[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 43 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2384-S2432]
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 legislative 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.


                           Amendment No. 3058

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting additional 
    funding for fiscal year 2001 for medical care for our nation's 
                               veterans)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand my amendment is next in the 
queue. I ask the amendment be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3058.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 23, line 7, strike ``47,568,000,000'' and insert 
     ``48,068,000,000''.
       On page 23, line 8, strike ``47,141,000,000'' and insert 
     ``47,641,000,000''.
       On page 27, line 7, strike ``-59,931,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-60,431,000,000''.
       On page 27, line 8, strike ``-48,031,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-48,531,000,000''.
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       ``(A) It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions in 
     this resolution assume that if CBO determines there is an on-
     budget surplus for FY 2001, $500 million of that surplus will 
     be restored to the programs cut in this amendment.
       ``(B) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that none of these 
     offsets will come from defense or veterans, and to the extent 
     possible should come from administrative functions.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, my amendment increases veterans' health 
care benefits by $500 million, which is what the Independent Budget, 
which is supported by a variety of veterans organizations, has come 
forward and said they need to provide adequate health care for our 
Nation's veterans.
  I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for increasing 
veterans' health care benefits by $1.4 billion, but that isn't enough 
to provide for the needs of our veterans population.
  This is an important issue to keep the promise that we made to our 
veterans to provide adequate health care. It is also important for our 
military. What we need to do is to show the people in the service right 
now, who want to stay in the service and make careers out of the 
service, that we are going to keep our promises to them when they leave 
the service. This is an important amendment to provide adequate health 
care benefits for our veterans as well as to show our people in the 
current military that we are going to keep our promises.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Abraham be added as a cosponsor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I applaud anybody who attempts to address 
issues of veterans' health care. However, I think it is regrettable 
that the Senator from Pennsylvania chose not to work in a bipartisan 
fashion with Senators Craig, Wellstone, myself, and other veterans 
organizations across the country with our amendment that we will be 
offering very shortly, which has a longer-term, 5-year fix for the 
veterans' health care funding shortfall.
  Our amendment will far more significantly address the problems with 
veterans' health care in this Nation. The one offered by Senator 
Santorum is a fine step, in a small sense. I have no problems 
supporting it. I think the body needs to understand that we will come 
to a far more significant amendment shortly. The amendment this morning 
will deal with a 5-year approach to veterans' health care.
  I yield to Senator Wellstone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think the Independent Budget is very 
important. We have been out here working on it. This amendment follows 
the amendment we introduced. One year is fine, but we need 5 years. 
Let's vote for this amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3058) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3016

(Purpose: To protect Social Security surpluses and reserve a portion of 
          on-budget surpluses for Medicare and debt reduction)

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3016.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCKBOX.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Social 
     Security and Medicare lockbox'' includes--
       (1) the amount of the Social Security surplus (as defined 
     in section 311(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974), with respect to any fiscal year; and
       (2) the amount of the ``Medicare surplus reserve'' defined 
     as a minimum of one-third of the on-budget surplus as 
     estimated by the Congressional Budget Office for each of the 
     3 applicable time periods, which are--
       (A) the budget year;
       (B) the budget year plus the subsequent 4 years; and
       (C) the budget year plus the subsequent 9 years.
       (b) Budget Resolution Point of Order.--It shall not be in 
     order in the Senate to consider any concurrent resolution on 
     the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report on the 
     resolution) that would decrease the on-budget surplus below 
     the levels of the Medicare surplus reserve, except for 
     legislation that reforms the Medicare program and provides 
     coverage for prescription drugs.
       (c) Subsequent Legislation Point of Order.--It shall not be 
     in order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     together with associated interest costs would decrease the 
     on-budget surplus below the level of the Medicare surplus 
     reserve, except for legislation that reforms the Medicare 
     program and provides coverage for prescription drugs.
       (d) Social Security Off-Budget Point of Order.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate 
     to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget (or any 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon) or any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     that would violate section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement 
     Act of 1990.
       (e) Strengthening Social Security Points of Order.--It 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon) or any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would--
       (1) decrease Social Security surpluses in any year covered 
     by this resolution below the levels established in this 
     resolution; or
       (2) amend section 301(i) or 311(a)(3) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to allow Social Security surpluses to be 
     decreased below the levels established in this resolution.
       (f) Supermajority Waiver.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only 
     by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 
     chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised pursuant to this section.
       (g) Senate Pay-As-You-Go Rule Extended Through 2010.--
     Section 207(g) of H.

[[Page S2385]]

     Con. Res. 68 (the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 
     fiscal year 2000) is amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2010''.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $2,026,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $5,067,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $7,230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $6,620,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $2,026,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $5,067,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $7,230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $6,620,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $2,026,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $5,067,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $7,230,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $6,620,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, decrease the amount by $2,026,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $5,067,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $7,230,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $6,620,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,026,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $5,067,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $7,230,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $6,620,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $2,026,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $20,943,000,000.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to safeguard 
both Social Security and Medicare. We have, on a bipartisan basis, 
achieved consensus now that we should not spend the Social Security 
surplus for other programs. That is an enormous advancement. That is a 
commitment to fiscal responsibility. We ought to take the next step now 
and protect Medicare as well. That is what this lockbox amendment does. 
It protects every penny of Social Security for Social Security in each 
and every year, and it commits one-third of the non-Social Security 
surplus to Medicare. So we are taking care of our two major programs 
that are most at risk, Social Security and Medicare.
  I hope my colleagues will support this lockbox amendment so we can 
leave this Congress with a full commitment to Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is almost comical that this is called 
a Medicare lockbox because it has nothing to do with Medicare. The 
Social Security lockbox at the Social Security trust fund actually puts 
those away. This amendment never references the Medicare trust fund. It 
says we are to run on-budget surpluses equal to a third of the 
Congressional Budget Office surpluses, using the most recent baseline 
projections. I don't think we ought to do that. We have priorities set 
up in the budget. It violates the Budget Act.
  I make a point of order that it is not germane to provisions of the 
Budget Act. I therefore raise that point of order.
  Mr. CONRAD. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act for 
consideration of the pending amendment, and 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 the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to the Conrad amendment No. 3016.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--56

     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
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the ayes are 44, the nays are 56. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Chamber.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Abraham has the next 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3063

(Purpose: To provide for the protection of Social Security trust funds 
                               surpluses)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Grams, Mr. Craig, 
     Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Crapo, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3063.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . PROTECTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) Congress balanced the budget excluding the surpluses 
     generated by the Social Security trust funds in 1999, and 
     should do so in 2000 and every future fiscal year;
       (2) reducing the federal debt held by the public is a top 
     national priority, strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, 
     as evidenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's 
     comments that debt reduction ``is a very important element in 
     sustaining economic growth'';
       (3) according to even the most profligate spending 
     projection by the Congressional Budget Office, balancing the 
     budget excluding the surpluses generated by the Social 
     Security trust funds will totally eliminate the net debt held 
     by the public by 2010;
       (4) the Senate adopted a Sense of the Senate amendment to 
     last year's budget resolution by a vote of 99-0 that called 
     for a legislative mandate that the Social Security surpluses 
     only be used for the payment of Social Security benefits, 
     Social Security reform or to reduce the federal debt held by 
     the public, and that a Senate super-majority Point of Order 
     lie against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or 
     conference report that would use Social Security surpluses on 
     anything other than the payment of Social Security benefits, 
     Social Security reform or the reduction of the federal debt 
     held by the public;
       (5) the House adopted on a vote of 416-12, H.R. 1259, a 
     bill to provide a legislative lock-box to protect the Social 
     Security surpluses;
       (6) the Senate has failed to hold a vote on passage of any 
     Social Security lock box legislation having failed five times 
     to overcome filibusters against both Senate and the House of 
     Representatives' legislative proposals; and
       (7) the Senate Committee on the Budget unanimously adopted 
     an amendment to this Concurrent Resolution that provided a 
     permanent Senate super-majority Point of Order against any 
     budget resolution that would produce an on-budget deficit.
       (b) It is the Sense of the Senate that the functional 
     totals in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume 
     that during this session of Congress the Senate shall pass 
     legislation which--
       (1) reaffirms the provisions of section 13301 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that provides that 
     the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust 
     funds shall not be counted for the purposes of the budget 
     submitted by the President, the congressional budget, or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     and provides for a Point of Order within the Senate against 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment 
     thereto, or a conference report thereon that violates that 
     section;

[[Page S2386]]

       (2) mandates that the Social Security surpluses are used 
     only for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or to reduce the federal debt held by the 
     public, and not spent on non-social security programs or used 
     to offset tax cuts;
       (3) provides for a Senate super-majority Point of Order 
     against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
     report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything 
     other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or the reduction of the federal debt held by 
     the public;
       (5) Ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on 
     time; and
       (6) Accommodates Social Security reform legislation.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if I might, in the Budget Committee as we 
prepared the resolution to come to the floor, we were successful in 
making the lockbox mechanism a permanent part of the budget process and 
making it enforceable with a 60-vote point of order. I consider that to 
be a victory on this matter.
  In the interest of setting a good precedent today, I therefore seek 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time, and hope 
others who have similar kinds of amendments will help us to expedite 
the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, while this amendment expresses the 
sense of the Senate that Congress ought to pass legislation to 
establish the security lockbox, we are concerned. I think it is fair to 
say all of us endorse that principle. We want the Social Security funds 
reserved for Social Security recipients. I am going to support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been withdrawn.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am sorry, I was not paying attention. I am glad the 
Senator withdrew the amendment.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Since no objection was raised, apparently, to the 
amendment, and since there may be an ability to have an immediate voice 
vote, I am happy to accept the proposal of the Senator from New Jersey 
and voice vote the amendment rather than withdrawing it to save time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I stopped in the middle of my statement because I was 
astonished by the Senator's generous attitude, and so we will skip the 
amendment as long as he will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator was asking the question, since the Senator 
from New Jersey does not object to it, could we accept it?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Given the opportunity to clean the slate and move 
along, I withdraw my statement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tomorrow, April 8, is the anniversary of the 
ratification by the State of Connecticut of the 17th amendment. But for 
that amendment, I would not be here and for that amendment, a good many 
of us would not be here.
  That amendment provides for the popular election of Senators. I just 
wanted to call that to our colleagues' attention. Tomorrow is quite an 
important day for most of us. Does anyone think the West Virginia 
Legislature would have selected me for the Senate? I did not have two 
nickels I could rub together. Nobody knew me. My dad was a coal miner. 
I expect a lot of us can say somewhat the same things. Just keep that 
in mind tomorrow, how thankful we should be for the 17th amendment. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, can I have 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator probably agrees the popular 
election created a better Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So I ask that this better Senate help us get rid of 
some of these amendments that are irrelevant.
  Mr. BYRD. I must say I expect some of those who were proponents of 
the 17th amendment would probably be disappointed in the Senate if they 
could see it today.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. A lot of the Senators who were here when I came would 
likewise be chagrined, embarrassed, and disappointed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2934

        (Purpose: To increase funding for veterans health care)

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2934.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], for himself, 
     Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
     Robb, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2934.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 7, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 8, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 11, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 19, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 20, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $2,500,000,000.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to those who have 
already spoken eloquently about the need to increase funding for 
America's veterans. While I appreciate Senator Domenici's efforts to 
provide the increase requested by the administration, many of my 
colleagues agree with me that this is not sufficient to meet the needs 
of America's veterans. Years of underfunding coupled with spiraling 
health care costs have left the system struggling to provide the 
quality care that veterans expect and deserve. This trend must be 
stopped and reversed. We owe it to future generations to keep federal 
spending under control. But we must first recognize the prior claim of 
veterans who have already given of themselves and who expect to receive 
the medical care and benefits they are promised.
  Mr. President, veterans in my State of Vermont are very lucky. They 
have been served for many years by a very dedicated and high quality VA 
system, headquartered in White River Junction with clinics in 
Burlington and

[[Page S2387]]

Bennington. But this system is being stretched to the limit. Numbers of 
veterans wanting to use the services of the VA are increasing. While 
the cost of providing quality medical care has risen less at our VA 
hospital than it has in the private sector, more funding is still 
required just to provide the same services this year as last. Budget 
shortfalls of about 10 percent per year for several years have forced 
administrators to demand sacrifices of their personnel that would not 
be tolerated in many other systems and make cuts in services that are 
regrettable. Thanks to our dedicated staff, Vermont veterans are still 
receiving quality health care, but these trends can't continue. It is 
high time the system was given the funding it needs to do the job 
right.
  In an improvement over last year, the President's budget for fiscal 
year 2001 requested an increase of $1.3 billion for veterans health 
care. But that is still about $600 million below the amount that is 
needed to maintain existing programs and fulfill the funding 
requirements of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, 
passed by Congress last year. This amount, $21.2 billion, has been 
identified by the Independent Budget coalition as the minimum 
acceptable funding level for veterans health care programs.
  While veterans, just like all Americans, would love to see their 
benefits increase, this request does not do that. Funding the Veterans 
Health Administration at $21.2 billion would merely take a bite out of 
the increasing cost of medical care, particularly pharmaceutical costs, 
for an aging veterans population. Demand for VA health care continues 
to rise and enrollment is going up at many facilities, with no 
corresponding increase in funding to cover those veterans. The 
Millennium bill authorized better nursing home care, home health and 
long-term care services, greatly needed by veterans. It also provided 
veterans with long-desired emergency room coverage, and recognizes the 
imperative of covering the increasing number of hepatitis C cases among 
veterans. But if additional funds are not provided to cover these 
costs, these promises will be hollow.
  I am very pleased to join Senators Johnson and Wellstone in offering 
this amendment to add $500 million to the budget for the Veterans 
Health Administration. I urge all my colleagues to support this worthy 
effort. This is the very least we can do!
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senators Wellstone, Domenici, and 
Craig for working out an agreement on a veterans amendment which 
increases outlays for veterans' health care by $500 million over the 
Budget Committee's level in each year of the budget resolution and 
raises the funding to the level requested in the veterans' Independent 
Budget, a $1.9 billion, increase over fiscal year 2000.
  This level of funding is advocated by 40 veterans groups and medical 
societies. I urge all Senators to support this critically important 
amendment which ensures adequate funding for veterans over a 5-year 
period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                Amendment No. 3074 to Amendment No. 2934

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

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr. 
     Murkowski, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Abraham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3074 to amendment No. 2934.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 23, line 7, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 8, increase the amount by $430,000,000.
       On page 23, line 11, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $485,000,000.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $497,000,000.
       On page 23, line 19, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 20, increase the amount by $498,000,000.
       On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $498,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $0.
       At the end add the following: Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this resolution the appropriate levels for 
     function 920 are as follows--
       For fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,461,000,000.
       For fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,796,000,000.
       For fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,287,000,000.
       For fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,268,000,000.
       For fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,570,000,000.

     SEC.   . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING MEDICAL CARE FOR VETERANS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the provisions of this resolution assume that if the 
     Congressional Budget Office determines there is an on-budget 
     surplus for fiscal year 2001, $500,000,000 of that surplus 
     will be restored to the programs cut by this amendment; and
       (2) the assumptions underlying this resolution assume that 
     none of the offsets made by this amendment will come from 
     defense or veterans and should, to the extent possible, come 
     from administrative functions.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my amendment to the Johnson amendment is 
the exact amendment that Senator Johnson put on the budget resolution 
last year. It increases veterans spending the same amount that the 
Johnson amendment does, by $500 million a year, but instead of blocking 
our ability to give tax cuts, as his would do, mine is spread across a 
5-year discretionary pattern.
  American citizens, along with veterans, deserve to be treated 
equally. We ought to recognize our veterans and do as Senator Johnson 
has proposed. At the same time, we ought to recognize American families 
who are now taxed at the highest level in our Nation's history and give 
them an opportunity for some tax relief. My amendment grants us that 
option. I urge consideration of the second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope all Senators will vote for this 
amendment. A recorded vote is important because there are a lot of gaps 
in the veterans health care system. For my own part, I would far rather 
take it out of tax cuts which are disproportionately aimed at higher 
income people. I hope there is a 100-percent vote for this. The 
veterans need our support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3074.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We asked for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not on the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There has been no rollcall vote requested on this 
amendment.

[[Page S2388]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     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
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3074) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2934

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the underlying amendment, 
as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2934, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2934), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 2946

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the investment 
                  of the social security trust funds)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I call up sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
No. 2946. It is a sense of the Senate rejecting the President's plan 
for direct Government investment of Social Security as an option.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], for himself, Mr. 
     Inhofe, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Allard and Mr. 
     Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 2946.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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 appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING INVESTMENT OF SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Government investment of the social security trust 
     funds in the stock market is a gamble Congress should be 
     unwilling to make on behalf of the millions who receive and 
     depend on social security to meet their retirement needs;
       (2) in 1999, the Senate voted 99-0 to oppose Government 
     investment of the social security trust funds in private 
     financial markets;
       (3) in addition to the unanimous opposition of the United 
     States Senate, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and 
     Securities and Exchange Commissioner Arthur Levitt also 
     oppose the idea; and
       (4) despite this opposition, and despite the dangers 
     inherent in having the Government invest social security 
     trust funds in private financial markets, President Clinton 
     has once again suggested, on page 37 of the Administration's 
     proposed fiscal year 2001 Federal budget, that the Government 
     invest part of the social security trust funds in corporate 
     equities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that the Federal Government should not 
     directly invest contributions made to the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401), or any interest derived 
     from those contributions, in private financial markets.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator 
Ashcroft's amendment to the budget resolution. I commend his leadership 
on this vitally important issue. This amendment reassures the American 
people that Congress will not spend a penny of their Social Security 
and Medicare money. It will put the Senate on record that we honor our 
commitment.
  This is a crucial step to truly protect the Social Security and 
Medicare surpluses and save them exclusively for American's retirement 
and health care needs, not for tax relief, not for government spending.
  Beginning in 2008, 78 million baby-boomers will become eligible for 
retirement, and without immediate action taken by the Congress the 
system will begin to collapse. From that point on, we will have more 
retirees than ever before, and fewer workers paying into the system.
  Washington has made the situation even worse because it keeps raiding 
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. In 1998, American workers 
paid $489 billion into the Social Security system, but most of that 
money, $382 billion, was immediately paid out that same year to 44 
million beneficiaries. That left a $106 billion surplus. The total 
accumulated surplus in the trust fund is more than $750 billion.
  Unfortunately, this surplus exists only on paper. The government has 
consumed all that $750 billion for non-Social Security related 
programs. All it has are Treasury IOUs.
  Even the Clinton administration admits that the trust fund does not 
actually exist. Here is what the President's last budget stated:

       These trust funds balances are available to finance future 
     benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only 
     in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be 
     pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They 
     do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down 
     in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on 
     the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed 
     by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing 
     benefits or other expenditures.

  That's not acceptable. We must say no to anyone who wants to spend 
even a penny of the Social Security surplus because we promised the 
American people we would save it. There is no excuse in an era of 
budget surplus to continue raiding the Social Security trust funds. 
Washington has done enough damage to America's retirement system.
  The just-released annual report of the Social Security Trust Fund's 
Board of Trustee's shows short-term improvement but continued long-term 
deterioration. The government will have to come up with $11.3 trillion 
from general revenues between 2015 and 2036 to make up the annual 
shortfall in the Social Security System. The inflation-adjusted 
cumulative deficit between 2015 and 2075 is now projected to be $21.6 
trillion, up nearly 7 percent compared with last year's projection. If 
the economy takes a turn for the worse, or if the demographic 
assumptions are too optimistic, the trust fund could go bankrupt much 
sooner.
  This makes our work to save and reform Social Security and Medicare 
even more urgent.
  The Ashcroft amendment will bring us one step closer to protecting 
Social Security and Medicare. Unlike the previous Social Security 
lockbox, which locks up only the Social Security surplus, this 
amendment would extend that protection to the Medicare surplus as well. 
The Medicare part A surplus will be about $20 billion a year. This 
surplus should be preserved only for the medical expenses of senior 
Americans, not the general government spending.
  If enacted, the Ashcroft amendment would, in effect, prevent anyone, 
whether it is the Congress or the administration, for raiding the 
Social Security and Medicare surplus. I believe this is absolutely the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. President, the American people demand that we truly protect the 
Social Security and Medicare surplus, and they want to stop the federal 
government's practice of so-called ``borrowing'' from the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds. They are very worried that 
retirement funds will not be there for them, and they are concerned 
that the government will not be

[[Page S2389]]

able to return the more than $750 billion ``borrowed'' and spent by the 
government.
  Over the next 10 years, American workers will put more than $2.3 
trillion into the Social Security system. We must do everything we can 
to prevent the government from spending this Social Security and 
Medicare surplus under any circumstances. We need an enforcement 
mechanism to keep our promise to the American people.
  The Ashcroft amendment provides the protection for Americans' 
retirement and health care money. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would express 
the sense of the Senate that the Government should not invest the 
Social Security trust fund in the stock market. I believe there is a 
consensus on both sides that this is the case.
  Last year, we voted 99-0 to say we did not want the Government 
playing stockbroker for a day with the retirement security of the 
American people.
  I personally believe we could do this on a voice vote as a matter of 
saving the time and energy of this body. I suggest we do so.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we agree with the Senator's idea of a 
voice vote. Then we can move on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2946.
  The amendment (No. 2946) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 2956

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning an increase in 
                    funding for digital opportunity)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2956, a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution on the necessary budget funding to cross the 
digital divide.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2956.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, 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 appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) A digital divide exist in America. Low-income, urban 
     and rural families are less likely to have access to the 
     Internet and computers. African American and Hispanic 
     families are only \2/5\ as likely to have Internet access as 
     white families. Access by Native Americans to the Internet 
     and to computers is statistically negligible.
       (2) Regardless of income level, Americans living in rural 
     areas lag behind in Internet access. Individuals with lower 
     incomes who live in rural areas are half as likely to have 
     Internet access as individuals who live in urban areas.
       (3) The digital divide for the poorest Americans has grown 
     by 29 percent since 1997.
       (4) Access to computers and the Internet and the ability to 
     use this technology effectively is becoming increasingly 
     important for full participation in America's economic, 
     political and social life.
       (5) Unequal access to technology and high-tech skills by 
     income, educational level, race and geography could deepen 
     and reinforce the divisions that exist within American 
     society.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this resolution on the 
     budget assume that--
       (1) to ensure that all children are computer literate by 
     the time they finish the eighth grade, regardless of race, 
     ethnicity, gender, income, geography or disability, to 
     broaden access to information technologies, to provide 
     workers, teachers and students with information technology 
     training, and to promote innovative online content and 
     software applications that will improve commerce, education 
     and quality of life, initiatives that increase digital 
     opportunity should be provided for as follows:
       (A) $200,000,000 in tax incentives should be provided to 
     encourage private sector donation of high quality computers, 
     sponsorship of community technology centers, training, 
     technical services and computer repair;
       (B) $450,000,000 should be provided for teacher training;
       (C) $150,000,000 for new teacher training;
       (D) $400,000,000 should be provided for school technology 
     and school libraries;
       (E) $20,000,000 should be provided to place computers and 
     trained personnel in Boys & Girls Clubs;
       (F) $25,000,000 should be provided to create an E-Corps 
     within Americorps;
       (G) $100,000,000 should be provided to create 1,000 
     Community Technology Centers in low-income urban and rural 
     communities;
       (H) $50,000,000 should be provided for public/private 
     partnerships to expand home access to computers and the 
     Internet for low-income families;
       (I) $45,000,000 should be provided to promote innovative 
     applications of information and communications technology for 
     underserved communities;
       (J) $10,000,000 should be provided to prepare Native 
     Americans for careers in Information Technology and other 
     technical fields; and
       (2) all Americans should have access to broadband 
     telecommunications capability as soon as possible and as 
     such, initiatives that increase broadband deployment should 
     be funded, including $25,000,000 to accelerate private sector 
     deployment of broadband and networks in underserved urban and 
     rural communities.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the amendment is very simple. It states 
it is the sense of the Senate that the Federal budget will provide the 
framework and the funding necessary to ensure that all Americans cross 
the digital divide.
  The goal of the legislation is to ensure that every child is computer 
literate by the eighth grade, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, 
gender, geography, or disability. It is the single most empowering tool 
we could pass this year.
  This amendment would increase funds for teacher training and school 
technology, create 1,000 community-based tech centers, strengthen tax 
incentives for public-private partnerships, create an e-Corps within 
AmeriCorps, and be able to make wise and prudent use of Federal funds.
  It will be absolutely crucial to get our children ready to be able to 
leapfrog into the future and participate in the new economy.
  Mr. President, I really do hope the Senate will adopt this. If we 
could come to an agreement on a voice vote to accept it, I would be 
delighted and not insist on a rollcall vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the Senator, I believe this is a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment; is that correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection. We could accept it.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent Senator Baucus of Montana be added 
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2956.
  The amendment (No. 2956) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3031

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the type of 
     medicare prescription drug benefit that Congress should pass)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 
3031.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself, 
     Mr. Allard, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3031.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     budget resolution assume that among

[[Page S2390]]

     its reform options, Congress should explore a medicare 
     prescription drug proposal that--
       (1) is voluntary;
       (2) increases access for all medicare beneficiaries;
       (3) is designed to provide meaningful protection and 
     bargaining power for medicare beneficiaries in obtaining 
     prescription drugs;
       (4) is affordable for all medicare beneficiaries and for 
     the medicare program;
       (5) is administered using private sector entities and 
     competitive purchasing techniques;
       (6) is consistent with broader medicare reform;
       (7) preserves and protects the financial integrity of the 
     medicare trust funds;
       (8) does not increase medicare beneficiary premiums; and
       (9) provides a prescription drug benefit as soon as 
     possible.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment is quite 
simple. It saves $40 billion that is now in the budget which we don't 
have to spend because the Smith-Allard amendment costs nothing. It is 
revenue neutral. It provides no increase in premiums for seniors. It 
takes effect as early as 2001, rather than 2009 under the President's 
plan. It covers 50 percent of prescription drugs, up to $5,000. For 
every dollar spent, 50 cents is covered, up to $5,000, and the 
prescription drug goes toward the deductible. So if we want to save 
money on the budget and allow seniors to have prescription drug 
coverage at no cost to the Government--revenue neutral, no increase in 
premiums to seniors--it is a good deal. I encourage my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will not suggest that people vote 
against the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, but it is 
interesting to me that in his original amendment, he said that Congress 
``should'' pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. He changed it to 
the budget resolution ``assumes that among its reform options, Congress 
should explore a Medicare prescription drug.'' That is a very different 
content statement regarding the seriousness about prescription drugs. I 
do not, however, oppose his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3031.
  The amendment (No. 3031) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2966

   (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for additional ESEA funding)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2966.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Breaux, 
     Mr. Robb, and Mr. Edwards, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2966.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. __. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL ESEA FUNDING IN THE 
                   SENATE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, upon reporting of a bill, 
     the offering of an amendment thereto, or the submission of a 
     conference report thereon that allows local educational 
     agencies to use appropriated funds to carry out activities 
     under a reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     that complies with subsection (b), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may increase the 
     functional totals and outlay aggregates and allocations--
       (1) for fiscal year 2001 by not more than $3,000,000,000; 
     and
       (2) for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 by not 
     more than $15,000,000,000.
       (b) Condition.--Legislation complies with this subsection 
     if it provides--
       (1) increased accountability;
       (2) encouragement of State educational agencies (SEAs) and 
     local educational agencies (LEAs) to establish high student 
     performance standards;
       (3) a concentration of resources around central education 
     goals, including compensatory education for disadvantaged 
     children and youth, teacher quality and professional 
     development, innovative education strategies, programs for 
     limited English proficiency students, student safety, and 
     educational technology; and
       (4) an allocation of funds that targets the most 
     impoverished areas and schools most likely to be in distress.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Feinstein and  Kohl be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment would reserve $15 billion 
over the next 5 years to be able to meet the projected additional 
funding for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We propose this 
additional funding as part of a comprehensive Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act reform which focuses on principles such as accountability 
based on student performance, greater flexibility in terms of the 
States and local school districts' ability to utilize this money, and a 
strong focus on the at-risk child, the child who today is falling 
further and further behind and is going to be less able to be an equal 
contributant to the new economy era in which they will be living, 
unless the Federal Government increases the strength of its partnership 
with the States and local school districts. I urge adoption of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we add $23 billion to education in this 
budget. I don't think we need a reserve fund. This amendment violates 
the Budget Act because it is not germane to the budget. Therefore, I 
make a point of order in that regard.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for consideration of the pending amendment.
  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 the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to the Graham amendment No. 2966. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     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
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--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
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
54.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 2907

   (Purpose: To strike the reconciliation instruction for tax cuts, 
        thereby allowing surpluses to go toward debt reduction)

  Mr. VOINOVICH. 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 Ohio [Mr. Voinovich] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2907.

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

[[Page S2391]]

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 28, strike beginning with line 22 and all that 
     follows through page 29, line 5.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, my amendment is easy to understand. 
Rather than reduce taxes by $150 billion over the next 5 years, about 
$13.5 billion in this particular budget, my amendment would use those 
dollars to reduce the national debt. Most families and businesses that 
finally had a surplus of funds like we have would be paying off their 
debt. Today, 13 cents out of every dollar we spend goes to pay interest 
on the debt. That is almost as much as we spend on defense, and more 
than we spend on Medicare.
  All of the leading economists in this country say we should take the 
on-budget surplus and use it to pay down the debt. It encourages more 
savings and investment, and it lowers interest rates, which is a real 
tax savings.
  Last, but not least, it fulfills a moral obligation to our children 
and grandchildren to remove the debt Congress has put on their backs 
because Congress did not have the courage to either pay for the things 
it wanted, or do without.
  We have the resources now. We ought to use those resources to pay 
down the national debt.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment strikes the 
reconciliation instructions. What we have said in our budget resolution 
is, if we don't get any tax relief, the money will go to reducing the 
debt. I believe the budget resolution needs to have a reconciliation 
instruction if we are going to give a fair chance at the tax reforms 
that are proposed--any size, from $10 billion to $75 billion or 
whatever can be done. Without the reconciliation, we would get none of 
it done.
  Therefore, I oppose it and hope it will be defeated. 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. 2907. 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 44, nays 56, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 2907) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2939

  (Purpose: The amendment would reduce the GOP tax cut by less than 1 
 percent in FY2001, and 1.8 percent over 5 years, to increase the Pell 
grant maximum by a total of $400--raising the basic Pell grant from the 
current $3,300 to $3,700. This increase is over the Committee increase 
                           of $200 to $3,500)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2939 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Johnson, 
     Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Schumer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2939.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $124,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $612,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $635,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $646,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $657,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $124,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $612,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $635,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $646,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $657,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $623,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $633,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $644,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $655,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $666,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $124,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $612,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $635,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $646,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $657,000,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $623,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $124,000,000.
       On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $633,000,000.
       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $612,000,000.
       On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $644,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $635,000,000.
       On page 18, line 19, increase the amount by $655,000,000.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $646,000,000.
       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $666,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $657,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $124,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $2,674,000,000.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer this on behalf of myself, Senator 
Feingold, our education committee, Senator Sarbanes, and others; and 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, and Senator Chafee. This is a 
bipartisan amendment. It is a very simple amendment. At the present 
time, we are providing $3,300 on the Pell grants. The Budget Committee 
has raised that up to $3,500. This amendment would make it $3,700. It 
costs $1.4 billion a year. This amendment applies for 5 years.
  This chart indicates what the Pell grant has meant to education for 
children. Back in the 1970s it paid effectively 90 percent of the 
public education for children. It has gone down, now, to about 40 
percent for public education--20 percent in private colleges. Ninety 
percent of the children who are getting Pell grants have incomes of 
$9,000 or less.
  Finally, for families that have incomes of $74,000, 90 percent of 
their children are going on to higher education, whether public 
education or private education. For families with $25,000, it is 26 
percent. Talk about a digital divide, this is growing and growing and 
growing.
  The money in this amendment all goes to tuition; nothing for rooms, 
nothing for food, nothing for additional services.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from 
the various groups that support this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    American Council on Education,


                                      Office of the President,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
       Dear Senator: I write to urge you to support Senator 
     Kennedy's amendment to the FY 2001 Budget Resolution that 
     would increase funding for the Pell Grant program by $1.4 
     billion. These funds would translate into a much-needed $400 
     increase in the maximum Pell Grant award.

