. With that, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2913

(Purpose: To express the sense of Senate against the Federal funding of 
                              smoke shops)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2913.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF SMOKE 
                   SHOPS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Smoking begun by children during their teen years and 
     even earlier turns the lives of far too many Americans into 
     nightmares decades later, plagued by disease and premature 
     death.
       (2) The Federal Government should leave a legacy of more 
     healthy Americans and fewer victims of tobacco-related 
     illness.
       (3) Efforts by the Federal Government should seek to 
     protect young people from the dangers of smoking.
       (4) Discount tobacco stores, sometimes known as smoke 
     shops, operate to sell high volumes of cigarettes and other 
     tobacco products, often at significantly reduced prices, with 
     each tobacco outlet often selling millions of discount 
     cigarettes each year.
       (5) Studies by the Surgeon General and the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that children are 
     particularly susceptible to price differentials in 
     cigarettes, such as those available through smoke shop 
     discounts.
       (6) The Department of Housing and Urban Development is 
     using Federal funds for grants to construct not less than 6 
     smoke shops or facilities that contain a smoke shop.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budget levels in this resolution assume that no 
     Federal funds may be used by the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development to provide any grant or other assistance to 
     construct, operate, or otherwise benefit a smoke shop or 
     other tobacco outlet.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment simply says the Department of 
HUD should stop using community development block grant funds to build 
discount cigarette stores known as smoke shops.

[[Page S2334]]

  A year ago, a doctor called up and said there was a new discount 
smoke shop in his neighborhood and it was funded by Federal dollars. I 
didn't know what the sign said, so I sent staff out. Here it is: Smoke 
Shop, Discount Tobacco. Our policy is supposed to discourage cigarette 
smoking. Inside, we found wall-to-wall cigarettes, 25 percent or more 
off. These are your tax dollars at work.
  Instead of funding what we could have funded, $4.2 million went to 
six of these in the last 3 years--instead of building a water tower or 
elders' wellness centers.
  I wrote to HUD and said stop funding them. The letter I got back from 
the assistant said: You haven't proven that discount cigarettes 
encourage smoking. Well, it is about time we taught HUD some common 
sense. The Secretary of Housing now says: If you tell me to stop 
funding it, if you stop me from funding them, I will stop.
  I urge colleagues to vote aye.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am against smoking, but this amendment 
picks on Indians. Why don't we include all discount tobacco stores? Why 
don't we include Wal-Mart, Kmart, and all these places that sell 
discount tobacco? Why just pick on Indians?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the amendment says we should not fund any 
discount smoke shops. It doesn't say Indians.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator's sense of the Senate mentions Indians, 
Indian smoke shops.
  Mr. BOND. It does not.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am against this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, and I hope we will vote it down.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, in 1997 this body considered wide-
sweeping tobacco legislation and the Indian Affairs Committee held 
several hearings on the issue and in fact reported a bill to reduce 
smoking in Native communities.
  The rate of smoking in Native communities is the highest in the 
country and Natives suffer emphysema, lung cancer, and related problems 
as a result of that smoking.
  The resolution we are now considering would as a practical matter 
apply to smoke-shops that offer ``discount tobacco'' products without 
defining that term.
  There are ``discount cigarette'' stores right across the river in 
Virginia, there are ``discount tobacco'' outlets in airports around the 
country, and there are ``discount stores'' on Indian lands.
  Now, if this resolution were to apply to all tobacco outlets, I would 
support it. I am dismayed that Secretary Cuomo would support the 
amendment given that it would not affect Community Development Block 
Grant funds for non-Indian tobacco outlets.
  As a practical matter only Indian outlets are affected and there are 
no potential non-Indian tobacco sellers that would be affected. Though 
it may not be the preferred economic activity of some in this chamber, 
many Indian tribes rely on selling tobacco, which is a legal commodity, 
to generate revenues.
  The targeted nature of this resolution as well as the economic 
hardships created by it led me to support the Vice Chairman of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, and his Motion to Table 
the Bond Amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2913.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2913.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2913. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll on the motion to table.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 19, nays 81, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

                                YEAS--19

     Akaka
     Biden
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Daschle
     Edwards
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Levin
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Stevens
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--81

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2913) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2964

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need to 
                    reduce gun violence in America)

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2964.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Torricelli, 
     Mr. Levin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
     Byrd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Harkin, 
     Mr. Wyden, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. L. Chafee, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2964.

