[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 85 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6047-S6056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
                 RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 4577, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Frist modified amendment No. 3654, to increase the amount 
     appropriated for the Interagency Education Research 
     Initiative.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 7 
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the Frist amendment, with 5 
minutes under the control of Senator Frist.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, my amendment fully funds the Department of 
Education's share of the Interagency Education Research Initiative, 
IERI, which is a collaborative joint research and development education 
effort between the Department of Education and the National Science 
Foundation and the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development.
  Quality education depends on quality research. We need to know the 
answers, if our goal is accountability and student achievement, on what 
works and what does not work. As we all know, advances in education, as 
in other fields, depend on knowing what works and what doesn't. If you 
look at our past investments in research in the field of education, 
pre-K through 12,

[[Page S6048]]

our efforts have been woefully inadequate in terms of dollars and in 
the quality of the research that has been produced in the past.
  This is a joint collaborative effort, where we link three agencies 
together and demand accountability, credibility, good science, and the 
exactness of science in determining what works and what does not work. 
The primary objective of this joint program is to support the research 
and development and the wide dissemination of research-proven 
educational strategies that improve student achievement from pre-K all 
the way through 12 in the key areas of reading, mathematics, and 
science.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very worthwhile investment in 
our children's education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Tennessee for 
this amendment. It is a worthwhile amendment. It is a relatively small 
sum of money. We are prepared to accept it, as we have accepted a 
number of amendments where the funds are not too high, and where we can 
offset it against administrative costs. I believe this one can be held 
in conference. I can't make an absolute commitment because we are going 
to have to balance this along with many others on the administrative 
cost line. But I think it is meritorious. We are trying to meet the 
leader's deadline of final passage by midafternoon, and in the interest 
of time and the value of the amendment, we are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Tennessee.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     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
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 3654) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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 Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Helms 
amendment regarding school facilities be included in the amendment 
sequence following the Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 3688

  (Purpose: To prohibit health insurance companies from using genetic 
    information to discriminate against enrollees, and to prohibit 
employers from using such information to discriminate in the workplace)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3688 and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Daschle, for 
     himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3688.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we just received the amendment. I am 
going to suggest the absence of a quorum for the moment so we can look 
at it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have just had a discussion, and it may 
be that someone on our side of the aisle will want to offer a second-
degree amendment. We are prepared, and have taken the quorum call off, 
on the assurance that that opportunity will be present.
  I ask unanimous consent at this time there be 30 minutes of debate 
equally divided, and that at the end of 30 minutes someone on our side 
will have an opportunity, if he or she chooses, to offer a second-
degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
require.
  Mr. President, this week, we got our first glimpse of the first rough 
draft of the human genetic code.
  The public-private partnership known as the Human Genome Project is 
the genetic equivalent of putting man on the moon.
  By decoding our genetic makeup, researchers may soon discover how to 
cure and even prevent heart disease, cancer, birth defects, and other 
serious medical conditions.
  We have every reason to be hopeful about this breakthrough. But we 
also have some reason to be concerned, because genetic information--
used improperly--can also cause great harm.
  Improvements in genetic testing can determine whether a person has an 
increased chance of developing breast cancer, or colon cancer, or some 
other serious illness--years before symptoms even appear.
  In the right hands, that information could save your life. In the 
wrong hands, that same information could be used to deny you insurance, 
a mortgage, or even a job.
  We need to make sure this new research--which has been funded largely 
by American taxpayers--is used to help America's families, not hurt 
them. That is the goal of this amendment.
  Francis Collins probably knows more about the potential of genetic 
testing than anyone in the world. He is the head of the international 
research team that makes up the Human Genome Project.
  Listen to what Dr. Collins said on Monday, the day the results of the 
first phase of the Human Genome Project were unveiled:

       Genetic discrimination in insurance and the workplace is 
     wrong and it ought to be prevented by effective federal 
     legislation.

  He added:

       If we needed a wake-up call to say that it's time to do 
     this, isn't today the wake-up call?