[[Page S2392]]

       As you know, Congress has made progress in recent years in 
     providing much-needed increases in funding for the Pell Grant 
     program. As a result, millions of low- and middle-income 
     students who would not otherwise be able to access a college 
     education have done so.
       The $30 increase in the maximum Pell Grant award included 
     the S. Con. Res. 101 would, however, halt this progress. It 
     would not allow for a single additional Pell Grant recipient 
     next year and translates into an increase of only $15 in the 
     average Pell Grant award.
       Senator Kennedy's amendment will make a significant 
     difference to students who are seeking to finance a college 
     education. I urge you to support Senator Kennedy's amendment 
     to increase funding for the Pell Grant program.
           Sincerely,
                                             Stanley O. Ikenberry,
     President.
                                  ____



                                         Student Aid Alliance,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
     Re support Kennedy amendment to increase the maximum Pell 
         Grant by $400.

       Dear Senator: We write on behalf of the Student Aid 
     Alliance--a coalition of 60 organizations representing 
     colleges and universities, students, and parents--to urge you 
     to support Senator Kennedy's amendment to the FY 2001 Budget 
     Resolution that would increase funding for the Pell Grant 
     program by $1.4 billion. These funds would translate into a 
     much-needed $400 increase in the maximum Pell Grant award.
       As you know, the Pell Grant is the foundation of student 
     aid packages for millions of low- and middle-income students 
     who would not otherwise be able to access a college 
     education. Senator Kennedy's amendment would make a real 
     difference to students seeking to finance a college 
     education.
       Alternatively, the $30 increase in the Maximum Pell Grant 
     award included in S. Con. Res. 101 would not allow for a 
     single additional Pell Grant recipient next year and would 
     translate into an increase of only $15 in the average Pell 
     Grant award.
       We strongly urge you to support Senator Kennedy's amendment 
     to increase funding for the Pell Grant program.
           Sincerely,
     Stanley O. Ikenberry,
       Co-Chair.
     David L. Warren,
       Co-Chair.
                                  ____



                              Committee for Education Funding,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2000.
     Re: support education amendments on S. Con. Res. 101 to 
         increase education funding.

     Member,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

       Dear Senator: The Committee for Education Funding, a 
     nonpartisan coalition of over 90 organizations reflecting the 
     broad spectrum of the education community, urges you to 
     support amendments during floor debate to increase education 
     investment in S. Con. Res. 101, the FY01 Budget Resolution 
     reported by the Senate Budget Committee on March 30. The 
     proposed budget resolution provides an increase of only $2.2 
     billion for discretionary funding for Function 500, education 
     and related programs and is $4.7 billion below the 
     President's request.
       We welcome Chairman Domenici's stated support for making 
     education a top budget priority. The Budget Resolution 
     proposes an increase of $2.6 billion for elementary and 
     secondary education, including $1 billion for the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act, and assumes a modest 
     increase in the Pell Grant maximum award. While these 
     increases are important, they are $2.2 billion below the 
     President's request for a $4.5 billion increase in 
     discretionary spending for education and would require cuts 
     and freezes in other education and related programs to meet 
     the total increase for the function of only $2.2 billion. The 
     budget resolution also provides $2.3 billion in mandatory 
     funds for a proposed Performance Bonus Fund that has not yet 
     been enacted and would not make grants until after FY05.
       We urge you to support amendments that would add funding to 
     more adequately reflect the important role of education in 
     the overall fiscal health and competitiveness of the nation's 
     economy and its high priority among the American people.
       For example, the Bingaman-Kennedy amendment would add $5.6 
     billion to the Budget Resolution in FY01 for such key 
     programs as Title I aid for disadvantaged students, Pell 
     grants for student aid, class size reduction, IDEA, school 
     modernization, teacher recruitment and professional 
     development, after school, GEAR UP, TRIO and college work 
     study. The Kennedy-Feingold amendment increases the Pell 
     grant maximum award to $400. The Jeffords-Dodd amendment 
     would fully fund IDEA at $15.8 billion over five years and 
     meet the federal commitment of support for special education. 
     CEF strongly supports these amendments and other amendments 
     that increase funding for education. It does not support 
     amendments that increase funding for one education program at 
     the expense of another.
       Recent polls show that 61% of the American public believe 
     that the federal government spends too little on education. 
     Americans expect the federal budget to reflect a national 
     commitment to improve and expand educational opportunities 
     for America's children, youth and adults to meet the pressing 
     challenges of the new century. We urge you to support a 
     budget resolution with amendments, such as the Bingaman, 
     Kennedy and Jeffords amendments that make that national 
     commitment.
           Sincerely,
     Ellin Nolan,
       President.
     Edward Kealy,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                             Association of Jesuit


                                    Colleges and Universities,

                                                    April 5, 2000.
     Hon. Ted Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the twenty-eight Jesuit 
     colleges and Universities, I want to commend you and Senators 
     Feingold and Dodd for introducing an amendment to the budget 
     Resolution for FY2001 that would increase the maximum amount 
     per student for Pell Grants to $400.
       The higher education community remains concerned with a 
     budget that in essence would freeze any increases for grant 
     programs and campus-based aid programs, except for a marginal 
     increase of $30 for Pell Grants. Our needs are great and will 
     continue to be so over the next ten years. While on-budget 
     federal funds for higher education decreased by 28% from 1983 
     to 1998, after factoring in inflation, enrollments rose by 
     17.4% between 1982 and 1998. And, according to the ``Baby-
     Boom Echo Report on Higher Education'' issued by the 
     Department of Education, enrollment in higher education will 
     continue to rise rapidly over the next ten years by a 
     whopping 16% to 20%.
       Pell Grants are the cornerstone of all student financial 
     aid. Sadly, Pell Grants are only 75% of the value that they 
     were in 1980. Our twenty-eight Jesuit colleges and 
     institutions have given institutional grants to needy 
     students for centuries. Assisting poor needy students to 
     receive quality education is at the cornerstone of Jesuit 
     higher education. Currently, our twenty-eight institutions 
     give an average of 40% in institutional aid to needy students 
     to make up for declining federal dollars. We will always 
     remain committed to assisting needy students but continue to 
     need the assistance and committed support of the federal 
     government to educate all young Americans regardless of their 
     income.
       Please know that we have been appreciative for the 
     increases that higher education has received over the last 
     four years. We know that the American public agrees with our 
     premise that education should be the number one priority in 
     this country. It is our hope that the Senate will see fit to 
     concur with the American public by adopting your Pell 
     amendment. And, it is our long-term hope that the Senate will 
     adopt a budget that offers opportunities for more 
     disadvantaged Americans across the country so that they too 
     can dream the same dreams that other Americans do without an 
     income prohibition.
       Thank you for taking the initiative once against to assist 
     needy students. Our association commends your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                Cyndy Littlefield,
                                    Director of Federal Relations.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Kennedy's amendment which would raise the individual maximum Pell grant 
Award to $3,700, an increase of $400.
  Higher education is one of the most important investments our Federal 
government can make. After all, for the United States to continue its 
economic growth, we need an educated workforce.
  I recognize that the federal government cannot guarantee that all 
Americans will be able to attend a post secondary institution. But we 
must ensure that all qualified Americans have equal access to a post 
secondary education.
  After all, Congress created need-based student financial aid programs 
to ensure that individuals from low-income families are not denied post 
secondary education because they cannot afford it.
  Grant aid, specifically Pell grant aid, is the key that enables many 
individuals to graduate from college.
  I am deeply concerned about the emergence of a widening educational 
gap between rich and poor. Statistic after statistic illustrates that 
students from low-income families are pursuing a post-secondary 
education at a much slower rate than individuals from middle and upper 
income families.
  With more and more students attending college, the situation may get 
much worse unless Congress fully funds Pell. Over the next ten years, 
more than 14 million undergraduates will be enrolled in colleges and 
universities around the country--an increase of 11 percent.
  Many of these students will be the first in their families to attend 
college and one in five of these students will come from families with 
incomes below the poverty level. The same students that rely on need-
based student grant aid.

[[Page S2393]]

  Without Pell grants, many individuals simply can't consider college--
and without a college degree or serious post-secondary training, some 
employers won't consider hiring these individuals.
  Statistic after statistic shows that a college education helps those 
who graduate from college with a bachelor's degree earn 74 percent more 
than those who only complete high school.
  What is so tragic is the decrease in Pell grant funding. The Pell 
grant has failed to keep up with inflation. Over the past 25 years, the 
value of the average Pell grant has decreased by 23 percent--the 
average grant is now worth only 77 percent of what Pell grants were 
worth in 1975.
  What is even more troubling about the trend of increasing tuition and 
decreasing impact of grant value is how students, especially low-income 
students, make up the difference between aid and tuition.
  This chart illustrates grant and loan funding as a percentage of 
total aid.
  As you can see, twenty years ago, grant aid comprised approximately 
fifty-two percent of a student's aid package, and loans comprised about 
forty-two percent.
  Over the past 20 years, this trend has reversed itself--loans now 
constitute almost 60 percent of total aid, and grants have plummeted to 
about forty percent.
  Unfortunately, some aren't aware of the recent funding trends for the 
Pell Grant or its importance. Let's take a look at a recent headline of 
the Eau-Claire Leader-Telegram:

       Bush Averse to more college grant funding. Let students get 
     loans, candidate says in Eau Claire.

  Apparently, Governor Bush isn't aware that most students are already 
having to fund their education through loans and more and more debt. 
Well, Mr. President, as I visit college campuses each year in 
Wisconsin, I hear from students who are forced to turn to credit cards 
to pay the difference on tuition, for books or groceries.
  In fact, last year alone, the number of students who took out non-
federal loans increased by 25 percent.
  Well, it seems that Governor Bush believes that Congress needs to 
force students to take on even more debt. Again, Governor Bush's views 
on how students should pay for a post secondary education:

       Some of it you are going to have to pay back, and that's 
     just the way it is because there is nothing free in society. 
     College is not free.

  What, then, is need-based grant aid? Congress created need-based 
grant aid to ensure that individuals from low and middle income 
families are not denied post secondary education because they cannot 
afford it.
  Congress created the student grant aid programs under the Higher 
Education Act for the specific purpose of making college affordable for 
those in need.
  Even after someone pointed out that some students already carry a 
heavy loan repayment burden, Governor Bush didn't get the picture. 
According to the Leader-Telegram, Bush responded to this statement by 
saying ``too bad.''
  Congress should not say ``too bad'' to students who are in need. I 
believe that everyone deserves fair and equal access to a higher 
education.
  After all, that is why Congress created need based grant aid.
  By supporting this amendment and an increase for the Pell grant 
program, Congress has a chance to renew its commitment to equal access 
for all to higher education. I thank my colleagues for their time and 
support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in the Budget Committee, there was an 
amendment offered to raise the Pell grants in this budget to the exact 
level the President of the United States requested, up to $3,500. That 
is what the President asked for. That is what is in the budget. I do 
not think the President of the United States, the education President, 
would be underfunding Pell grants. He has increased them in his budget, 
and it seems as if it is never enough.
  What we have done is right and fair and leaves some room for other 
education programs. We do not use up all the money doing that extra 
add-on the Senator is asking for, but we do increase it up to the level 
of the President. I do not believe we should add to it at this point. I 
hope Senators will reject the amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. 2939. 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. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 2939) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I list, without asking unanimous 
consent, what we currently plan as the next 10 amendments.
  The amendments, in the following order, are presently expected to be 
the order they are considered in the Senate: Ashcroft amendment No. 
3032, on Medicare lockbox; Lautenberg amendment No. 2957 on Democrat 
alternative; Jeffords amendment No. 2984 on aid to education; Edwards 
amendment No. 3001 on aid to CDBG and provides for some hurricane 
considerations; Specter amendment No. 2994 on aid to education; 
Schumer-Durbin amendment No. 2954 on law enforcement; Smith amendment 
No. 3028 on the census; Kennedy amendment No. 2951 on the minimum wage; 
Stevens amendment No. 3003 on child reserve fund; and Landrieu 
amendment No. 2979 on SOS military threat.
  As I understand it, Senator Ashcroft is next, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 3032

   (Purpose: To protect the Medicare surpluses through strengthened 
                   budgetary enforcement mechanisms)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3032.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], for himself, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Grams, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3032.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, 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 II, insert the following:

     SEC. 211. PROTECTION OF MEDICARE SURPLUSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the fiscal year 2001 budget submitted by the President, 
     instead of protecting Medicare, reduces payments to Medicare 
     providers by $53 billion over 10 years;
       (2) the fiscal year 2001 budget submitted by the President 
     calls for an increase in spending for fiscal year 2001 of $58 
     billion and would increase taxes collected next year by $12 
     billion;
       (3) the fiscal year 2001 budget submitted by the President 
     continues to use the Medicare,

[[Page S2394]]

     Part A surplus to mask the President's proposed increases in 
     spending; and
       (4) in contrast to the President's budget, this budget 
     resolution protects Medicare, rejects the President's 
     Medicare cuts and provides $40 billion for prescription drug 
     coverage for needy seniors.
       (b) Medicare Surpluses Off-budget.--The net surplus of any 
     trust fund for part A of Medicare shall not be counted as a 
     net surplus for purposes of the congressional budget.
       (c) Points of Order to Protect Medicare Surpluses.--
       (1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not be 
     in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 
     consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or 
     conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would 
     set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
       (2) Subsequent legislation.--It shall not be in order in 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference 
     report if--
       (A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
       (B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       (C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report; would cause or 
     increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
       (3) Defintiion.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``on-budget deficit'', when applied to a fiscal year, means 
     the deficit in the budget as set forth in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to 
     section 301(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for 
     that fiscal year.
       (d) Medicare Look-back Sequester.--If in any fiscal year, 
     the Medicare, Part A surplus has been used to finance general 
     operations of the Federal government, an amount equal to the 
     amount used shall be sequestered for available discretionary 
     spending for the following fiscal year for purposes of any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (e) Super Majority Requirement.--This section may be waived 
     or suspended in the Senate only by the 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to begin by praising Chairman Domenici for 
producing this responsible budget, which I intend to support.
  Chairman Domenici's budget will fully protect Social Security over 5 
years. This represents a sea change in the way business is done in 
Washington. When I came to Washington, Congress routinely spent money 
out of the Social Security trust fund, something that Chairman 
Domenici's budget does not even consider.
  As a result of this hard-fought fiscal discipline, this budget will 
retire $1.1 trillion in publicly held debt over 5 years, and $177 
billion next year. If we continue upon the path laid out by this 
budget, we will completely eliminate the publicly-held debt over the 
next 13 years.
  In addition to responsibly paying off our debt, this budget allows 
for $150 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, including $13 billion in FY 
2001, and responsible increases in other discretionary accounts, 
including a 4.8% increase in national defense.
  I would like to commend Senator Domenici for crafting this budget, 
and emphasize what a pleasure it is to work with him.
  Last year, I worked with Senator Domenici on a rule in last year's 
budget that created a point of order against any budget that spends 
money out of the Social Security surplus.
  As a result of last year's budget rule, the CBO has stated that they 
FY 2000 budget will not spend a penny out of the Social Security 
surplus for the first time in 40 years. This year, the Senate Budget 
Committee estimates that the United States government will have an on-
budget surplus of $8 billion. This on-budget surplus allows the 
government to protect the Social Security trust fund and to help reduce 
our publicly held debt by $300 billion by the end of this year.
  Early last year, I introduced the first legislation designed to 
lockbox the Social Security trust fund. This legislation formed the 
basis of the Ashcroft rule protecting Social Security included in last 
year's budget resolution.
  In addition, we spent much of last year working on the Abraham-
Domenici-lockbox, which also would have protected all of the Social 
Security surpluses from new spending.
  Unfortunately, the Democrats saw fit to block this legislation, 
filibustering the lockbox 6 times.
  Despite this opposition, we have succeeded in creating in practice 
what we have not yet achieved in legislation.
  This year Senator Domenici included last year's Social Security rule 
in the FY 2001 budget, and Senator Abraham successfully offered a 
committee amendment to extend that point of order to 60 votes, which 
was my original intention.
  Protecting Social Security through the Social Security lockbox has 
been a giant step forward in the fight for responsible budgeting. Now 
it is time to take that fight one step further.
  Today I am offering an amendment that creates points of order in the 
Senate and the House against any budget resolution or subsequent bill 
that uses the Medicare or Social Security surpluses to finance on-
budget deficits. We do not have that protection now.
  This new rule I am proposing expands the Social Security budget rule 
by adding Medicare part A to the Social Security lockbox, ensuring that 
Congress must balance the budget without using any money from the 
annual Social Security or Medicare part A surpluses. If Congress does 
dip into the Medicare part A surplus, my amendment calls for a 
sequester of discretionary spending in the amount of the violation.

  While protecting the Medicare surplus seemed to be an unattainable 
goal just a few short years ago, this goal is now within our reach. In 
addition to funding the government for fiscal year 2000 without 
spending a penny out of the Social Security trust fund, CBO projections 
demonstrate that we now have enough revenue available to protect the 
$22 billion part A Medicare surplus as well.
  It is imperative that we limit spending this year so that we do not 
dip into the Medicare surplus in FY 2001.
  Both Medicare and Social Security are funded out of payroll taxes 
specifically delineated for their respective purposes, and are supposed 
to be reserved for those purposes. If there are surpluses in these 
accounts, if these accounts take in more money than is necessary for 
their stated purposes in a specific year, then that money should not 
suddenly be available for general government spending.
  Any and all surpluses in those two accounts should be reserved for 
their stated purposes, or be used to help shore up those accounts. This 
legislation promotes honest accounting, and requires the government to 
use funds for their advertised purposes.
  In addition to protecting these essential funds, the Medicare lockbox 
rule will send the powerful message that protecting Medicare and Social 
Security is our highest priority.
  Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt by 2037. Medicare is 
projected to become insolvent even sooner, in 2023. We have made real 
progress on these two fronts since the beginning of the Republican 
Congress. Social Security's projected insolvency has been extended from 
2029 to 2037, while Medicare's bankruptcy has been pushed back by a 
greater amount, from 2002 to 2023. Despite this progress, we still have 
more work to do.
  Lockboxing Social Security and Medicare surpluses is an essential 
first step in securing the long term financial solvency of Medicare and 
Social Security.
  It is vitally important that we ensure that the government not spend 
monies dedicated for the trust funds that sustain these essential 
programs.
  The Medicare lockbox rule will change the way business is done in 
Washington. We should pass the Medicare lockbox rule, so that 
protecting Social Security and Medicare will be part of the rules of 
the Senate. Passing this rule will be the next step on our journey to 
secure the long term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am opposed but I yield half of my time 
to Senator Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment sounds as if it protects 
Medicare, but it would cause even

[[Page S2395]]

deeper cuts in education and law enforcement and would make 
implementing Medicare reforms more difficult in the future, including 
implementing a prescription drug benefit. I recommend that my 
colleagues vote against this amendment and hope it will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not believe we ought to take the HI 
trust fund off budget. That is what this amendment does. In the budget 
resolution, we have $40 billion for Medicare and we do not accept the 
President's cuts for Medicare. I think we have done right by Medicare. 
If we can incorporate these numbers in a bill this year, I think we 
will be on the right track. This just won't work. Medicare is not a 
trust fund like Social Security. I am grateful that Senator Ashcroft is 
trying to do this. He has been a leader in protecting Medicare and 
Social Security. I do not think this will work.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment is not 
germane to the budget resolution.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of 
order. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act 
in relation to the Ashcroft amendment No. 3032. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?-
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 30, nays 70, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Grams
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--70

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays 70.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2957

                   (Purpose: To provide a substitute)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2957.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the substitute 
Budget Resolution introduced by Senator Lautenberg. Unlike the 
Republican Budget Resolution, Senator Lautenberg's Democratic 
alternative puts real teeth into priorities such as prescription drugs, 
Social Security, education, and paying down the debt. I support the 
Democratic proposal because it focuses on our national priorities 
first. But I want to add a word of caution. Our national defense is 
underfunded in both resolutions. We cannot afford, as a nation, to 
continue to underfund our nation's security. Freedom has a price. We 
can't take it for granted. We're not building enough new weapons 
platforms and systems to be able to meet our obligations here at home 
or our commitments to our allies abroad. We can't recruit and maintain 
the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines we need. We can't adequately 
modernize, much less revolutionize, our Armed Forces without putting 
more money into our defense budget. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to meet our responsibilities in 
this area.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Democratic alternative reflects 
six key principles in its budget. It protects every penny of the Social 
Security surplus; it pays down the public debt by 2013; it funds a 
badly needed prescription drug benefit; it includes targeted tax cuts 
for working Americans, and it funds important defense and domestic 
priorities such as education, health, research, and agriculture.
  Unlike the Republican budget, this plan is based on realistic 
assumptions about domestic spending. It contains projections for a full 
10 years so we know what will happen.

  In sum, we have a responsible package that focuses on the needs of 
ordinary Americans today and the needs of our Nation in the future. I 
urge my colleagues to support this Democratic alternative.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a full substitute. It is a so-
called Democrat budget, and essentially the big difference between the 
two budgets is that over time this Democrat budget will give back to 
the American people 4 percent of the non-Social Security surplus. We 
think over time we should give them back 11 percent. The difference is 
the Democrats spend 22 percent and we spend 17 percent of the surplus.
  We think this is not the time to grow Government that much but, 
rather, leave a little bit more than 4 percent for tax relief for the 
American people. There are many other differences, but this essentially 
is the difference.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2957. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     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

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     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
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 2957) was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

[[Page S2396]]

                           Amendment No. 2984

              (Purpose: To provide full funding for IDEA)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I call up amendment No. 2984.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Feingold, 
     Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 2984.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $11,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $11,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $11,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $11,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 19, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by 
     $11,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $11,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $31,000,000,000.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Jeffords, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, and a bipartisan group of Senators in offering this 
amendment which reaches the goal of fully-funding IDEA--the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act--within five years.
  IDEA was first enacted in 1975 and authorizes funding, mostly in the 
form of state grants, to assist states in paying for educational 
services for disabled young people from 3-21. It requires states which 
provide public education, also to provide a ``free, appropriate public 
education'' to this population. Prior to enactment, an estimated 2 
million young people either were not receiving any public educational 
services, or the services they were receiving were inadequate. A number 
of judicial decisions held that it was unconstitutional for States 
which provide public education to withhold services from a specific 
group--the disabled. As a result, States felt compelled to provide 
educational services to individuals with disabilities and sought help 
to do so at the Federal level.
  The Federal Government responded by enacting IDEA. This important 
protection for young people with disabilites suggests that the Federal 
Government will pay for up to 40 percent of the average per pupil 
expenditure for these students. Regrettably, despite Republican efforts 
to increase IDEA funding each year for the past several years, we have 
fallen far short of that goal. Also, Senator Domenici has included a 
significant increase for IDEA in this Budget Resolution that is before 
us, and I commend him for his effort to address this problem. But I 
believe we must do even more.
  I would like to read the lead paragraph from an article that appeared 
in the Providence Journal yesterday on this subject. Headline: 
``Special-ed costs soaring, board is told.'' Dateline: Warwick--I was 
Mayor of Warwick for seven years and am very familiar with its funding 
needs:

       The school committee was told last night that the system's 
     special education costs, already a heavy burden for schools 
     throughout the state, are continuing to grow and that there 
     will be less federal money around to help pay for it next 
     year.

  Already at 20 percent of the city's education budget, the article 
went on to say, special education is the fastest growing cost for the 
school district.
  It's important to remember that typically school costs are borne by 
property taxpayers. If we want to help the taxpayers, we should be 
helping the property taxpayers. This is a message that will resonate 
back home.
  Of course, this situation isn't unique to Warwick or a problem just 
in Rhode Island. I would venture to say that there probably isn't a 
Senator in this Chamber who hasn't heard from his state's school boards 
about the spiraling costs of special education. Now, Senator Jeffords 
has crafted an amendment which will bring Federal funding for special 
education up to the promised 40 percent level within five years. This 
is an amendment in which I believe wholeheartedly, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, to 
strike a small part of the overly large tax cut included in this budget 
resolution and instead use that money for grants to the states under 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
  For too long the federal government has failed to live up to its 
responsibility to provide to the States the up to 40 percent of the 
national average per pupil expenditure for each disabled child served 
allowed by IDEA.
  During the current fiscal year, the federal government will fund only 
about 12.6 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure. This 
is 37.4 percent less than the maximum amount allowed under IDEA--an 
amount that the federal government has not once provided to the states 
since this funding formula was created.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress is 
appropriating only about a third of what would be required to fully 
fund IDEA.
  As I travel around my home state of Wisconsin every year to host 
listening sessions in each of our 72 counties, I hear time and time 
again from frustrated parents, school administrators, teachers, school 
board members, and others about the need for an increase in special 
education funding at the federal level.
  Just last week at my Dane County listening session, one of my 
constituents told me that full funding of the maximum federal share of 
IDEA would have meant an additional $17 million for his school district 
during the 1999-2000 school year. And there are stories like that 
across my state and around the country.
  In Wisconsin, and in many other states, the population of students 
eligible for special education is outpacing the modest annual increases 
in the Federal share of special education funding, and state and local 
governments are struggling to keep up.
  Mr. President, the efforts of our pubic schools to serve students 
with disabilities are a hallmark of our national commitment to a free 
appropriate public education for all children. Since 1975, public 
schools have helped students with disabilities become more self-
sufficient, to prepare for employment, and to learn the skills they 
will need to lead productive lives. America's public schools have led 
the way toward the full integration of individuals with disabilities in 
our national life. Our society is richer for it.
  IDEA has provided access to free, appropriate public education for 
millions of previously unserved or underserved students. Through 
assessments, evaluations, and Individual Education Program (IEPs), 
every disabled student is

[[Page S2397]]

served based on his or her individual educational needs in the setting 
where those needs can best be met.
  We must do more to help state and local governments pay for the cost 
of educating these children.
  I urge my colleagues to support his common sense amendment. It will 
move toward fully funding the federal share of IDEA, and it will help 
to provide badly needed relief for a deserving group of Americans.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan effort 
to provide more funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act. As I've said time and again, disability is not a partisan issue. 
We all share an interest in ensuring that children with disabilities 
and their families get a fair shake in life. And the 25th anniversary 
of IDEA is the perfect year to improve the capacity of school districts 
to meet their responsibilities to children with disabilities.
  Currently, the State grant program within IDEA receives $5 billion. 
Estimates by the Congressional Research Service suggest that the 
program needs to be funded at $15.8 billion each year to meet the 
targets established in 1975. Our amendment would increase funding for 
IDEA annually in roughly $2 billion increments over the next five years 
and would put us on track to meet our goal of 40 percent funding.
  I know many of you have heard this speech before. Every year I stand 
on the Senate floor at least once or twice and give a short history 
lesson around IDEA. Well, this year is no different.
  In the early seventies, two landmark federal district court cases--
PARC versus Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills versus Board of 
Education of the District Court of Columbia--established that children 
with disabilities have a constitutional right to a free appropriate 
public education. In 1975, in response to these cases, Congress enacted 
the Education of Handicapped Children Act, the precursor to IDEA--to 
help states meet their constitutional obligations.
  Congress enacted PL 94-142 for two reasons. First, to establish a 
consistent policy of what constitutes compliance with the equal 
protection clause of the 14th amendment with respect to the education 
of kids with disabilities. And, second, to help States meet their 
constitutional obligations through federal funding. The Supreme Court 
reiterated this in Smith versus Robinson: ``[EHA] is a comprehensive 
scheme set up by Congress to aid the states in complying with their 
constitutional obligations to provide public education for handicapped 
children.''
  I strongly agree with the policy of this amendment and the infusion 
of more money into IDEA. A Senator Jeffords has explained, this is a 
win-win for everyone. Students with disabilities will be more likely to 
get the public education they have a right to because school districts 
will have the capacity to provide such an education--without cutting 
into their general education budgets.
  However, as much as I agree with the policy of our amendment, I 
disagree with some of the rhetoric around this issue.
  As I see it, a mythology has been created around the 40 percent 
figure. Some people describe it as a ``promise'' or ``pledge'' on the 
part of the federal government to fund IDEA at 40 percent. Well, the 40 
percent figure is simply a funding formula, just like the funding 
formulas found in lots and lots of other statutes.
  In 1975, the EHA authorized the maximum award per state as being the 
number of children served times 40 percent of the national average per 
pupil expenditure--known as the APPE. The formula does not guarantee 40 
percent of national APPE per disabled child served; rather, it caps 
IDEA allotments at 40% of national APPE. In other words, the 40 percent 
figure was a goal, not a commitment.
  As the then ranking minority member on the House Ed and Labor 
Committee, Representative Albert Quie, explained: ``I do not know in 
the subsequent years whether we will appropriate at those [authorized] 
levels or not. I think what we are doing here is laying out the goal. 
Ignoring other Federal priorities, we thought it acceptable if funding 
reaches that level.''
  The important point in the Congressman's statement is that we cannot 
fund IDEA grant programs at the cost of other important federal 
programs. That is why historically the highest appropriation for 
special education funding was in FY 1979, when allocations represented 
12.5 percent APPE. During the Reagan years, the appropriation went back 
down.
  But, over the last five years, as ranking member on the Labor-H 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with my colleagues across 
the aisle to more than double the IDEA appropriation so that we're back 
up to over 12.5 percent.
  And, today, we are in an even better position to do the right thing. 
We are presented with a non-Social Security budget surplus. Our economy 
is in great shape. We have the opportunity to pay off the public debt. 
We will continue to protect the Social Security trust fund. And--even 
better--we can use money from the non-Social Security surplus to ensure 
that seniors get prescription drugs, school kids benefit from smaller 
class size, and students with disabilities get the services they have a 
right to.
  All of these proposals make more sense than providing wealthy 
Americans with tax cuts that will eat up the non-Social Security 
surplus.
  Last year's Supreme Court decision regarding Garret Frey of Cedar 
Rapids, Iowa underscores the need for Congress to help school districts 
with the financial costs of educating children with disabilities. While 
the excess costs of educating some children with disabilities is 
minimal, the excess costs of educating other children with 
disabilities, like Garret, is great.
  Under our amendment, my home state of Iowa would receive a total 
increase of over $346 million over the next five years.
  Of course, lots of places are already doing a great job of educating 
all of our kids. I just found out about a school district in Iowa--a 
district that includes my hometown of Cumming--that's delivering on 
IDEA's promise of full inclusion . . . on budget! According to the 
superintendent, IDEA works for everyone. For example, a girl with 
cerebral palsy takes home economics and French in the regular 
classroom. Just imagine varsity football players working on home-ec 
projects with a girl in a wheelchair. Each student learns about their 
value as individuals and their value as members of a team and 
community.
  These new dollars would go a long way toward making a real difference 
for both children with disabilities and their families. I've heard from 
parents in Iowa that their kids need more qualified interpreters for 
deaf and hard of hearing children and they need better mental health 
services and better behavioral assessments. And the additional funds 
will help local and area education agencies build capacity in these 
areas.
  We must redouble our efforts to help school districts meet their 
constitutional obligations. We need to increase dollars to every 
program under IDEA, not just the state grant programs.
  And, of course, by receiving federal dollars, states take on certain 
responsibilities. IDEA dollars are intended to provide children with 
disabilities an equal opportunity to public education. States must use 
this money in a way that builds their capacity to deliver necessary 
educational and related services to students with disabilities and meet 
their obligations under the law.
  As I understand it, one of the National Governors' Association's top 
priorities is to get more funding for special education. And that's 
just what our amendment does. The Education Task Force of the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities strongly supports this 
amendment, along with the National Association of Directors of Special 
Education, the National School Boards Association, and American 
Association of School Administrators.
  As I said at the beginning, we can all agree that states should 
receive more money under IDEA. And, today, we have the incredible 
opportunity to fund IDEA--at no real cost to other national programs. I 
thank Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd for their leadership on this 
issue. I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment by 
Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd to increase funding for IDEA by $2 
billion a year for the next five years.