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NEED TO REDUCE GUN 
                   VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) On average, 12 children die from gun fire everyday in 
     America.
       (2) On May 20, 1999, the Senate passed the Violent and 
     Repeat Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act, by a 
     vote of 73 to 25, in part, to stem gun-related violence in 
     the United States.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in function 750 of this resolution assume 
     that Congress should--
       (1) pass the conference report to accompany H.R. 1501, the 
     Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and 
     Rehabilitation Act, including Senate-passed provisions, with 
     the purpose of limiting access to firearms by juveniles, 
     convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from 
     purchasing or possessing firearms; and
       (2) consider H.R. 1501 not later than April 20, 2000.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several weeks ago, the Treasury 
Department and HUD made a significant announcement on Smith and 
Wesson's willingness to make guns safer and keep them out of the hands 
of criminals.
  Momentum is building for Congress to break the stranglehold of the 
National Rifle Association. It is appalling that this Republican 
Congress refuses to respond to the urgent need for responsible gun 
control. Our Republican colleagues should stop listening to the 
National Rifle Association and start listening to the American people. 
The American people and America's children are calling on Congress to 
move

[[Page S2335]]

forward on commonsense gun provisions.
  The National Rifle Association continues to talk about Second 
Amendment rights. But we say what about the right to live of the 12 
children a day, every day, who die because of firearms in this country? 
What about the right of citizens to be free from crime, when criminals 
can go to gun shows and purchase weapons without a background check? 
What about the right of law-abiding citizens to live peaceably in their 
neighborhoods? It is time for Congress to stop kowtowing to the NRA. It 
is long past time for Congress to act responsibly, and adopt sensible 
measures to close the loopholes in our current gun laws.
  That means--closing the gun show loophole--requiring the sale of 
child safety locks with firearms--prohibiting juveniles from possessing 
semiautomatic assault weapons--banning imports of large capacity 
ammunition clips--expanding the number of cities that participate in 
gun tracing--giving ATF and other federal law enforcement agencies the 
resources they need for more effective enforcement of our gun laws.
  Nothing we do will interfere with the rights of responsible gun 
owners. But, it has everything to do with the rights of men, women, and 
children to live peacefully in their communities.
  Ninety percent of the American people support background checks at 
gun shows; 88% favor child-proofing guns. But every attempt we make to 
act is met by a stonewall of resistance from our Republican colleagues. 
And every day, we learn of more tragedies of families who lose loved 
ones to senseless gun violence because we fail to act.
  Congress must end its obstruction and enact critical reforms that 
have been pending for too long. If this Congress won't act, the 
American people will elect a Congress in November that will act.
  It has been almost a year since the tragic shooting at Columbine High 
School. In literally dozens of cases since then, children have brought 
guns to schools, and there have been at least seven school shootings 
since Columbine.
  According to the Department of Education, over 6,000 students were 
expelled in the 1996-1997 school year for bringing guns to public 
schools. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, 8% of 
all students reported bringing a gun to school in a 30-day period.
  It is time for Congress to finish the job we began last year and pass 
the gun control provisions in the juvenile justice legislation. 
Students, parents and teachers across America are waiting for our 
answer.
  We need to help teachers and school officials recognize the early 
warning signals and act before violence occurs.
  We need to assist law enforcement officers in keeping guns away from 
criminals and children.
  We need to close the gun show loophole.
  Above all, we need to require child safety locks on firearms, so that 
we can do all we can to prevent senseless shocking shootings like the 
first grade gun killing that occurred a few weeks ago in an elementary 
school in Michigan.
  The Senate passed this needed legislation last year. It is time for 
House and Senate conferees to write the final bill and send it to the 
President, so that effective legislation is in place as soon as 
possible.
  The lack of action is appalling and inexcusable. Each new tragedy is 
a fresh indictment of our failure to act responsibly.
  We have a national crisis, and commonsense approaches are urgently 
needed. If we are serious about dealing with youth violence, the time 
to act is now. There is no reason why this Congress cannot enact this 
needed legislation now. The citizens of this country deserve better 
than what this kow-tow-to-the-NRA Congress has given them so far.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, on April 20 of last year, America and the 
world was shocked by the gun violence and carnage at Columbine High 
School. Shortly thereafter, on May 20, this Senate passed legislation 
within the juvenile justice bill that provided for sensible gun control 
measures, including safety locks for handguns, background checks on all 
guns at gun shows and the ban on the importation of large clips for 
automatic weapons. Since our vote on May 20, the measure has languished 
in the conference committee that has met only once--last August.
  My amendment is very straightforward and simple. It asks that the 
conferees send to the House this measure so we can vote so we can do 
what the American people want. Over 90 percent of the American people 
want gun locks on weapons. A large number of them want to close all the 
loopholes in the gun shows. We must do that to respond to America, not 
just with respect to Columbine, but for the 12 young children each day 
that die in America because of gunfires.
  I urge passage of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. The juvenile justice bill provides $450 million in 
accountability in block grants for all kinds of problems; $547.5 
million in prevention grants for juveniles, $75 million in grants to 
update felony records, et cetera, none of which basically will pass as 
long as we stay in the gunfight.
  A majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House will not support 
the Lautenberg amendment. A majority of the Republicans and Democrats 
in the Senate will not support the Dingell amendment. So we are stuck 
with one of the most important anticrime juvenile justice bills in 
history because we can't resolve the gun process.
  The best thing we can do is strip it out, fight that another day, and 
do it this way. We cannot get a conference report and call a conference 
when all we will do is polarize the situation and divide people even 
more. I think we have to come to a conclusion and pass the juvenile 
justice bill, regardless of what happens. I hope we can vote down this 
amendment. It is not helping.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2964. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith, (OR)
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 2964) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


