[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 81 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5725-S5730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S5725]]
 DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                    APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--Continued

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been asked by the leader to file 
a number of amendments as an amendment to the underlying Labor-HHS 
bill. The amendment is the Republican energy security package. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be so filed. I appreciate the willingness of 
the leader to file the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator has the right to 
file an amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am here as the ranking member on the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, which is pending this morning. We had 
hoped Senators would come over and offer amendments. We had a good 
amendment earlier by Senator Bond from Missouri. I thought we could 
move ahead on that, but it looks as though we have diverged to other 
issues.
  As long as that is the case, I feel constrained also to talk about 
the problems we have with high gasoline prices in the Midwest.
  I was listening to my colleague from Alaska speak. Quite frankly, I 
got to thinking about what is happening in the Midwest and upper 
Midwest with high gasoline prices. It occurred to me there are all 
kinds of rumors going around about why this is happening: There is a 
broken pipeline; there is a shortage of crude oil; reformulated 
gasoline, with ethanol is the problem--there is all this talk swirling 
around out there, everybody blaming everybody else.
  No one knows the answers. That is why yesterday I wrote a letter to 
the chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
asking him to hold emergency public hearings to subpoena the heads of 
the major oil companies, bring them to Washington and put them under 
oath, and then start asking them the tough questions. Then I believe we 
might get to the bottom of it.
  I say to the chairman of the Energy Committee, use the powers of 
subpoena. Bring the heads of the oil companies to Washington. Maybe 
they do have an answer. Maybe there are logical reasons why the price 
of gasoline is so high. I doubt it, but let them have their say. I say 
put them under oath, just as we did with the tobacco company executives 
a few years ago. Let's put them under oath and ask them the tough 
questions. Let Senators from both sides ask them the questions about 
why we have these high and divergent gasoline prices in the upper 
Midwest. Maybe we can get somewhere and find answers.
  I also asked the head of the Federal Trade Commission to do the same 
thing: subpoena records and subpoena the oil company executives to come 
to Washington in an open, public hearing so that the public can hear 
for themselves the answers to these questions.
  I want to talk for a moment about all of the claims and assertions 
going around that reformulated gasoline and ethanol are the cause of 
the increase in prices in the upper Midwest. I just heard the Senator 
from Alaska allude to reformulated gasoline being part of the problem. 
If reformulated gasoline is the problem, then why is it that we have 
reports that of instances where reformulated gasoline, including where 
ethanol is used, is actually below the price of conventional gasoline.
  That has happened in Louisville, KY, and St. Louis, MO, where they 
have an RFG requirement, according to EPA.
  EPA has said that RFG with ethanol would not be more than a penny a 
gallon higher than RFG without ethanol. Even that may be high. 
Yesterday, in Chicago, the price of conventional gasoline at wholesale 
was $1.24 a gallon. The price of reformulated gasoline with ethanol was 
$1.24 a gallon. It was the same price at the wholesale level. And said, 
in some markets, we found that reformulated gas is at a lower price 
than conventional gasoline. That makes sense because ethanol is now 
actually cheaper than gasoline.
  The Senator from Alaska talked about an energy policy. One of the 
energy policies of this administration has been to promote the use of 
ethanol and renewable fuels. I know the Presiding Officer is a big 
supporter of ethanol, too. So is this Senator. But every time we try to 
promote ethanol, we are stymied by the oil companies. They have some 
reason why they cannot use ethanol. I will tell my colleagues why they 
do not want to use ethanol: Because they cannot control it, and if we 
continue to produce more ethanol in this country, it is going to 
provide an alternative to gasoline which will keep the price of 
gasoline down. That is purely and simply why the oil companies do not 
want ethanol. We have been through this battle going clear back to the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and earlier.