[[Page S2398]]

  For 22 years, IDEA has brought hope to young persons with 
disabilities that they too can learn, and that their learning will 
enable them to become independent and productive citizens and live 
fulfilling lives. For millions of children with disabilities, IDEA has 
meant the difference between dependence and independence, between lost 
potential and productive careers.
  In 1975, 4 million handicapped children did not receive the help they 
needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers received 
services, and 1 million children with disabilities were excluded from 
public school. Now, IDEA serves 5.4 million children with disabilities 
from birth through age 21. Every state in the nation offers public 
education and early intervention services for children with 
disabilities.
  Today, fewer than 6,000 disabled children are living in institutional 
settings away from their families, compared to 95,000 children in 1969. 
We are keeping families together, and reducing the cost to the 
taxpayers of paying for institutional care, which averages $50,00 a 
child each year.
  The number of disabled students completing high school with a diploma 
or certificates has increased by 10% in the last decade. The number of 
students with disabilities entering higher education has more than 
tripled since the implementation of IDEA.
  Most important, 57% of disabled youth are competitively employed 
within five years of leaving school today, compared to an employment 
rate of only 25% for disabled adults who have not benefited from IDEA.
  These accomplishments do not come without financial costs. It is time 
for Congress to meet its commitment to help schools provide the 
services and support that give children with special needs the 
educational opportunities to pursue their dreams. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 25 years ago, the United States Congress 
made a commitment to pay each school in America 40 percent of the 
national average per pupil expenditure for every special education 
student it enrolled--Washington promised it would help our local 
communities meet the cost of educating students with special needs.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed to meet this 
obligation, creating an unfunded mandate that must be borne by every 
state and community in America. For the current school year the average 
per pupil expenditure is $6,000, yet we have appropriated only $702 per 
student only 11.7% of the cost--slightly more than one fourth of out 
promise. To meet the Federal commitment, the budget resolution should 
assume an expenditure of $15.8 billion for this year. I commend Senator 
Domenici and the Budget Committee for recognizing the importance of 
this commitment and for providing a $1 billion increase in fiscal year 
2001. But this is not enough, and we must do more--we must embark on a 
short path to full funding. We have the resources to do it, and the 
amendment before the Senate starts us on our journey to full funding.

  What would this mean for our states and local school districts? Let's 
take Maine as an example. For this year the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act promises Maine $2,400 per student receiving 
special education services. However, the Federal Government will spend 
only slightly more than $702 per student--which means that Maine will 
receive $60 million less than it was promised. According to the U.S. 
Department of Education, the unmet mandate stands at an astounding $11 
billion nationally. We can not continue to shift this burden to our 
local communities. We must meet the Federal commitment to help pay for 
special education and end this unfunded mandate.
  Last month, I met with about 75 superintendents and principals from 
northern and eastern Maine to discuss the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. What was supposed to be a wide-
ranging dialog about Federal funding under the ESEA immediately settled 
into a discussion about special education. They told me that in each of 
their schools and districts, meeting the special education mandate 
requires dollars that otherwise could be used for school construction, 
teacher salaries, new computers, and other effort to improve the 
performance of their students. They called on us to meet our promise to 
help pay for special education. They spoke with one voice in strong, 
unified support for more special education funding, not for new Federal 
programs.
  The Jeffords-Collins amendment would means an additional $155 million 
for Maine schools over the next five years. Mr. President, we need to 
meet our commitment to bear our fair share of special education costs. 
When faced with the siren's call for new Federal programs, we must keep 
in mind what our parents, teachers, and local administrators have told 
us. If we want to do something for the children of America, let us fund 
special education, and our schools will be able to hire their our own 
teachers and build their own schools. The best thing this Congress can 
do for education is to move toward fully funding the Federal 
Government's share of special education--not to stand in place as the 
President's budget would have us do.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Jeffords-Collins amendment and 
give our states and local communities the financial help they have been 
promised and so desperately need. Let's finally keep the promise made 
more than 25 years ago.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have a clear choice before us today. We 
have the opportunity to fulfill our commitment to fully fund the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We can accomplish 
this long overdue goal by simply reducing this measure's tax relief. We 
can strengthen our commitment to special needs children, their parents, 
and our local school boards, or instead, we can once again shirk our 
commitment to special education in favor of even larger tax relief, the 
great majority of which benefits the most wealthy.
  The Jeffords-Dodd amendment is simple. When Congress passed IDEA in 
1975, we made a commitment to provide 40 percent of special education 
costs. Presently we provide 12.7 percent, the highest level ever 
reached by the federal government. Our amendment would fully fund IDEA 
over a five-year period, at the 40 percent level Congress originally 
pledged, by increasing the allocation to Function 500 of the budget 
resolution for special education, and for the first time will allow us 
to meet our obligation to special needs children and local schools.
  In my own state of Connecticut, Mr. President, the state spends more 
than $700 million annually, or 18 percent of the state's overall 
education budget, to fund special education programs. In Connecticut's 
towns, the picture is even worse. Too often our local school districts 
are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities. 
In Torrington, Connecticut, special education costs recently increased 
from $635,000 to $1.3 million over a two year period. Our schools need 
our help.
  The National Governors' Association (NGA) recently wrote me--in a 
letter dated March 7, the NGA writes: ``Governors believe the single 
most effective step Congress could take to help address education needs 
and priorities, in the context of new budget constraints, would be to 
meet its commitment to fully fund the federal portion of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).''
  Additional organizations in support of this amendment include the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the National School Boards 
Association, the National League of Cities, the National Education 
Association, the National Federation of Teachers, and the National 
Association of State Directors of Special Education.
  Mr. President, isn't it time Congress made good on its pledge to 
special needs of children? We have an opportunity before us today to 
strengthen our commitment to children with special needs. We have the 
opportunity to simply reduce the tax cuts contained within the budget 
resolution, and by doing so, offer our state and local school district 
help in providing educational services to children with disabilities. 
By supporting this amendment, we not only fulfill our commitment to 
special education, we also alleviate the burden we place on our local 
school districts by not providing our fair share of special education 
costs. I ask that my colleagues seize this opportunity and support this 
amendment and choose to help our schools better serve children with 
disabilities.

[[Page S2399]]

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Lieberman be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the amendment by Senators Jeffords, Dodd, Stevens, Kennedy, Collins, 
Snowe, L. Chafee, and Feingold. We have voted many times, often 99-0, 
to fully fund IDEA. Failure to agree to this amendment will tell the 
Nation we do not ever intend to make good on this pledge. We have 
unprecedented economic prosperity. We have surpluses well into the 
future. We can do it now.
  For 25 years, we have promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of 
educating students with disabilities. Today, we pay 13 percent. The 
chart behind me shows the truth about the budget resolution. It 
proposes to move us from 13 percent to 18 percent. It says clearly to 
the Nation, despite all our rhetoric, we never intend to keep our word.
  Our amendment will fully fund our promise. I ask my colleagues: If 
not now, when?
  The time is now.
  Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
Jeffords amendment to the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As good as this idea sounds, we ought not do this. This 
is taking a major appropriation, a program we fund in appropriations 
every year, and making it an entitlement.
  There are a lot of great education programs. What if we start taking 
every appropriations bill that has exciting ideas for Americans and we 
say we don't want to appropriate them anymore; we will just turn them 
up as if they are Social Security, entitled to automatic funding.
  It is not the right thing to do, no matter what the program is. It is 
our responsibility to pay for IDEA, and special ed, not an entitlement 
against the American people without anybody voting on it again.
  It is not the right thing to do. I yield the floor.


                  Amendment No. 3075 To Amendment 2984

              (Purpose: To provide full funding for IDEA)

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree 
amendment to the Jeffords amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr. 
     Gregg, and Mr. Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 3075 
     to amendment 2984.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. 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:
       Notwithstanding any other provisions of this resolution, 
     the following numbers shall apply:
       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.
       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.
       At the end add the following:
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that 
     Congress' first priority should be to fully fund the programs 
     described under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) at the originally 
     promised level of 40% before Federal funds are appropriated 
     for new education programs.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the budget resolution provides a 
generous increase in spending in education, just as the FY 2000 
education appropriations bill did. Basically, this amendment says that 
within the framework of the budget resolution, IDEA should be given 
priority. We have increased discretionary spending on education 100 
percent during the last 10 years, but during that same period, the most 
we have spent is 12.6 percent of the cost of IDEA, and we are supposed 
to be spending 40 percent. This amendment gives priority to IDEA 
without spending another $31 billion over the next 5 years, as 
suggested in the underlying amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate 
second-degree amendment. It does not do anything at all. I listened to 
my colleague from New Mexico talk about the pointlessness of sense-of-
the-Senate amendments.
  The Senator from Vermont is offering the Senate an opportunity to do 
something that every Governor and mayor in this country wants, and that 
is to increase funding for special education.
  The Governors were here only a month ago, and their top priority was 
special education. The Senator from Vermont is offering a real 
amendment, and that is, over the next 4 to 5 years, reduce this tax cut 
a little bit and apply those resources to special education; send the 
money back to our communities and States.
  With all due respect, the second-degree amendment says it is the 
sense of the Senate that we ought to do something about it sometime. We 
are not going to do anything about it if we do not adopt the Jeffords 
amendment. I urge rejection of the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this will use $31 billion of the 
surplus. It will eat it up with a brand new entitlement, and it will 
take jurisdiction away from the appropriators in the normal course of 
allocating what America's Government ought to be doing.
  I repeat, the sense-of-the-Senate amendment establishes this as the 
highest priority, but we should not be

[[Page S2400]]

setting a $31 billion entitlement program in motion today for a piece 
of education. Because we did not do our job on this, we should not make 
an entitlement to make up for our deficiency in not funding it 
properly.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to table the second-degree 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
3075. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3075.
  The amendment (No. 3075) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2984, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2984), as amended, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3001

(Purpose: To provide $250,000,000 in economic development aid to assist 
communities in re-building from Hurricane Floyd, including $150 million 
   in CDBG funding, $50 million in EDA funding, $50 million in rural 
 communities facilities grants, to provide long-term economic recovery 
                   aid to flood-ravaged communities)

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3001.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Edwards], for Mr. 
     Torricelli, for himself, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
     Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 3001.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $74,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $74,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $74,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11 increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 17, line 6, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 17, line 7, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 17, line 11, increase the amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 17, line 15, increase the amount by $74,000,000.
       On page 17, line 19, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $242,000,000.


                    Amendment No. 3001, As Modified

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment by striking page 1 through page 2, line 14, and lines 7 
through 10 on page 4, which I understand has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $74,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 17, line 6, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 17, line 7, increase the amount by $252,000,000.
       On page 17, line 11, increase the amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 17, line 15, increase the amount by $74,000,000.
       On page 17, line 19, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $18,000,000.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, 7 months after Hurricane Floyd hit North 
Carolina and other States along the east coast, we still have thousands 
of people who are living in trailers and thousands more who have no 
place to live. We have towns such as Princeville and Tarboro that have 
literally been wiped out. Innocent, law-abiding, tax-paying people 
desperately need our help. This amendment provides $250 million in 
relief for the people of North Carolina and all of the victims of 
Hurricane Floyd.
  This photograph, taken the day before yesterday, shows that we are 
still suffering and are still struggling. I thank my colleagues very 
much for their support of this amendment, and I yield to the Senator 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator.
  Hurricane Floyd may be out of the headlines, but it is not out of 
people's lives. From Florida to Maine, thousands of people lost their 
homes. Communities are facing devastating tax increases to repair 
bridges and roads and schools. This addition to the budget will allow 
us to begin the planning to help these families. I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of it, and I thank Senator Domenici for his help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, they have modified the amendment so that 
it is no longer objectionable on our side. We accept it without a 
rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3001, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3001), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2994

   (Purpose: Increase discretionary health funding by $1,600,000,000)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2994.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2994.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.

[[Page S2401]]

       On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 19, line 8, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 42, line 5, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 42, line 6, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 43, line 14, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the 
Specter-Harkin amendment to increase funding for health research by 
$2.7 billion, an increase of 15 percent over last year.
  For Fiscal Year 2001, the President is requesting a 5.6 percent 
increase. That is not enough. Congress has shown its commitment to our 
five-year goal of doubling NIH funding. In 1997, the Senate voted 98-0 
to adopt the Mack-Feinstein amendment, which urged Congress to double 
the budget of the National Institutes of Health over 5 years. To stay 
on target, we must add 15 percent again this year, bringing NIH funding 
to $20.5 billion. That is what this amendment does.
  This Fiscal Year, the National Institutes of Health is only funding 
an estimated 31 percent of grant applications. The National Institute 
on Aging is only funding 22 percent, and the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences, 25 percent. NIH officials believe that 
at least 35 percent of applicants are worthy of funding and others say 
50 percent should be funded. Without a significant increase in funding, 
hundreds of important projects will go without funding. What is it we 
aren't learning? How many millions of people aren't treated, or cured?
  Every day 1,500 people in the U.S. die of cancer, our nation's second 
leading cause of death. This year over half a million people will die 
of cancer, and 1.2 million will face a new cancer diagnosis. While the 
mortality rate has dropped for major cancers, including lung, 
colorectal, breast, and prostate, the mortality rate has risen for 
liver cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
  The National Cancer Institute has a number of promising areas of 
research, including: (1) better understanding the unique 
characteristics of cells and how they become cancerous; (2) molecule-
directed prevention approaches, such as Herceptin for advanced breast 
cancer, Rituximab for non-Hodgin's lymphoma, and STI 571 for leukemia; 
and (3) early detection of cancer and cancer risk through genetic 
explanation for cancer risks, environmental influences, and responses 
to therapies. But we spend one-tenth of one cent of every federal 
dollar on cancer research.
  There are still too many diseases for which we have no cure. AIDS has 
surpassed accidents as the leading killer of young adults; it is now 
the leading cause of death among Americans ages 25 to 44. Diabetes and 
asthma rates are rising. Forty-thousand infants die each year from 
devastating diseases. Seven to 10 percent of children are learning 
disabled. Birth defects affecting function occur in 7 percent of 
deliveries; that's 250,000 children.
  Another compelling reason to double NIH funding is that the baby boom 
generation is getting older. Over the next 30 years, the number of 
Americans over age 65 will double. As our population ages, we are 
seeing an increase in chronic and degenerative diseases like arthritis, 
cancer, osteoporosis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. For example, the 4 
million people with Alzheimer's Disease today will more than triple, to 
14 million, by the middle of the next century--unless we find a way to 
prevent or cure it. Health care costs will grow exponentially and we 
see that in part reflected in our budget debates over Medicare and 
Medicaid expenditures. The total annual cost of Alzheimer's today is 
$100 billion. By finding new treatments through research, if we delay 
the onset of this disease by 5 years, we can save $50 billion annually.
  This increase in funding for the NIH is important to California. 
California organizations receive 20 percent of all NIH grants, and the 
University of California is one of the top recipients of NIH funding. I 
am proud to say that California and the UC system contribute 
immeasurably to medical research supported by NIH grants. With support 
of NIH, many California researchers have helped find new cures and 
treatments. For example, Dr. Naomi Balaban at the University of 
California, Davis, with funding from the NIH, discovered a 
revolutionary way to fight staph infections without antibiotics by 
blocking the occurrences that make the bacteria harmful to humans. 
Then, she created a vaccine that successfully aided mice in resisting 
this infection.
  We have made tremendous strides in medical research in the last 
decade. The Association of American Medical Colleges states, in a June 
1999 paper on clinical research:

       Perhaps the most profound challenge of this era is the 
     sheer scope of scientific and technologic opportunity. The 
     future of scientific advancement and its potential to 
     transform medical practice and improve the health of the 
     public have never been brighter. Astonishing advancements in 
     the basic sciences have profoundly increased understanding of 
     disease mechanisms and identified a plentitude of novel 
     targets for therapeutic and preventive interventions.

  Better treatments are available, and scientists are learning more and 
more about how to treat diseases. Patient access to cutting-edge 
treatments is critical to further research and improve the health of 
Americans. The NIH is beginning to expand clinical research and, with 
additional funds, more people can reap the benefits of clinical trials 
and more effective treatments can be found.
  For example, the NIH is working on a vaccine for AIDS, better 
treatments for diabetes, and a better understanding of the entire human 
genome and its implications. Understanding a person's genetic make-up 
is helping researchers understand how genes affect a person's 
susceptibility to disease. This year's development of a new flu drug is 
a direct result of AIDS research, and a drug now used to treat 
hepatitis B was originally created to treat AIDS. Additionally, studies 
have produced better glucose-sensing devices that will greatly reduce 
the number of finger pricks that diabetics endure.
  The United States is the world's leader in understanding disease, in 
developing sophisticated treatments for illnesses and diseases, in 
making important medical discoveries, and in improving human life 
expectancy. Yet, we are spending only three cents of every health care 
dollar on health research. NIH's budget is less than one percent of the 
federal budget.
  Inconsistent funding for the NIH discourages the medical community 
from pursuing research. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 
we are not producing enough research scientists. That is, in part, due 
to the uncertainty in health research funding.
  Simply put, we can do better. We must try to ensure that all 
promising areas of research are pursued.
  The public is with us. Fifty-five percent of Californians said they 
would spend one dollar more in taxes per week for medical research, and 
55 percent of Americans said that it is important for the U.S. to 
remain a world leader in medical research. Every day, I hear from 
Californians who want a cure for their children, a better treatment for 
a parent, and more knowledge to prevent disease in themselves. I 
believe the public wants us to fight a war on disease and that the 
public sees medical research as a top priority for the federal 
government. I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to add $1.6 billion 
for NIH funding to fulfill the commitment made by the Senate on the 
unanimous 98-0 vote to double NIH funding over 5 years.
  The National Institutes of Health are the crown jewel of the Federal 
Government. In fact, they are the only jewel of the Federal Government. 
There will be a second-degree amendment offered that will seek to 
establish a priority for this money, to take it from somewhere else, 
which is meaningless. The only way to fund NIH in accordance with the 
commitment of the Senate is to adopt this amendment, which is 
cosponsored by Senators Harkin, Mack, Dodd, Snowe, Collins, Bingaman, 
Sarbanes, Mikulski, Breaux, Boxer, Johnson, Graham of Florida, 
Feinstein, Wellstone, Kennedy, and Durbin.
  We have gotten a detailed appraisal from NIH as to what they have 
done with the money. It is being wisely used. It is the most important 
capital investment for America for the future.

[[Page S2402]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is an incorrect statement. The NIH 
can go up the amount the Senator desires if he and his subcommittee, 
which will be receiving a 14-percent increase under the allocation we 
have made--and I would not be surprised if this got more than a 14-
percent increase by the time allocations are completed. In other words, 
the subcommittee with NIH in it is already going up about 14 percent. 
NIH is going up to a huge sum of $19 billion.
  But the Senator who chairs the committee can decide he wants to spend 
more than $19 billion. He will have to look at that myriad of 
programs--you know, $100 billion in that subcommittee --and decide 
whether he can find money to increase NIH even more. We increased it 
$1.1 billion in this budget.
  That is our recommendation. Frankly, all we are doing here is 
spending more money. It really doesn't have anything to do with NIH. It 
is raising the amount of money available to be spent on domestic 
programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.


                Amendment No. 3076 to Amendment No. 2994

   (Purpose: Increase discretionary health funding by $1,600,000,000)

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3076 to Amendment No. 2994.

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

       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 19, line 8, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 42, line 5, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 42, line 6, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 43, line 14, increase the amount by $1.
       On page 43, line 15, increase the amount by $1.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It says that 
the Senate, if it votes for the Domenici substitute, is saying to the 
Appropriations Committee, within that $100 billion or more you are 
going to have to spend on labor, health, and human services, the 
highest priority shall be given to the National Institutes of Health. 
That is what this amendment says. If that isn't enough of an 
instruction, saying how we feel, I don't know how we can do it. But we 
don't have to increase the overall spending by the amount requested by 
the distinguished Senator. We can just say find it within this 14-
percent increase that is going to his subcommittee to be spent on 
labor, health, and human services in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is true that the budget for three 
major departments is a large budget. But it is not possible to find 
$2.7 billion in the budget as proposed, when we have other education 
programs, where we have other health programs, where we have other 
labor programs on worker safety. The choice really is up to the Senate; 
that is, whether they will authorize the $2.7 billion increase, which 
is what NIH needs to fulfill the commitment already made by the Senate 
on the unanimous 98-0 vote. A vote in favor of this second-degree 
amendment is a vote against NIH funding for $2.7 billion.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. He is absolutely right. The 
nondiscretionary budget we have to work with is $7 billion below a 
freeze. It is not a 14-percent increase. As the Senator knows, we took 
some of that BA last year and put it into this year. So we had an 
artificially low BA that year. What is in the Specter amendment is so 
important.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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 the second-degree amendment offered by 
the Senator from New Mexico. 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 45, nays 55, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3076) was rejected.


                             Change of Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 73, I voted aye. 
It was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that 
I be permitted to change my vote, since it would in no way change the 
outcome of the the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the first-degree 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2994) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2954

(Purpose: To provide adequate funding for a gun enforcement initiative 
 to add 500 new federal ATF agents and inspectors and fund over 1,000 
    new federal, state, and local prosecutors to take dangerous gun 
                       offenders off the streets)

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2954.

  Mr. DURBIN. 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 4, line 4 increase the amount by $121,341,000.
       On page 4, line 5 increase the amount by $84,399,000.
       On page 4, line 6 increase the amount by $68,925,000.
       On page 4, line 7 increase the amount by $68,925,000.
       On page 4, line 13 increase the amount by $121,341,000.

[[Page S2403]]

       On page 4, line 14 increase the amount by $84,399,000.
       On page 4, line 15 increase the amount by $68,925,000.
       On page 4, line 16 increase the amount by $9,225,000.
       On page 4, line 22 increase the amount by $283,890,000.
       On page 5, line 7 increase the amount by $121,341,000.
       On page 5, line 8 increase the amount by $84,399,000.
       On page 5, line 9 increase the amount by $68,925,000.
       On page 5, line 10 increase the amount by $9,225,000.
       On page 24, line 7 increase the amount by $283,890,000.
       On page 24, line 8 increase the amount by $121,341,000.
       On page 24, line 12 increase the amount by $84,399,000.
       On page 24, line 16 increase the amount by $68,925,000.
       On page 24, line 20 increase the amount by $9,225,000.
       On page 29, line 3 increase the amount by $121,341,000.
       On page 29, line 4 increase the amount by $283,890,000.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the amendment offered by Senators Durbin, Schumer and 
Kennedy to fully fund the President's firearms law enforcement 
initiatives.
  Clearly, the gun violence facing our Nation is a complex problem, and 
there is disagreement in the Congress about the need for additional 
firearms legislation. However, many of my colleagues--both Democratic 
and Republican alike--are heeding the call of their constituents and 
advocating more stringent enforcement of our existing gun laws. With 
our Nation experiencing unprecedented fiscal health, we now have the 
opportunity to provide law enforcement with the resources it so 
urgently needs to enforce those laws. The Administration recognized 
that opportunity, and included in its proposed budget approximately 
$284 million to fund the largest national gun enforcement initiative in 
our history.
  Mr. President, the Republican budget resolution does not include this 
$284 million for gun enforcement measures and, as a result, jeopardizes 
programs that have begun to make a real impact and helped to reduce 
firearms violence. For example, in my own State of Maryland, our United 
States Attorney, Lynne Battaglia has utilized Project DISARM--a 
cooperative effort between Federal, State, county, and local law 
enforcement officials that targets violent and repeat offenders for 
prosecution under Federal firearms laws. Similar to Richmond, 
Virginia's well-known ``Project Exile,'' Project DISARM was initiated 
in 1994 and has real potential for reducing firearm violence across the 
State.
  Despite the initial success of Project DISARM--and tough Maryland 
laws that also prohibit felons from possessing firearms --the program 
simply does not have the resources to prosecute every person who 
violates these Federal laws. Project DISARM works with a limited staff, 
which is also responsible for prosecuting complex drug and money 
laundering cases. Simply put, for Project DISARM to effectively reduce 
further gun violence, additional prosecutors are needed. The 
President's $284 million gun control and enforcement initiative would 
add 500 new Federal ATF agents and over 1,000 new Federal, State and 
local prosecutors; $14.5 million of these funds would be used to create 
163 positions--including 113 attorneys--to bolster firearms prosecution 
efforts like Project DISARM.
  The resources provided in the President's budget are critical to 
Maryland's efforts to prevent gun violence, and could save lives in my 
State. Whatever our views on new gun control measures, we must work to 
ensure that our existing laws are enforced to their fullest extent--
which will not occur unless law enforcement agencies have the resources 
to investigate and prosecute crimes.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to fully 
fund the President's gun control and enforcement initiative. This is a 
simple proposition that we should all agree on--the enforcement of our 
existing gun laws is a necessary step in reducing crime and making the 
Nation a safer place for us all.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield my 1 minute to my colleague and 
cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding and for 
his leadership on this amendment.
  This is an amendment on guns but one on which we can all come 
together because it simply deals with increasing enforcement. It would 
add 500 new Federal ATF agents and inspectors and 1,000 Federal, State, 
and local prosecutors, at a cost of $284 million, and should be 
included in the budget resolution.
  It is no secret we in this Chamber have had many disagreements on the 
issue of guns. The one place I think we can all come together is on a 
view that there ought to be more enforcement. I, for instance, in my 
State, have worked with the National Rifle Association on something 
called Project Exile, which is a forerunner of what we are proposing 
here, in many ways, because what we do is give money to prosecutors at 
the Federal and State levels, as well as ATF agents, whose sole job is 
to prosecute gun crimes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator can make a 1-
minute argument against it and then a minute on his.
  Mr. REID. The amendment has not been reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor.
  Mr. REID. The amendment has not been reported.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appropriate procedure is for the 1 minute 
on the first-degree amendment to expire before the second-degree 
amendment is offered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will use that 1 minute yielded to me for 
purposes of explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho was recognized by the 
Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will send a second-degree amendment to 
the desk to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. The Senator 
from New York and I and most of us agree we need more money and 
effective law enforcement against gun violence. The amendment I will 
offer uses the same amount of money the Senator from Illinois has 
proposed. It does not take it out of the tax cut pool; it takes it out 
of the 902 fund. It directs it to hire Federal prosecutors, U.S. 
attorneys in Project Exile, puts them on the ground, gives State grants 
for gun violence reduction, and causes States also to put their mental 
adjudicant into the background check program. That is exactly what it 
does.
  It also does not prohibit this Congress from offering up a reasonable 
tax cut to the American citizens. I believe it is the kind of 
legislation we are expecting and want. But it also addresses the very 
issue my colleagues from Illinois and New York wish to address.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.


                Amendment No. 3077 to Amendment No. 2954

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the enforcement 
                       of Federal firearms laws)

  Mr. CRAIG. I now send my second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3077 to amendment No. 2954.

  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to terminating the 
reading of the amendment?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the terminating the 
reading of the amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not 
speak for my colleague from the State of Nevada, but I address this, 
not to my friend who offered the amendment but

[[Page S2404]]

to the Senate in general. It would be much better, I think, if, when we 
file amendments, we have two copies so they can be shared with each 
side, rather than suspending the reading and having no knowledge of the 
substance of the amendment. That is the reason I object at this point. 
If there is a copy to be shared for us to read it, I would have no 
objection.
  Mr. REID. If I may say to my friend from Illinois, we understand it 
is frustrating from everybody's standpoint. We are moving very rapidly. 
It is a moving target. The reason the absence of a quorum was suggested 
was so we could have time to read the amendment. The majority has been 
trying to supply us with the second-degree amendments. They were unable 
to do that at this time.
  So, if it is appropriate, will my friend withdraw his objection? Will 
the Senator withdraw his objection to the waiving of the reading?
  Mr. DURBIN. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       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 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 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $1.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $1.
       At the end, add the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the 
     appropriate levels for function 920 are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,214,890,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,152,341,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,395,399,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$858,925,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,779,225,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,072,000,000.

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL 
                   FIREARMS LAWS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Clinton Administration has failed to adequately 
     enforce Federal firearms laws. Between 1992 and 1998, 
     Triggerlock gun 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.
       (2) The decline in Federal firearms prosecutions was not 
     due to a lack of adequate resources. During the period when 
     Federal firearms prosecutions decreased nearly 50 percent, 
     the overall budget of the Department of Justice increased 54 
     percent.
       (3) It is a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school 
     grounds under section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code. 
     The Clinton Department of Justice prosecuted only 8 cases 
     under this provision of law during 1998, even though more 
     than 6,000 students brought firearms to school that year. The 
     Clinton Administration prosecuted only 5 such cases during 
     1997.
       (4) It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a 
     juvenile under section 922(x) of title 18, United States 
     Code. The Clinton Department of Justice prosecuted only 6 
     cases under this provision of law during 1998 and only 5 
     during 1997.
       (5) It is a Federal crime to transfer or possess a 
     semiautomatic assault weapon under section 922(v) of title 
     18, United States Code. The Clinton Department of Justice 
     prosecuted only 4 cases under this provision of law during 
     1998 and only 4 during 1997.
       (6) 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 
     under section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code. Despite 
     this Federal law, mental health adjudications are not placed 
     on the national instant criminal background system 
     established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note).
       (7) It is a Federal crime for any person knowingly to make 
     any false statement in the attempted purchase of a firearm 
     under section 922(a)(6) of title 18, United States Code. It 
     is also a Federal crime for convicted felons to possess or 
     purchase a firearm under section 922(g) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (8) More than 500,000 convicted felons and other prohibited 
     purchasers have been prevented from buying firearms from 
     licensed dealers since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 
     Act was enacted. When these felons attempted to purchase a 
     firearm, they violated section 922(a)(6) of title 18, United 
     States Code, by making a false statement under oath that they 
     were not disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Nonetheless, 
     of the more than 500,000 violations, only approximately 200 
     of the felons have been referred to the Department of Justice 
     for prosecution.
       (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 Federal funds 
     will be used for an effective law enforcement strategy 
     requiring a commitment to enforcing existing Federal firearms 
     laws by--
       (1) designating not less than 1 Assistant United States 
     Attorney in each district to prosecute Federal firearms 
     violations and thereby expand Project Exile nationally;
       (2) upgrading the national instant criminal background 
     system established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) by encouraging 
     States to place mental health adjudications on that system 
     and by improving the overall speed and efficiency of that 
     system; and
       (3) providing incentive grants to States to encourage 
     States to impose mandatory minimum sentences for firearm 
     offenses based on section 924(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code, and to prosecute those offenses in State court.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on why I will 
vote against the Craig amendment to the budget resolution, amendment 
#3007. While the amendment offered by Senator Craig has many law 
enforcement provisions that I support, I am very concerned that Senator 
Craig deleted funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco and Firearms 
(ATF) in his amendment.
  If we are serious about providing the necessary resources to 
effectively pursue offenders of existing federal firearms laws, we 
cannot exclude the ATF. A true law enforcement initiative should 
provide sufficient funding for both ATF agents and inspectors. 
Afterall, the ATF is the federal agency whose mission is to reduce 
violent crime by enforcing our laws and regulations concerning firearms 
and explosives. Because the Craig amendment deliberately deleted 
funding for the ATF, I decided to vote against it. I repeatedly hear 
that in order for prosecutors to do their job, they need law 
enforcement, such as the ATF, to detect interstate drug running and to 
investigate gun dealers making illegal transfers of firearms.
  Due to Senate procedures, the amendment offered by Senator Craig 
vitiated a vote on amendment #2954, an amendment offered by Senator 
Durbin, that I fully supported. The Durbin amendment included funding 
for more than 1,000 local, State and Federal prosecutors to prosecute 
firearms offenses. The Durbin amendment also provided funding to expand 
Project Exile across the country and funding for ballistics testing 
programs to support law enforcement efforts. As opposed to the Craig 
amendment, the Durbin amendment provided $94 million in funding for an 
increase in ATF agents and inspectors.
  Mr. President, prosecutors and federal task forces aimed at enforcing 
our existing firearms laws will be missing a key element if the ATF's 
funding is excluded from a federal law enforcement funding initiative.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The 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. I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
  Mr. CRAIG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.