              mineral receipt sharing administrative costs

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee regarding the reserve fund for 
stabilization of payments to counties in support of education contained 
in section 203.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to speak with my colleague regarding 
this issue. This reserve fund will accommodate legislation recently 
reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that will 
correct a very large problem for counties across the

[[Page S2336]]

country which have historically shared receipts taken in by the Forest 
Service and BLM. The decline in those receipts over the last ten years 
has had devastating effects on many rural school districts, especially 
in the rural West, and the Budget Committee has provided $1.1 billion 
over the next five years to stabilize the flow of resources to these 
counties.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I know that Senator Domenici is aware of another 
situation that has had a negative impact on States' share of Federal 
mineral receipts. Subtitle C of Title X of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 put in place a system for allocating mineral 
revenues between the States and the United States that is complicated 
and difficult to administer. It has resulted in confusion and conflict 
between States and the Federal Government, and the Inspector General of 
the Department of the Interior has noted that the agencies' budgeting 
processes and accounting systems were not designed to accumulating 
costs in the detail required for administering the system. The system 
is criticized by both the States and the Federal agencies charged with 
administering it, and it is time for it to be changed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman is correct, and I understand he has 
introduced legislation to correct that provision. We now have a CBO 
preliminary estimate of the budgetary impact of that bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In that regard, I ask the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee if the amount available in the section 203 reserve fund would 
accommodate this legislation, and if it could be included within the 
intent of this reserve fund.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As we are considering this resolution, I cannot say for 
sure that the reserve fund would accommodate Senator Bingaman's bill, 
since the estimate of the budgetary impact of the recently reported 
legislation is not yet complete. It is my hope, however, that when we 
convene the conference on this resolution, we will have estimates on 
the impacts of both bills. It is my intention to move in that 
conference that the House recede to the Senate position with an 
amendment to accommodate both the Forest Service receipt stabilization 
legislation, and the mineral receipt sharing legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chairman for taking the time to clarify 
this point for us. I can assure you that this issue is very important 
to our States, and we look forward to working with you and the rest of 
our colleagues to address this situation in the near future.