  Years ago, the oil companies put lead in their gasoline. We found out 
lead was causing all kinds of problems, physiological problems in kids 
and adults. So we had to force them to take the lead out. In order to 
keep the octane up, then they said: We are going to use these aromatic 
and toxic compounds, such as toluene, benzene, and xylene. They put 
that witch's brew together in the gasoline to keep the octane up.
  Then we found out many of these compounds were air polluting, toxic, 
and carcinogenic. About that time, around 1990, we passed the Clean Air 
Act. We in the Senate mandated an oxygenate requirement of 3.1 percent 
for gasoline to clean up the air and to meet clean air standards.
  That is what the Senate adopted. It went to conference. I thought we 
had it settled that we were going to have 3.1 percent. The oil 
companies weighed in. They got that knocked down to 2.0 percent.
  We may not have appreciated what they were up to. Two percent oxygen 
is better than nothing so we went with 2 percent. But the oil companies 
had something called methyl tertiary butyl ether, which they could use 
as an oxygenate and also that would help meet the clean air standards, 
at the 2-percent level. MTBE would not have been so heavily used at the 
3.1 percent level because MTBE has a much lower oxygen content than 
ethanol.
  Ethanol could do it at the 3-percent level but not MTBE. So the oil 
companies got back in, knocked it down to 2 percent, and guess what 
happened. The market was flooded with MTBE, and because the oil 
companies have control over it, it has kept the production of ethanol 
down for the last decade.
  Then what did we find out? First of all, we had the lead that the oil 
companies pushed off on us. Then we had the aromatics and toxics which 
they pushed off on us. Now we have MTBE which they pushed off on us, 
and it is polluting water supplies all over the country. State after 
State is beginning to ban MTBE, such as California and other States. I 
assume that presently, or very shortly, we are going to have a ban on 
all MTBE in the United States.
  They fooled us once, they fooled us twice, and they fooled us three 
times. Are we going to let them fool us again? Now they say they can 
come up with something else. Now they have something else they are 
going to try to put in the gasoline to meet the Clean Air Act. They 
want to get rid of the oxygenate requirement in fuel totally and do it 
their way. Then ethanol does not have a role. That is the oil companies 
for you. They stymied everything we have ever tried to do to provide 
for alternative source fuel, especially ethanol.
  It costs basically the same amount of money to take oil out of the 
ground today as it did a year ago or a year and a half ago. It does not 
cost any more. Yet we see the price going up.
  The International Energy Agency has pointed out we have a greater 
supply, than demand of oil by about 3 million barrels a day. I have 
always thought, if supply exceeds demand, the price goes down. The oil 
companies have stood that on its head. We have an excess of supply over 
demand by 3 million barrels a day and the price is way up.
  The Senator from Alaska said that over the next--I don't know what 
timeframe he was using--that the oil companies would need $1.5 trillion 
for new infrastructure, $1.5 trillion for new pipelines, new 
refineries, new infrastructure for oil and gas. Yet we try to get a few 
million dollars to help ethanol production, to help biomass fuels which 
are renewable. We need to get a few million dollars in for the use of 
hydrogen in fuel cells and for fuel cell research, which would be a 
tremendous

[[Page S5726]]

alternative to burning gasoline in our cars--where you could take solar 
energy, in the form of direct solar energy or biomass, or 
hydroelectric, use that power to separate hydrogen from oxygen, take 
the two atoms of hydrogen off of the water, separate the hydrogen off, 
use that hydrogen--you can compress it, you can store it, you can pipe 
it--you can even liquefy it; that is a little expensive--and then you 
can put that through a fuel cell. As it goes through a fuel cell, it 
combines again with oxygen, and it makes electricity. And you use that 
electricity to power lights, to drive a car, to drive a bus. That is 
being done today.
  We have buses running in Vancouver, British Columbia powered only by 
fuel cells. We have the technology. It is a little expensive right now, 
I grant that. But the more we mass-produce it, the cheaper it is going 
to become.
  The future for energy production and energy use is not bleak; it is 
very bright. It is clean, it is renewable, and it is plentiful. If we 
can get out from underneath the grip that the oil companies have on 
America, if we can move ahead, instead of $1.5 trillion for new 
infrastructure for oil and gas, if we just take a fraction of that 
amount of money and put it into fuel cell production, put it into 
biomass fuels and solar energy and the production of ethanol, we could 
have a blend of fuels in this country that would offset the increases 
we would need over the next 20 to 50 years.
  But this Congress will not invest in it. This Congress--will not 
invest nor have other Congresses invested--in what is needed for clean, 
renewable energy in the form of hydrogen extraction for fuel cells.
  As I said, we have two paths to go. We can go down that same path we 
have been going down with the whole carbon cycle, using more and more 
oil, refining it, trying to clean up the air, trying to clean up oil 
spills, or we can go for clean, renewable fuels like ethanol and 
biodiesel, and hydrogen for use in fuel cells which are much more 
efficient, too, by the way.
  So, no, we do not have to continue to pay obeisance to the oil 
companies. I think maybe now, with what is happening in the upper 
Midwest, what we see happening around the country, maybe now Congress 
can start to move and make some changes in our energy policy.
  The bottom line: Get the oil company executives here. Put them under 
oath. Ask them the tough questions. Then we will begin to get to the 
bottom of this.
  I did not mean to really talk on energy, but I heard the Senator from 
Alaska talking about it and thought I should respond because I believe 
there is another side to this story other than just going down the 
pathway of promoting oil and more oil use in this country and around 
the world.
  But as I said in the beginning, we are here because of the Labor-HHS 
bill and the impact it has on our society in all of its forms: 
education, health, job training, medical research.
  I believe one of the crucial aspects of our bill that we fund here 
every year on Health and Human Services is the need--the great need--we 
have in this country to ensure that our elderly citizens have access to 
quality health care. That is why the administrative costs of medicare 
and the running of the program fall under our jurisdiction. The actual 
levels of Medicare and Social Security fall under the Finance 
Committee. But we are charged with the responsibility of making sure it 
runs and that the elderly get the kind of quality health care 
accessibility that they need. One of the items impacting the elderly 
the most in that regard today is the extremely high price of 
prescription drugs.