  Dr. Collins is right. It would be an absolute travesty if a test that 
could save your life ends up costing you your job or your financial 
security.
  Genetic discrimination isn't just a theoretical possibility. It isn't 
just something that might happen in the future. It is already 
happening--even without the information the human genome promises to 
uncover.
  It is already happening to people like Terri Seargent.
  Terri was a model employee who was moving up the corporate ladder--
until

[[Page S6049]]

the day a test revealed that she carried a gene that might--here I 
emphasize ``might''--make her more susceptible to a potentially fatal 
pulmonary condition.
  Before her employers saw those test results, they used to give Terri 
glowing job performance reviews. But after they saw the results, they 
asked her to resign. She did, because she had no choice, because 
genetic discrimination is not clearly prohibited--in the workplace, or 
anywhere else.
  The solution is obvious. Dr. Collins is right. Our laws must keep 
pace with advances in science and technology. No one should suffer 
discrimination solely because of his or her genetic makeup.
  Last year, the President signed an executive order outlawing genetic 
discrimination in the workplace for Federal employees. It is now time 
to expand these important protections to all Americans.
  That is why I am offering, along with my colleagues--Senators 
Kennedy, Dodd, and Harkin--the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health 
Insurance and Employment Act as an amendment to this bill.
  Our bill has three major components:
  First, it forbids employers from discriminating in hiring, or in the 
terms and conditions of employment, on the basis of genetic 
information;
  Second, it forbids health insurers from discriminating against 
individuals on the basis of genetic information; and
  Third, it prevents the disclosure of genetic information to health 
insurers, health insurance data banks, employers, and anyone else who 
has no legitimate need for information of this kind.
  Discrimination based on genetic factors is just as unacceptable as 
that based on race, national origin, religion, sex or disability. In 
each case, people are treated unfairly, not because of their inherent 
abilities but solely because of irrelevant characteristics.
  Genetic discrimination, like other forms of discrimination, hurts us 
all. It hurts our economy by keeping talented people out of the 
workforce and diminishes us as a people. We cannot take one step 
forward in science but two steps back in civil rights.
  And we will all pay the price in increased health care costs if we 
allow employers or insurers to use genetic information to discriminate. 
If fear of discrimination stops people from getting genetic tests, 
early diagnosis and preventative treatments, they may suffer much more 
serious and more expensive health problems in the long run. And we all 
have to pay for that, as well.
  Finally, genetic discrimination undercuts the Human Genome Project's 
fundamental purpose of promoting public health. Investing resources in 
the Human Genome Project is justified by the benefits of identifying, 
preventing and developing effective treatments for disease. But if fear 
of discrimination deters people from genetic diagnosis, our 
understanding of the humane genome will be in vain.
  A CNN/Time Poll released earlier this week, found that a full 80 
percent of the respondents said genetic information should not be 
available to insurance companies.
  And almost half of all Americans believe there will be negative 
consequences from the Human Genome Project. I think we ought to prove 
today that they are wrong.
  Let us make sure that Americans are not afraid to take advantage of 
breakthroughs in genetic testing. Dramatic scientific advances should 
not have negative consequences for our health care.
  We have an historic opportunity to preempt this problem. Today, 
Congress should expand the scope of its antidiscrimination laws to 
include a ban on genetic discrimination. I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this week, as the leader has 
pointed out, scientists announced the completion of a task that once 
seemed unimaginable; and that is, the deciphering of the entire DNA 
sequence of the human genetic code. This amazing accomplishment is 