                        thrift savings accounts

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2000, the Congress authorized active and reserve 
members of the uniformed services to participate in the Thrift Savings 
Plan now available for federal civil service employees. This was an 
important part of the recruiting and retention package which the Senate 
passed, and which was enacted into law last year.
  Under that authority, provided in last year's Defense Authorization 
Act, service members would be eligible to deposit up to five percent of 
their basic pay, before tax, each month. The government is not required 
to match the service member's contributions. In addition, service 
members would be permitted to directly deposit special pays for 
enlistment, reenlistment and the lump-sum for electing to remain in the 
``Redux'' retirement program--pre-tax--up to the extent allowable under 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, into their Thrift Savings account.
  Last year's legislation required the President to identify sufficient 
offsets in order to implement this important program. Unfortunately and 
inexplicably, the President failed to identify the offsets in the 
budget he submitted to the Congress in February. Mr. President, we must 
adjust the outlays and revenues in the Budget Resolution to permit the 
Thrift Savings Plan to be extended to members of the uniformed 
services. This Thrift Savings Plan does not cause the loss of revenues, 
but defers the tax due until the service member retires. This is an 
important point--there are no lost revenues, and the cost of this 
initiative is cheaper than losing our most qualified military 
personnel.
  Making the Thrift Savings Plan available to military personnel would 
come at a critical time for the military services. Participating in a 
Thrift Savings account would encourage personal savings and enhance the 
retirement income for service members, who currently do not have access 
to a 401k savings plan. Under current Thrift Savings Plan regulations, 
participants may borrow from Thrift Savings accounts for such worthy 
purposes as college tuition and purchasing a home. When implemented, 
military personnel would be able to join federal workers in a savings 
program that would enhance the value of their retirement system and 
permit them to improve their quality of life.
  The Armed Services Committee continues to receive testimony strongly 
supporting a Thrift Savings Plan for military personnel as a strong 
incentive for both recruiting and retention. Testimony from the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, Service Secretaries and the military personnel chiefs 
confirm that the Thrift Savings Plan would be an important incentive 
for recruiting military personnel and retaining highly trained military 
personnel on active duty or in the Ready Reserve. The Service Chiefs 
have indicated that this plan, combined with the pay raise, the repeal 
of the Redux retirement system, and the increased bonuses in the FY 
2000 bill, would alleviate the hemorrhage of trained and experienced 
military personnel we are now experiencing.
  This critical initiative was not included in the President's budget 
request, but it is necessary to assist in retaining our military 
service personnel. We must correct this shortcoming in the President's 
budget.
  The Senate has supported extending the Thrift Savings Plan to 
military personnel on three previous occasions. It is time that we 
complete the process and provide the necessary funding that would 
permit military personnel to join the federal workforce in the Thrift 
Savings Plan.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee has 
crafted an important provision that can improve retention in our Armed 
Services. The cost effectiveness of the provision is particularly 
notable. It is regrettable that the Administration's lack of compliance 
has caused the delay of an entire year in the effective date of this 
provision of last year's Department of Defense Authorization bill. 
Servicemen and women have lost out because of the Administration's 
failure to act.

  I understand that you also have a problem with moving forward on 
legislation that permits military personnel to participate in the 
Thrift Savings Plan because deferred revenue or a ``revenue loss'' is 
attributable to such legislation and this makes the legislation 
potentially vulnerable to a Budget Act point of order.
  As my friend from Virginia knows, our budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 
101, as well as the budget resolution passed by our colleagues in the 
House of Representatives, H. Con. Res. 290, last week, provides for up 
to $150 billion in revenue reductions over the next five years. It is 
my understanding that the revenue loss in the form of deferred revenue 
associated with your TSP provision is $10 million in 2001 and $321 
million over the next five years.
  Let me assure my colleague, the Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, that the revenue assumptions in the budget resolution can 
accommodate the revenue loss associated with your TSP statute. 
Moreover, let me say that I will happily make it clear in the statement 
of managers on the conference report on this year's budget resolution 
that the revenue assumptions will permit your TSP provision to move 
forward and to be implemented without the threat of a Budget Act point 
of order.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend for his commitment to correct this 
shortcoming in the President's budget and his help in reducing the 
hemorrhage of trained and experienced military personnel. I also want 
to express my appreciation to the highly professional staff of the 
Budget Committee for their assistance in working out a solution to this 
vital issue.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I voted against the amendment offered 
by Senator Robb, which would use the tax code to provide assistance to 
school districts to build and renovate school facilities. There is no 
doubt that many states and local school districts need help to address 
the dilapidated conditions of their schools. However, I do