  Last night, we had a crucial vote in the Senate on that issue. We had 
the first real vote this Congress on whether our seniors should get 
help with the high cost of prescription drugs. That is what the vote 
was about. Unfortunately, all but two of our colleagues on the 
Republican side joined together to defeat Senator Robb's motion and to 
deny seniors the help they desperately need with high prescription drug 
costs.
  It is too bad it fell along partisan lines. This is not a partisan 
issue. I have had town meetings with seniors in my State. I don't ask 
them whether they are Republicans or Democrats. They all come to the 
meetings. It tears my heart out to hear their stories of $4,000, 
$5,000, as much as $6,000 a year that they are paying out of pocket 
every year for prescription drugs with no help. It should not be a 
partisan issue. It is too bad that all of our colleagues on the 
Republican side joined together to defeat it except two.
  I hope it is only a temporary setback. I challenge our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle to join us, to join our seniors, to join 
the overwhelming majority of Americans who support a Medicare drug 
benefit. Our seniors need real help. They don't need the kind of sugar 
pill that is being prescribed by the House Republican leadership.
  The House Ways and Means Committee this week passed a prescription 
drug benefit. Quite frankly, it does not answer the problem. It is an 
insurance program that reimburses insurance companies, not our seniors. 
It is not affordable. It is not an option for seniors in all regions of 
the country. It is not universal. There is no guaranteed access to 
needed drugs and local pharmacies. There are no protections against 
high drug costs. Who benefits from what the House did? The drug 
companies and the insurance companies. The House basically said that if 
you are a single person and you make over $12,500, there is no 
assistance to you. They are saying to the seniors of this country, if 
you make over $12,500 a year, tough luck. You have to pay for it all 
out of pocket. A lot of the people who have incomes under $12,500 
qualify for Medicaid anyway; they get help with their drug costs.
  What the Republicans in the House did only answers a need for a very 
narrow band of seniors--the very poor. What about the elderly who are 
making $15,000 a year? They are left out in the cold. Seniors making 
$20,000 a year who may still have payments on a house, maybe they have 
their property taxes to pay, they have heating bills, food bills, they 
have clothing bills. We would like to have them enjoy a little bit of 
their retirement years, maybe take a little vacation once in a while. 
They can't do that. They won't be able to do that under the House-
passed bill because they will have to have an income of less than 
$12,500 a year. If it is over that, even with that, the benefits go to 
the drug companies and insurance companies and not to the seniors.
  I think our seniors have waited long enough. They have been in the 
waiting room long enough for this. When our seniors see the vote that 
was taken last night, they are going to be mad, and they have every 
right to be. That is the first time we voted on this. We will continue 
to try. We will reach across the aisle and hope to make this a 
bipartisan effort. Senators will have another chance to vote again on 
the issue of prescription drug benefits for our elderly. Hopefully, the 
next time we do it, we will have a different result. We can provide 
meaningful help for our seniors to pay the extremely high cost of drugs 
they are having to pay today. So many of our seniors are being forced 
to choose between food, heat in the wintertime, maybe even air 
conditioning in the summertime, a choice between that and paying for 
prescription drugs. It is a choice they should not have to face.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 2782 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before addressing the Senate on the 
matters before us in terms of education and the HHS appropriations 
bill, I commend my good friend from Iowa for a splendid presentation on 
energy policy as well as on prescription drugs. He talked with great 
knowledge and understanding about some of these advanced technologies 
which can make an enormous difference in terms of our region of the 
country, the Northeast. With the kinds of research he has supported and 
which the administration has tried to achieve with their budgets being 
denied by the other side, I am very hopeful that we can follow a number 
of those recommendations that he has made. I think they are sensible 
and responsible, and they can make an enormous difference on energy 
policy.
  As always, he has summarized very completely the challenge that is 
before the American people on the question of prescription drugs. We 
had a brief debate last evening. We have been waiting some 17, 18 
months to get action.