                           Amendment No. 3003

  (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for early learning and parent 
                           support programs)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate 
amendment No. 3003.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S2405]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Murray, 
     Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3003.

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

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR EARLY LEARNING AND PARENT SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Adjustment.--When the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives or the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate reports 
     a bill, an amendment is offered in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, or a conference report is 
     filed that improves opportunities at the local level for 
     early learning, brain development, and school readiness for 
     young children from birth to age 6 and offers support 
     programs for such families, particularly those with special 
     needs such as mental health issues and behavioral disorders, 
     the relevant chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     increase the allocation aggregates, functions, totals, and 
     other budgetary totals in the resolution by the amount of 
     budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) 
     provided by the legislation for such purpose in accordance 
     with subsection (b) if the legislation does not cause an on-
     budget deficit.
       (b) Limitations.--The adjustments to the aggregates and 
     totals pursuant to subsection (a) shall not exceed 
     $8,500,000,000 on budget authority (and the outlays resulting 
     therefrom) for the period fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senators Stevens, Dodd, 
Jeffords, Bond, Kerry, Cochran, Murray, Gordon Smith, Lautenberg, 
Chafee, Durbin, Reed, Warner, Murkowski, and Bingaman for their 
leadership on this amendment to ensure that children begin school ready 
to learn.
  The amendment establishes a reserve fund of $8.5 billion over the 
next five years to support local investment in early learning and 
school readiness initiatives for children from birth through age six. 
Over the past decade medical research has confirmed that stimulation is 
essential for proper brain development in infants and toddlers. The 
building blocks for later learning begin to develop during these early 
years. Stimulation through reading, visual and vocal interaction with 
adults, and group activities with other children is essential to 
develop the connection within the brain that result in effective 
educational, social, and motor skills for each child.
  It is long past time to put these medical discoveries into practice. 
Many parents are well aware of the stimulation needed by their infants 
and toddlers, and they amply provide it. But many working parents face 
barriers, including their own lack of education and their inability to 
obtain quality child care for their children. As a result, millions of 
children never get the chance to reach their full potential. This is a 
tragedy for the child, and an unacceptable price for the nation to pay, 
since many of society's most complex and costly long-run problems can 
be avoided by paying greater attention to children early in their 
lives.
  To deal with these problems more effectively, Senators Stevens, 
Jeffords, Dodd, and I have taken a number of steps to improve early 
learning. First, we need to fill in the gaps in existing programs, and 
make activities such as childhood literacy training, parenting support, 
and parenting education more widely available to all parents who seek 
these services. Second, we need to support local councils that can 
assess early learning needs of communities and allocate resources to 
meet those needs. These councils are already formed in some states. In 
Massachusetts, it is known as the Massachusetts Community Partnerships 
for Children. Our amendment brings us closer to enabling such councils 
to direct resources where they are needed most.
  Finally, we need to expand access to effective programs like Head 
Start. More parents are satisfied with Heard Start than any other 
government program, but only two in five eligible children have access 
to Head Start today.
  Today's Senate action is a significant step forward for the nation on 
this fundamental issue. It shows what can be accomplished when we reach 
across party lines and work together for educational goals that are 
clearly in the country's best interest. Early learning should be a high 
priority for this Congress. It is pro-family and pro-work, and it is 
one of the best long-term investments we can make in the country's 
future security and prosperity.
  The $8.5 billion in additional resources proposed by today's budget 
amendment will make it much easier to enable more children to obtain 
the services they need in the years ahead. I look forward to the day 
when every child begins school ready to learn, and I will continue 
working to pass legislation that makes this day come as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a priority of 
funding for early education of children. It has broad bipartisan 
support. It does not make it mandatory.
  We now know the stimulus children get at a very early age contributes 
to the development of their brain and increases the ability of children 
who receive that stimulus to learn readily.
  This creates a program for stimulation and sets aside funds for 
grants to the States. It is not a mandatory program. It will be put in 
the discretionary level. I do hope the Senate will accept this. My 
understanding is the managers will accept it.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3003.
  The amendment (No. 3003) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 3077

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe the pending business is the 
Schumer-Durbin amendment No. 2954.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. If that is the pending business, my second-degree 
amendment is the pending business. I believe it is appropriate then 
that I now speak for 1 minute in support of the second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, all of us are concerned about law 
enforcement and making sure those who misuse firearms are appropriately 
prosecuted. The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from New York 
have that same concern. I choose to get the money from the 920 account 
and not take it out of tax cuts. I direct it at the hiring of Federal 
prosecutors.
  I also direct it to the States for grants in law enforcement because 
the States continue to put into the background check program those who 
are legally mental adjudicants. We direct it to law enforcement, which 
is what the American people say we should do, on the ground where the 
criminal activity is occurring. The $283 million increases the 
intensity of effort against gun violence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I urge Members of the Senate to oppose 
this amendment. We have debated gun safety back and forth and one side 
says we need more enforcement. The second-degree amendment before us 
provides no new ATF agents. If we are going to enforce the laws to find 
the 1,000 Federal gun dealers responsible for selling 57 percent of the 
guns traced in crime, we need more ATF agents. If we are going to stop 
interstate gunrunning, we need more ATF agents. This second-degree 
amendment provides no new ATF agents. If my colleagues say enforcement 
is the key to gun safety, they have to oppose this amendment and 
support the underlying amendment which provides new ATF investigators, 
as well as new prosecutors, across America. I hope my colleagues will 
oppose the second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing 
to amendment No. 3077.

[[Page S2406]]

  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 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     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
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     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
  The amendment (No. 3077) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2954, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2954), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico.


                    Amendment No. 3028, As Modified

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the census)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we are ready to call up the 
Smith amendment No. 3028, as modified. It has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici, for Mr. Smith of 
     New Hampshire] proposes an amendment numbered 3028, as 
     modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 CENSUS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
     resolution assume that no American will be prosecuted, fined 
     or in anyway harassed by the Federal government or its agents 
     for failure to respond to any census questions which refer to 
     an individual's race, national origin, living conditions, 
     personal habits or mental and/or physical condition.
       At the end of the amendment strike the period and insert a 
     comma and add the following: ``but that all Americans are 
     encouraged to send in their census forms.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time we have on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3028, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3028), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2951

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning an increase in 
                       the Federal minimum wage)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is the 
minimum wage amendment by Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2951.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2951.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE MINIMUM WAGE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that Congress should enact legislation to 
     amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.) to increase the Federal minimum wage by $1.00 over 1 
     year with a $0.50 increase effective May 1, 2000 and another 
     $0.50 increase effective on May 1, 2001.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have tried for over the last 2 years 
to get an increase in the minimum wage for those Americans who are at 
the lowest rung of the economic ladder and who have not had any pay 
increase. This chart shows what has happened to the minimum wage since 
the 1960s. As the minimum wage has been going down, the poverty line 
has been going up. There are more Americans working harder today who 
are living in poverty than at any time in the history of the country.
  Why is this an important issue? Close to 60 percent of the minimum-
wage workers are women. One-third of those workers have children, so it 
is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights 
issue because over one-third of minimum-wage workers are men and women 
of color. It is fundamentally an issue of fairness.
  I think in this country individuals who work 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks of the year should not live in poverty. We are asking for the 
opportunity to have a vote on an increase in the minimum wage. Since 
the minimum wage was last increased, those workers have lost the 
equivalent of $500 in purchasing power. It is time that the Senate go 
on record in support of increasing the minimum wage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we voted on this amendment in November. 
It didn't pass. What we did pass on November 9 was the Domenici 
amendment. It passed 54-44. It was an amendment that would increase the 
minimum wage not over 13 months, as proposed by Senator Kennedy, but 
over 28 months. In addition, we provided for some small business tax 
relief, those businesses that would be negatively impacted by a big 
increase in the minimum wage. We did that. That passed.
  I will be sending a second-degree amendment to the desk that would 
reiterate our support for that. I hope our colleagues will join us in a 
request to move that amendment, which was attached to bankruptcy, to 
the House-passed minimum wage so we can go to conference and pass a 
minimum wage package with tax relief.


                Amendment No. 3078 to Amendment No. 2951

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that any increase in the 
 minimum wage should be accompanied by tax relief for small businesses)

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I now send the second-degree amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3078 to amendment No. 2951.

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

       In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert 
     the following:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE

       (B) It is the sense of the Senate that the functional 
     totals underlying this resolution on the budget assume that 
     the minimum wage should be increased as provided for in 
     amendment #2547, the Domenici and others amendment to S. 625, 
     the Bankruptcy Reform legislation.

  Mr. NICKLES. This is the same amendment we passed in November. This 
is an amendment that says we should have 100 percent deductibility for 
self-employed individuals. Right now they only get 60 percent. This is 
an amendment that says we should give an above-the-line deduction for 
individuals so they can deduct health care costs. This is not a big tax 
cut. This is a tax cut targeted towards small business and people who 
would have a hard time paying the minimum wage. It also

[[Page S2407]]

says we should stretch out the minimum wage, instead of doing it over 
13 months as proposed by Senator Kennedy. The language we passed will 
do it over the next 24 months or 28 months.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the proposal that is offered by the 
Senator is to cut taxes by $100 billion without paying for them. It 
stretches the minimum wage increase of a dollar over 3 years. According 
to CBO, it is $100 billion in unpaid tax cuts. We are prepared to work 
with our friends on the other side for a reasonable proposal to offset 
any potential kinds of challenges for small business. This is $100 
billion in tax cuts over 10 years. Why should minimum-wage workers be 
held hostage to this kind of proposal?
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 22 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, my 
colleague was incorrect on his figures. The net cost of our tax cut was 
$25 billion over the next 5 years. The budget resolution before us says 
$150 billion over 5 years. It is clearly within the budget. It is 
affordable. It is targeted. I don't know where he got the $100 billion. 
Maybe that is over 10 years. Over 5 years, the net tax cut targeted 
toward small business is $25 billion. I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 26 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, his tax cuts are over 5 years. The ten 
year cost is $100 billion, which are unpaid for. All we are saying is, 
why stretch it for the hard-working Americans when we have the greatest 
prosperity in the history of this country and we are denying those 
hard-working Americans 50 cents a year this year and 50 cents a year 
next year? That is what our proposal does.
  Mr. REID. 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. 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. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3078. 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 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3078) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3079 to Amendment No. 2951

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning an increase in 
                       the Federal minimum wage)

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3079 to amendment No. 2951.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President 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 the amendment add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE MINIMUM WAGE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that Congress should enact legislation to 
     amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.) to increase the Federal minimum wage by $1.00 over 1 
     year with a $0.50 increase effective May 2, 2000 and another 
     $0.50 increase effective on May 2, 2001.
  Mr. REID. I ask to take a minute in leader time; how long did the 
last vote take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes.
  Mr. REID. There has been a suggestion we go to 7\1/2\ minutes. If 
that happens, we have to stay in here to do that. There are people 
doing their very best. They spent all day here ready to vote and others 
walk away to other meetings. If people are not here, they should not be 
recorded, I respectfully submit on behalf of the leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
  Do you ask consent we go to 7\1/2\ minutes?
  Mr. REID. I do at the present time.
  Mr. LOTT. That was agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it was not presented in a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent we limit the next votes to 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, on this vote people are 
out to lunch. I don't mind saying the next one will be 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. REID. A lot of people are out to lunch all the time.
  Mr. STEVENS. This one just came back from lunch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is effectively the identical 
amendment in the sense the time has been changed, but it still provides 
a 50-cent increase this year, and 50 cents next year.
  I have every intention of continuing to offer these amendments until 
we get a vote on the amendment. I think we are entitled to that. This 
has been an issue we have been raising for over 2 years. We have 
effectively been denied that opportunity.
  During that period of time, those at the lowest end of the economic 
ladder have been falling further and further behind. Six months ago was 
the last increase we have had on the minimum wage. Since that time, the 
purchasing power of these men and women has fallen $500. It will 
continue to do so unless we take action.
  Who are the minimum-wage workers? They are workers working in nursing 
homes; they are working in childcare centers; they are working with 
teachers. Those are hard-working people. They are entitled to this body 
going on record.
  Mr. NICKLES. I hope my colleagues vote no. If the Senator from 
Massachusetts wants to support minimum wage, he should support the 
unanimous consent request Majority Leader Lott has made twice, saying 
let's break it apart from bankruptcy and go to conference with the 
House.
  What the Senator's amendment says is increase minimum wage 20 percent 
in 13 months with no tax relief.
  We just passed an amendment that said we should pass minimum wage 
with tax relief. That is the right position. I urge my colleagues not 
to vote on this big minimum wage increase with no tax relief for small 
business.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have 15 seconds remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S2408]]

  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3079. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bennett
       
  The amendment (No. 3079) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2951, as 
amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2951), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the arrangement between the majority 
and minority, the next amendment is amendment No. 2979 offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.


                           Amendment No. 2979

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the sufficiency of the 
funding in the Concurrent Resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 
 for allowing members of the Armed Forces to participate in the Thrift 
                             Savings Plan)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2979.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE 
                   PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES IN THE THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.

       It is the sense of Congress that the levels of funding for 
     the defense category in this resolution--
       (1) assume that members of the Armed Forces are to be 
     authorized to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan; and
       (2) provide the $980,000,000 necessary to offset the 
     reduced tax revenue resulting from that participation through 
     fiscal year 2009.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, since the men and women in our armed 
services provide 100 percent of our national security, they deserve at 
least 1 percent of the tax cuts as outlined in this budget resolution. 
We are the largest employer as the Federal Government. The members of 
our armed services constitute the largest single workforce in America 
not yet covered by a thrift savings plan.
  This amendment does not ask for the same match program we have but 
that simply they be allowed to have a thrift savings plan. It allows 
for the participation by all members of our armed services, and it will 
not replace the current military retirement plan.
  I understand this amendment is acceptable, and I ask for a voice 
vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment. I yield back my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2979) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the agreement of the manager of the 
bill, Senator Domenici, we now go to amendment No. 2941, Senator Kohl 
and Senator Leahy.


                           Amendment No. 2941

 (Purpose: To strike the reserve fund for allocation of any additional 
  surplus forecast by the Congressional Budget Office in July to the 
                   Committee on Finance for tax cuts)

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2941, which is filed 
at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators Leahy, 
Lieberman, Robb, Graham, Bryan, Kerrey, Levin, and Feingold be added as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Robb, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2941.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 36, strike beginning with line 1 and all that 
     follows through page 37, line 5.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. The budget 
before us allots to tax cuts any extra surplus forecast by CBO this 
summer. Our amendment strikes that section and saves the extra surplus 
for debt reduction. That is good for the economy and good for the 
solvency of Social Security.
  There are $150 billion for tax cuts and $19 billion for debt 
reduction in this budget. Our amendment does not change that. It just 
says that--if we end up with extra money this summer--it ought to go to 
the debt reduction side of the equation.
  Some have argued that the extra surplus go to tax cuts because 
otherwise Congress will spend it. That argument is a straw man. Under 
the budget as it stands, there is a point of order against spending the 
extra surplus on anything except tax cuts. Under the budget as we would 
amend it, there is a point of order against spending the extra surplus 
on anything. It has to be saved for debt relief.
  The Concord Coalition and Taxpayers for Common Sense have endorsed 
the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that their statements of support 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        The Concord Coalition,

                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2000.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kohl and Leahy: The Concord Coalition is 
     pleased to support your amendment striking Section 206 from 
     the Senate Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 101). We believe 
     that striking Section 206, which allows the proposed five-
     year tax cut to be increased by the amount of any increase in 
     the current on-budget surplus projection, would strengthen 
     the Senate's bipartisan commitments to reducing publicly held 
     debt, and maintaining balanced budgets without borrowing from 
     the Social Security trust fund. Because these goals are 
     widely endorsed on both sides of the aisle, The Concord 
     Coalition hopes that you will seek, and receive, bipartisan 
     support for your amendment.
       The Concord Coalition is greatly heartened by the vast 
     improvement in the federal government's short-term fiscal 
     position over the last several years. Members of both parties 
     can claim a share of the credit for this turnaround. Concord 
     also fully supports the bipartisan commitment to reserve 100 
     percent of the Social Security surplus, regardless of the 
     differences of opinion that exist over how this money can 
     best be used to ensure Social Security's future.
       And yet, it is important to remember that we are not out of 
     the woods. As a nation, we currently have no strategy for 
     dealing with the huge unfunded obligations of Social Security 
     and Medicare, estimated at about $15 trillion dollars. The 
     Concord Coalition, therefore, recommends a fiscal goal beyond 
     merely achieving short-term on-budget balance. We advocate 
     using the current economic, fiscal, demographic and political 
     windows of opportunity to address the long-term Social 
     Security and Medicare deficits that will accompany the aging 
     of our nation's population. These deficits threaten to undo 
     the hard work and fiscal discipline of recent years and 
     undermine our potential for future economic growth.

[[Page S2409]]

       In the absence of substantive Social Security and Medicare 
     reform, the next best thing we can do to prepare for the 
     future is use every penny of surplus that happens to come our 
     way to reduce the publicly held debt. Debt reduction will 
     enhance net national savings, thereby freeing up resources 
     for investments in productivity that will lead to stronger 
     economic growth in the future. A larger economy will, in 
     turn, help case the burden on today's preschoolers who will 
     find it a struggle, when they become working age taxpayers, 
     to finance the retirement and health care costs of a 
     dramatically older population.
       Recognizing the benefits of debt reduction, the Senate 
     Budget Resolution properly sets aside the entire Social 
     Security surplus for this purpose. But this commitment is not 
     self-executing. Fiscal responsibility is still required to 
     ensure that we do not return to the days when the Social 
     Security trust fund surpluses were used to pay for general 
     government expenses. Vigilance is required on both the 
     spending and tax sides of the budget. So while it is 
     legitimate to debate competing uses of the non-social 
     Security surplus, including tax cuts, great caution is in 
     order. Surplus projections are inherently uncertain, 
     particularly over many years. For that reason, policy 
     options that depend upon these surplus projections should 
     contain an ample margin for error.
       As it currently stands, the Senate Budget Resolution 
     contains little margin for error. It assumes that 
     discretionary spending can be held below inflation over the 
     next five years--a very ambitious goal given the experience 
     of the last two years--and includes a commitment to spend 
     more on priorities such as defense and education. Moreover, a 
     bipartisan consensus is developing around the need to add a 
     prescription drug benefit to Medicare. While $40 billion is 
     conditionally set aside in the Budget Resolution for this 
     purpose, it is only the tip of the iceberg. No matter how it 
     is designed, a Medicare prescription drug benefit would be an 
     expensive, permanent and growing entitlement expansion. 
     Finally, the Budget Resolution already assumes a five-year 
     tax cut of $150 billion. Assuming enactment of all these 
     policies, and the accuracy of the projections on which they 
     are based, the Budget Resolution has a razor thin margin for 
     error of just $19.5 billion in non-Social Security surpluses 
     over the next five years.
       Given this narrow margin for error, it is all the more 
     important that any increase in the projected non-social 
     Security surplus be reserved for debt reduction. 
     Unfortunately, Section 206 of the Budget Resolution would 
     allow any such increase to be used immediately, and in its 
     entirety, to enlarge the size of the tax cut, thus consuming 
     any additional margin for error that may be provided later 
     this year by continued economic growth.
       Your amendment is simple and clear. It would not prejudice 
     the $150 billion tax cut already provided for the Budget 
     Resolution. Strictly speaking, it would not even prevent a 
     large tax cut if the Congressional Budget Office does 
     increase its on-budget surplus projection in its summer 
     update. Your amendment would, however, make debt reduction 
     the preferred use of any such windfall and strengthen the 
     chances that the budget will remain in balance without having 
     to borrow from Social Security. The Concord Coalition 
     believes that this approach would be a more fiscally prudent 
     way of dealing with unanticipated surpluses than the approach 
     provided in Section 206.
       The Concord Coalition commends your effort to improve the 
     Budget Resolution's commitment to debt reduction and 
     preserving the Social Security surplus. We hope your 
     amendment striking Section 206 will receive strong bipartisan 
     support.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert L. Bixby,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                   Taxpayers for Common Sense,

                                                    April 5, 2000.
     Hon. Herbert H. Kohl,
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kohl and Leahy: Taxpayers for Common Sense is 
     pleased to support your efforts to strengthen the Senate's 
     commitment to debt reduction by offering an amendment to 
     strike Section 206 of the Budget Resolution.
       Section 206 would allow tax cuts to be paid for from the 
     possible budget surplus that would be identified by the 
     Congressional Budget Office in July. Taxpayers for Common 
     Sense is concerned about the current $5.8 trillion national 
     debt. We believe that before money is spend on major new tax 
     cuts or major new spending programs, the national debt should 
     be reduced.
       The budget surplus is not a reality; it is an illusion 
     based on projections. If we spend money based on projections 
     that turn out to be wrong, then deficits could reemerge 
     instead of the rosy future now in the forecast.
       TSC would urge all Senators to vote for your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jill Lancelot,
                                             Legislative Director.

  Mr. KOHL. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from 
Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we Vermonters know that if you have a debt, 
you pay it off. It is time to pay off the national debt so our children 
do not have to. This will help us pay it off.
  I thought it was time to introduce a dose of Yankee thrift in this 
debate. Though he is not a Yankee, the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin seems to share Vermonters' thrifty outlook. The amendment we 
are introducing is simple, but important. This amendment strikes 
Section 206 of the budget resolution to ensure that additional 
surpluses estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reduce the 
national debt, instead of being used for irresponsible tax cuts.
  The next CBO update in July is expected to increase the on-budget 
surplus by at least $40 billion over the next five years. As it now 
stands, Section 206 would allow Congress to apply those additional 
projected dollars to tax cuts, on top of the $150 billion in tax cuts 
already called for in the resolution. That would amount to $190 billion 
in tax cuts over five years, which is even larger than the fiscally 
irresponsible tax bill that Congress passed last year, and the 
President sagely vetoed. That bill would have cost $156 billion over 
five years and $850 billion over 10 years.
  Without Section 206, which our amendment would strike, any windfall 
surplus estimated by CBO would go automatically towards reducing the 
national debt. In addition, striking this section would ensure that any 
increase in the projected surplus would further protect Social Security 
surpluses from additional spending. I thank Senator Kohl and our other 
cosponsors of this amendment for making the sensible choice, the 
thrifty choice, the Yankee choice, to make paying down the national 
debt our top priority.
  In the 1980's, Congress went on a tax cut binge and left the bill for 
our children. During those years we all saw the lip service and slogans 
about balancing the budget, while Congress, President Reagan and 
President Bush simultaneously tripled the national debt and ran the 
biggest deficits of any nation in the history of the world. As a 
result, the national debt now stands at $3.6 trillion and the Federal 
government pays almost $1 billion in interest every working day on this 
debt. Now that we have surpluses, we have a chance and an obligation to 
pay off that debt. Let's not make the mistakes of the 1980's. Let's not 
just talk about balancing the budget and paying down the debt. Let's 
actually do it.
  Nothing would do more to keep our economy strong than paying down our 
national debt. Paying down our national debt will keep interest rates 
low. Consumers gain ground with lower mortgage costs, car payments, 
credit card charges with low interest rates. And small business owners 
can invest, expand and create jobs with low interest rates.
  A sound economy rests on a solid foundation of balanced revenue and 
spending policies. I am proud to have voted for the 1993 deficit 
reduction package, which was a tough vote around here, and has brought 
the deficit down. I am also proud to have voted for the 1997 balanced 
budget and tax cut package--tax cuts that were fully paid for by 
offsetting spending cuts, not by pie in the sky projected surpluses 
that had not yet materialized.
  For the past seven years, the President and Congress have built this 
solid foundation by reducing the deficit and restraining spending. In 
1992, President Clinton inherited a deficit of $290 billion. Since 
then, the Administration and Congress have steadily cut it down, 
turning it into a projected record surplus of $171 billion in 2000. 
Because of our sound fiscal policies, the national debt was $1.7 
trillion lower in 1999 than was projected in 1993--that is $25,000 less 
debt for each family of four in Vermont.
  These balanced policies have also kept interest rates down and 
employment up. Since 1993, the unemployment rate in Vermont has dropped 
from 5.8% to just 2.7%. Now that we have a projected surplus, we should 
stay the course of fiscal discipline rather than make irresponsible tax 
cuts. Paying down the debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, 
investing in education, and providing hard working Americans with 
targeted tax cuts should be our top priorities.

[[Page S2410]]

  The budget resolution we have before us would use almost the entire 
non-Social Security surplus for tax breaks which would primarily 
benefit the wealthy. CBO's recent estimates predict that over the next 
5 years, the non-Social Security surplus will be $171 billion. The 
budget resolution calls for a minimum of $150 billion in tax cuts. When 
you take into account the cost of future interest payments due to a 
reduction in future surpluses, that brings us to $168 billion. That is 
98% of the projected surplus. Not 25%, not 50%, not even 75%, but close 
to 100% of the projected surplus that will NOT be used to pay down the 
national debt, according to this resolution. This does not make fiscal 
sense.
  Imagine that you had a credit card debt of $20,000 and you received a 
bonus of $1,000. Would you use only 2%, which is $20, of that bonus to 
pay down your substantial debt. Would you continue to carry a debt and 
waste money on interest payments when it is within your means to pay it 
down? I do not know of a single Vermonter who would make that choice 
and yet, incredibly, that is what the budget before us would recommend.
  This budget resolution would use only 2% of projected non-Social 
Security projected surpluses to pay down the debt. Is this Congress 
serious about paying down the debt? Committing only 2% of projected 
surpluses to debt reduction suggests that the majority is not. 
Regardless of slogans offered or lip service paid to reducing the debt, 
the numbers speak for themselves.
  Alan Greenspan and nearly every other economist who has testified 
before the Senate Budget and Finance Committees has stated that our 
nation's budget surpluses should be used to pay down the debt. And yet, 
the Republican budget resolution proposes far less debt reduction than 
the budgets developed by President Clinton and others. During markup in 
the budget committee, Senator Lautenberg offered an alternative budget 
that would have reduced $330 billion in debt over ten years, while 
providing almost $300 billion in targeted tax cuts--cuts that would go 
towards eliminating the marriage tax penalty, permitting the self-
employed a full tax deduction for their health insurance and providing 
estate tax relief for family farmers and small business owners. Such 
cuts would be fair and targeted to help all Vermonters.
  In 1993, Congress and President Clinton charted a course of fiscal 
discipline and the country has reaped the benefits of this successful 
plan. Republicans and Democrats can rightfully claim their shares of 
the credit for getting the nation's fiscal house in order. The 
important thing now is to keep our budget in balance, to pay down our 
debt, and to keep our economy growing. The amendment that I have 
offered with Senator Kohl will help us to reach these goals by ensuring 
that additional surpluses are used to pay down our national debt. I 
urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with the full understanding that the 
Senator from New Mexico is taking this amendment-laden resolution to 
conference and that it may come back much skinnier and thinner, I agree 
to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2941) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. The next amendment is offered by Senator Reed from Rhode 
Island, No. 3037.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have Senator Fitzgerald.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 2961

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Social Security 
         trust funds should be protected through sequestration)

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 2961 at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Fitzgerald], for himself, 
     Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Grams, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2961.

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
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.   . PROTECT THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that the Congress shall pass legislation 
     which provides for sequestration to reduce federal spending 
     by the amount necessary to ensure that, in any fiscal year, 
     the Social Security surpluses are used only for the payment 
     of Social Security benefits, retirement security, social 
     security reform, or to reduce the Federal debt held by the 
     public.

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment which provides that in the event it is determined we have 
spent any of the Social Security trust fund moneys on any other 
program, we will provide for a sequestration law that will cause 
across-the-board cuts to ensure that we are not dipping into Social 
Security for any other purpose.
  There are 25 cosponsors of this amendment. In my judgment, it is a 
more effective way than any of the other ways we have talked about, 
with points of order and the like, to assure that Congress and 
Washington are not plundering the Nation's Social Security trust fund.
  Congress has passed laws that prohibit private employers from dipping 
into their employees' pension funds. We even passed laws that prohibit 
State and local governments from dipping into their employees' pension 
funds for any other purpose. Yet we have no law on the books that 
ensures we will not spend Social Security money on other programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not believe the other side has any 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2961) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3037

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should grant 
  the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco 
                               products)

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3037.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Durbin, Mr. L. 
     Chafee, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Murray, 
     Mr. Graham, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3037.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REGULATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Cigarette smoking and tobacco use is the single most 
     preventable cause of death and disability in the United 
     States.
       (2) Cigarette smoking and tobacco use cause approximately 
     400,000 deaths each year in the United States.
       (3) Health care costs associated with treating tobacco-
     related diseases are $80,000,000,000 per year, and almost 
     half of such costs are paid for by taxpayer-financed 
     government health care programs.
       (4) In spite of the well established dangers of cigarette 
     smoking and tobacco use, there is no Federal agency that has 
     authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, distribution, 
     and use of tobacco products.
       (5) Major tobacco companies spend over $5,600,000,000 each 
     year ($15,000,000 each day) to promote the use of tobacco 
     products.
       (6) Ninety percent of adult smokers first started smoking 
     before the age of 18.
       (7) Each day 3,000 children become regular smokers and \1/
     3\ of such children will die of diseases associated with the 
     use of tobacco products.
       (8) The Food and Drug Administration regulates the 
     manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of nicotine-
     containing products used as substitutes for cigarette smoking 
     and tobacco use and should be granted the authority to 
     regulate tobacco products.
       (9) Congress should restrict youth access to tobacco 
     products and ensure that tobacco products meet minimum safety 
     standards.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that--

[[Page S2411]]

       (1) the Food and Drug Administration is the most qualified 
     Federal agency to regulate tobacco products; and
       (2) Congress should enact legislation in the year 2000 that 
     grants the Food and Drug Administration the authority to 
     regulate tobacco products.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by my 
colleague, Senator Bingaman, and others. It expresses the sense of the 
Senate that Congress enact legislation this year that grants the Food 
and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. This 
amendment does not specify what form of regulation will be adopted, but 
it authorizes the FDA to adopt a legislative scheme to regulate tobacco 
products.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added to the 
amendment as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, with the recent Supreme Court decision, it 
is imperative Congress act, and it is imperative it act this year to 
ensure we can properly regulate tobacco products in society. I urge 
adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been worked 
out with Members on our side who have a genuine interest. We have no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3037) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2997

 (Purpose: Redirect tax cuts to the program for disadvantaged children 
in order to meet the bipartisan commitment to increase Title I funding 
                            to $15 billion)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2997.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BINGAMAN] for himself, Mr. 
     Dodd, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 2997.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $5,680,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $6,960,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $5,680,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $6,960,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $5,680,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $6,960,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $5,680,000,000.
       On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $6,960,000,000.
       On page 18, line 19, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $7,100,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $27,200,000,000.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, disadvantaged communities need more help 
to ensure that all public schools give children a good education. 
Increased funding for Title I sends a strong signal that we will 
increase support for low-achieving children attending schools with high 
concentrations of poor students.
  Nationwide, Title I reaches more than 50,000 schools in over 13,000 
school districts. It serves over 11 million students. Approximately 99% 
of Title I dollars go to local school districts. In addition, Title I 
is much more targeted to high-poverty districts than state and local 
funds.
  Title I is working effectively in schools. It has contributed to the 
rapid development of challenging state standards that apply to all 
students in Title I schools. Teachers are using these standards to 
guide instruction. States that have implemented high standards and 
assessments consistent with Title I show increased achievement levels 
in high-poverty schools. It is clear that Title I is driving higher 
standards in poor districts and schools.
  The National Assessment of Educational Progress has shown significant 
increases in math scores in the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. Reading and 
math performance among nine-year-olds in high-poverty public schools 
and among the lowest-achieving fourth-graders has improved 
significantly.
  The achievement gap between minority students and white students has 
narrowed since 1982, one of the greatest gains in science were made by 
black and Hispanic students.
  Average SAT scores--math and verbal--were higher in 1999 than the 
averages for either 1983 or 1989. These improvements have come at the 
same time that the proportion of test-takers with a native language 
other than English has been increasing (to 8 percent in 1999). Test 
results are continuing a 10-year trend of stable or increasing scores. 
At the same time, record numbers of students are taking the tests.
  More than 80 percent of poor school districts, and almost half of all 
districts nationwide, report that Title I is ``driving standards-based 
reform in the district as a whole.'' In addition, Title I funds, as 
well as all federal education funds, are more targeted to high-poverty 
districts than state and local funds. Title I now supports 95% of the 
highest-poverty schools and is helping these schools to dramatically 
improve student performance.
  In Atlanta, Georgia, Burgess Elementary School is a Title I school 
that serves 430 students. 99% of them are black, and more than 80% are 
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. In 1998, 64% of students 
performed above the national norm in reading, an increase of 35% over 
1995. 72% scored above the national norm in math, an increase of 38% 
over 1995.
  In Baltimore County, Maryland, all but one of the 19 Title I schools 
showed increased student performance between 1993 and 1998. The success 
has come from Title I support for extended year programs, 
implementation of effective programs in reading, and intensive 
professional development for teachers.
  In Boston, the Harriet A. Baldwin School is a Title I program that 
serves 283 students. 93 percent of them are minorities, and 80 percent 
are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. From 1996 to 1998, math 
and reading scores improved substantially, and are currently well above 
the national median and are much higher than district scores.
  In spite of this progress, there is still a substantial achievement 
gap between students in the highest poverty schools and students in 
low-poverty schools. The time is now to build on these successes and 
make them available to more schools in more communities. We should 
increase support for Title I to show the nation that we are committed 
to a level playing field to help all children achieve high standards. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senator Dodd, and Senator Kennedy. What it does is set aside 
in this budget $15 billion in next year's budget funding of title I.
  This is an issue that came up in the authorization committee when we 
were considering the title I reauthorization.