[[Page S2337]]

not believe that the approach presented by Senator Robb, which has been 
repeatedly defeated by the Senate, is the best solution.
  Earlier this year, I was pleased to cosponsor legislation known as 
BRICKS--the Building, Renovating, and Constructing Schools Act--which 
Senator Snowe introduced. Senator Snowe's bill authorizes the use of 
$20 billion for school construction and repairs. She pays for her 
proposal by borrowing from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).
  According to the Snowe proposal, states would receive funds only at 
the request of the Governor. They would be distributed in accordance 
with the formula prescribed under Title I, which provides federal 
assistance to the lowest achieving, low income students. I believe this 
is a far better approach with potential for bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, it will be regrettable if the outcome of the vote on 
the Robb amendment prevents a vote on an amendment by the senior 
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. I am an original cosponsor of 
the Reed amendment which simply expresses the sense of the Senate that 
gun safety provisions approved by the Senate last year should be 
brought before the Senate for final action. As a cosponsor of the Reed 
amendment and a strong supporter of gun safety laws, particularly those 
which are intended to keep guns out of the hands of children, my vote 
against the Robb amendment should in no way be considered a vote 
against the Reed amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address a serious problem 
with one of the obscure assumptions both of this budget resolution and 
the President's budget. Both the Administration's submission and this 
budget resolution contain an assumption that $350 million of 
anticipated Medical Care Cost Recovery Fund (MCCF) receipts will be 
remitted to the Treasury from the VA. I strongly oppose this 
assumption. It flies in the face of current policy--and all logic--
since it would result in a $350 million decrease in VA health care 
funding at the same time that Congress proposes an increase. The budget 
resolution is essentially assuming the VA is being given a ``loan'' 
from Treasury which it must pay back.
  The VA has historically had difficulty in meeting their projected 
third party collection goals as it is, using the projected collections 
as a means to pad the budget on paper. By substantially reducing the 
incentive for aggressive collections by the VA, the MCCF receipts are 
even less likely to reach projected levels--meaning fewer funds for 
veterans health care.
  This proposal is nothing more than an obscure, cynical maneuver to 
give extra scoring room on the appropriations bills later in this year 
at the expense of veterans. However, this provision will require 
legislation to be put into effect, and I want my colleagues to know 
that I will strongly oppose any efforts to pass such legislation as 
that process moves forward this year.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as we debate the priorities for 
spending in the federal budget for the next fiscal year, I am pleased 
to have voted yesterday for the Bingaman education amendment. 
Unfortunately, the Senate tabled this amendment yesterday by a 54 to 46 
vote. This amendment begins to address some of the critical needs of 
our schools. But more importantly, it says, ``We think education is 
important. We think education is a priority. We think education should 
be nourished, not starved.''
  This amendment adds important resources in several ways:
  It supports the $4.5 billion or 12.6 percent increase for education 
that the President proposed for FY 2001 over the previous year.
  It adds $1 billion for Title I, the program that helps school 
districts educate disadvantaged students. If Congress follows through 
with FY 2001 appropriations, this would bring total Title I funding 
next year to $9.9 billion, up from $8.5 billion in FY 2000.
  It adds $2 billion to train new teachers and current teachers.
  It provides $1.75 billion to continue to reduce class sizes in the 
early grades.
  It increases funds for afterschool programs to give students extra 
help.
  It provides $1.3 billion to repair schools in high-need areas.
  It adds $1 billion for special education, programs to help disabled 
students.
  It raises the maximum Pell Grant, aid for needy college students, 
from $3,500 to $3,700.
  This amendment is timely because the federal share of elementary and 
secondary education has declined from 14 percent in 1980 to 6 percent 
in 1999-2000. Hopefully, this amendment will begin to reverse that 
decline.
  The schools in my state face huge challenges--low test scores, 
crowded classrooms, teacher shortages, growing enrollments, decrepit 
buildings. In short, they are overwhelmed.
  California has 5.8 million students, more students in school than 36 
states have in total population and one of the highest projected 
enrollments in the country.
  California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. Eleven percent or 
30,000 of our 285,000 teachers are on emergency credentials.
  California has 40 percent of the nation's immigrants; we have 50 
languages in some schools. Children from these families need special 
attention, not just in English language learning but in dealing with 
huge adjustments of learning to live in a new country.
  California's students lag behind students from other states. Only 
about 40 to 45 percent of the state's students score at or above the 
national median, on the Stanford 9 reading and math tests.
  For school construction, modernization and deferred maintenance, 
California needs $21 billion by 2003 or 7 new classrooms per day. Two 
million California children go to school today in 86,000 portable 
classrooms.
  California's Head Start programs serve only 13 percent of eligible 
children.
  For higher education, the University of California has the most 
diverse student body in the US. Federal programs provide nearly 55 
percent of all student financial aid funding that UC students received. 
Our colleges and universities are facing ``Tidal Wave II,'' the 
demographic bulge created by children of the baby boomers who will 
inundate California's colleges and universities between 2000 and 2010 
because the number of high school graduates will jump 30 percent.
  California's schools are in crisis. The needs of my state are huge.
  While these needs cry out for resources, the federal government is 
contributing only 6 percent of total education funding. Funds are so 
short in my state that California teachers are spending around $1,000 a 
year out of their own pockets to pay for books, magic markers, scissors 
and other school supplies, according to the San Diego Tribune, August 
16, 1999.
  Why should we be increasing funds for education? Let me answer that 
question by giving you an example of the state of our schools, as 
expressed by a young student. I would like to read a letter from Hannah 
Wair, a 14-year-old from Santa Rosa, California, who graphically 
describes her school:

                                               Santa Rosa, CA,

                                                December 13, 1999.
     Diane Feinstein,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Feinstein: My name is Hannah Wair, and I am 14 
     years old and I attend Rincon Valley Middle School in 
     California. I am writing you this letter because I am 
     concerned about the amount of money that is given to the 
     Santa Rosa City Schools. It seems as though far too many kids 
     attend these schools without enough supplies, computers, 
     books, and sports equipment. On top of that, most of the 
     schools (with an exception of a few new ones) are in need of 
     extreme repairs. Many schools have trashy, dirty, bathrooms 
     and locker rooms that have not been repaired or updated in 
     about 20 years. The fields and tracks are invaded with weeds 
     and rocks, and there have been many injuries because of this. 
     Many of the classes are over-populated, with an average of 30 
     or 35 students per class. This gives the students less 
     attention, which makes it harder to learn.
       Although there are many aspects that need to be improved 
     about our schools, they are all still great schools, and I'm 
     sure that you could change all of this in only a matter of 
     time. Thank you so very much for your time. I hope to hear 
     from you soon!
           Sincerely,
                                                      Hannah Wair.

  The Clinton-Gore Administration has proposed to increase education 
funding in FY 2001 by 12.6 percent, to $40.1 billion. Yet the budget 
before us does not add, it cuts the President's education request by 
$4.7 billion. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is no time to be 
cutting education:

[[Page S2338]]