likely to affect the 21st century as profoundly as the invention of the 
computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century. I 
believe that the 21st century will be the century of life sciences, and 
nothing makes that point more clearly than this momentous discovery. It 
will revolutionize medicine as we know it today.
  Already, genetic tests can be used to identify and help those who are 
at risk for disease, and those who are already diagnosed. Scientists 
are using new knowledge gained from the genetic code to design better 
treatments for cancer, AIDS, depression, and many other conditions and 
diseases.
  Tragically, the vast potential of genetic knowledge to improve health 
care will go unfulfilled it patients fear that information about their 
genetic characteristics will be used as the basis for job 
discrimination or other prejudices. To realize the unprecedented 
opportunities presented by these new discoveries, we must guarantee 
that private medical information remains private and that genetic 
information cannot be used for improper purposes.
  I commend our leader, Senator Daschle, for offering this important 
amendment that would do just that. It would give the American people 
the protections against genetic discrimination they need and deserve.
  The amendment would prohibit health insurers and employers from using 
predictive genetic information to discriminate in the health care 
system and the workplace. It would bar insurance companies from raising 
premiums or denying patients health care coverage based on the results 
of genetic tests, and prohibit insurers from requiring such tests as a 
condition of coverage. In the workplace, the amendment would outlaw the 
use of predictive genetic information for hiring, advancement, salary, 
or other workplace rights and privileges. And, because a right without 
a remedy is no right at all, this important measure would provide 
persons who have suffered genetic discrimination in either arena with 
the right to seek redress through legal action.
  In too many cases, the hopeful promise of genetic discoveries is 
squandered, because patients rightly fear that information about their 
genes will be used against them in the workplace or the health system. 
That fear is clearly well-founded. Today, employers and insurers can 
and do use this information to deny health coverage, refuse a 
promotion, or reject a job applicant--all in the absence of any 
symptoms of disease.
  Although many genetic discoveries and technologies are new, the 
problems they raise with respect to discrimination in insurance and in 
employment have been with us for decades.
  It was clear in 1973 that new developments in genetics had the 
potential for enormous good, as well as significant harm. That's why I 
worked with the scientific community to bring together legal scholars, 
medical professionals, and scientists at the Asilomar Conference Center 
to assess the risks and benefits of genetics. That conference formed 
the basis for laws and established procedures for the use of genetic 
technology that helped create today's thriving biotechnology industry.
  It was clear in 1993 and 1996 that genetic tests and information had 
the potential not only to help patients, but also to harm them. That's 
why we included protections against genetic discrimination in the 
Health Security Act of 1993 and the Kassebaum-Kennedy Act of 1996. 
While the Health Security Act did not become law, Kassebaum-Kennedy 
did. Its protections were an important step forward, but were far from 
complete. Insurers can still use genetic information to outright deny 
coverage or charge outrageous rates to individuals who are currently 
healthy, but may have a genetic pre-disposition to a particular disease 
or condition.
  And, with this week's announcement, it is more clear than ever before 
that in the year 2000 the American people need strong federal laws to 
protect them against the malicious misuse of genetic data. The century 
may have changed, but the problem of discrimination hasn't--and neither 
has my commitment to protect the American people from discrimination in 
all its ugly forms. Discrimination is discrimination whether it's done 
at the ballot box, on a job application, or in the office of an 
insurance underwriter who denies an otherwise healthy patient