[[Page S5727]]

 We still have not had the action by the respective committees. Given 
the fact that so many of our senior citizens are suffering, we want to 
move this process forward.
  I join with the Senator from Iowa and our other colleagues, the 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, Senator Robb, and our leader, Senator 
Daschle, who has done so much to advance this issue for us in the 
Senate, hoping that we can in the remaining days fashion and shape 
legislation that will have the support of this body. I think, as was 
evident last night, we still have a long way to go.
  I regret very much that we are taking up the Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill for education, before we have completed action on 
the authorizing bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education At. I am 
distressed by this fact because we know that education is a national 
priority.
  We have an opportunity this year to do our part to help local 
communities improve their schools by strengthening the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. And, to Democrats, this is must-pass 
legislation.
  We have tried to make this a priority in the Senate. Six weeks ago we 
were debating education policy. That legislation was pulled. We did 
receive assurances that we would get back to the debate on education 
policy, but we have not had that opportunity to do so. I regret it. 
Parents regret it and students and teachers and those involved in the 
education of the children of this country should regret it.
  We now have before us the funding mechanisms for education. We are 
really putting the cart before the horse. We are talking about the 
funding without having the debate on what the education policy should 
be.
  That is not the way to deal with the Federal involvement and 
participation in sound education policy. We have differences about how 
to do what we ought to fund. We have a limited role, granted. Only 7 
cents out of every dollar that is expended at the local level is 
actually provided by the Federal Government, but this is not an 
unimportant funding stream.
  Historically, what we have tried to do is debate these issues, 
resolve these questions, develop a policy, and then fund that policy. 
But we have not had that opportunity. This is in spite of the fact that 
we have had a lot of bold statements about the importance of education.
  We had our majority leader in January of this year saying:

       Education is going to be a central issue this year. For 
     starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act. That is important.

  That is what I wish we had the opportunity to do. However, it has 
been 6 weeks since we had that legislation. We had it before the Senate 
6 days, and 2 days we had debate only. We had eight amendments, and 
three of those were unanimously accepted. There were only 5 amendments 
that would not have been universally accepted by roll call votes.
  We have our leader talking about the importance of education as a 
matter of national priority in January. At the Mayors Conference on 
January 29, he said:

       But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's 
     not going to just be words. . . .
       Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in 
     the Congress this year. . . .

  That was in 1999.
  On February 1, 2000:

       We're going to work very hard on education. I have 
     emphasized that every year I've been majority leader. . . . 
     And Republicans are committed to doing that.

  Then he said on February 3, 2000:

       We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this 
     Congress.

  Congress Daily, April 20, 2000:

       . . . Lott said last week his top priorities in May include 
     an agriculture sanctions bill, Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act reauthorization, and passage of four 
     appropriations bills.

  And we still haven't had the reauthorization.
  On May 2, the majority leader was asked:

       Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture vote on 
     that?
       Senator Lott. No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . 
     But education is number one in the minds of the American 
     people all across this country and every state, including my 
     own state.

  We are still waiting for that. We had 55 different amendments on the 
bankruptcy bill. Why aren't we saying that education is important? Why 
aren't we debating it today, or this afternoon, or next Monday, and 
having votes on it? We are not doing that and we ought to be doing 
that--It is the Nation's business.
  So this is an important matter for policy makers and parents. When 
they hear the leaders of the Senate saying it is a priority and it is 
important, that we ought to do it, we have to do it, we are committed 
to doing it, yet we never do it, they have to ask are we serious about 
this issue. I think these are very serious questions: Are we going to 
find the time to debate what is on the minds of most families in this 
country? How their children are going to get the best possible 
education? What are we going to do at the local level, State level, and 
Federal level to try to be able to achieve it? This is a matter of very 
considerable concern.
  Secondly, I remind our colleagues that education is only 2.3 percent 
of the Federal fiscal year 2000 budget. Defense is 15 percent. Interest 
on the debt is 12.3 percent. Entitlements are 12.6 percent. Medicare is 
6.5 percent. Medicare is 11.1 percent. Social Security is 22.5 percent. 
Nondefense discretionary is 17.1 percent.
  I don't think that is what American families think is a priority. 
This institution is about prioritizing for the American people. How do 
we reflect their principal concerns in prioritizing and allocating 
resources in the budget? I daresay that American families want more 
than 2.3 percent of our Federal budget supporting education.