  American students lag behind their international counterparts in many 
ways. American twelfth grade math students were outperformed by 
students from 21 other countries, scoring higher than students from 
only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.
  Three-quarters of our school children cannot compose a well-
organized, coherent essay, says the National Assessment Governing Board 
in September.
  U.S. eighth graders score below the international average of 41 other 
countries in math. U.S. twelfth graders score among the lowest of 21 
countries in both math and science general knowledge.
  Three-quarters of employers say that recent high school graduates do 
not have the skills they need to succeed on the job. Forty-six percent 
of college professors say entering students do not have the skills to 
succeed in college, according to a February Public Agenda poll.
  These statistics speak for themselves. Our schools are failing many 
of our youngsters. It is not the students' fault. It is our fault. We 
need to be nourishing education, not starving it, especially at a time 
of budget surpluses when the needs of our children are so stark.
  I am especially pleased that this amendment increases funds for Title 
I, adding $1 billion to the program.
  Title I provides grants to help disadvantaged children, grants 
designed by Congress in 1965 to provide supplementary services to low-
achieving children in areas with high concentrations of poverty. Title 
I reaches virtually every school district and is very important in my 
state. Schools serving disadvantaged populations of students receive 
fewer resources than other schools, according to the Public Policy 
Institute of California in a new report.
  With 18 percent of the country's Title I students, California only 
receives 11.4 percent of Title I funds. At least, 775,000 eligible 
Title I students are not getting services in my state.
  It is my hope that when Congress takes up the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act reauthorization and the FY 2001 appropriations 
bill, we will rectify the long-standing inequities in the funding 
formula to give fast-growing states like mine their fair share of Title 
I and other funds.
  In 1994, Congress included in the Title I law a requirement to 
annually update the number of poor children so that the allocation of 
funds would truly reflect the most up-to-date number of poor children. 
This is a very important provision to growing states like mine. 
However, despite my opposition, a ``hold harmless'' provision has been 
included in annual appropriations bills, effectively overriding the 
census update requirement and locking in historic funding amounts for 
states despite the change in the number of poor children.
  As Secretary of Education Riley said last year, ``a basic principle 
in targeting should be to drive funds to where the poor children are, 
not to where they were a decade ago.'' While today's amendment includes 
an assumption that Title I would go up $1 billion and does not address 
the ``hold harmless'' one way or another, I want to make it clear that 
a ``hold harmless'' should not be part of our final funding bill.
  I am also pleased that the amendment adds $2 billion for teacher 
training. What are the needs? For starters, my state has 30,000 
teachers on emergency credentials. That is 11 percent of our 285,000 
teachers. We have high teacher turnover. We face a severe teacher 
shortage. California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010.
  Not only do we face a serious teacher shortage, we need to beef up 
training of current teachers in order to improve student learning. 
There is no substitute for a good teacher. A good teacher can make a 
lifetime of difference in a student, especially a struggling or low-
performing student. Teacher quality has more impact on student 
achievement than any other single factor, including family income and 
parent education, according to a Texas study by Ronald Ferguson of 
Harvard University. Studies show that the teacher's qualifications 
account for more than 90 percent of the variation in student 
achievement in reading and math.
  Another disturbing statistic in my state is this: In California, the 
lowest-scoring students are five times more likely than high-scoring 
children to be placed in a classroom with under qualified teachers, 
concluded a study by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning 
last December. ``More than a million children in California go to 
school where they have particularly high concentrations of teachers who 
are under prepared to teach them,'' the study said. Similarly, the 
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future noted,

       In the nation's poorest schools, where hiring is most lax 
     and teacher turnover is constant, the results are disastrous. 
     Thousands of children are taught throughout their school 
     careers by a parade of teachers without preparation in the 
     fields they teach, inexperienced beginners with little 
     preparation and no mentoring, and short-term substitutes 
     trying to cope with constant staff disruptions. It is more 
     surprising that some of these children manage to learn than 
     that so many fail to do so.

  Without strong teachers, our children suffer. We must enhance teacher 
training.
  The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that 
teacher training has suffered for years saying it has been 
``historically thin, uneven and poorly financed.'' That commission has 
called for strengthening teacher training requirements and better 
rewarding teaching knowledge and skill.
  I welcome the additional funds in this amendment to train more 
teachers and to strengthen teacher training.
  This debate today is not just about raw numbers, this increase or 
that decrease. This debate is about the future of our nation. We must 
ask some fundamental questions about our spending priorities. Why it is 
important to increase spending on education? Here are some reasons:
  The economy of my state is transitioning from manufacturing toward a 
more higher-skilled, service and technology jobs. Since 1980, jobs in 
the ``new economy'' (services and trade) have jumped nearly 60 percent.
  Over the next 10 years, nationally, computer systems analyst jobs 
will grow by 94 percent; computer support specialists, by 102 percent; 
computer engineers, 108 percent. Jobs for the non-college educated are 
stagnating.
  High tech employers say they cannot find qualified people. They plead 
for Congress to expand visas to bring in employees from abroad.
  Low literacy levels are powerful predictors of welfare dependency and 
incarceration. More than half the adult prison population has literacy 
levels below those required by the labor market.
  Near 40 percent of adjudicated juvenile delinquents have treatable 
learning disabilities that went untreated in school.
  Seventeen years ago, the nation's attention was jolted by a report 
titled A Nation at Risk. In April 1983, the Reagan Administration's 
Education Secretary, Terrell Bell, told the nation that we faced a 
fundamental crisis in the quality of American elementary and secondary 
education. The report said:

       Our nation is at risk. If an unfriendly foreign power had 
     attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational 
     performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it 
     as an act of war.