[[Page S2412]]

 Senator Dodd offered an amendment at that time to raise this to $15 
billion. It was unanimously agreed to. Now is the chance for everybody 
to go ahead and vote for the funds to carry out that which all agree 
should be done.
  Senator Dodd would like to speak for a minute. I yield my time to 
him.
  Mr. DODD. I thank our colleague from New Mexico.
  Title I funds go to the poorest students, the poorest school 
districts in the United States. All of us know that in the 21st century 
these children have to be the best prepared generation we have ever 
produced. My hope is to get the resources back to these communities.
  It was unanimously adopted by the Democrats and Republicans in the 
committee. We urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I say to Senators, we have been 
very helpful. But we only have 1 minute on the amendments--not 2, not 
3, not 1 and a half. I ask the Chair to enforce the rule. Everybody is 
playing by the game. There should be no exceptions.
  From our standpoint, we do not want a rollcall vote on this but just 
a voice vote. I oppose it. We do not need it. It is another effort 
trying to raise the expenditure level, reducing the money available for 
the taxpayers. I think we ought to do what we have done to the other 
ones and vote it down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2997.
  The amendment (No. 2997) was rejected.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to express 
my disappointment with the failed vote on my amendment to increase 
funding for the Title I education program for disadvantaged children. 
Disadvantaged communities need more help to ensure that all public 
schools give children a good education. Title I is working in many 
schools across the country. We should help bring success to every 
community. Ninety-nine percent of Title I funds go to local school 
districts and Title I is much more targeted to high poverty districts 
than state and local funds. Yet, current federal resources dedicated to 
the program fall far short of meeting the existing need. Many schools 
that are eligible for the program do not receive funding due to 
insufficient appropriations.
  During the recent debate of the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act in the HELP committee, Senator Dodd offered an 
amendment to authorize an increase in funding for Title I to $15 
billion. The amendment was unanimously adopted. My amendment to the 
budget resolution would ensure that funds will be available to carry 
out this bipartisan goal. It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle blocked passage of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2962

(Purpose: To expand Medicaid and S-CHIP coverage to low-income families 
          by decreasing Republican tax break for the wealthy)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2962.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2962.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 19, line 7, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 8, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 11, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 19, line 12, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 19, line 15, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 19, line 16, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 19, line 19, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 20, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 23, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $11,200,000,000.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in 1997, as a result of a bipartisan 
effort, the Senate and Congress went on record to provide $24 billion, 
over 5 years, in a program called CHIP; that is, to try to provide 
health insurance for poor children. Those are above the Medicaid level. 
We are making progress on that.
  This amendment says we are going to now try to provide the health 
insurance for the parents of those children to try to keep the families 
together. It amounts to $11 billion off the tax break over a 5-year 
period.
  This is a family values issue to try to keep needy families together. 
It permits the States to make the judgment as to how it is going to be 
implemented. Every single State now has a CHIP program. This builds on 
the CHIP program. It is accepted by the States. It is virtually free 
from bureaucracy. It will make a major difference to 7 million parents 
in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is another entitlement, $11.2 
billion added to the CHIPS program. In many States they have not even 
used the money yet for this program. I believe there are numerous 
States that have not been able to cover children with it because it is 
very difficult to locate them and put them under the program.
  I do not believe we ought to be adopting this at this time. We do not 
need it. We have plenty of money in the CHIP program. We are committed 
to continue the funding of the CHIP program.
  With that, I yield back any time I have and move to table the Kennedy 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2962. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.--
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott

[[Page S2413]]


     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennett
     McCain
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a record 44 million Americans were 
uninsured last year, and that shameful number grows relentlessly by a 
million more each year. No man, woman, or child in America should have 
the quality of their health measured by the quantity of their wealth. 
The United States remains isolated as the only industrial nation in the 
world, except South Africa, that doesn't guarantee health insurance to 
its citizens. Our failure to do so is a national disgrace.
  A budget is a statement of principles and priorities. This budget 
states that lavish tax breaks for the wealthy are more important than 
providing families with health insurance. The amendment I am offering 
with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Rockefeller is a significant step 
toward that goal. It reduces the tax breaks for the wealthy by $11 
billion over five years, and the savings are used to provide health 
insurance to the parents of children covered by Medicaid and CHIP. It 
is supported by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
Employees, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health 
Association, the Center on Disability and Health, Families USA, the 
National Association of Community Health Centers, the National 
Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems, the National Council 
of Senior Citizens, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and 
the Service Employees International Union, as well as thirteen other 
organizations. I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  We have budget surpluses as far as the eye can see. We have a strong 
and growing economy. Yet the divide between those who have and those 
who have not is growing at an alarming pace. Millions of Americans are 
left out and left behind under the Republican budget plan. Alarming 
rates of hunger, homelessness and lack of health care are indicators 
that our economy is healthy, but our society is not. If we can't take 
steps to address these challenges now, when will we ever do it?
  Our colleagues argue that their budget accommodates some so-called 
``health'' tax breaks. But the health-oriented tax proposals in the 
Republican budget are a raw deal for the American people. These 
proposals do very little to expand coverage among the uninsured. 
Instead, they propose to squander tens of billions of dollars on 
proposals that would largely give new subsidies to those who already 
have insurance.
  I am all in favor of making insurance more affordable. After all, 
unfair rating practices and price gouging by insurance companies is 
part of the problem. However, the Republican tax subsidies are not 
targeted to those without health insurance, and they are too low to be 
of any real assistance to the millions of uninsured Americans who are 
uninsured because they can't afford the high cost of adequate coverage.
  An overwhelming majority of the uninsured are working men or women, 
or family members of workers. Of these workers, the vast majority are 
members of families with at least one person working full-time.
  Most uninsured workers are uninsured because their employer either 
does not offer coverage, or because they are not eligible for the 
coverage if it is offered. Seventy percent of uninsured workers are in 
firms where no coverage is offered. Eighteen percent are in firms that 
offer coverage, but they are not eligible for it, usually because they 
are part-time workers or have not worked in the firm long enough to 
qualify for coverage. Only 12 percent of uninsured workers are offered 
coverage and decline.
  Most of the uninsured have low or moderate incomes. Thirty-seven 
percent are at or below the federal poverty level. Twenty-eight percent 
have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. Fifteen percent 
have incomes between 200 and 300 percent of poverty. Only one in five 
have incomes above 300 percent of poverty.
  While good coverage for all Americans may not be feasible at this 
time, we can and must do more to close the current health insurance 
gap.
  It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the 
seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today. 
Numerous studies indicate that lack of insurance leads to second-class 
health care or no health care at all. Those without insurance are less 
likely to get the care they need to stay healthy and productive. A 
recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association found 
that angina patients with insurance are more than twice as likely as 
uninsured patients to receive needed bypass surgery. Across the nation, 
more than 32,000 patients are going without needed heart surgery 
because of their lack of insurance.
  The numbers are equally dramatic when it comes to cancer. Early 
detection and treatment of cancer often makes the difference between 
life and death. Uninsured patients are two and a half times more likely 
not to receive an early diagnosis of melanoma and one and a half times 
more likely not to benefit from early detection of breast cancer, 
prostate cancer, or colon cancer. Tragically, the new and promising 
treatments resulting from our national investment in the NIH are out of 
reach for millions of uninsured Americans.
  In 1997, we took a major step toward guaranteeing health insurance to 
millions of children in low-income working families whose earnings are 
above the cut-off for Medicaid. Every state is now participating in the 
children's health insurance plan, and most states have plans to 
increase coverage under these programs again this year.
  As of January, two million children had been enrolled in the program, 
and many other children had signed up for Medicaid as a result of the 
outreach efforts. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured 
children in the nation will be eligible for assistance through either 
CHIP or Medicaid.
  An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association found 
that 57 percent of uninsured children had an unmet major medical need 
before enactment of CHIP. But just one year after receiving coverage, 
only 16 percent of these same children had an unmet medical need.
  The lesson is clear. We have the resources. We have good programs. We 
must do all we can to increase their effectiveness.
  Clearly, the states and the federal government have more to do. Fewer 
than a quarter of post-welfare jobs offer health insurance as a 
benefit--and even when it is offered, too few companies make it 
available for dependents.
  The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are 
struggling to support their families. Too often, there is too little 
left to pay for health care. Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks a year, should be eligible for assistance to buy the health 
insurance they need to protect their families. Our message to them 
today is that help with health care is on the way.
  Currently, Medicaid is generally available only to single-parent 
families. Our proposal repeals this ``health marriage tax,'' a serious 
penalty for low-wage two-parent families, comparable to the ``marriage 
penalty'' in the tax code.
  This proposal also rewards work. Most parents in families with an 
employed person are not eligible for Medicaid, while families headed by 
non-workers are eligible if their income is low enough.
  Coverage for parents also means that coverage for their children is 
more likely too. Parents are much more

[[Page S2414]]

likely to enroll their children in health insurance programs, if the 
parents themselves can obtain coverage.
  This step alone will give up to six and a half million more Americans 
the coverage they need and deserve. Our goal should be to enact this 
coverage before the end of this year. Our amendment lays the ground 
work for this coverage by including this important idea in the Budget 
Resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                    April 6, 2000.
     Sen. Edward Kennedy,
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Health 
         Office, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The undersigned organizations support 
     your efforts to reduce the size of the tax cut in order to 
     provide funds for health coverage for low-wage working 
     families.
       Now that states are implementing the State Child Health 
     Insurance Program, we are faced with the glaring problem of 
     these children's parents going without health coverage. The 
     numbers of uninsured Americans continue to grow; yet in 32 
     states, a parent working full-time at the minimum wage is 
     considered too well off to qualify for Medicaid.
       In addition, low-wage working parents are less likely to be 
     offered health benefits than higher-wage workers. Of 
     employees earning $15 or more per hour, 93 percent are 
     offered health benefits by their employer; by contrast, only 
     43 percent of employees earning $7 or less per hour are 
     offered such coverage. Even when low-wage workers are offered 
     coverage, the required average contribution--$130 a month--is 
     considerably higher than the $94 a month the average higher-
     wage worker is required to contribute.
       Your amendment will help millions of low-wage families gain 
     access to health coverage that is currently out of their 
     reach. We commend your efforts to help America's uninsured 
     families.
           Sincerely,
         AIDS Action; Alpha 1; American Association on Mental 
           Retardation; American Federation of State, County and 
           Municipal Employees; American Nurses Association; 
           American Public Health Association; Association of 
           Jewish Aging Services; Bazelon Center for Mental Health 
           Law; Brain Injury Association; Center on Disability and 
           Health; Families USA; National Association of Community 
           Health Centers; National Association of People with 
           AIDS.
         National Association of Public Hosptials & Health 
           Systems; National Association of Social Workers; 
           National Council of Senior Citizens; National Hispanic 
           Council on Aging; National Partnership for Women & 
           Families; Neighbor to Neighbor; NETWORK A Catholic 
           Social Justice Lobby; Paralyzed Veterans of America; 
           Public Citizen's Congress Watch; Service Employees 
           International Union.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2942. 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 Utah (Mr. Bennett) and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennett
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 2962) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2911

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding after school 
                               programs)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next amendment in order is the Boxer 
amendment No. 2911.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2911.
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The demand for after school education is very high, 
     with more than 1,000,000 students waiting to get into such 
     programs.
       (2) After school programs improve educational achievement 
     and have widespread support, with over 90 percent of the 
     American people supporting such programs.
       (3) 450 of the Nation's leading police chiefs, sheriffs, 
     and prosecutors, along with the presidents of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, and the International Union of Police 
     Associations, support government funding of after school 
     programs.
       (4) Many of our Nation's governors endorse increasing the 
     number of after school programs through a Federal and State 
     partnership.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this resolution assumes that the President's level of 
     funding for after school programs in fiscal year 2001 will be 
     provided, which will accommodate the current need for after 
     school programs.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this Senate should be very proud because 
in the last few years with our action and that of the administration, 
we have accommodated a million kids into afterschool programs. That is 
the good news.
  The bad news is that 1 million kids are waiting in line. This sense 
of the Senate simply says we should take action to accommodate those 
next million children.
  I understand we are going to have this accepted. I am very pleased 
about that.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to this. This will be a voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2911) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3073, as Modified

  (Purpose: Sense of the Senate regarding protection of workers whose 
            employers convert to cash balance pension plans)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next amendment in order is Senator 
Harkin's amendment No. 3073.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, and Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3073, as modified.

  Mr. REID. 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, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN 
                   CONVERSIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Defined benefit pension plans are guaranteed by the 
     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and provide a lifetime 
     benefit for a beneficiary and spouse.
       (2) Defined benefit pension plans provide meaningful 
     retirement benefits to rank and file workers, since such 
     plans are generally funded by employer contributions.
       (3) Employers should be encouraged to establish and 
     maintain defined benefit pension plans.

[[Page S2415]]

       (4) An increasing number of major employers have been 
     converting their traditional defined benefit plans to ``cash 
     balance'' or other hybrid defined benefit plans.
       (5) Under current law, employers are not required to 
     provide plan participants with meaningful disclosure of the 
     impact of converting a traditional defined benefit plan to a 
     ``cash balance'' or other hybrid formula.
       (6) For a number of years after a conversion, the cash 
     balance or other hybrid benefit formula may result in a 
     period of ``wear away'' during which older and longer service 
     participants earn no additional benefits.
       (7) Federal law should continue to prohibit pension plan 
     participants from being discriminated against on the basis of 
     age in the provision of pension benefits.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that pension plan 
     participants whose plans are changed to cause older or longer 
     service workers to earn less retirement income, including 
     conversions to ``cash balance plans,'' should receive 
     additional protection than what is currently provided, and 
     Congress should act this year to address this important 
     issue. In particular, at a minimum--
       (1) all pension plan participants should receive adequate, 
     accurate, and timely notice of any change to a plan that will 
     cause participants to earn less retirement income in the 
     future; and
       (2) pension plans that are changed to a cash balance or 
     other hybrid formula should not be permitted to ``wear away'' 
     participants' benefits in such a manner that older and longer 
     service participants earn no additional pension benefits for 
     a period of time after the change.

  Mr. HARKIN. This has to do with pension plans. All too often when the 
pension plans are changed, older workers who have been there a long 
time see nothing added to their pensions; younger workers see their 
pensions grow. This is age discrimination.
  This puts the Senate on record saying we need to change the law so 
workers receive adequate notice of their pension plan changes and 
eliminate the so-called ``wear away'' where older workers get nothing 
added to their pension plans for years.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Jeffords.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, when a pension plan is converted, long-
time loyal employees should not see their normal retirement benefits 
frozen. I believe ``wear away'' is wrong and Congress should act this 
year.
  I hope the majority of my colleagues will join.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment, and I yield back 
the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3073), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bond wants to speak on one of his amendments 
for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3018

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Federal investment in 
programs which provide health care services to uninsured and low-income 
  individuals in medically underserved areas be increased in order to 
              double access to care over the next 5 years)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to call to the attention of all 
colleagues that amendment No. 3018 is a REACH amendment. It is designed 
to put us on record as doubling the funding for community health 
centers over 5 years. These are the health facilities that reach the 
most poor and most needy. It is a bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by 
Senator Hollings. I know it is cleared on both sides. I ask it be 
approved by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mr. 
     Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
     Breaux, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Lincoln, 
     Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Bingaman, 
     Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kohl, and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3018.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the reading of the amendment 
is waived.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING UNINSURED AND LOW-
                   INCOME INDIVIDUALS IN MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED 
                   COMMUNITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the uninsured population in the United States continues 
     to grow at over 100,000 individuals per month, and is 
     estimated to reach over 53,000,000 people by 2007;
       (2) the growth in the uninsured population continues 
     despite public and private efforts to increase health 
     insurance coverage;
       (3) nearly 80 percent of the uninsured population are 
     members of working families who cannot afford health 
     insurance or cannot access employer-provided health insurance 
     plans;
       (4) minority populations, rural residents, and single-
     parent families represent a disproportionate number of the 
     uninsured population;
       (5) the problem of health care access for the uninsured 
     population is compounded in many urban and rural communities 
     by a lack of providers who are available to serve both 
     insured and uninsured populations;
       (6) community, migrant, homeless, and public housing health 
     centers have proven uniquely qualified to address the lack of 
     adequate health care services for uninsured populations, 
     serving over 4,500,000 uninsured patients in 1999, including 
     over 1,000,000 new uninsured patients who have sought care 
     from such centers in the last 3 years;
       (7) health centers care for nearly 7,000,000 minorities, 
     nearly 600,000 farmworkers, and more than 500,000 homeless 
     individuals each year;
       (8) health centers provide cost-effective comprehensive 
     primary and preventive care to uninsured individuals for less 
     than $1.00 per day, or $350 annually, and help to reduce the 
     inappropriate use of costly emergency rooms and inpatient 
     hospital care;
       (9) current resources only allow health centers to serve 10 
     percent of the Nation's 44,000,000 uninsured individuals;
       (10) past investments to increase health center access have 
     resulted in better health, an improved quality of life for 
     all Americans, and a reduction in national health care 
     expenditures; and
       (11) Congress can act now to increase access to health care 
     services for uninsured and low-income people together with or 
     in advance of health care coverage proposals by expanding the 
     availability of services at community, migrant, homeless, and 
     public housing health centers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this resolution on the 
     budget assume that--
       (1) appropriations for consolidated health centers under 
     section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b) 
     should be increased by 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal 
     years in order to double the number of individuals who 
     receive health care services at community, migrant, homeless, 
     and public housing health centers; and
       (2) appropriations for consolidated health centers should 
     be increased by $150,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 over the 
     amount appropriated for such centers in fiscal year 2000.

  Mr. BOND. I rise today to offer an amendment that addresses what is 
perhaps the biggest problem we face in health care--the fact that 
millions of Americans can't get health care when they need it.
  Part of this problem is cause by the fact that about 44 million 
Americans aren't covered by any type of health plan or health 
insurance. For obvious reasons, it can be difficult to get care if you 
don't have any insurance coverage.
  An equally serious part of the access problem is many people's simple 
inability to get in to see a health care provider. Even if they have 
insurance, a young couple with a sick child is out of luck if they 
can't get in to see a pediatrician. And in too many urban and rural 
communities across the country, there just aren't enough doctors to go 
around.
  This while issue is a hot topic, and there have been a number of 
recent plans that address it. Some have made proposals that call for 
something close to a large, government takeover of our health care 
system--something that we soundly rejected in 1994. Others have 
proposed tax credits or other tax benefits to allow more people to buy 
into the existing market-based health care system.
  There are clearly many differences between all of these plans, but 
they all have one thing in common--it will be difficult or impossible 
for them to become law this year. Whether because of policy differences 
or political differences, they're just not likely to pass.
  So today I'm offering an amendment with strong bipartisan support--
based on what I call the REACH Initiative--

[[Page S2416]]

that begins to address the health care access problem, and which does 
have a chance to pass this year. There's no need to wait--we can start 
this year.
  This proposal builds on the crucial work that organizations known as 
community health centers do to provide care and ensure access for 
millions of Americans.
  Heath centers are private, nonprofit clinics that provide primary 
care and preventive health care services in medically underserved 
communities across the country. They exist in every State in hundreds 
of rural and urban communities. Overall, there are about 750 separate 
centers with more than 3,000 clinics nationwide. This year, health 
centers will provide basic care for about 11 million people every year, 
4 million of whom are uninsured.
  The goal of this amendment and of the REACH Initiative is simple--to 
make sure that even more people have access to health care. We do this 
by calling for a doubling in funding for community health centers over 
a period of 5 years, including a 1-year increase of $150 million.
  This will ultimately allow up to 10 million more women, children, and 
others in need to receive care at health centers. If we are successful, 
we can practically double the number of uninsured and underinsured 
people that health centers care for.
  I am pleased that 15 other Senators have joined me as cosponsors of 
the REACH Initiative--the full 5-year plan. And I am ecstatic that 63 
of my colleagues have agreed to join in a letter to support the $150 
million increase in this coming year.
  Now, out of all the ways we can address health care access problems, 
why are health centers a good solution and a worthwhile target for 
additional funding?
  Building on an existing program that produces results. Too many 
health care proposals out there suggest huge--even revolutionary--
changes to our health system. While I realize that we have many 
problems, we must realize that many people are pleased with it despite 
the flaws. Instead of radical new proposals, I believe it make sense to 
build on an existing part of the system that's been proven to provide 
cost-effective, high-quality care.
  Health centers already play an essential role. It's amazing to me how 
few people realize just how important community health centers are in 
our existing health system. Think about this--health centers provide 
care to close to one out of every 20 Americans--11 million people 
overall. In addition, health centers provide care to one out of every 
12 rural residents, one out of every 6 low-income  children, and one of 
every 5 babies born to low-income families.

  Health centers truly target the health care access problem. By 
definition, health centers must be located in ``medically underserved'' 
communities--which simply means places where people have serious 
problems getting access to health care. So health centers attack the 
problem right at its source.
  Relatively cheap. Health centers can provide primary and preventive 
care for less than $1 dollar per person per day--about $350 per year. 
Even better, with the base federal grants, health centers are able to 
leverage additional private funding. This means that health centers can 
basically turn one federal dollar into several--all of which can be 
used to address the health care needs in these underserved communities. 
With an extra billion dollars a year--the goal of the REACH Initiative 
in its fifth year--health centers could be caring for an additional 10 
million people.
  Not a government takeover of health care. While this amendment and 
the REACH Initiative call for some additional government spending, this 
is NOT a government takeover. Out of all the plans to address the 
health insurance and health access problem, the REACH Initiative is by 
far the least costly. Unlike many of the other plans, this new funding 
would not go to create a huge new bureaucracy. Instead, the REACH 
Initiative would invest additional funds into private organizations 
that have consistently proven themselves to be efficient, high-quality, 
and cost-effective health care providers.
  To me, all of these reasons point to one logical conclusion--a need 
for drastically increased funding for health centers. Health centers 
are already helping millions of Americans get health care. But they can 
still help millions more--pregnant women, children, and anyone else who 
desperately needs care.
  Simply put, we need to take the goal of this amendment and of the 
REACH Initiative--doubled funding for health centers within 5 years--
and make it happen.
  I thank my colleagues who have taken a leadership role in support of 
this issue--Senator Hollings; Senator Hutchinson; and Senator Stevens, 
who I am very pleased has joined as a cosponsor of this amendment. I 
join with these powerful voices and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I introduced an amendment earlier this 
week which calls for a doubling of funding for community health centers 
over the next 5 years, and I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator 
Bond and Hollings, in a similar amendment, which I hope will pass the 
Senate unanimously.
  In my home State of Arkansas, Community Health Centers serve rural, 
low-income areas where access to primary health care is limited, if 
even existent. They serve anyone who walks through their door, whether 
they have money or not, or whether they have insurance or not.
  Back when there was a great ice storm in Arkansas, a 75-year-old farm 
laborer came into the community health center in Portland, AR, 
complaining of terrible tiredness.
  Upon examination and an electrocardiogram, it was found that he was 
in severe heart failure. His heart rate was so slow, it could barely be 
detected.
  With no money and no transportation, he had walked to the clinic. The 
clinic staff immediately got to work and gave him medication and 
arranged for ambulance transfer to a larger hospital in Little Rock.
  With ice forming, ambulances were hesitant to go, but one finally 
agreed. He and his wife were transferred and he arrived in time for 
live-saving surgery.
  In Dermott AR, a 2-year-old child was rushed into the Mainline Health 
Clinic with convulsions. A blood test was performed and he was 
diagnosed with meningitis, which is normally fatal for such a young 
child. Life-saving medication was given, and he was transferred to 
Arkansas Children's Hospital for intensive treatment.
  If it were not for these community health centers, both the farmer 
and this little child would be dead.
  Community health centers serve where no other medical professionals 
usually want to go and they are often the difference between life and 
death. They are the front line in rural America and their mission must 
be supported by Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I ask my colleagues to adopt this on a voice vote.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3018) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.


                    Amendment No. 3049, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask amendment 3049, of Senator DeWine, 
be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. DeWine, 
     for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, 
     and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 3049, as 
     modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S2417]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING FOR THE UNITED STATES COAST 
                   GUARD.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 saved 
     approximately 3,800 lives in providing the essential service 
     of maritime safety.
       (2) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 prevented 111,689 
     pounds of cocaine and 28,872 pounds of marijuana from 
     entering the United States in providing the essential service 
     of maritime security.
       (3) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 boarded more than 
     14,000 fishing vessels to check for compliance with safety 
     and environmental laws in providing the essential service of 
     the protection of natural resources.
       (4) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 ensured the safe 
     passage of nearly 1,000,000 commercial vessel transits 
     through congested harbors with vessel traffic services in 
     providing the essential service of maritime mobility.
       (5) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 sent 
     international training teams to help more than 50 countries 
     develop their maritime services in providing the essential 
     service national defense.
       (6) Each year, the United States Coast Guard ensures the 
     safe passage of more than 200,000,000 tons of cargo cross the 
     Great Lakes including iron ore, coal, and limestone. Shipping 
     on the Great Lakes faces a unique challenge because the 
     shipping season begins and ends in ice anywhere from 3 to 15 
     feet thick. The ice-breaking vessel MACKINAW has allowed 
     commerce to continue under these conditions. However, the 
     productive life of the MACKINAW is nearing an end. The Coast 
     Guard has committed to keeping the vessel in service until 
     2006 when a replacement vessel is projected to be in service, 
     but to meet that deadline, funds must be provided for the 
     Coast Guard in fiscal year 2001 to provide for the 
     procurement of a multipurpose-design heavy icebreaker.
       (7) Without adequate funding, the United States Coast Guard 
     would have to radically reduce the level of service it 
     provides to the American public.
       (b) Adjustment in Budget Levels.--
       (1) Increase in funding for transportation.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the 
     amounts specified in section 103(8) of this resolution for 
     budget authority and outlays for Transportation (budget 
     function 400) for fiscal year 2001 shall be increased as 
     follows:
       (A) The amount of budget authority for that fiscal year, by 
     $300,000,000.
       (B) The amount of outlays for that fiscal year, by 
     $300,000,000.
       (2) Offsetting decrease in funding for allowances.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the 
     amounts specified in section 103(19) of this resolution for 
     budget authority and outlays for Allowances (budget function 
     920) for fiscal year 2001 shall be decreased as follows:
       (A) The amount of budget authority for that fiscal year, by 
     $300,000,000.
       (B) The amount of outlays for that fiscal year, by 
     $300,000,000.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the provisions of this resolution, as modified by 
     subsection (b), should provide additional budget authority 
     and outlay authority for the United States Coast Guard for 
     fiscal year 2001 such that the amount of such authority in 
     fiscal year 2001 exceeds the amount of such authority for 
     fiscal year 2000 by $300,000,000; and
       (2) any level of such authority in fiscal year 2001 below 
     the level described in paragraph (1) would require the Coast 
     Guard to--
       (A) close numerous stations and utilize remaining assets 
     only for emergency situations;
       (B) reduce the number of personnel of an already 
     streamlined workforce;
       (C) curtail its capacity to carry out emergency search and 
     rescue; and
       (D) reduce operations in a manner that would have a 
     detrimental impact on the sustainability of valuable fish 
     stocks in the North Atlantic and Pacific Northwest and its 
     capacity to stem the flow of illicit drugs and illegal 
     immigration into the United States.

  Mr. KENNEDY. This year, the nation has set a new record for 
elementary and secondary student enrollment. The figure has reached an 
all-time high of 53 million students--500,000 more students than last 
year.
  Serious teacher shortages are being caused by this rising student 
enrollment. The nation's public schools will need to hire 2.2 million 
teachers over the next ten years just to maintain current student 
teacher ratios which are already viewed as too high. The teacher 
shortage is being worsened by the growing number of teacher 
retirements, and by the fact that too many new teachers leave within 
the first three years of teaching, including 30-50% of teachers in 
urban areas.
  The Troops to Teachers program was established in 1993 by Congress to 
encourage military personnel who leave the service to become public 
school teachers. Since its inception, over 3,000 service men and women 
have made the transition under this program, filling teaching positions 
in 48 states. This highly successful program is providing teachers in 
areas where educators face the greatest shortages.
  The program has worked and has been highly successful in recruiting 
and retaining high quality teachers, especially in high-need subject 
areas and disadvantaged neighborhoods. Studies show that these service 
men and women who become teachers are likely to fill the most urgent 
current needs:

       --29% of them are math teachers, compared to 13% of all 
     public school teachers.
       --29% of them are minorities, compared to 10% of all public 
     school teachers.
       --The overwhelming majority--90%--are male, compared to 23% 
     of all public school teachers.
       --24% of them are teaching in inner-city schools, compared 
     to 16% of all public school teachers.