  Now, there are those on the other side of the isle who do not want to 
see that. They say they don't want any Federal participation. Some on 
that side have advocated the abolition of the Department of Education. 
They have wanted to rescind money that we have appropriated. That has 
been their position, and I don't agree with it.
  When you see that education is only 2.3 percent of the Federal 
budget--if you took any part of America and brought together a group of 
Americans and asked them how they wanted to allocate the Federal 
dollars, they will talk about national security, certainly, and that is 
an important priority, and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security; 
those are obviously matters of priority. But they would also want to 
make sure we were going to do more in the area of education--more than 
2.3 percent. If you take what we are doing at the K-through-12 level, 
it is below 1 percent. The remainder of the 2.3 percent includes higher 
education initiatives including Pell grants and Stafford loans. If you 
look at what we are doing for the 53 million American children going to 
school every day, we are at less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent of 
our budget.
  I think we are talking about what most families want. They want a 
partnership between the Federal, State, and local governments to try to 
find out what programs are effective and what will enhance academic 
achievement and accomplishment for their children. Let's invest in 
those programs and let's have tough accountability measures to make 
sure we are going to get results. That is what this side of the aisle 
wants to do.
  This chart is reflective of what has been happening. The Federal 
share of education funding has declined. This shows in 1980, elementary 
and secondary education--it was 11.9 percent in 1980, and it was down 
to 7.7 percent in 1999. The second part is higher education, 15.4 
percent in 1980, and down to 10.7 percent in 1999. These indicators are 
going down when they ought to be going up. That is basically the issue 
of choice.
  If you look at what is happening in terms of allocation of priorities 
in the elementary and secondary education, we are seeing the collapse 
of the national commitment in terms of educating children in this 
country. This is wrong. We are talking about priorities, and I think 
this is an issue that will have to be a matter before the country in 
this national election.
  We have seen in the eighties and coming into the nineties a gradual 
decline in Congress assisting local communities, at a time when there 
has been an exploding population in K-12. There are scarcer resources 
going to

[[Page S5728]]

assist local communities, as we have been able to acquire an increasing 
knowledge and awareness about efforts that are actually working and 
enhancing academic achievement.
  That is the dilemma. That is the dilemma with the budget resolution. 
The Republican budget resolution allocated a certain amount of 
resources for the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. I admire the 
work that has been done by my colleagues, Senator Harkin from Iowa and 
Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. In spite of their best efforts, 
because there has been a reduced allocation for their budget, there is 
going to be a cutback in many of the programs which make a vital 
difference in educating the children of this country.
  It does not have to be that way. Included in this budget is a tax cut 
of some $718 billion over 10 years. When there is an allocation for a 
tax cut of $718 billion, there is going to be a short shrift of some 
programs, and in this instance it is education. The American people 
ought to understand that. I believe it is a higher priority to invest 
in children and in programs that work rather than having tax breaks for 
wealthy individuals and corporations of this country.
  This ought to be an issue during the course of this election because 
if we are not going to see any departure or change in the leadership in 
the House or the Senate, we will continue to see this decline in 
assisting in education. That is irrefutable.
  I am going to review for the Senate what has happened to some 
programs that have focused on the enhancement of education. There are 
cutbacks by the Republican leadership in allocating resources to the 
Senate appropriations subcommittee because they want a large tax break 
over a period of years. Democrats have some tax breaks, about a third 
of what the Republicans want. We have about a third of the cut, but we 
enhance the programs that are working. That is the major difference.
  This is not a time for cuts in education. We need to increase our 
investment in education to ensure a brighter future for the Nation's 
children. Unfortunately, the bill approved by the House of 
Representatives is a major retreat from these priorities. It slashed 
funding for education by $2.9 billion below the President's request. 
The House bill is even worse than the bill that is before the Senate. 
Unless we are going to enhance some of these programs during the debate 
next week, then we cannot expect, when the House and Senate meet, that 
there is going to be a compromise that is not going to have a further 
diminution of our commitment than what is before the Senate at this 
time.
  The House bill zeros out critical funds to help States turn around 
failing schools. It slashes funding for 21st century learning center 
programs by $400 million below the President's request, denying 900 
communities the opportunity to provide $1.6 million for after-school 
activities to keep children off the streets, away from drugs and out of 
trouble, and help them with their studies.
  Of all the requests for resources for programs by local communities, 
perhaps the highest number of requests is for after-school programs. 
They are working, they are effective, and they are keeping children out 
of trouble and enhancing academic achievement. These programs are being 
cut.
  It eliminates the bipartisan commitment to help communities across 
the country reduce class size in the early grades. The federal Class 
Size Reduction program is making a difference. For example, in Columbus 
Ohio, class sizes in grades 1-3 have been reduced from 25 students per 
class to 15 students per class. We need to invest more in this program, 
so that communities can continue to reduce class sizes.