[[Page S6050]]

the health care they need based solely on the result of a genetic test 
or medical history of a family member.
  This is the same form of discrimination that would be evident on the 
question of race. Individuals have virtually no kind of control over 
their genetic makeup. What we are saying now is, without these kinds of 
protections, it will be permissible for insurance companies or for 
employers to say: I am not going to hire that person because of the 
genetic makeup they have, because it may mean they are going to get 
sicker over time and cost me in the workplace. Therefore, I am going to 
deny that person. On the other hand, it will require workers to take 
the test as a condition for employment. And then if they find that 
their genetic makeup demonstrates some kind of proclivity to acquire 
this kind of disease, they won't hire them. That is what is happening. 
They are going to find out that the workers are not going to take the 
test, which is increasingly the case, because they don't want to risk 
not being hired in a particular employment situation.
  What happens is, they put themselves at greater risk of getting the 
disease because they deny themselves all the preventive health care 
that could keep them healthy and avoid getting sick and being more 
useful and valuable citizens in the community.
  Fear of genetic discrimination causes patients to go without needed 
medical tests. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported 
that 57 percent of women at risk for breast or ovarian cancer had 
refused to take a genetic test that could have identified their risk 
for cancer and assisted them in receiving medical treatment to prevent 
the onset of these diseases because they feared reprisals for doing so.
  As the potential for discrimination increases, more and more 
Americans are becoming concerned about the danger that employers and 
insurers will misuse and abuse genetic information. Just this week, in 
the aftermath of the historic completion of the genome sequencing 
project, a new CNN-Time magazine survey found that 46 percent of 
Americans believe that sequencing the genome would have harmful 
results.
  Surely, using genetic information as a basis for discrimination would 
be one of the most harmful consequences of this remarkable scientific 
accomplishment. Experts in genetics are virtually unanimous in calling 
for strong protections to prevent such a misuse of science. Secretary 
Shalala's advisory panel on genetic testing--consisting of experts in 
the fields of law, science, medicine, and business--has recommended 
unambiguously that ``Federal legislation should be enacted to prohibit 
discrimination in employment and health insurance based on genetic 
information.''
  Dr. Craig Venter, the president of the company that led the 
privately-financed genome sequencing effort, has testified before the 
Joint Economic Committee that genetic discrimination is ``the biggest 
barrier against having a real medical revolution based on this 
tremendous new scientific information.''
  Without strong protections, the health and welfare of large numbers 
of our fellow citizens will be unfairly at risk. Last week, I was proud 
to stand with Terri Seargeant, a woman who carries a genetic trait that 
can--if untreated--lead to a lung disease often called ``Alpha-1 
deficiency.'' Let me emphasize that this trait only carries the 
potential to develop the lung disease. If persons at risk for the 
disorder take a simple genetic test and are appropriately treated, they 
can prevent development of the disease.
  Terri Seargent is such a person. She received a genetic test that 
revealed her risk for this disease, and took the preventive measures 
needed to avoid the onset of symptoms. She worked hard at her job and 
received consistently positive performance reviews and salary 
increases. Nonetheless, her employer--who had access to her medical 
files and the records of her genetic tests--decided to terminate this 
hard-working, healthy employee. What are we to conclude except that she 
had been fired on the basis of her genetic potential for disease?
  And for every Terri Seargent, who has suffered actual discrimination, 
there are millions of men and women across the nation who are either at 
risk of genetic discrimination or fear getting tested because of 
possible reprisals in the workplace or health system.
  National Human Genome Research Institute, ``Already, with but a 
handful of genetic tests in common use, people have lost their jobs, 
lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well being because 
of the misuse of genetic information.''
  Make no mistake: The potential for genetic discrimination is growing. 
Already DNA ``chips'' are available that can determine a person's 
genetic traits in only a few minutes. In the near future, genetic tests 
will become even cheaper and more widely available than they re today. 
If we do not pass legislation to ban genetic discrimination, it may 
become commonplace for an employer to require such tests, and to use 
the results of these tests to decide which employees to hire or promote 
and which to deny such advancement, based in whole or in part on their 
perceived risk for disease.
  Even now, some employers require information about a person's genetic 
inheritance as a condition of employment or part of the job application 
process. A recent American Management Association survey of more than 
2,000 companies showed that more than 18 percent of companies require 
genetic tests or family medical history data from employees or job 
applicants. According to the same survey, more than 26 percent of the 
companies that require this information use it in hiring decisions.
  President Clinton recognized the need for employees to be protected 
from the dangers of genetic discrimination. In an action of great 
vision and wisdom, President Clinton signed an Executive order on 
February 8 of this year to ban any use of predictive genetic 
information as a basis for hiring, firing, promotion or any other 
condition of employment in the federal workplace. With the stroke of a 
pen, the President instituted for federal workers the types of 
protections that this amendment would provide for all workers and all 
patients.
  Our amendment is strongly supported by leading patient groups, 
medical professional societies, and scientists. The need for these 
kinds of protections has been clearly and repeatedly endorsed by the 
two leaders of the genome sequencing project and by experts in law, 
medicine, and science. A host of editorial boards have written in favor 
of congressional action to protect people in this area.
  In many respects, people's genetic composition is essentially a 
blueprint of their medical past and a crystal ball of the possibilities 
for their medical future. It is difficult to imagine more personal and 
more private information. This powerful information should be shared 
between patients and their doctors--not their employer and their 
coworkers.
  The threat of genetic discrimination faces every American, because 
every American carries unique genetic characteristics that indicate 
risk of disease. This is not about Terri Seargent. This is about each 
and every one of us, and everyone we know.
  The vote cast today in this Chamber will help determine whether the 
secrets of our DNA will be used for beneficial or for harmful purposes. 
Congress should give the American people the strong and comprehensive 
protection from genetic discrimination that they need and deserve. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, it is the purpose of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania now to send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, has time expired for the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have asked people on our side who have 
worked on this in the HELP Committee to come over. We believe this 
amendment addresses important considerations and the objectives are 
very valid: to stop discrimination in employment and in health 
coverage.
  What we would like to do is have an opportunity to propose a second-
degree amendment and then to arrange an orderly debate and have the 
votes. That