  They are also highly committed, with very high retention rates. 82% 
of them continue in teaching beyond the first year.
  Troops to Teachers is a program that works. California has hired 
nearly 300 teachers through the program, including a former Navy pilot 
who used to hunt submarines, but now faces almost two dozen 
kindergarten students. He says, ``It doesn't pay as much, but the job 
satisfaction is incredible.''
  Florida hired more than 200 teachers through the program, including a 
former Navy instructor who now teaches honors algebra to high school 
students. The students say, ``He gets all excited about this stuff. He 
definitely knows what he's talking about.'' Though the teacher had to 
take a pay cut, he said, ``I enjoy the kids, and I enjoy the school.''
  We need to do much more to help communities recruit qualified 
teachers, but Troops to Teachers is a strong step in the right 
direction.
  Senator DeWine's Sense of the Senate Amendment makes the 
authorization and funding of the successful Troops to Teachers program 
within the Department of Education a priority, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, this is for Senator 
DeWine and others, including Democrats. We are willing to accept it. 
The Democrats are willing to accept it.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3049), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say to all Senators, we only have one rollcall 
vote left. That will be final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am not sure Senators can hear you. The Chair 
is to get order. We have welcome news from the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we only have one vote remaining. It is 
on final passage. But we have about 50 sense of the Senates that we 
have agreed on, on both sides. We will just offer those rather quickly 
here and then go to final passage. But we are being asked, and 
appropriately so, by a Senator, that we read off the Senators and the 
subject matter. We did not have that all prepared in that manner, but 
we are working on it now. It should not take us very long. We will do 
our very best. Both sides are working on it, not just one.
  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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order that the following amendments be made the pending business, that 
they be agreed to en bloc, and that the motion to table and motion to 
reconsider be agreed to en bloc, and that any statements be printed in 
the Record.
  Now, let me list what is in this, so Senator Byrd and others will 
know.
  First, what you have to know is these are all sense-of-the-Senate 
amendments. We have worked them out so they are acceptable in the 
manner I have just described. We will not have

[[Page S2418]]

to vote on them. They will go to conference along with the other sense-
of-the-Senate amendments that we had. I am going to start by just using 
the Senators' names.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. May we have order 
please.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will state the Senator's name and the 
general nature of the amendment: Senator Lincoln, a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment on flood control; Senator Bayh, human genome; Senator Reid, 
women's health; Senator Reid, notch babies; Senator Reid, computers; 
Senator Kennedy, civilian/military research; Senator Dorgan, rural 
providers; Senator Dorgan, empowerment zones; Senator Dorgan, trade; 
Senator Bayh, fatherhood; Senator Landrieu; children; Senator Landrieu, 
military procurement; Senator Landrieu, thrift savings plan--military; 
Senator Cleland, Centers for Disease Control; Senator Cleland, long-
term health; Senator Feinstein, environmental cleanup; Senator 
Lieberman, asset building; Senator Kohl, Medicare equity; Senator 
Lautenberg, Amtrak; Senator Bingaman, veterans' benefits; Senator 
Murray, customs; Senator Bond, medically underserved; Senator Abraham, 
as modified, Medicare choice; Senator Bunning, mining; Senator Collins, 
hunger relief; Senator Collins, excess gas revenues; Senator Collins, 
home health; Senator Coverdell, flood control; Senator DeWine, troops 
to teachers; Senator Fitzgerald, trust fund commission; Senator 
Fitzgerald, child safety seats; Senator Grassley, World Trade 
Organization; Senator Grassley, long-term care; Senator Grassley, child 
welfare; Senator Gregg, Social Security education; Senator Jeffords, 
LIHEAP; Senator Kyl, estate taxes; Senator Santorum, farmland; Senator 
Shelby, as modified, defense; Senator Smith of Oregon, fiber optics; 
Senator L. Chafee, breast and cervical cancer; Senator Burns, taxes; 
Senator Kyl, Medicare choice; Senator Grams, Social Security; Senator 
Inhofe, impact aid; Senator Hutchison, oil; Senator Enzi, as modified, 
home office; Senator Enzi, as modified, prevention health. We add 
Senator Hatch, No. 3022, sense-of-the-Senate on Internet drugs, and No. 
3023 on methamphetamines.
  That is it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be sent to the desk. The 
Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
which has been cleared, No. 3014, that somehow was dropped from the 
list. Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Hutchinson had No. 2918, high-intensity drugs.
  Now we have a question from the distinguished Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. A sense-of-the-Senate amendment No. 3014. My 
understanding is it has been cleared and inadvertently dropped.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator remember what it is about?
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is firefighters.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has that been accepted on the Senator's side? It is all 
right with us. We will add it to the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be added to the 
list.
  What is the request of the Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I asked unanimous consent, as I stated originally, that 
all of these amendments I have listed and explained be in order; that 
they be made the pending business; that they be agreed to, en bloc; 
that the motion to table and the motions to reconsider be agreed to, en 
bloc; and that any statements be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we are seeing 
bad, bad go to worse. There are many things that can  be said about the 
way this Senate is operating with respect to budget resolutions. Vote-
arama is bad enough, but now to ask the Senate to take all of these 
amendments in bloc is just asking too much. I do not say this 
critically of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. He has a tough 
assignment, and he does it well. He is trying to accommodate a lot of 
Senators here. I would personally be willing to take him at his word. 
But this is no way to legislate.

  I will not be a part of gang rape of the legislative process. That is 
what this has become. If we are going to do all these amendments--I did 
not count them; I do not know how many amendments there may be here--
but if we are going to do all of these just by voice vote, pig in a 
poke, just so we can get out--and I want to get out, too--then why 
shouldn't we have done it at the start of the process? Why have we gone 
through all this rigamarole voting on these matters? If we come to the 
end and we still have two-thirds of the amendments left undone, and we 
are just going to say: OK, let's go home; we will accept them all, 
sight unseen, and let them go to conference--I am not going to be a 
part of that, Mr. President. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from West 
Virginia, we have worked now for 4 days on this resolution, and we have 
worked our way through what we thought were the difficult amendments 
that required votes. Staff has been working for several days on 
amendments that have been cleared on both sides.
  I respectfully suggest to my distinguished leader, this happens on 
every piece of legislation, where staff gets together, subject to the 
matters of the bill, and approves legislation by unanimous consent. 
That is what we did here.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been in this Senate now going on 42 
years. I know what is going on. We have time. We could come back next 
week and vote on these amendments. The Senators who have offered the 
amendments are entitled to a vote on each amendment. They are entitled 
to have some debate. Those of us who do not know what are in the 
amendments are entitled to know what they are about, and we are also 
entitled to a vote on the amendments if we so desire. I have already 
objected.
  We can stay here this evening. We can come back tomorrow. We can come 
back Monday and finish voting on the amendments. We do not have to 
legislate in this fashion. I am just not going to be a part of it. I 
may earn the enmity of every Senator in this body, but I am keeping a 
good relationship with my own conscience on this. We are seeing the 
legislative process go downhill in this Senate.
  More and more, this Senate is becoming like the other body. I am not 
for that. And if I have to stand alone, I will stand alone. I have no 
problems with that. I object.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold the 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Byrd, first, I 
appreciate the kind remarks he made about the Senator from New Mexico, 
but on a budget resolution, we are dealt what we are dealt. It just 
happens that a Parliamentarian had ruled that all these sense-of-the-
Senate amendments are in order on a budget resolution. The Senator from 
West Virginia knows as well as I know that many of them are not going 
to do anything, but if a Senator wants to offer them, not as 
legislation or law--they will not be that, no matter what we do; even 
if we kept every one in conference, they would not be law.
  We have worked our best to let every Senator who had an amendment who 
wanted a vote--the Senator raised the issue of why don't we vote on 
these. I make the point that every Senator who had an amendment and 
wanted a vote got a vote.
  I do not think you had any of the sense of the Senates here, but 
every Senator whose amendment I read agreed that they did not need a 
rollcall vote. It is not like they want a vote. They do not want a 
vote. They want to do it this way.
  Mr. BYRD. I did not say they wanted a vote. I said every Senator has 
a right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You said they should be entitled to.
  Mr. BYRD. Every Senator has a right to vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You say they have a right. They do not want to exercise 
that right. They want to do it this way.
  Frankly, we can stop and the leaders can decide where we go next. But 
these sense-of-the-Senate amendments that we are adopting here should 
not really hold up the budget because they do not affect the budget. 
They are sense of the Senates that have to do with how we

[[Page S2419]]

feel about things and what we want to make people think about the 
Senate with reference to the subject matter of the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions.
  But you have every right, and you exercise it with dignity, although 
for many of us it is a pretty tough pill. Even your dignity makes it a 
tough pill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe it was just a few years ago we had this 
stage of frustration. We were addressing the merits of these nonbinding 
sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I put the matter to a vote. After much 
self-examination, why, the Senate decided not to support my amendment 
to do away with these nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. But 
the debate was rather interesting because it addressed the right of a 
Senator to express himself or herself. Yet the realization that these 
should not be a part of the budget process, I think, was generally 
agreed upon by most Members.
  I leave that for you to ponder because I think it represents a degree 
of frustration here.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I guess I have a question of the manager and maybe a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The question is, Are all of these sense-of-the-Senate amendments; 
every one of them?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, sir.
  Mr. LOTT. I have to agree with what Senator Byrd has said about the 
way we vote on the budget resolution at the end with the vote-arama. 
Although I must say, to everybody's credit, we only had 14 seriatim 
this time.
  The sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are not binding at all. They may 
make a statement that makes you feel good, but many Senators are being 
asked to agree to these en bloc without knowing what the details are.
  So the parliamentary inquiry is, since there has been objection, is 
the status that these, then, are not agreed to, and we are ready to go 
to adoption of the concurrent resolution?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. These amendments have not yet been proposed. 
The agreement was objected to; therefore, they have not been presented 
for formal action.
  Mr. LOTT. So what is the status, Mr. President? Are they all still 
pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are not. The amendments have been 
identified but are not pending before the Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe we are ready to go to the adoption of the 
concurrent resolution, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless they are called up, that is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks an historic point for the 
Senate. Not only did the Federal Government last year experience a 
balanced Federal budget without the use of the Social Security surplus 
for the first time since 1960, but we are now considering a budget 
resolution that will ensure we have a balanced Federal budget without 
the use of the Social Security surplus for three consecutive years--the 
first time this has happened since 1947 to 1949--and that takes us one 
step further on the path to actually eliminating our Nation's publicly-
held debt by the year 2013.
  Needless to say, such a change in the way the Government does 
business is not only a significant step for the Senate and the 
Congress, but a welcome relief to a generation of Americans who have 
become all too accustomed to the terms ``deficit'' and ``debt.''
  Mr. President, in light of the non-Social Security budget surpluses 
we are now enjoying, I thank the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Pete Domenici, for his unwavering commitment to a balanced 
budget and fiscally responsible decision-making over the years. Thanks, 
in part, to his leadership and efforts, the turbulent waves of annual 
deficits and mounting debt have been temporarily calmed. And, if we are 
willing to adhere to these principles in this year's budget resolution 
and others yet to come, we may be able to maintain the current 
budgetary calm for many years in the future.
  The budget resolution reported by the Senate Budget Committee--and 
that we are now considering on the floor--not only maintains fiscal 
discipline, but it also ensures that critical priorities are protected 
and addressed in fiscal year 2001 and beyond.
  Specifically, the Senate budget resolution contains the following key 
provisions:
  First, it protects every penny of the Social Security surplus in 
upcoming years by devoting it solely to reducing publicly-held debt.
  Second, through an amendment I offered in the Budget Committee markup 
with Senator Wyden and Senator Smith (OR), provides a ``down-payment'' 
for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, while ensuring a strong 
impetus for much-needed, comprehensive Medicare reforms.
  Third, it provides a fiscally responsible increase in Federal 
spending, while targeting funds for critically needed priorities 
including education and defense.
  Fourth, it provides tax relief for Americans at a time when the 
typical family's tax burden exceeds the cost of food, clothing, and 
shelter combined. And as a result of another amendment I offered during 
markup, it places tax relief for higher education tuition paid and for 
interest paid on student loans as a top priority in any tax cut package 
that is ultimately crafted. When considering that the cost of college 
has risen twice as fast as inflation and eight times as fast as median 
household incomes over the past 20 years--and students borrowed more 
during the 1990s than during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s combined--I 
can think of no tax cut that would be more appropriate in any upcoming 
tax package.
  Collectively, I believe these principles and priorities reflect those 
of most Americans--especially the protection of Social Security's 
monies. Accordingly, I believe this resolution deserves broad 
bipartisan support in the Senate and, ultimately, by the entire 
Congress.
  To truly appreciate what is contained in this budget resolution, I 
believe it is appropriate to compare it with the only other major 
proposal on the table: the budget proposal put forth by President 
Clinton in early-February.
  Specifically, as we have learned from CBO's analysis of his budget, 
President Clinton has proposed $1.3 trillion in new spending over the 
coming 10 years. This new spending--of which $866 billion would be for 
discretionary spending program--would utilize 70 percent of the 
projected on-budget surpluses over this period of time.
  Furthermore, despite his initial claim of providing working Americans 
with a tax cut of $250 billion over the coming 10 years, we now know 
that the President's budget not only increases taxes by $5 billion in 
FY 2001, but he only cuts taxes by $4 billion over the coming five 
years and $146 billion over 10 years, representing eight percent of the 
projected on-budget surpluses, and the net result is far below his 
original proposal of a $250 billion tax cut!
  In contrast, the Senate budget resolution provides a strong, but 
fiscally-responsible, increase in discretionary spending of $27 billion 
next year--a 4.6 percent increase from the current fiscal year--and 
$125 billion over the coming five years. Furthermore, the resolution 
also provides a tax cut of up to $13 billion in FY 2001 and up to $150 
billion over the coming five years--an amount that ensures for every 
dollar in tax relief, there will be $13 in debt reduction.

  Finally, the Senate resolution contains a provision I authored with 
Senators Wyden and Smith (OR) that will be critical to our efforts to 
move forward on an issue of critical importance to our nation's 
seniors: a reserve fund that will provide up to $40 billion for a new 
Medicare prescription drug benefit. In contrast, the President's budget 
would provide less than $30 billion for such a benefit over the coming 
five years.
  As my colleagues are aware, the need for a new Medicare prescription 
drug benefit could not be more clear. When Medicare was created in 1965 
it followed the private health insurance model of the time--inpatient 
health care. Today, thirty-five years later it is sadly out of date and 
it is time to bring Medicare back to the future by providing our 
seniors with prescription drug coverage.

[[Page S2420]]

  The lack of a prescription drug coverage benefit is the biggest 
hole--a black hole really--in the Medicare system. HCFA will tell you 
that up to 69 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have drug coverage from 
other sources--but that number simply doesn't tell the whole story.
  Specifically, ten percent of Medicare beneficiaries get drug coverage 
from one of the three Medigap policies that cover drugs. Two of these 
policies require a $250 deductible and then only cover 50 percent of 
the cost of the drug with a $1,250 cap. You can run up that cap pretty 
fast with today's drug prices. The third policy provides a cap of 
$3,000 but the premium ranges anywhere from $1,699 to $3,171 depending 
on where you live. That is a significant amount of money for someone 
living on a fixed income.
  An estimated 8 percent get drug coverage from participating in 
Medicare HMOs and another 11 percent receive coverage from Medicaid. Of 
course to do that, they must be very low-income to begin with and may 
have to spend a great deal out of pocket for their drugs--what we 
commonly refer to as spending down--before they are eligible in a given 
year for coverage. Finally there are those lucky enough--31 percent--to 
have employer sponsored drug coverage through their retiree program.
  In my view, a solution to the pressing problem of prescription drug 
coverage can't come soon enough. Drug coverage should be part and 
parcel of the Medicare system, not a patchwork system where some get 
coverage and some don't. Prescription drug coverage shouldn't be a 
``fringe benefit'' available only to those wealthy enough or poor 
enough to obtain coverage, it should be part and parcel of the Medicare 
system that will see today's seniors, and tomorrow's into the 21st 
Century.
  Accordingly, during the markup of the Senate budget resolution, I 
offered an amendment--along with Senators Wyden and Gordon Smith--that 
ensures the Congress can move forward in creating a prescription drug 
benefit before we adjourn this fall, while still providing a strong 
impetus for comprehensive Medicare reform. Specifically, the reserve 
fund we offered not only provides a ``down-payment'' of $20 billion for 
such a benefit over the coming three years, but it provides an 
additional $20 billion in years four and five if Congress moves forward 
on legislation that extends the solvency of the Medicare program 
without any gimmicks. Furthermore, it ensures that the Finance 
Committee has ample time--until September 1, to be exact--to craft a 
new benefit that utilizes the $20 billion ``down-payment'' prior to 
these monies being freed-up for stand-alone proposals on the floor.
  Why is this reserve fund and its structure so important? Put simply, 
by providing a ``down-payment'' on a new prescription drug benefit over 
the coming three years--but by linking the long-term funding of the 
benefit to substantive reforms--my amendment ensures that a benefit can 
be crafted immediately without undercutting the long-term reform 
effort. In fact, by linking the extension of this new benefit to actual 
reforms, my amendment serves as a strong impetus for reform as no 
member of Congress would want to risk having such a benefit expire due 
to a failure to act on broader reforms.
  Ultimately, I believe this reserve fund--which was adopted by voice 
vote in the Budget Committee--will serve as a catalyst for the most 
important changes to the Medicare program since its inception, both in 
terms of creating a much-needed new benefit and in terms of enacting 
comprehensive reforms.
  By maintaining fiscal discipline, protecting Social Security 
surpluses, buying down debt, providing funds for a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, and enhancing funding for shared priorities 
such as education, I believe the Senate budget resolution deserves 
strong support by the full Senate.
  Ultimately, while Members from either side of the aisle may disagree 
with specific provisions in the resolution that has been crafted, the 
simple fact is that this is a budget framework--or ``blueprint''--that 
establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on 
these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions 
will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, 
and ultimately by Members on the floor.
  Therefore, I am hopeful that amendments offered to this framework do 
not harm the broad and reasoned parameters that have been set, and 
commend the Chairman Domenici, again, for his efforts in crafting this 
balanced resolution.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Majority's 
budget resolution pending before the Senate--a budget that, in my view, 
will take the country in the wrong direction.
  We meet at a time when the Nation is enjoying remarkable economic 
prosperity. Thanks to the strong economy and the fiscal discipline 
begun in 1993, the country is in a fiscal position no one thought 
possible even a few years ago. In 1997, the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and nearly everyone else 
were predicting substantial budget deficits far into the next decade--
as high as $159 billion in FY2000, $153 billion in FY2002 and 
continuing into the foreseeable future. Instead, the Nation is enjoying 
the longest economic expansion in its history. Since 1993, 20.8 million 
new jobs have been created, real wages have increased by 6.6 percent, 
the median family's income has grown by 12 percent, and the 
unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years.
  I am proud to have been a part of the effort in 1993 that helped to 
create this positive economic climate. Working together, the President 
and Congressional Democrats crafted a package that finally brought the 
Federal deficit under control. By making difficult but critical 
decisions to cut Federal programs and raise revenues, we tamed the 
deficits that plagued the Nation throughout the 1980's, placed enormous 
pressure on important Federal initiatives, and hampered our economic 
growth. Most Republicans argued at the time that this responsible 
package would ruin the economy and send markets tumbling. They were 
dead wrong.
  When you look at the choice we face for our economic future, we are 
at a sort of fork in the road. We can continue down the path of fiscal 
discipline begun in 1993, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, 
paying down the debt, investing more in our people--or we can take the 
other fork in the road embodied by irresponsible and unrealistic tax 
cuts that have been passed by the Majority in the Budget Committee, a 
path that will eventually eliminate any projected surplus, cause deep 
cuts in funding for critical education, health care, environmental or 
other programs, and put us back on a path toward deficits.
  In my view, we have a tremendous opportunity right now with the 
strongest economy in history to move our country in the right 
direction--to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, to shore up 
education and address the issue of the digital divide, to expand access 
to health care and provide a meaningful prescription health benefit, to 
clean up the environment, to bring down the crime rate, and on and on. 
We can build on this effort and use this opportunity to secure a bright 
and prosperous future for our Nation and its citizens, or we can 
squander it with irresponsible decisions.
  It is my strongly held view that any surplus realized in the near 
future should be seen as an opportunity to pay down the Nation's debt, 
invest in our Nation's future, and shore up vital programs. I am deeply 
concerned that much like the budget proposal put forward by the 
Majority last year, this year's budget resolution fails to take 
advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to ensure that the Federal 
government will meet its obligations after the baby boomers retire and 
beyond.
  I am also concerned because the budget resolution before us would 
endanger our hard-won progress and shortchange national priorities that 
the American people want to see addressed. This is an opportunity for 
us to think seriously about our Nation's needs and priorities as we 
look into the 21st century, and chart an appropriate course for the 
future. The Republican budget resolution is less a forward-looking 
policy blueprint than a political document aimed at short-term gain. 
Let us take a balanced approach, and continue the fiscal discipline 
that has allowed our Nation to prosper.
  The Democrats proposed a responsible budget resolution to the 
Committee. That alternative covered ten

[[Page S2421]]

years and would have reduced $330 billion in debt over ten years, while 
providing almost $300 billion in targeted tax cuts. Unlike the 
Republican budget resolution, it proposed realistic levels of 
discretionary spending, including the President's full requests for 
education and defense spending. It also reserved funding for very 
important programs, such as health coverage for uninsured Americans. 
Unfortunately, the Democratic alternative was defeated on a party-line 
vote.
  We have come far economically and must be very careful as we move 
forward about how we use any budget surplus. In my view, we must 
emphasize paying down the national debt, protecting Social Security and 
Medicare, increasing spending for programs important to our Nation's 
future, and providing targeted tax cuts for working Americans. The 
Republican budget before us, in contrast, contains a $150 billion tax 
cut--enough to consume almost 98% of the non-Social Security surplus 
over the next 5 years. This leaves nothing for prescription drug 
coverage, education increases, and other initiatives critical to the 
future well-being of our Nation.
  Mr. President, the Republican priorities evident in this resolution 
simply are not shared by most of the American people. The Majority's 
budget proposal falls far short of the mark in almost every respect and 
would take our country in the wrong direction. I strongly oppose this 
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am disappointed in this budget 
resolution, because it endangers our national security.
  The budget resolution does so by reducing the President's request for 
international affairs by over 10 percent. This reduction may appear to 
be a politically easy way to keep spending down. But mark my words: the 
reductions assumed by this budget resolution will end up costing us 
more elsewhere in future budgets.
  Literally speaking, our diplomats are on the front lines of our 
national defense. They are out in force around the capitals of the 
world, defending and protecting our national interests every day--
preventing and mitigating conflicts, fighting drug trafficking, 
promoting U.S. exports, reducing environmental degradation, and 
advancing American values and ideals. Most of them live and work under 
less than ideal circumstances. Many of them live in very dangerous 
places like Lebanon or Colombia. This budget breaks faith with those 
people because it will not provide enough money for secure embassies to 
protect them, and it does provide enough money for critical tools of 
diplomacy--exchange and assistance programs--that will enable them to 
adequately perform their missions.
  We are deluding ourselves as a nation into thinking that we can 
remain a great power while continuing to skimp on spending to maintain 
a robust international presence.
  We have made important progress in the past several years in 
restoring funding for international affairs. Unfortunately, we haven't 
made enough progress, and the budget remains below historical levels. 
According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service 
prepared at my request, the discretionary budget authority for Function 
150 in Fiscal 2000, $22.264 billion in FY 2000 dollars, is 9.3 percent 
below the average of the past two decades, $24.56 billion. As a 
percentage of total budget authority, Function 150 funding in FY 2000 
is 1.24 percent, nearly one-fifth below the annual average, 1.571 
percent, for the past two decades.
  Mr. President, I hope that as the budget process moves forward, the 
leadership on the other side will find a way to accommodate the 
legitimate needs of our foreign policy and increase the allocations to 
these accounts. I urge the Chairman to do everything possible in the 
coming months to work toward to that objective.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the budget resolution 
which the majority has presented to the Senate. In my judgement, this 
budget represents the wrong priorities. It places too much reliance on 
risky estimates about the Federal surplus over the next five years and 
provides for an unwise tax cut in lieu of greater reduction in the 
national debt and emphasis on protecting Social Security and Medicare 
as well as investments in the future of young Americans through 
education.
  For the past several months we have heard a familiar refrain--that 
the budget of the Federal Government will be in surplus over the next 
ten years. In fact, all throughout the first session of this Congress, 
the American people were told over and over again that, after years of 
running huge deficits, the Federal budget was about to start running 
enormous surpluses--tens, or even hundreds, of billions of dollars per 
year. While these were only projections, they seem constantly to 
improve, painting a very rosy scenario of America's fiscal future--that 
is until Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bills. 
Shortly after passage, the Congressional Budget Office, in its End of 
Session Summary, projected a $17 billion on-budget deficit for this 
year--meaning $17 billion of the Social Security surplus would be 
used--the result of the tens of billions of dollars in so-called 
``emergency'' spending. In the intervening months, the CBO has revised 
its forecasts and now projects a $26 billion surplus for the current 
fiscal year, assuming no supplemental appropriations and no downturn in 
the economy. But we won't really know whether we have a surplus or a 
deficit for fiscal year 2000 until it ends in October. By the same 
token, we won't really know for sure whether we'll have a 10-year 
surplus or deficit until fiscal year 2010 draws to a close.
  With that in mind, I want to share a reality check on the projected 
ten year budget surplus and on the tax cuts proposed by the Senate 
Budget Committee majority and by Governor George W. Bush. In January of 
this year, the Congressional Budget Office released three surplus 
estimates, each based on a different assumption about the level of 
discretionary spending over the next ten years. These estimates were 
updated by the CBO on March 9th. The largest non-Social Security 
surplus estimate, $1.95 trillion, assumes that Congress will spend 
decreasing amounts for discretionary spending through fiscal year 2002, 
as required by the existing budget caps created in law and that 
discretionary spending will then increase at the rate of inflation. But 
Congress basically ignored these caps for the fiscal year 2000 budget 
passed back in November. Almost nobody believes it is realistic to 
assume that they will be adhered to for the next two years.
  The second surplus estimate, $1.89 trillion, assumes that we freeze 
discretionary spending for the next ten years at the fiscal year 2000 
level. Freezing spending at this year's level for the next ten years 
means that we can't maintain Federal services at their current levels 
because we'd be ignoring the effect of inflation. So we'd be cutting 
federal services from their current level for ten years in a row. Over 
ten years this amounts to an $835 billion cut in current Federal 
services or 12%. That's a totally unrealistic assumption on which to 
project a surplus. Just look at the last ten years--an era supposedly 
characterized by fiscal restraint: Non-defense discretionary spending 
grew at a nominal annual average rate of almost 5%--that's 2% above 
inflation. The last three years, during which the budget caps have 
supposedly been in effect, total discretionary spending has outpaced 
inflation by 1.2%.
  The third CBO surplus estimate, $893 billion, is by far the most 
realistic--and indeed it too may be optimistic. This estimate assumes 
that discretionary spending will keep pace with inflation for the next 
ten years. If spending follows that path and if the economy performs 
reasonably well, the surplus, exclusive of Social Security revenues, 
could amount to $171 billion over the next five years and $893 billion 
over the next ten years. I emphasize the words ``if'' and ``could.'' 
This surplus estimate is just that--an estimate, far from certain, that 
depends upon several assumptions about things like economic growth 
rates, interest rates, and discretionary spending. If any of these 
assumptions is off, even by just a little, the surplus could shrink 
considerably.
  Obviously, Congress can't legislate economic growth or interest 
rates. But, Congress can and does have responsibility for discretionary 
spending, taxes, managing the National Debt and the continued strength 
of programs like Medicare and Social Security. So, we must carefully 
analyze and try to

[[Page S2422]]

project faithfully and fairly what happens to the surplus when we look 
at our promises and our responsibilities to the American people over 
the next ten years: our responsibility to help provide seniors with 
access to the prescription drugs they need to live, our responsibility 
to our children to pay down the publicly held National Debt, our 
responsibility to protect Medicare, and our responsibility to stimulate 
the research and development of new technologies necessary to continue 
to strengthen the economy in the new millennium.
  Both parties seem to agree that the rising cost of prescription drugs 
makes some type of prescription drug plan for Medicare beneficiaries a 
necessity. The President's plan would have no deductible and pay half 
of all beneficiaries' prescription drug costs up to $5,000 when fully 
phased in by 2009. If you subtract the plan's ten year cost of $98 
billion from the $893 billion surplus estimate of the CBO, the surplus 
shrinks to $795 billion.
  The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is estimated to encounter 
problems beginning in 2010, when expenditures start to exceed income. 
The difference will be made up by using the interest income on 
securities held by the Trust Fund. Beginning in 2015, the Trust Fund 
will have to start drawing down principal to meet its obligations. And 
by 2023, the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be insolvent--with 
principal depleted and income able to meet only 80% of its obligations. 
In any case, the Concord Coalition estimates that the entire Medicare 
program will suffer a huge cash deficit on the order of over $250 
billion over the next ten years, unless substantial changes are made 
and/or dollars infused into it. The President's plan calls for both and 
he would provide $299 billion to extend Medicare's solvency beyond 
2030. When these dollars are allocated to the Medicare Hospital 
Insurance Trust Fund, they are not paid out immediately to 
beneficiaries. And since current law requires that these dollars be 
invested in government securities, this allocation would also reduce 
the publicly held National Debt. So, if you subtract $299 billion from 
the surplus for protecting Medicare which also helps pay down the Debt, 
the surplus shrinks to $496 billion over the next ten years.
  Given those other demands on the budget surplus, the President 
proposes tax cuts targeted toward low and moderate income Americans: 
increasing the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, education incentives, 
health care incentives, encouraging charitable contributions. If we 
subtract the net cost of these tax cuts, $256 billion, the surplus 
shrinks to $240 billion.