  It cuts funding for Title I by $166 million below the President's 
request, reducing or eliminating services to 260,000 educationally 
disadvantaged children to help them master the basics and meet high 
standards of achievement--260,000 fewer children will be able to 
benefit from that program.
  It reduces the funding for the Reading Excellence Act by $26 million 
below the President's request, denying services to help 100,000 
children become successful readers by the end of the third grade. What 
sense does that make? We ought to be enhancing our effort to ensure 
literacy among children in our country. We know what works. Instead, 
they are cutting back on that effort which has been very successful.
  It slashes funding for Safe and Drug Free Schools by $51 million 
below the President's request, denying communities extra help to keep 
their students safe, healthy, and drug-free, with the development of 
conflict resolution programs to help schools and school teachers have 
more orderly, disciplined classrooms and schools. This program is used 
in schools all over this country. It is not going to resolve all the 
problems of school violence and school discipline, but it is enormously 
helpful and useful in trying to help teachers, parents, and officials 
in local communities to make schools safer and drug-free.
  This bill does nothing to help communities meet the most urgent 
repair and modernization needs.
  These needs are especially urgent in 5,000 schools across the 
country. We have the GAO study that says it will cost $112 billion to 
repair and modernize schools so that children go to school in buildings 
that are modern and safe, and not overcrowded. The administration has 
come up with a very modest program to help schools in this effort. This 
effectively turns its back on that effort.
  It slashes funding for GEAR UP by $125 million below the President's 
request, denying more than 644,000 low-income middle and high school 
students the support they need for early college preparation and 
awareness activities.
  It does nothing to increase the funding for Teacher Quality 
Enhancement Grants, so that more communities can recruit and retain 
better qualified teachers.
  It slashes funding for Head Start by $600 million below the 
President's budget, denying 50,000 low-income children critical 
preschool services.
  It slashes funding for dislocated workers by $181 million below the 
President's request, denying over 100,000 dislocated workers much-
needed training, job search, and re-employment services.
  It reduces funding for Adult Job Training by $93 million below the 
President's request, denying 37,2 and the second part is higher 
education 00 adults job training this year.
  If this program goes through, in terms of trade with China, we know 
there are going to be sectors of our economy that are going to do very 
well, but there are others that are going to be adversely impacted.
  Rather than cutting back and slashing training programs for workers 
who are going to be dislocated, we ought to be strengthening those 
programs, if we are going to be fair and have a fair and balanced 
policy on the issues of trade. We are going in the wrong direction.
  It cuts youth opportunities grants by $200 million below the 
President's request, eliminating the proposed expansion to 20 new 
communities, reducing the current program by $75 million, and denying 
40,000 of some of the most disadvantaged youth a bridge to the skills 
and opportunities of our strong economy and alternatives to welfare and 
crime.
  It slashes Summer Jobs and Year-Round Youth Training by $21 million 
below the President's request, reducing the estimated number of low-
income youth to be served by over 12,000.
  What do you expect these young people are going to be involved in? 
You don't think they are going to look for other routes? And then we 
are going to have complaints about the problems in terms of an increase 
in violence and dangerous behavior when we are basically underserving 
and failing in terms of meeting these requirements--all because we are 
trying to save money for a tax break for wealthy individuals. That is 
the alternative.
  The Senate bill does take some positive steps towards better funding 
for higher education.
  It does increase the Pell grant by $350 to $3,650. This is enormously 
important.
  The average income for those families is $9,000. If you take children 
with similar academic test results--not that test results are the only 
indicator; but let's take those--that makes it even more extraordinary 
because these children who are coming from low-income

[[Page S5729]]