  The report cited declines in student achievement and called for 
strengthening graduation requirements, teacher preparation and 
establishing standards and accountability.
  Today, we still face mediocrity in our schools. While there are 
always exceptions and clearly there are many excellent teachers and 
many outstanding schools, we can do better. To those who say we cannot 
afford to spend more money on education, I say we cannot afford to fail 
our children. Our children do not choose to be illiterate or 
uneducated. It is our responsibility and we must face up to it.
  I urge adoption of the education amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senate yesterday approved my 
amendment to the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution that establishes a 
reserve fund which creates room in the Senate budget resolution for 
military retiree health care improvements. I thank Budget Committee 
Chairman Domenici for working with me and supporters of my amendment. I 
also want to recognize the driving force behind this issue: the 
thousands of military retirees and

[[Page S2339]]

their dependents across this country who have established an impressive 
grassroots effort. Their work, in conjunction with the efforts of the 
Retired Enlisted Association, the National Association of Uniformed 
Services, the National Military and Veterans Association, and the 
Retired Officers Association, have brought military health care to the 
forefront.
  My amendment would allow the Senate Armed Services Committee to 
increase spending on military retiree health care while considering the 
fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization bill. It is 
important to note that my amendment must also be approved by the House 
and Senate conference committee on the budget resolution in order for 
the Senate Armed Services Committee to use the reserve fund.
  A promise of lifetime health care has been broken. Testimony from 
military recruiters themselves, along with copies of recruitment 
literature dating back to World War II, show that health care was 
promised to active duty personnel and their families upon the 
personnel's retirement.
  However, the creation on June 7, 1956, of space-available care for 
military retirees at military hospitals has led to a broken promise of 
health care coverage for these men and women and their families. Post-
cold-war downsizing of military bases and their medical services have 
left many retirees out in the cold. A final insult is the fact that 
military retirees and their dependents are kicked off of the military's 
health care system, Tricare, upon turning age 65.
  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry Shelton, testified 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said: ``Sir, I think the 
first thing we need to do is make sure that we acknowledge our 
commitment to the retirees for their years of service and for what we 
basically committed to at the time that they were recruited into the 
armed forces.''
  Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and said: ``We have made a pledge, whether it's 
legal or not, it's a moral obligation that we will take care of all 
those who served, retired veterans and their families, and we have not 
done so.''
  My oldest son, Brooks, served as a peacekeeper with the United States 
Army in Bosnia, and he was recently deployed to Kosovo. I know how 
important ``quality of life'' issues are to military personnel and 
their families. Our country asks young men and women to willingly work 
in combat zones and receive minimal pay compared to the private sector. 
As compensation, military personnel have been promised that their 
health care needs and those of their families will be taken care of now 
and upon retirement. Despite the best efforts of many talented health 
care providers in the military, this promise has been broken, and it is 
impacting a young man or woman's decision to make a career of the 
military.
  The question is whether Members of Congress want to make military 
retiree health care a priority instead of an afterthought. I am hopeful 
that, working on a bipartisan approach similar to that seen with my 
reserve fund amendment, we in Congress can choose military retiree 
health care as a priority this session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in order to make some logic out of this 
vote-arama process, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent 
that the first 10 amendments to be voted on tomorrow be the following 
and that as stated earlier all votes after the first vote be limited to 
10 minutes, with 2 minutes for explanation prior to each vote. The 
amendments are: the Santorum amendment on military/vets benefits; the 
Conrad amendment on lockbox; the Abraham amendment on SOS lockbox; the 
Johnson amendment on veterans; the Ashcroft amendment on SOS Social 
Security investment; the Mikulski amendment on digital divide; the Bob 
Smith amendment on RX; the Graham of Florida amendment on education; 
the Voinovich amendment on strike tax reconciliation; and the Kennedy 
amendment on Pell grants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________