  If we ignored these priorities and did nothing with the surplus, 
under current law, it would automatically go toward debt reduction. 
With the exception of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, 
each dollar of the surplus that gets allocated to one of these 
important domestic priorities cannot go toward reducing the publicly 
held National Debt and that costs money because of the interest that 
must be paid. While the exact amount of interest varies depending on 
how the surplus is allocated, the Office of Management and Budget 
estimates this cost to be $64 billion. When we subtract this amount, 
the surplus shrinks to $176 billion.
  At this point, if the economy keeps up and projections are accurate, 
we'll still have a surplus of $176 billion over ten years. But all this 
math still doesn't take several things into account--things like a 3.2% 
average annual increase in the rate of discretionary spending--which 
was the annual average discretionary spending increase from FY97-FY00. 
If we continued at that historic pace, that would decrease the surplus 
by another $107 billion. If we don't assume that increase, given the 
budget committee action increasing defense spending, domestic 
discretionary spending for programs like Head Start, COPS, the 
Superfund, and hiring new teachers would have to be cut very 
substantially. And what of the tax cuts that the Senate or the House 
have already passed? Just one of these bills, the Bankruptcy Reform 
Bill, contains tax cuts that would decrease the surplus by another $103 
billion over ten years. Also, over the next 10 years, up to 21 
different tax provisions, such as the Research and Experimentation Tax 
Credit, will need to be renewed by Congress or they will expire. 
Congress has routinely renewed these credits. This will cost another 
$100 billion over ten years. Finally, if Congress decides to provide 
relief to farmers suffering from droughts and other disasters, as well 
as low prices, and to healthcare providers reeling from prior-year 
Medicare cuts, that could cost another $60 billion over ten years. And 
the list goes on.
  So, if we take into account certain important responsibilities over 
the next ten years, the surplus could easily turn into a deficit. That 
is the sobering reality of the situation.
  Some have suggested that Congress' first priority in reaction to 
budget surpluses should be to cut taxes. Governor George W. Bush, has 
proposed such a plan.
  Governor Bush proposes to cut taxes by roughly $483 billion over five 
years and $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. Even before factoring 
in the interest costs that result from this tax cut, the surplus would 
evaporate completely under Governor Bush's plan.
  Bad enough, his proposed tax cut leaves nothing to protect Medicare 
or extend its solvency by one day. Nothing to pay down the publicly 
held National Debt. In fact, it would add hundreds of billions to the 
National Debt and cut into the Social Security surplus. The reality of 
the situation illustrated here is that, without spending a dime on any 
of America's other priorities, the Bush tax cut converts an $893 
billion surplus into an $572 billion deficit, and that means cutting 
into the Social Security surplus by $572 billion.
  Sinking back into the deficit ditch is the wrong direction for the 
budget and for the economy. We ought not to go in that direction.
  The Budget Resolution now before the Senate goes in that same 
direction. The Budget Resolution contains $150 to $200 billion in tax 
cuts over five years. The Budget Resolution passed by House Republicans 
contains tax cuts which eat up 98% of CBO's $171 billion, five-year 
non-social security surplus. These tax cuts not only come at the 
expense of other domestic priorities, they endanger the on-budget 
surplus and threaten the Social Security surplus. To pay for this tax 
cut, Senate and House Republicans continue in the misguided direction 
of the Bush plan by proposing enormous cuts in domestic Federal 
services while giving lip service to priorities such as a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. First, both the Senate and House Republican 
Budget Resolutions would cut many domestic Federal services by almost 
10 percent over the next five years. Second, the Resolutions create a 
``reserve fund'' of $40 billion that, in the Senate's version, could go 
toward a prescription drug benefit if a Medicare reform bill is 
introduced. I emphasize the words ``could'' and ``if.'' Unlike the tax 
provisions in the Budget Resolution--that direct the Finance Committee 
to produce legislation cutting taxes--there are no enforceable 
instructions compelling anyone in Congress to do anything when it comes 
to prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. So the reality of 
Republican Budget is clearly a double standard: Serious action when it 
comes to a large tax cut, and loose language when it comes to 
prescription drugs.
  What is particularly disturbing is that the House and Senate 
Republican budgets evade realistic scrutiny by producing only a 5-year 
plan. Last year, faced with the same situation, the Senate considered a 
ten year plan. This year, the majority hides the explosive effect of 
their tax breaks over the next ten years that could plunge the federal 
budget back into large deficits.
  So, before we become too enchanted by the promise of huge surpluses 
in the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, before anyone 
writes any checks on surplus dollars, or enacts large tax cuts which 
are also difficult to reverse, I wanted to offer this reality check to 
show how, if Congress acts unwisely and with too little caution, the 
surplus boom could too easily turn into a deficit bust.
  Mr. President, the Budget Resolution the Senate considers today in my 
judgement takes such a risk. It is premised on the shaky foundation of 
surplus projections reliant upon unrealistically large cuts in spending 
for domestic programs like Head Start, programs to reduce class size in 
schools,

[[Page S2423]]

clean up superfund pollution sites, and to hire new police officers. It 
does too little to protect Medicare and Social Security and to provide 
for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. And, it contains an 
unwise tax cut while hiding the exploding costs of that cut in future 
years.
  While a few changes which I have supported have been made over the 
past few days, such as increasing Pell grants and devoting more dollars 
to veterans' health care, I cannot support this Budget Resolution. This 
budget emphaisizes the wrong priorities and runs the risk of heading 
back toward reliance on the Social Security surplus to keep us out of 
the deficit ditch.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I rise in 
opposition to this Republican budget resolution.
  It is with regret because I had sincerely hoped that this year, 
thanks to a booming economy and a federal budget surplus, Congress 
would be able to approach the budget resolution in a bipartisan and 
responsible manner, and do what is necessary to protect Social Security 
and Medicare, make sure we have adequate funds to meet important 
domestic priorities like education and the environment, and provide 
fair tax cuts for working Americans.
  Indeed, thanks to unprecedented economic growth, the tough choices we 
made on the budget in 1993, and the discipline we have demonstrated 
since passing the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997, this year we have 
an opportunity to structure a fiscally responsible budget that pays 
down the national debt and makes important investments in America's 
domestic priorities.
  Unfortunately, this Republican budget resolution threatens to blow a 
hole in the budget by instituting irresponsibly large tax cuts. It does 
not provide sufficient funding for important domestic priorities and 
the long-term fiscal solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  When I first came to the Senate seven years ago, we faced $200 
billion annual federal deficits as far as the eye could see. Thanks to 
fiscal discipline and the current economic boom we are running 
surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the non-
Social Security budget surplus over the next ten years will be over 
$890 billion.
  Thanks to the size of the surplus we have a once in a lifetime 
opportunity to pay down our national debt and meet the challenges of 
the future.
  We have the opportunity to extend the solvency of Social Security and 
Medicare so that these programs are available for the next several 
generations of recipients.
  We have the opportunity to invest in education, the environment, and 
health care. To reduce class size and increase Title I funding. To 
clean up our environmental treasures, including Lake Tahoe. To provide 
health care for all children.
  We have the opportunity to provide prescription drugs for seniors who 
currently have to make the choice between paying for food or 
prescription drugs.
  And we have the opportunity to provide fiscally responsible and 
targeted tax cuts for working Americans.
  Unfortunately, this budget resolution is not fiscally responsible, 
and it does not meet these needs.
  The budget resolution calls for $150 to $200 billion in tax cuts over 
the next five years. Who knows how much these cuts will cost over the 
next ten years? Tax cuts that appear to be modest and reasonable at 
first will mushroom in years six to ten to something like $1 trillion. 
To hide this the Republicans on the Budget Committee did not even try 
to estimate the size of these tax cuts in the so-called ``out'' years. 
They did not even try because the reality is that these tax cuts will 
be greater than the non-Social Security budget surplus over 10 years, 
just as they are over 5 years.
  This budget resolution uses the surplus for tax cuts, not debt 
reduction. The non-Social Security budget surplus is expected to be 
$171 billion over the next five years, but this budget resolution calls 
for $168 to $218 billion in tax cuts over the same period. Quite 
simply, this resolution does not protect Social Security surpluses.
  The Republican budget calls for increases in spending on defense, 
education, veterans health care, and income support payments for 
farmers. I applaud these increases. We need a strong defense. To take 
care of veterans. To educate our children. To protect our farmers from 
income fluctuations that are the result of weather, disease and market 
conditions.
  Unfortunately, to increase funding for these priorities while 
providing almost $1 trillion in tax breaks would result in a ten 
percent across-the-board cut in all other non-defense discretionary 
spending.
  Let me tell you what this means for ordinary people. Over the next 5 
years a 10 percent across-the-board budget cut would cut: 750,000 low-
income women, infants and children from WIC; 1,100 FBI and 900 DEA 
agents; 316,000 Pell Grants for needy students; and 40,000 students 
from Head Start.

  This budget resolution would leave the COPS program about 40,000 
police officers short of the goal of 150,000. It would prevent us from 
providing urgent repairs for 5,000 schools. It could force us to 
abandon plans to put 100,000 new teachers in our classrooms and reduce 
class sizes.
  The reality is that even though this budget is predicated on slashing 
these programs, and more, the Republican Congress has not been able to 
slash non-defense discretionary spending. Domestic spending grew in 
1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. In fact, it grew by more than ten percent 
last year.
  So what are our options?
  This budget resolution forces us to decide between an across-the-
board ten percent budget cut in domestic spending or dipping into the 
Social Security Trust Fund. This is not fiscal discipline. This is not 
fiscally responsible.
  We must extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. This 
budget resolution opens the door to raiding the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds, thereby reducing the solvency of these 
entitlements.
  We must take this once in a lifetime opportunity to provide 
prescription drugs for seniors that cannot afford them. This budget 
resolution will not do so.
  We must take this opportunity to expand Title I, secure funding for 
100,000 new teachers, modernize schools, and increase Head Start 
funding. To extend the 100,000 COPS program and protect our children 
from gun violence. To bolster the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service's ability to protect our borders. To protect the environment 
and expand mass transit in California and other states.
  Let me be clear: In addition to spending on these important domestic 
priorities, I also believe that we have a responsibility to provide tax 
relief.
  In fact, last year Senator Grassley and I introduced the Tax Relief 
for Working Americans Act of 1999. This is legislation to provide tax 
relief for working families in a fiscally responsible manner--$271 
billion over ten years--and in a budget framework which protects Social 
Security and Medicare. It includes provisions to eliminate the marriage 
penalty for 21 million working couples, provide for health insurance 
and child care, promote long-term care, create more affordable housing, 
make education more affordable, and keep our economy strong through 
incentives such as the research and development tax credit.
  We must provide targeted tax relief; Eliminate the marriage penalty; 
Expand the earned income tax credit; Establish a long-term care tax 
credit; Establish educational savings accounts and Individual 
Development Accounts; Permanently expand the research and 
experimentation tax credit.
  I believe that given the health of our economy and the Federal budget 
surplus we can provide the American people with real tax relief, 
responsible tax relief. But this Republican budget resolution does not 
do so.
  The current economic boom has presented us with a unique 
opportunity--we can save Social Security and Medicare, invest in 
domestic priorities, provide for a strong national defense and give 
working Americans targeted tax relief. All while paying down the 
national debt.
  Unfortunately, this budget resolution includes unrealistic tax cuts 
that risk upsetting the current economic climate. This resolution may 
set us down a path of fiscal irresponsibility that will endanger all of 
our gains of the past few years.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget resolution.

[[Page S2424]]

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this Republican budget fails to reflect 
the priorities of families across America.
  If this budget were submitted in any math class--it would get an F--
because the numbers just don't add up. The reality doesn't match the 
rhetoric.
  And while Republicans are talking about how great their budget is, 
when you do the math the things Americans care about--improving 
education, reducing the debt, saving Social Security, strengthening and 
modernizing Medicare--have all been left behind.
  The things that matter to families have been sacrificed in the name 
of an irresponsible tax cut.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed that this budget abandons the 
progress we have made since 1993. Since I first joined the Budget 
Committee, our nation's financial strength has grown dramatically. 
Through the hard work of the President, the Vice President, and others, 
we have turned deficits into surpluses.
  And we learned two important lessons. First, budgets must be 
realistic--they have to take into account what our nation needs and 
what we are capable of providing.
  Second, budgets must be responsible. A responsible budget meets our 
obligations. It makes sure that Social Security, Medicare and other 
existing commitments aren't left hanging.
  But, Mr. President, this budget fails both tests--it is neither 
realistic nor responsible. This budget fails to provide the necessary 
investments in education, health care and prescription drug coverage. 
Instead, this Republican budget sacrifices our priorities for $200 
billion in tax cuts.
  This tax cut could eat up all of the on-budget surplus. Given this 
Congress' track record on tax cuts, it is fair to assume when we see 
the specifics they will be similar to Governor Bush's plan and to the 
tax bill Republicans tried to pass last year.
  In both of those Republican plans, the top 10% of the people, get 
more than 60% of the benefits. The President and the American people 
rejected that tax plan last year, and I expect they will reject it 
again.
  Mr. President, so far the majority has expressed interest in two 
specific tax provisions. Unfortunately, their efforts have been 
misguided.
  First, the Majority has moved to repeal the marriage penalty. I 
support making sure that families in America are not penalized by our 
tax code. In fact, I am a cosponsor of S. 8, which would eliminate the 
marriage penalty. Our bill addresses a real problem--too many lower and 
middle income families are penalized by the current system.
  But the majority's proposal--by giving further tax relief to those 
who already enjoy a marriage bonus--simply creates new inequities while 
still burdening lower and middle income families with a marriage 
penalty.
  Mr. President, the Republicans have a second proposal--related to 
small businesses. Democrats fought to pass a minimum wage increase, 
which some of America's hardest workers desperately need. But the 
majority would only go along if their tax proposal was included.
  What did we end up with? A minimum wage increase over 3 years instead 
of 2--so workers would have to wait an extra year to get the full 
benefit--and a tax plan that kept growing. While I support targeted tax 
cuts that will really help small businesses, I do not support the 
majority's approach, which abandons fiscal responsibility by the sheer 
size of their combined proposals.
  Mr. President, I do want to take just a moment to mention three 
important positive statements we were able to include in the budget 
resolution.
  I am pleased that my amendment placing a high priority on the unique 
needs of women in the Social Security debate was adopted in committee. 
This amendment recognizes the economic safety net of social security 
for women and puts the Senate on record in support of using the reform 
process to improve the economic condition of women.
  This resolution also includes my amendment regarding the urgency of 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and the need to support 
full funding for these programs. We are facing a deadline on 
reauthorization--I want to make it clear that we will not abandon 
battered women and children during this short, legislative year. 
Regardless of the actions of Congress or the courts, we will work to 
continue funding for VAWA programs.
  The third positive statement included in this budget resolution is my 
amendment on pipeline safety--which was adopted unanimously by the 
Budget Committee. My amendment says that pipeline safety efforts should 
be funded at the levels called for in my bill, S. 2004--the Pipeline 
Safety Act of 2000.
  While I am proud that we were able to win concessions for these three 
important areas, overall this budget still puts tax cuts above vital 
investments.
  Mr. President, while Republicans are saying that their budget funds 
key priorities, their rhetoric doesn't match the reality of their 
budget. The reality is that to make room for their tax cut, Republicans 
shortchange the investments that matter to the American people. In 
fact, in key areas, this budget doesn't even keep up with inflation.
  Let me give you a few examples of how this misguided budget leaves 
America's priorities behind. The bad decisions in this budget will be 
felt in classrooms across America. This budget would decimate the 
progress we have made reducing overcrowded classrooms. Over the past 
two years, we've hired 29,000 new, fully qualified teachers to reduce 
class size. And today 1.7 million students are learning the basics in a 
disciplined environment. We should be building on our progress, but 
this Republican budget abandons our progress.
  This budget tells students--``sorry, you'll have to sit in an 
overcrowded classroom next year because under the Republican tax plan--
you are not a priority.''
  Mr. President, it's a priority that we save Social Security while our 
economy is so strong. We shouldn't wait until later to fix what we know 
needs to be changed. But this budget tells every American who will rely 
on Social Security in the years to come--``sorry, this budget won't 
save Social Security for you because under the Republican tax plan--you 
are not a priority.''
  Mr. President, it's a priority that we pay down our national debt--
instead of passing that burden along to our children. But this budget 
tells every young American--``sorry, you better start saving money now 
to pay off the national debt--because under the Republican plan--you 
are not a priority.''
  Mr. President, it's a priority that we strengthen and modernize 
Medicare. It's a priority that seniors get help buying the medicine 
they need--because no one should have to choose between buying medicine 
and buying food.
  But this budget tells seniors--``sorry, you can't get the 
prescription drug coverage you need because under the Republican tax 
plan--you are not a priority.''
  Mr. President, the American people want real budgets--not gimmicks. 
They want to know that our nation's vital priorities are being treated 
like priorities. They don't want the things that matter in their lives 
to be squeezed out by unbalanced tax cuts that would benefit only a few 
people.
  Unfortunately, the driving force of this resolution has been tax 
cuts--tax cuts that explode in the outer years and jeopardize our 
fiscal strength. We should be using the surplus to honor our 
commitments to our children and our seniors. Now is the time to address 
the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare and to provide 
resources to local communities to make our classrooms ready for the 
21st century. Those are the things a responsible budget does.
  But as I look at this budget, the only priority I see is this 
exploding tax cut. Who gets left behind in this budget?
  Students--who could lose the smaller classes they need; every 
American who will depend on Social Security; young people--who will 
still be burdened with our national debt; and seniors--who rely on 
Medicare and need prescription drug coverage.
  They all get left behind, and that is wrong. I'm on the floor to say 
that they are priorities, and we will fight for them.
  Mr. President, we should pass a budget that reflects the priorities 
of the American people and one that is realistic. This budget fails the 
American people on both counts, and therefore I must oppose it. Let's 
give the people

[[Page S2425]]

we represent a responsible budget that meets their needs.


          emergency agriculture assistance for seed producers

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague from 
Wyoming, Senator Enzi, and myself, I wish to engage in a colloquy with 
the Chairman of the Budget Committee regarding the reserve fund for 
agriculture contained in section 204.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to speak with my colleagues regarding 
this issue. I am very much aware that these are difficult times for 
many farmers and ranchers across the Nation. For that reason, the 
Budget Committee set aside $5.5 billion in FY 2000 budget authority to 
provide assistance for agriculture producers.
  Mr. ENZI. We wanted to draw the Chairman's attention to a crisis 
amongst farmers that produce forage grass seed and turf grass seed in a 
number of Western states. Due to the recent bankruptcy filing of 
AgriBioTech, one of the Nation's largest handlers of seed products, 
thousands of farmers are facing financial disaster.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. For a state like Oregon, whose grass seed 
farmers are owned an estimated $40 million by AgriBioTech, the slow 
progress of bankruptcy proceedings threatens the very future of our 
grass seed industry, our third largest commodity. Many Oregon grass 
seed growers simply do not have the capital to keep their farms in 
operation without receiving payment for their product already delivered 
to, or stored under contract to, AgriBio Tech.
  Mr. ENZI. Similarly, in my state of Wyoming, we have close to one 
hundred alfalfa seed growers who may lose their farms without timely 
assistance of some form. These growers are owed close to $4.5 million 
on seed they have already delivered. Many of my growers have found that 
the continuing uncertainty surrounding the bankruptcy case has made it 
impossible to secure even the short-term credit needed to see them 
through another year.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Is it Mr. Chairman's understanding that the 
agriculture assistance levels in this resolution do not preclude 
assistance to agricultural producers adversely impacted by the AgriBio 
Tech case?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. The funding levels assumed for 
agriculture assistance in this resolution do not foreclose the 
possibility that assistance could be provided for that purpose.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the chairman for taking the time to clarify this 
point for us. I can assure you that this issue is of paramount 
importance for many small farmers in our states, and we look forward to 
working with you and the rest of our colleagues to address their 
situation in the near future.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to explain my opposition to the 
Senate Budget Committee's resolution for FY2001. How unfortunate that 
during these great economic times, my Republican colleagues have 
outlined a fiscal policy that will squander our hard earned on-budget 
surplus on misguided economic priorities. Instead of using our on-
budget surplus to make important investments for our economic future, 
this plan calls for large tax cuts that will devour nearly all of our 
on-budget surplus. Simply put, the budget we are considering today does 
not reflect my economic priorities of fiscal discipline and wise 
investment in our people in order to ensure that all Americans 
participate in our history's greatest economic expansion.
  The committee's budget makes unrealistic assumptions about the level 
of discretionary spending for the next five years and assumes that the 
projected surplus will materialize to pay for a large tax cut. The 
Budget Resolution provides for FY2001 $596 billion for total 
discretionary spending. When defense discretionary spending is taken 
out, there is a ten percent across the board cut from FY2000 spending 
levels. This means that important investments in our economic future 
will not be made. For example, 20,000 new teachers will not be hired. 
Subsidies and grants for school construction to 5,000 schools would be 
eliminated and 62,000 students will not be able to participate in Head 
Start.
  Instead, the Republican budget calls for a $150 to $200 billion tax 
cut over five years. When an additional $17 billion is added for 
servicing the larger national debt created by the tax cut, the 
Republican tax plan will consume at least $168 billion of the $170 
billion CBO projected on-budget surplus. Moreover, at a time when the 
Federal Reserve is already nervous about inflation and has been raising 
interest rates to protect against higher inflation, a tax cut will only 
increase inflationary pressure. At this time of strong growth I cannot 
see a benefit to a tax cut other than that it serves as a consumption 
subsidy.
  By assuming unrealistic spending levels and using the surplus for a 
large tax cut, this budget leaves no funding for debt reduction. It 
only dedicates $1 billion for debt reduction in FY2001. If the on-
budget surplus funds were used to service the debt, the result would be 
less inflationary pressure and lower interest rates--a de facto tax cut 
for all Americans, not just the wealthiest Americans. Paying down the 
debt would also reflect a commitment to fiscal discipline. After we 
have worked so hard to balance the budget, it seems only reasonable 
that it should stay balanced and that we use the surplus funds to 
benefit our economy not hurt it.
  This budget does not promote savings and reduce the growing income 
and wealth gaps in our economy. The budget proposed by the majority 
party does not take advantage of our booming economy to rectify some of 
our greatest economic inequalities.

  The economic expansion that began in April, 1991 is the longest in 
American history. It is now more than 9 years old and shows few signs 
letting up. Both inflation and unemployment remain remarkably low. The 
key to economic vitality, worker productivity, hit a 7 year high last 
year. This expansion is being fueled by combination of new and old 
economy fundamentals, technological innovation and fiscal discipline.
  Along with this phenomenal economy we would expect to see the circle 
of opportunity expanding to include many more Americans. But we do not. 
Despite this historic era of growth, we are seeing the opposite--a 
growing gulf between the have and have nots, with more Americans 
falling further behind and out of the economic mainstream. As we have 
celebrated continued economic successes, we have scarcely noticed a 
swelling opportunity gap that is as much about wealth as it is about 
income.
  Several recent studies have documented a growing income gap in the 
U.S.--an increasing income disparity between the rich and poor with 
declining incomes for both poor and low-income families. In addition to 
that income gap, a report released recently by the Federal Reserve 
Bank, has identified a significant wealth gap in this country. A gap 
where the net worth--or assets--of the typical American family has 
risen substantially since 1989, while the net worth--or assets--of 
lower income families has actually declined during the economic boom of 
recent years.
  According to the Fed report, families earning under $10,000 a year 
had a median net worth of $1,900 in 1989. That climbed to $4,800 in 
1995, but had slipped back to $3,600 by 1998. Those families earning 
$10,000 to $25,000 saw their net worth drop from $31,000 in 1995 to 
$24,800 in 1998. More specifically, while the percent of all U.S. 
families that own a home or business has risen during the boom years of 
1995-98, the percent among lower income families has decreased. For 
example, in 1995, 36.1% of families earning under $10,000 annually 
owned their home. By 1998 the rate had dropped to 34.5%. The drop for 
families earning $10,000 to $25,000 was from 54.9% to 51.7%. The same 
story is true for the percent of lower income families owning a 
business. Other recent studies show that this wealth gap is even more 
profound in certain parts of our society. We also know that wealth 
accumulation is generational; it runs in families. According to some 
studies, up to 50% of all household wealth is passed down from 
generation to generation.
  If this trend is not corrected, we are putting at risk some of the 
very fundamentals of the American Dream--essential values like home 
ownership and the small, family-owned business. But closing the wealth 
gap is not just an issue of opportunity and fairness. If this trend is 
not corrected, we also put at risk future economic growth. We must 
begin to question how sustainable

[[Page S2426]]

is our economy if its growth continues to elude so many. How many 
potential entrepreneurs are we leaving behind and to what extent are we 
limiting our future economic growth by doing so?
  We can take steps to address this wealth gap and expand economic 
opportunity. One innovative and powerful approach to help low-income, 
working families save and develop the assets they need to get ahead and 
thrive in the new economy is Individual Development Accounts, or IDAs. 
Similar to Individual Retirement Accounts, IDAs are incentive-based 
savings accounts that can be opened and used only for specific, 
predetermined purposes. Deposits into an IDA by an account holder are 
matched dollar for dollar through public and private funding. The 
matching funds are held in a parallel account until the account holder 
completes a financial education course and saves enough to purchase an 
asset. Low income individuals and families may use their IDA to 
purchase a home, start a small business, or seek postsecondary 
education--to pursue the American Dream.

  Currently, there are nearly 250 IDA programs across the country with 
approximately 5,000 account holders. The early evidence from these 
programs is convincing. It shows that IDAs are highly effective in 
promoting savings and asset building among the working poor. In less 
than two years, 1,300 account holders in the largest national IDA 
program saved more than $375,000 and leveraged an additional $740,000 
in matching funds. Participants made an average deposit of just $33 a 
month. The majority of account holders are women. Twenty percent of 
account holders had never even held a bank account before enrolling in 
the IDA program.
  In the new economy, where job churn is the norm and individuals are 
increasingly responsible for funding their own retirements, wealth-
building assets are rapidly becoming the main source of economic 
security. IDAs can give millions of low income working families, 
parents, their children, and future generations, an opportunity for 
upward mobility and economic stability.
  By proposing such a large and unrealistic tax cut, the majority will 
make it harder to resource our military at the level it will need to 
maintain its battlefield capability today and begin the difficult and 
costly process to transform the force into one that can counter the 
kinds of threats we are likely to see in the future. We have worked 
very hard over several years to raise the defense budget to ensure our 
soldiers, sailors, and airmen are fairly and adequately compensated for 
their unique and arduous sacrifices to protect our freedoms. The 
President has also proposed a budget that increases procurement 
spending to $60 billion, a level that the Quadrennial Defense Review 
deemed necessary in 1997, but until this year was not achievable. 
Indeed, the President's proposed budget increases defense over the 
previous years' budget in real terms for the first time since 1985, and 
keeps us on a path to modernize our current force and transform it in 
later years.
  Although the rhetoric of this Resolution would increase spending over 
the President's budget this year and in the immediate out years, we can 
only hope that it will allow us to transform our military over the long 
term because the huge tax cut that is being proposed will most likely 
squash our superiority in readiness and technology in the long term. As 
more than one military commander has noted, hope is not a method. The 
majority wants to provide a large tax cut and talk the talk of strong 
defense. Unfortunately, they will not be able to have it both ways, and 
given a choice, we should all vote against such a large tax cut, and 
walk the walk with responsible defense spending now and in the future.
  We are at a critical time in our society where more young people, 
particularly minorities and low-income individuals, are being left 
behind in the new economy because they are not learning the basic 
skills of reasoning, mathematics, and communication that provide the 
foundation for higher education or entry-level jobs in high tech work. 
The committee's budget fails to invest the level of resources necessary 
to ensure that all of our children are adequately prepared to compete 
in this challenging marketplace.
  While more money alone won't 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.
  During the upcoming debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act reauthorization, several of my colleagues and I will offer a reform 
proposal, which concentrates our national efforts on closing the 
achievement gap between the haves and have-nots, fostering English 
proficiency for immigrant children, improving the quality of teaching 
for all children, promoting choice and competition within the public 
system, and stimulating innovative and high performance educational 
initiatives. We would ask the states to set performance standards in 
each of these areas, and in exchange for the funding and flexibility, 
we would--for the first time ever--hold states accountable for 
delivering demonstrable results.
  The Function 300 account of the budget--the function that funds core 
environmental and conservation projects--contains some important 
increases in funding for particular programs, but suffers from the 
overall cuts in discretionary spending. While I support additional 
funding for water infrastructure projects and land management, I remain 
concerned that core programs of the Environmental Protection Agency are 
suffering unjustified cuts. Discretionary decreases can substantially 
undermine clean-ups at Superfund sites, review of pesticide tolerances 
under the Food Quality Protection Act, and ongoing work to identify air 
toxics.
  I am particularly concerned that the Senate mark includes $1.2 
billion in assumed revenues from oil drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. These revenues are fiscally irresponsible, as drilling 
is not in place to bring in net receipts over the five year time frame 
of the budget. More importantly, I, like the majority of the American 
public, am opposed to drilling in the Refuge as it would irreversibly 
damage a critical national ecological treasure. A responsible strategy 
would be to set aside about one-third of the surplus during this period 
of growth to pay for a drug benefit, to strengthen Medicare against the 
future, and to address the desperate condition of many facilities in 
Connecticut and other states. The approach of the Republican majority 
saves about 2% of the on-budget surplus, and uses the rest to fund new 
tax breaks.

  If this budget passes, the Medicare program will have $331 billion 
less--$331 billion less to cover drug benefits for our seniors, $331 
billion less to keep hospitals and nursing homes open, and $331 billion 
that our children will have to pay.
  Our past investments in research, made in all scientific disciplines 
and supporting work performed in universities, industry, and government 
labs, have been the driving force for creating the technologies that 
have driven our high tech economic boom, preserved our national 
security, and created fantastic new advances in medical care. Yet, this 
budget resolution calls for only a small increase in federal 
investments in science and technology over last year's levels. This 
budget resolution presents a timid and incremental approach to 
innovation, even though the Senate has recognized the importance of 
research and development and last year passed the Federal Research 
Investment Act unanimously--which called for a doubling of funding for 
civilian science and technology over the next decade.
  Unfortunately, the small increase in the budget resolution does not 
match the administration's aggressive program for civilian science 
investments, nor the spirit of the Senate's own legislation, for many 
key agencies. In particular, I support the Administration's efforts to 
restore balance to the federal research portfolio by aggressively 
funding work in the physical sciences and engineering, through programs 
at the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy. A number 
of my colleagues and I are introducing a

[[Page S2427]]

Sense of the Senate Resolution which calls for funding science at 
increasing levels each year in order to achieve a goal of doubling the 
federal investment in civilian R&D over an eleven year period, as well 
as for annually increasing funding of the Department of Defense's 
Science and Technology program--whose products are critical to the 
safety of our nation's warfighters.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to support a budget 
resolution that more closely reflects sound budget and economic 
priorities. It should be a budget plan that follows the policy of 
fiscal discipline and strategic investment that achieved and has 
sustained our current economic expansion. Unfortunately, this 
resolution does not and it will only lead us back into deficit.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to state for the record why I 
voted against Senator Bond's amendment yesterday. The Bond amendment 
states that ``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.'' The broad language of the amendment 
could easily be interpreted to mean that the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development should not use federal funds to support any economic 
development project, including housing for senior citizens, which has a 
retail outlet that sells, among other things, cigarettes. To cut off 
federal support for such projects that have a retail outlet that sells 
cigarettes as one of hundreds of other items, is too extreme. Instead, 
I support nondiscriminatory legislation that targets establishments 
whose primary business is the sale of tobacco products.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my amendment 2913 to the budget resolution 
expresses the sense of the Senate that no Federal funds may be used by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to subsidize or 
otherwise assist smoke shops or tobacco outlets. The amendment refers 
to those facilities or designated portions of facilities which focus 
almost exclusively on cigarette and other tobacco product sales. Free 
standing tobacco outlets funded by HUD in recent years devote nearly 
ninety percent of their in-store inventory to cigarettes and other 
tobacco products. Larger HUD-funded facilities containing designated 
tobacco stores still devote as much as eighty percent of their total 
in-store inventory to cigarettes or other tobacco products. These 
cigarette and tobacco stores stand in contrast to convenience, grocery 
and general discount stores where cigarette and tobacco products 
generally account for no more than thirty percent of total in-store 
sales volume.
  The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Lung Association, 
American Heart Association, American Medical Association, American 
Cancer Society and American Academy of Pediatrics supported this 
amendment after agreement that HUD support of businesses that exist 
primarily to sell tobacco products is totally inconsistent with the 
Clinton Administration's efforts to curb youth smoking. The National 
Congress of American Indians agrees this amendment will treat Indian 
and non-Indian HUD grantees alike, and thus they also supported this 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the permanent 
protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I certainly understand the concerns raised by those calling for more 
domestic energy production. I don't disagree that this nation should do 
more to kick our addiction to foreign oil. I agree it's time to develop 
more of our nation's clean, renewable energy resources. I urge my 
colleagues to look carefully at creating incentives for clean, 
domestically produced energy such as ethanol, methanol, natural gas, 
wind, solar and biomass power. However, we must withhold efforts to 
drill in one of our nation's most pristine nature preserves and instead 
look at alternatives.
  It may be easy for some to look at maps of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge and envision it as an empty expanse of land that should 
be valued only for its small and scattered oil pockets. However, this 
is a beautiful stretch of land that contains an incredible variety of 
plant and animal life. This is the only national conservation area that 
provides a complete range of arctic ecosystems, and it is home to two 
large caribou herds and 72 species of land mammals and fish. The 
founders of the Refuge recognized the special characteristics of this 
land and its value to the American public as a wild and free land.
  In the summer of 1997, I traveled to the Refuge and was able to see 
first hand how beautiful and important this land is to both Alaska and 
the Nation. As part of a Senate delegation, I visited the Port of 
Valdez, where oil is loaded onto tankers, and I traveled along the 
pipeline that brings oil from the north. I also flew over the Refuge 
itself, getting a perfect birds-eye view of this quiet, peaceful 
landscape. In particular, I was silenced by the beauty of the Mollie 
Beattie Wilderness. As my colleagues will remember, we dedicated a 
large portion of the refuge to Mollie Beattie, a friend and fellow 
Vermonter.
  Mollie oversaw all of Vermont's public lands as Commissioner of the 
Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, instituting 
policies which today are a model of environmental protection. She then 
brought her passion and extensive knowledge of the natural world to 
Washington to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  I was astounded by the natural beauty of this area and proud as I 
reflected back on Mollie's contribution and dedication to preserving 
wildlife and wildlife habitat. I could not think of a better tribute 
than to have named the eight million acres of wilderness in the Arctic 
Refuge after Mollie. It's been three years since she passed away and we 
miss her dearly. Although I can no longer work by her side in common 
cause, her spirit and enthusiasm for preserving our nation's wildlife 
is always with me.
  While in Alaska I also visited a number of native communities along 
the North Slope and spoke to the inhabitants about their life in this 
unique environment, one that they depend on for both their cultural 
identity and their survival. I understand the needs these people have 
and they must be addressed.
  As a nation we must continue to protect this vital ecosystem while 
working to bring good jobs, education, and health care to these native 
communities. Our nation's dependence on oil and its byproducts cannot 
overshadow the importance of keeping ANWR free from the traditional 
impacts of oil drilling and exploration. Drilling and exploration in 
this gentle Arctic wilderness could have a lasting impact that would 
forever damage the environment of this region.
  I applaud Senator Roth's commitment to permanent protection for this 
unique linkage of ecosystems upon which local communities depend, and 
the American community as a whole should value as a national and 
natural treasure.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes to 
comment about the status of the Medicare program and the more immediate 
issue of adding outpatient prescription drugs as a covered benefit.
  First of all, I think we can be pleased with the news from the Social 
Security and Medicare Board of Trustees on March 31 regarding the 
financial status of the Medicare program. The Trustees' annual reports 
on the financial status of Medicare and Social Security were, indeed, 
encouraging to the nearly 84 million Americans who rely on these two 
critically important entitlement programs.
  The news for the Medicare program was especially good. The Trustees' 
reported that Medicare's Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which 
pays for inpatient hospital expenses, is projected to remain solvent 
until the year 2023. Last year, the Trustees' reported the Part A Trust 
Fund would remain solvent until 2015. Thus, we have gained an 
additional eight years of solvency under the projections recently 
issued by the Trustees' report.
  This is very welcome news. But we must recognize that the fiscal 
soundness of the Medicare program cannot be attributed to the 
underlying health of Medicare itself. Medicare's projected bankruptcy 
has been extended eight years to 2023 because of the strong economy, 
and not because of the overall health of the Medicare program.