and lower-middle income families don't have the advantages that many 
other children have in taking these prep courses for the SATs and other 
college aptitude tests. But if you take children with the same academic 
test results, the chance for children in the lower quarter percentile 
to continue in higher education is 25 percent of what it would be if 
they were in the top third of income. Mr. President, 82 percent of 
children in the top third income bracket continue in higher education. 
And for just the children who are eligible, 25 percent of them continue 
in higher education from the lower income bracket.
  We are finding the disparity in education increasing. We made the 
efforts years ago, starting in the 1960s, with Republican and 
bipartisan support, to try to see that there was not going to be 
enormous disparity in the area of education. That is increasing now. 
The danger we are facing is whether we are going to see it further 
increase in the areas of technology.
  There has been a funding increase of $1.3 billion in IDEA, which I 
strongly support. I remember offering the amendment last year when we 
had the tax bill. It was $780 billion over 5 years, to fully fund the 
IDEA. That would have taken a fifth of the tax bill. And it went down 
in a resounding defeat. It was a pretty clear indication that the 
Republican leadership won't fully fund IDEA for a tax cut, but will try 
to fund the IDEA even if it means cutting back in some of these very 
important programs that reach out to the neediest children.
  Once again, the Republican leadership has put block grants ahead of 
targeted funding for education reforms. Block grants are the wrong 
approach. They prevent the allocation of scarce resources to the 
highest education priorities. They eliminate critical accountability 
provisions that ensure better results for all children. The block grant 
approach abandons the national commitment to improve education by 
encouraging proven effective reforms of public schools.
  Block grants are the wrong direction for education and the wrong 
direction for the Nation. They do nothing to encourage change in public 
schools.
  The bill includes $2.7 billion more for the title VI block grant, but 
it eliminates the Federal commitment to reducing class size. It does 
nothing to guarantee funds for communities to address their urgent 
school repair and modernization needs.
  It is unconscionable to block grant critical funds that are targeted 
to the neediest communities to reduce class size. Under the bipartisan 
Class Size Reduction Program that has received bipartisan support for 
the past 2 years, funds are distributed based on a formula that is 
targeted to school districts 80 percent by poverty and 20 percent by 
population. But under the title VI block grant, funding is distributed 
based solely on population--it includes no provisions to target the 
funds to high poverty districts. This is unacceptable, when it is often 
the neediest students that are in the largest classes.
  The national class size average is just over 22 students per class. 
But, in many communities--especially in urban and rural communities--
class sizes are much higher than the national average.
  In 1998, the publication Education Week found that half of the 
elementary teachers in urban areas and 44 percent of the teachers in 
nonurban areas had classes with 25 or more students.
  Next week, we will have the opportunity to address education in this 
pending Senate appropriations bill.
  Democrats will offer amendments to address as many of these critical 
needs as possible. I intend to offer an amendment to increase funding 
for Title II of the Higher Education Act, to help communities recruit 
and train prospective teachers and put a qualified teacher in every 
classroom. In addition, I will offer an amendment to increase funding 
for skills training by $792 million to ensure the Nation's workers get 
the support they need in today's workplace.
  Senator Murray will offer an amendment to continue the bipartisan 
commitment we have made over the last two years to help communities 
reduce class size in the early grades.
  Senator Harkin and Senator Robb will offer an amendment to ensure 
that communities get the help they need to meet the most urgent repair 
and modernization programs.
  Senator Dodd will offer an amendment to increase funding for the 21st 
Century Learning Centers Program, so more children will have the 
opportunity to attend after-school activities.
  Senator Bingaman will offer an amendment to help States turn around 
failing schools.
  Senator Reed will offer an amendment to increase funding for the GEAR 
UP programs, so more children will be able to attend college.
  Other colleagues will offer additional amendments to increase the 
Nation's investment in education. The time is now to invest more in 
education. The Nation's children and families deserve no less.
  Mr. President, I want to just take a moment of the Senate's time to 
speak on where we are on the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  The American people have waited more than 3 years for Congress to 
send the President a Patients' Bill of Rights that protects all 
patients and holds HMOs and other health plans accountable for their 
actions.
  Every day the conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights fails to 
produce agreement on meaningful patient protections, 60,000 more 
patients endure added pain and suffering. More than 40,000 patients 
report a worsening of their condition as a result of health plan 
abuses. This is happening every single day we fail to take action.
  By all accounts, Republicans are working amongst themselves on the 
Patients' Bill of Rights. They are working in the middle of the night, 
behind closed doors, to produce a partisan bill that will surely fail 
the test of true reform. The crocodile tears were flowing from the eyes 
of the Senate Republican leadership on June 8 when we took the 
bipartisan, House-passed Managed Care Consensus Act to the floor for 
its first Senate vote. That legislation, which passed the House with 
overwhelming bipartisan support last year, is a sensible compromise 
that extends meaningful protections to all patients and guarantees that 
health plans are held accountable when their abuses result in injury or 
death.
  Democratic Conferees sent a letter to Senator Nickles on June 13. In 
that letter, we reiterated that we remained ready to negotiate on 
serious proposals that provide a basis for achieving strong, effective 
protections. But the Assistant Majority Leader has not responded. The 
silence is deafening.
  The gap between the Senate Republican plan and the bipartisan 
legislation enacted by the House in the Norwood-Dingell bill is wide. 
And the intransigence of the Republican conferees is preventing 
adequate progress.
  Make no mistake. We want a bill that can be signed into law this 
year. There is not much time left. We need to act now. The Republican 
leadership continues to refuse to guarantee meaningful protections to 
all Americans. They continue to delay and deny action on this critical 
issue. This debate is about real people. It is about women, children, 
and families.
  This issue is a very basic and fundamental issue. It is whether 
doctors, nurses, and families are going to make the medical decisions 
for patients free of the decisions of the accountants for the HMOs. 
That is what this bill is really all about. That is why over 300 
organizations support our particular proposal: patients organizations, 
every women's organization, every child's advocate, every cancer 
prevention and treatment organization is for us, every medical 
organization--including strong support from the American Medical 
Association. None of these organizations support the Senate Republican 
program or the lack of progress in the conference.
  A third of all the Republicans in the House of Representatives 
supported the Dingell-Norwood bill. Now we have effectively 49 Members 
of the Senate who are supporting the Dingell-Norwood legislation. To 
just get a majority, one would think the changes that would have to be 
made in this would be extremely easy. I don't think they are that 
complex. But we still have the Republican leadership denying us the 
chance to do it.
  I am always interested in the silence on the other side. I asked: In 
this Patients' Bill of Rights, which we have basically supported on our 
side, which one of these guarantees do you not

[[Page S5730]]

want to provide for your families and for your constituents?
  The first one is to protect all patients with private insurance. This 
is the difference. Under the Democratic proposal, there are 161 million 
Americans who are covered. Under the Senate Republican program, there 
are only 48 million. Under the bipartisan House of Representatives 
program, it is 161 million. We ought to be able to decide that pretty 
easily. Do we want to cover everyone, which is 161 million, or are we 
going to cover only 48 million? If you put people together in a room, 
they have to be able to come out with some number. The Republican bill 
leaves out millions of Americans. I find it absolutely extraordinary to 
think that we wouldn't provide protections for all Americans.