[[Page S2428]]

  As one witness before the Finance Committee testified last year, if 
there is as much as a hiccup in the economy, that could translate into 
lowering the solvency date by as much as five to ten years. Medicare is 
not solvent indefinitely.
  In fact, beginning in 2010, the Part A Trust Fund will begin deficit 
spending taking in fewer dollars than it spends until 2023 when it is 
projected to be bankrupt. That is why Medicare reform is needed, and 
why it is needed now.
  The Finance Committee, on which I serve, is currently considering 
several proposals that, in addition to reforming Medicare, would also 
provide Medicare beneficiaries with a drug benefit. There is not one 
member I am aware of on the committee who is opposed to adding 
prescription drugs as a Medicare benefit. And, I doubt there are many, 
if any, members in the Senate or House who do not believe prescription 
drugs should be added as a covered benefit.
  Prescription drugs are as much a part of modern medicine as is any 
component of health care. In fact, drug therapy has often provided a 
successful alternative to more extensive and expensive medical 
interventions. To preclude prescription drugs from Medicare's benefit 
package today is tantamount to precluding hospital care back in 1965 
when the Medicare program was enacted.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle want to cast 
Republicans as the barrier to a new drug benefit. That could not be 
farther from the truth. In fact, I was one of the three sponsors of 
legislation in 1997 along with the Chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Roth, and the Ranking Minority Member, Senator Moynihan, that 
created the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare 
Reform.
  That Commission held great promise to identify and forge a bipartisan 
proposal to reform Medicare, including the development of a drug 
benefit. But, by just one vote--which was cast by the President's own 
commission appointee--the nearly two years of work by the seventeen 
member commission failed to receive the necessary super majority vote 
to formally report recommendations to Congress.
  In fact, all of the President's appointees voted against the 
commission's recommendations. As a result, the commission was unable to 
formally recommend to Congress a strong bipartisan proposal that would 
clearly have helped provide the impetuous toward reforming Medicare and 
providing a drug benefit.
  The issue now before the Finance Committee is not so much should we 
have a prescription drug benefit, but rather how a benefit would be 
structured and how much a benefit would cost the Medicare program. 
These are very real and complicated issues that will clearly need to be 
fully vented and addressed before any legislation can move forward.
  For example, one of the key issues which will need to be addressed, 
but on which there has been little discussion, is who will administer 
or manage the new drug benefit? This is not an insignificant decision, 
Mr. President.
  Under the President's program, the Health Care Financing 
Administration, along with pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, would be 
responsible for administering the drug benefit. Another proposal by 
Senator Breaux and Senator Frist--who I would add is the only physician 
that serves in the Senate--would create a new Medicare Board to be the 
administering entity.
  Now, I don't mean to be too critical of my friends at HCFA, but I do 
believe that involving the Health Care Financing Administration in the 
management of the drug benefit is not the prudent course of action.
  Moreover, HCFA has been besieged by complaints from providers over 
reimbursement policies and practices. Although, in all fairness to 
HCFA, it is not totally at fault. There are clearly management issues 
involving third-party fiscal intermediaries, or the insurance carriers, 
which actually administer the reimbursement component of the Medicare 
program.
  I do not think the current structure is a good model on which to base 
a new drug benefit. It seems to me we need to fix the current structure 
under which HCFA and the fiscal intermediaries operate before we add-on 
a whole new layer of responsibility which, in many respects, will be 
one of the costliest benefits Medicare beneficiaries receive.
  I believe we can fix the current administrative structure. There are 
many good people at HCFA, including the administrator and the deputy 
administrator, who are committed to improving program integrity and 
accountability by the carriers. But I simply do not believe that the 
kind of significant administrative reforms necessary to make the 
President's proposal work can be approved by Congress and implemented 
in time to make a drug benefit available within the foreseeable future.
  A new Medicare Board as proposed under the Breaux/Frist legislation 
makes inherently greater sense in the overall scheme of providing a 
drug benefit. The proposal is modeled on the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program which has successfully served federal employees, 
including the President of the United States and each member of the 
U.S. Congress, for over 40 years. Moreover, the proposal promotes 
choice by allowing seniors a voluntary option to either stay in the 
current, traditional Medicare fee-for-service system, as run by HCFA, 
or enroll in a private plan, as run by the Medicare Board. Both options 
would offer prescription drugs.
  This is just one example of the numerous logistical and structural 
issues that must be addressed before a drug benefit can be implemented. 
Even under the Breaux/Frist proposal, there will need to be 
considerable lead time to get the Medicare Board up and running, and 
fully functional. So I am very pleased the Budget Committee has 
reported a budget resolution which provides $40 billion over five years 
for this purpose. This is certainly an important first step.
  The Finance Committee is now currently considering all options under 
the very able leadership of our Chairman, Senator Roth. I would only 
reiterate the importance of fully addressing the critical management 
and administrative issues because they clearly will be instrumental in 
the success of any new drug benefit Congress enacts. Once again, the 
provisions in the Budget Resolution represent an important first step 
in moving forward.
  But there remains a great deal of work on the details and little time 
in which to address them. Our work will have to be bipartisan and it 
will require the support and leadership of President Clinton. 
Otherwise, we jeopardize the very real prospect of a drug benefit this 
year.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Finance Committee 
in the development of a drug proposal that meets the needs of Medicare 
beneficiaries while preserving the underlying financial integrity of 
the Medicare program.
  We owe it to our seniors, and to those with disabilities, to do this 
the right way.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify the intent of a 
Sense of the Senate amendment we passed earlier today regarding the 
Census. That amendment, which we passed unanimously, expressed the 
sense of the Senate that Americans should not be prosecuted, fined or 
harassed for not answering certain Census questions. At the same time, 
the amendment expresses our encouragement that all Americans should 
fill out and send back their Census forms.
  I want to emphasize that there has not been a prosecution for failing 
to fill out the Census in decades. The American people should not fear 
the Census; we should fear an incomplete or inaccurate count due to 
lack of participation. The Constitution requires an enumeration of our 
population every 10 years. While the data the Census Bureau collects 
are used for purposes of apportionment of the House and redistricting, 
this information is also used to help determine funding for thousands 
of Federal, state and local programs that benefit all Americans. 
Moreover, the law requires Census forms to be kept confidential for 72 
years--not only from the public but from all other government agencies.
  We should support the Census Bureau in its effort to carry out this 
massive task. I encourage every resident to fill out and send back his 
or her census form and to cooperate with census-takers or enumerators 
who will be in the neighborhoods in the coming weeks. I also want to 
make clear that the amendment is not intended to impede

[[Page S2429]]

census-takers or enumerators in appropriate followup actions they may 
need to undertake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is on adoption 
of the concurrent resolution, as amended.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the 
House companion resolution, H. Con. Res. 290.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the fiscal year 2001, revising the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2000, and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all after 
the resolving clause be stricken, the text of S. Con. Res. 101 be 
inserted, a vote occur on adoption of the concurrent resolution, all 
without any action, and that following that vote, the Senate insist on 
its amendment, request a conference with the House, the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, and the 
Senate concurrent resolution then be placed back on the calendar. I 
also ask consent that the conference ratio be 4 to 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
manager of the bill?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on adoption of H. Con. Res. 290, as amended.
  Are the yeas and nays requested?
  Mr. LOTT. 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 adoption of H. Con. Res. 290, as amended. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett). If he were present and voting, he would vote 
``yea.'' If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' Therefore, 
I withhold my vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Bennett) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  On this vote, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is paired with the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
  If present and voting, the Senator from Utah would vote ``aye'' and 
the Senator from Nevada would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     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
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     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
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                   PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1

                                     
                             Reid, against
                                     

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     McCain
     Moynihan
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  (The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
discuss briefly the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution that was passed 
by the Senate this afternoon.
  Regrettably, I was unable to support this budget resolution. I 
believe the focus of this resolution was skewed at best. Instead of 
investing critical dollars in modernizing our nation's aging schools, 
in providing a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for seniors, in 
protecting our natural environment, or in reducing our national debt, 
this resolution chose as its priority a set of risky and irresponsible 
tax cuts that our country cannot afford.
  There are several reasons I feel compelled to oppose the resolution. 
First, this budget resolution calls for at least $150 billion in tax 
cuts over the next five years to be paid for out of the non-Social 
Security surplus. This substantial tax cut will result in increased 
interest payments of nearly $18 billion dollars. So at a minimum, the 
tax provisions within the resolution have a real cost of $168 billion.
  The CBO has estimated that the on-budget surplus for the next five 
years will be $171 billion. The math here is simple, Mr. President. The 
tax cuts consume nearly 98 percent, at a minimum, of the projected on-
budget surplus and leave nothing for other crucial investments.
  If these tax cuts reach $200 billion over five years--as they well 
may--then they will exceed the on-budget surplus and eat into current 
programs. There are only so many places to turn to for funding once the 
on-budget surplus has been drained. One is the Social Security 
surplus--a surplus we have committed to keeping off-limits to new 
spending or tax relief measures. Are our colleagues going to break that 
commitment to pay for their tax cuts? I would hope not. Another is to 
sharply cut spending for priorities such as education and law 
enforcement. That option is also highly troubling.
  Mr. President, I represent a state that has the highest per capita 
income in the country. And on a per capita basis, my constituents would 
stand to benefit a great deal from the tax cuts proposed in this 
resolution. However, in my travels across Connecticut, not one of my 
constituents has ask me to support the tax breaks in this resolution. 
On the contrary, they have urged that the surplus be dedicated to 
lowering the debt, to strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and 
to improving the quality of education for America's schoolchildren.
  Second, this resolution chips away at our fiscal discipline. By only 
covering the next five years as opposed to the ten in last year's 
resolution, the exploding costs of the tax cuts in later years remain 
hidden. Furthermore, this tactic prevents any meaningful enforcement 
mechanisms that would serve to control these run-away costs. After all 
the progress we have made over the past seven years in eliminating the 
budget deficits, this resolution would take us back to those grim days 
of runaway deficits.
  Third, I am also troubled by the deep cuts in discretionary spending 
proposed in this resolution. The use of the on-budget surplus for tax 
cuts would require that non-defense discretionary priorities be cut by 
nearly $105 billion, or 6.5 percent, over the next five years.
  These cuts would therefore cause 62,000 fewer students would be 
served by Head Start. Twenty-thousand new teachers could not be hired 
which would severely impede efforts to reduce class size. Significant 
cuts in new housing vouchers would threaten millions of low-income 
families in tenuous living situations. Funding for the COPS Program 
would be cut by 73 percent, making it impossible to meet the 
President's goal of hiring up to 150,000 new police officers. And 
funding for the National Science Foundation would be cut by $500 
million, preventing the training of 19,100 researchers and educators 
needed to address our high-skilled worker shortage. Mr. President, 
these are just some of the consequences of the risky tax scheme that is 
the centerpiece of the resolution.

  The resolution offered by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle ignored these critical priorities, and when offered the chance to 
address these important issues, they repeatedly failed to make a bad 
resolution better. Moreover, I was discouraged that

[[Page S2430]]

Democratic amendments were defeated to improve the resolution and 
redirect its priorities away from risky tax breaks and toward important 
commitments like debt reduction, Medicare and education.
  One such amendment, offered by Senators Kennedy and Bingaman, would 
have bolstered our investment in education by $31.7 billion over the 
next five years. It increased funding for the GEAR UP program, expanded 
after-school opportunities for children, and provided $2 billion to 
recruit and mentor qualified teachers.
  Senator Robb offered an amendment, also defeated, that would have 
required that the surplus be spent on a prescription drug benefit 
before those funds could be used for a tax cut.
  The Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg, 
offered a Democratic alternative resolution that would have reduced the 
debt by $330 billion while providing almost $300 billion in targeted 
tax cuts. The amendment fully funded education and defense and reserved 
funding for important initiatives such as health coverage for the 
uninsured. Regrettably, it was defeated on a party-line vote.
  Our Republican colleagues also failed to support a bipartisan 
amendment that I was proud to offer with Senator Jeffords. It would 
have reduced the size of the resolution's tax cut and directed 
resources to help families, schools, and local taxpayers bear the 
rising cost of special education. The National Governor's Association 
calls special education their highest priority. Unfortunately, the 
Senate ignored their request for federal assistance.
  Senator Voinovich offered an amendment that directed the $150 billion 
slated for tax cuts toward debt reduction. His proposal would have 
helped ensure that future generations have the ability and resources to 
make their own investments without also having to pay our bills. This 
amendment drew support from both sides of the aisle, but this, too, was 
defeated. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated on 
numerous occasions, and even recently before Senate committees, that 
debt reduction should be our number one priority. I regret that my 
colleagues chose to ignore his recommendation to instead support tax 
breaks over placing our country on sound financial footing.
  In short, Mr. President, this resolution jeopardizes the prosperity 
that so many have worked so hard to achieve. It mortgages our 
children's future, rather than helps them prepare for it. I regret that 
the Senate could not fashion a resolution that protects our values and 
advances our priorities--debt reduction, Social Security, Medicare, and 
a better education for America's schoolchildren.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, does the minority leader wish to speak?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, briefly. I appreciate that very much.
  I compliment the distinguished chairman for his work. This is not 
easy. While we may have ended up at different places at the end of the 
resolution, I admire him for the work he has done and applaud him for 
the way he did it.
  Let me also thank and congratulate our ranking member, Senator 
Lautenberg. This is the last time he will manage a budget. He has been 
an outstanding member of the Senate Budget Committee. I consider 
Senator Lautenberg a close personal friend. I have admired his work not 
only on this committee but all of the work he does on appropriations 
and other issues he cares about.
  Let me also thank our assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid. He 
is the best. We could not have come to this point in the debate and 
concluded this afternoon were it not for his work as well. A lot of 
work has gone into the completion of the budget resolution. We are very 
fortunate to have the leadership and the extraordinary work done by our 
chair and our ranking member.
  I wanted to take a moment to thank them both.
  I want to thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
joining us in saying that the long delay over reasonable gun-safety 
measures must end. The Juvenile Justice conference committee must send 
us its report--with the Senate-passed gun safety measures included--no 
later than the first anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, so we can 
vote on those measures.
  I also want to congratulate my Republican colleagues on another 
accomplishment. The law says Congress must pass a budget resolution by 
April 15. By passing this resolution today, you are well on your way to 
meeting that deadline. Considering the difficulty you have had doing 
that in the past, passing the calendar test is no mean feat.
  On every other test that matters, however, this budget resolution--
your budget resolution--fails. This budget resolution does not continue 
the fiscal discipline that is at the heart of today's unprecedented 
economic prosperity. This budget resolution does not reflect the 
priorities of ordinary Americans. This budget resolution does not use 
honest numbers. This budget resolution does not give priority to paying 
down our national debt; in fact, if it were to become law, it would 
almost certainly risk a return to the days where we relied on the 
Social Security surplus to fund the rest of the government.
  Despite all the assurances to the contrary, this budget resolution 
does not extend the solvency of Social Security or Medicare. This 
budget resolution does not guarantee a real Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. This budget resolution does not allow us to increase our 
investments in education, the environment, or any other critical 
national priority; in fact, if it were to pass, this budget resolution 
would force deep cuts--of up to 12 percent--in many of these 
priorities.
  So, this budget resolution passes the first test. It meets the 
calendar deadline. But it fails all the tests that really matter.
  It's worth reviewing what we tried to do this week.
  First, Senator Robb offered an amendment that said simply: Before we 
pass a huge tax cut, we ought to add an affordable, voluntary 
prescription drug benefit to Medicare. An overwhelming majority of 
Americans agree with that statement. A majority of this Senate also 
agrees with it. Unfortunately, we were not able to clear the 60-vote 
hurdle erected by those who oppose it. So this budget resolution now 
puts tax cuts ahead of prescription drugs.
  Senator Bingaman offered an amendment to reduce the Republican tax 
cut by $28 billion and use that money to improve America's public 
schools. We would have reduced the $150 billion Republican tax cut by 
less than 20 percent. And we would have used that money to do things 
like reduce class size, improve teacher training, and help students pay 
for college. That amendment, too, was defeated--largely along party 
lines.
  Senator Conrad offered an amendment to reduce the Republican tax cut 
by $75 billion, and use that money to pay down the federal debt. This 
Republican budget allows for $150 billion--or more--in tax cuts, but 
only $19 billion in deficit reduction. We could have done better. 
Instead of a paltry down payment on the debt, we could have made a 
significant down payment. That amendment also was defeated.
  Senator Robb offered a second school-related amendment--a plan to 
reduce the Republican tax cut by nearly $6 billion, and use that money 
instead to modernize our children's public schools. To repair schools 
that are in disrepair, replace schools that are too crowded, and make 
sure every school is connected to the Internet. Despite all of the talk 
we hear about the importance of education, that amendment, too, was 
defeated.
  Senators Schumer and Durbin offered an amendment to reduce the 
Republican tax cut by $284 million and use that money to hire 1,000 new 
local, state and federal law enforcement officers--to ensure better 
enforcement of existing gun laws. Given all the talk we've heard 
recently on the need to enforce gun laws, you would have thought that 
amendment would pass 100-0. Instead, it was rejected.
  Finally, Senator Durbin offered as an amendment the Bush tax cut, the 
same tax cut so many of our Republican colleagues have implicitly--and 
in some cases explicitly--endorsed. Four times previously--once in the 
House Ways and Means Committee, once in the House Rules Committee, and 
twice in the Senate Budget Committee, our Republican colleagues were 
asked to vote up or down on the Bush tax cut. Every time, they used 
some parliamentary

[[Page S2431]]

procedure to duck the vote. To borrow a phrase used by our old friend 
Dale Bumpers and resurrected by our colleague Dick Durbin, they ran 
from the Bush tax cut like the devil runs from holy water. They tried 
to duck the vote again on the Senate floor during this debate. But they 
were unable to do so.
  So what did our Republican colleagues do when they were finally 
forced to take a stand on the Bush tax cut? Every single Republican 
Senator rejected the Bush tax cut. This Senate voted 99-0 vote to table 
the plan.
  The vote against the Bush tax cut was probably the most significant 
of all the votes we cast on this budget resolution--because tax policy 
isn't just the centerpiece of the Bush candidacy. Tax policy is the 
centerpiece of any economic and fiscal program.
  By repeatedly refusing to support the Bush tax plan, our Republican 
colleagues have sent a very clear message. That message is: They know 
the Bush tax cut will not work. They know we cannot afford the Bush tax 
cut. They know that, in order to pay for the Bush tax cut, we will have 
to raid Social Security, and cut critical programs deeply, and hurt 
working families.
  So, we are now about to vote on a budget that would end this economic 
expansion by abdicating the fiscal discipline that has produced and 
nurtured it. A budget that blows the entire non-Social Security surplus 
on risky, exploding tax cuts--leaving virtually nothing for Medicare, 
or prescription drugs. Nothing for debt reduction. And nothing for 
increased investment in education, law enforcement, the environment and 
other urgent, national priorities.
  If this budget were to become law, there are only three ways we could 
pay for those tax cuts and still make essential investments in 
education and other priorities: We could make massive cuts in the rest 
of the budget. We could raid Social Security. Or, we could drive up the 
deficit, and the debt. At a time when we could have so many good 
choices before us, it is astounding that this budget presents us only 
with bad choices.
  The next step is for our colleagues to reconcile their budget with 
the plan passed by House Republicans--a plan that contains even bigger 
tax cuts, and even deeper budget cuts in key priorities. I have no 
doubt they will reconcile their plans. And this budget will go from bad 
to worse. The real test, though, is not in reconciling the House plan 
and the Senate plan. The real test is in trying to reconcile either 
plan with reality. Frankly, there is no way they can meet that test. 
The numbers simply do not add up.
  Our colleagues did everything they could this week to limit debate on 
their plan. Right out of the box, they yielded back over 20 hours of 
debate time on their budget. That's how determined they were to limit 
debate on their plan. That's how desperate they were to avoid any 
discussion of their priorities, versus our priorities, and the 
priorities of the American people.
  I would remind our friends across the aisle, though, that this debate 
has only begun. We have months to go before this budget is finished. We 
will raise these issues again and again and again so that every 
American knows the choices facing our nation, and the consequences of 
those choices. We will make the improvements in this budget that we 
sought to make this week, or the proposals contained in this budget 
will not become law.
  So I say again to our colleagues across the aisle, congratulations on 
meeting this first test of your budget. We look forward to working with 
you in coming months to produce a budget that passes the tests that 
truly matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There are a lot of people I am certain I should thank, 
but I think they all know how much I appreciate their efforts--the 
majority staff, the minority staff--and hard work and long hours on a 
difficult product with very difficult procedures.
  I hope before too long we will find a way to have these procedures 
streamlined so it is not so difficult and it is easier to understand 
and so we are not burdened by scores upon scores of sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions when we are talking about numbers in a basic budget.
  I thank by name Senator Lautenberg, who will not be here when we do a 
budget resolution in the future because he will be leaving the Senate. 
I thank him again for the way he conducts himself and the way he asks 
his staff to conduct themselves in relationship to the majority and in 
relationship to his duties.
  I believe this was a pretty rare achievement, a very hard budget, 
with very different philosophical and ideological points of view. I 
think we accomplished on our side what we wanted to do. It does not 
take a long explanation.
  We did protect Social Security. We did strengthen Medicare by putting 
$40 billion in a reserve fund for Medicare, including prescription 
drugs. We reduced the national debt substantially. We provided some tax 
fairness for the American people. For those who are very worried about 
putting enough money toward the national debt, this will be the largest 
installment against the national debt in the history of the Republic; 
$177 billion will go to the debt. Most of that is by not using the 
Social Security trust fund.
  I am very grateful it has finally come to pass that the ideal which I 
conceived immediately after the President suggested 62 percent of 
Social Security should be saved, and I said why not 100 percent, looks 
as if it is going to come to pass. We are locking up 100 percent of the 
Social Security trust fund. That means there will not be big swings in 
expenditures in our Government, there will not be huge swings in tax 
reform, because we are setting aside for the senior citizens what is 
theirs and not spending a nickel of it.
  Overall, this is a good budget for this year. We are in a 
Presidential election, and somebody next year, a new President, will 
tell us what changes they want. If it is a President of the Republican 
Party and his name is Bush, he will recommend a brand-new budget that 
will be very different, in which case the tax reform we seek and the 
tax relief we seek will be part of his budget. He did not seek any tax 
relief until 1 full year from now, so that it would be time for him to 
be in office and work on things.
  Having said that, let me close saying to all the Senators who worked 
with Senator Lautenberg, Senator Reid of Nevada, myself, and our 
respective staffs to get on that long list of agreed-upon amendments, 
some Members have hard feelings tonight because they agreed and worked 
with us; having done that, Members did not get an opportunity to offer 
their amendments.
  I don't think we had any other way to do it tonight. We would not 
have finished this budget resolution for a very long time had the 
majority leader not suggested the regular order following the objection 
of Senator Byrd to our agreed-upon list.
  My last praise goes to Senator Reid, the minority whip, for spending 
a lot of time on the floor on every bill. He was tremendously helpful 
and instrumental in getting the Senate where we are.

  Obviously, on my side, I thank the majority leader for helping get 
the budget resolution completed and all the others who helped. A hearty 
thanks from this Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before Senator Domenici leaves the 
floor, I wish to thank him.
  I know the public may wonder why it is that Democrats all voted one 
way yet we say a consensus has been arrived at. I will take a minute to 
explain it.
  Yes, the Democrats voted against this budget resolution. It wasn't so 
much on the issues we wanted to have taken care of. It is fair to say, 
if one listened to the debate, one could determine that each side wants 
to protect Social Security in different degrees and in different ways. 
One could observe we both want to do something about Medicare but, once 
again, in different degrees and in different ways. The list goes on.
  There are many things on which we purely disagree. But the fact is, 
though I am disappointed in the outcome and I prefer the budget 
resolution to be done differently, I cannot say there weren't times 
when we agreed we wanted to get to point A, B, or C on things that 
affect the public generally.
  We agreed on strengthening defense. We agreed on taking better care 
of our

[[Page S2432]]

veterans. We agreed on raising the minimum wage against the objections 
of most of our friends on the other side.
  The budget is passed. It is a consensus in a peculiar way. It is not 
a consensus arrived at necessarily by Democrats and Republicans, but 
here I have to commend Senator Domenici. He has a rare touch. He knows 
his business. He understands the budget thoroughly. There isn't anybody 
I know here who would say he isn't a good, decent guy.
  He deals with the differences of view that perhaps are the result of 
being in the majority. People want to make sure their views are taken 
care of.

  The minority finds it a little easier to unite, perhaps, because we 
unite behind issues we think are important, that we realize will not be 
typically dealt with in the fashion we would like. We are not in the 
majority.
  By structure of the branches of Government, we have a President. The 
President can only lay down his recommendations; he cannot necessarily 
get them through. There is no veto right in this process. So it makes 
it a different structure.
  The public may be scratching their heads as they look at this and 
saying: What do they agree on? Senator Domenici said something that is 
so true: much of what we did will not have ultimately the effect of 
becoming law. Why did we do it? We did it because each Member of this 
body has a right to express themselves about issues. We are concerned 
about the relevance of a lot of the resolutions that were presented.
  I hope we will do something about organizing the process, though I 
will not be here to do it, for the public interest. Before this budget 
resolution has the effect of turning into appropriations bills that 
will fund these programs, there is a fairly long way to go. For me, it 
is the last time I will have a role in passing a budget resolution. I 
arrive at this point with some wistfulness and anticipation that in 
years ahead I will be arriving at this time of the year with a degree 
of nostalgia.
  It is hard to imagine one could miss this kind of exercise after 
witnessing the process we just completed. But I must confess, the 
challenge of arriving at the resolution, as I see it, produces a debate 
that does raise a conscientious review of the issues, even though we 
disagree on the paths to get to places we want to be. But each of us, 
again, has the right to express himself or herself as this process 
evolves.
  I am certain the public views some of the antics we have gone through 
here as curious, to say the least. We heard Senator Byrd, the 
distinguished Senator Byrd, the historian of the Senate among Members, 
say he was disappointed in some things. I hope, therefore, a review of 
the process will take place so we can have a more concise, more orderly 
program for getting to a budget resolution.
  In the process, however, of this year 2001 budget resolution, I have 
to say thank you to Senator Domenici, to his chief of staff, now loaded 
down with the product of his work, Bill Hoagland. I thank Bill, who 
worked arduously to make sure we had the information we needed, even 
though we disagreed on some of the process to get to the end of the 
game.
  I am grateful to Harry Reid, the Democratic whip, for the role he 
played in getting this year's budget resolution passed. He was part of 
a support team for me and left me with time to do some of the things 
for which I am responsible. He did a wonderful job as a friend and as a 
leader on the Democratic side, helping us get done.
  I thank Leader Daschle for his faith and support of me throughout the 
budget resolution negotiations.
  I thank my colleagues on the Budget Committee, the Republicans, but I 
am particularly obliged to my Democratic friends and colleagues because 
of the unity we had through the process.
  I cannot conclude my remarks without saying the staff support was 
really special.
  No. 1 on my team is Bruce King, who is the chief of staff of the 
Budget Committee, the Democratic staff on the Budget Committee. Sue 
Nelson is an expert on so many areas, particularly in the health area, 
on whom lots of the Senators called; Lisa Konwinski and Mitch Warren, 
who used to work on my personal staff as well; Marty Morris, Nisha 
Antony, Claudia Arko, Frederic Baron, Gabrielle Batkin, Steve Benson, 
Maggie Bierwirth, Pat Bogenberger, Rok Chung, and Jim Esquea.
  I want to thank Randy DeValk, who is part of Senator Daschle's team, 
the person who works on budget for Senator Daschle. He was very helpful 
throughout.
  I thank our floor staff. They were diligent and always there for 
information and for support, defining the process so we did not step on 
too many toes. I think I might have stepped on a couple along the way, 
but it was not cataclysmic. The process takes a long time to learn. 
Senator Domenici has been doing it for a long time. He is one of the 
best experts we have.
  So I thank everyone for their work, some of our Republican friends 
who voted with us on occasion, and even those Senators with whom I had 
disagreements on occasion.
  I want to say--maybe as part of a swan song because come next January 
I will be doing other things--that even those with whom I most ardently 
disagreed still earned my respect as Senators, though I could 
vehemently disagree with their point of view. These are people who are 
sent here by a constituency we have to recognize. The majority is what 
it is because the American people sent them here to be a majority. I 
wish it were otherwise, make no mistake about that. I wish we were in 
the majority and I had my last year as chairman of the committee. But 
next best to the chairman on the other side is to be the ranking member 
and work with a good and decent manager.

  With that, I say, this is a conclusion of part No. 1 of Frank 
Lautenberg's retirement from the Senate, an experience which I shall 
treasure and remember fondly, forever.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me acknowledge the remarks of the 
Senator from New Jersey. I suspect this time next year the Senator from 
New Jersey will be looking fondly at us from the ski slopes of Utah, 
wishing us well but being very happy with his fondness for skiing.

                          ____________________