  Do we want to leave out the 23 to 25 million State and local 
employees--teachers, firefighters, police officers, public health 
nurses, doctors, garbage collectors, et cetera? Do we want to leave 
them out? They were left out of the Senate bill sponsored by the 
Republicans. We included them.
  Do you want to leave out those who are the self-employed--farmers, 
child care providers, cab drivers, people who work for companies that 
don't provide insurance, contract workers, workers who are between jobs 
and unemployed? We cover them, 12 to 15 million people. The Republican 
bill does not cover them.
  The bipartisan legislation that we support and which we voted on in 
the Senate on June 8 covers everyone. But the Senate Republican 
leadership says ``no'' to farmers, truck drivers, police officers, 
teachers, home day care providers, fire fighters, and countless others 
who buy insurance on their own or work for state or local governments. 
Republican conferees steadfastly refuse to cover all Americans. Their 
flawed approach leaves out two-thirds of those with private health 
insurance--more than 120 million Americans.
  The protections in the House-passed bill are urgently needed by 
patients across the country. Yet, the Republican leadership is adopting 
the practice of delay and denial that HMOs so often use themselves to 
delay and deny patients the care they need. It's just as wrong for 
Congress to delay and deny these needed reforms, as it is for HMOs to 
delay and deny needed care.
  We have listened to statements on the other side that, ``This is all 
politics. This is all politics.'' We are asking: What is politics, to 
try to include everyone? What is politics is not including them and 
being in the debt of the HMOs and the industry. That is the politics.
  So we ask, what is it that we don't want to provide--which one of 
over twenty different protections? Are we going to deny access to 
specialists? Are we not going to permit clinical trials? Are we going 
to refuse women access to OB/GYNs? What about prescription drugs that 
doctors give; are we not going to guarantee that? Or are we going to 
prohibit the gag rule so doctors can give the most accurate information 
on various treatments? I hope. Are we going to ensure external and 
internal appeals as well as accountability? Are we going to ensure 
emergency room access? I would think so. Which of these protections do 
the Republicans not want to guarantee to the American people? That is 
the question we are asking. The American people are entitled to an 
answer. Three hundred organizations that represent the American people 
say they are entitled to it. We ought to be doing something about it.
  Every day, we find out that Americans are being harmed. We were able 
to get bipartisan legislation through the House of Representatives. At 
the dead end of our conference, the courageous Congressmen, Mr. Norwood 
and Mr. Ganske, came over and indicated that they believe we are not 
making progress. They support our efforts in the Senate. Two prominent 
doctors who happen to be Republicans strongly support our effort in the 
Senate to get action.
  We reject the concept that this is just a political ploy. It is 
interesting to me, having been here for some time, that whenever you 
agree with the other side, it is wonderful and you are a statesman. If 
you differ, you are a politician; it is done for political purposes. We 
have listened to that all the time. We heard it last night on 
prescription drugs. We heard it on hate crimes. We heard it with regard 
to the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  The American people understand the importance of this legislation. We 
want to give assurances to the American people, we are not letting up 
on this issue. We are going to press this issue on the Patients' Bill 
of Rights. We are going to press it, and press it, and press it until 
we get the job done.
  We are going to do the same with prescription drugs, so our friends 
on the other side ought to get familiar with it. Just as we are going 
to come back to the issue of minimum wage, we are going to come back to 
it, and back to it, and back to it, if you want to dust off your 
speeches already and say that that is politics.

  The idea of guaranteeing someone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks 
of the year, that they are not going to live in poverty is a fairness 
issue which the American people understand. We ought to guarantee that 
minimum wage for work in America. You can name it or call it anything 
you want, as long as we vote on it and get it and make sure they get 
the fair increase they deserve.
  I thought we would have the chance to get into the debate and 
discussion on a number of these issues, but we are not having that 
opportunity today. I look forward to debating the issues the first of 
the week.
  Mr. President, Congress can pass bipartisan legislation that provides 
meaningful protections for all patients and guarantees accountability 
when health plan abuse results in injury or death. The question is 
``will we''?
  The American people are waiting for an answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.

                          ____________________