[[Page S6051]]

is going to take a few minutes for us to accomplish. In the interim, it 
is our hope that we can move along and get a short time agreement on 
the Ashcroft amendment, to present that and conclude it. By that time, 
our people will be in a position to present the second-degree 
amendment. We can figure out a time agreement and move ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is absolutely 
right. We need to move on with this issue. However, there are a number 
of people who have come to the floor. We believe it is appropriate they 
be allowed to complete their statements. It may take a little bit of 
time. Senator Daschle has agreed at the appropriate time to move on 
this and to go to something else. But Senator Kennedy would like to 
finish his statement. There are others who want to speak on this issue. 
We would like to stay on this issue for a while.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senator from 
Nevada how long he would like to stay on it--for 15 more minutes?
  Mr. REID. I think it will take a little more time than that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I could just take 2 more minutes to conclude.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. SPECTER. What I would like to do would be to establish a 
parameter. This is the kind of subject which we could usefully debate 
for several days. I would like to see what our amendment is on this 
side. We can compare them. Then we are in a position to have a 
discussion as to how long we ought to spend. If we are to finish this 
bill this afternoon or even today, we are going to have to move through 
this amendment. We have other complicated amendments coming up.
  Mr. REID. That is very appropriate. The Senator from Massachusetts 
desires another 5 minutes; the Senator from Connecticut, 15 minutes; 
the Senator from North Dakota, 10 minutes. Senator Harkin also wishes 
to speak.
  Mr. SPECTER. We just had an offer of 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Senator Kennedy, 5; the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. SPECTER. Did my colleague say 5 for Senator Dorgan?
  Mr. REID. Senator Dorgan wishes 7 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. So we have a total of 22 minutes--10, 7, and 5.
  Mr. REID. Yes, with the understanding that we will come back for 
further debate on this issue at a subsequent time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be an 
additional 22 minutes, at which point we will return to the Ashcroft 
amendment. After that, we will present a second-degree amendment and 
work through the time sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, CBO says the cost 
impact of this proposal on business is negligible but a destructive 
impact on individuals and society of the failure to act will be 
immense.
  On the part of this proposal that deals with employment, without this 
kind of amendment, those who have been responsible for the breakthrough 
in terms of the sequencing of the gene understand very well, and have 
stated repeatedly, we are going to have a new form of discrimination in 
employment. We want to avoid that. Two, from a health point of view, if 
people don't believe they are going to be secure either in employment 
or in getting health insurance, they are not going to take the tests 
and they are going to, therefore, deny themselves the kind of treatment 
that is going to be available to them in order to remain healthy. So we 
ought to take these steps that this amendment includes; it is 
essential.
  We already know from what is happening today that a number of people 
aren't taking these genetic tests because they fear genetic 
discrimination. This is one of the most important health issues we are 
going to face in this century. It has been identified by those on the 
cutting edge of progress in terms of the sequencing of the gene. We 
should take their advice and counsel and accept the Daschle amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to address this amendment, but first 
I want to speak to another issue. I know people are meeting on the 
conference report on the emergency supplemental. One of the provisions 
being considered is whether to add the Nethercutt language in the House 
supplemental.
  I care deeply about a lot of provisions in the supplemental, 
including the Colombian aid package, but I want to let my colleagues 
know I will use whatever parliamentary procedure is available to me if 
that language comes over on the emergency supplemental. I know we all 
want to get out of here in the next few days. I care about the bill, 
but I also care about that language. I think it is wrong for it to be 
included in the bill. I want people to know I am serious about this. I 
will use whatever procedures are available to me when it comes to the 
supplemental if the Nethercutt language is included. I am going to meet 
with members of the conference shortly and express that view there as 
well.
  I strongly support what Senator Daschle is proposing in his amendment 
on genetic discrimination. The world received wonderful news this past 
week that the genetic code had been deciphered. This discovery is 
breathtaking in scope, and I suspect over the next 50 years we are 
going to see it change the nature of medicine in this country. So it is 
really a remarkable occurrence, one that has been heralded, and 
properly so, for giving us the ability to understand ourselves better. 
I applaud the remarkable work done by the NIH and Celera.
  Why is it important to offer this amendment today in the context of 
this bill? As we have seen with all the advances in technology, 
generally--and it has been a remarkable decade in that sense, with the 
Internet and communications technology--there is a great unease in the 
country about how much information people have about us as individuals.
  We pride ourselves, I suppose, on the notion that we protect privacy 
in this country. It goes back to the founding days of our Republic. The 
right of privacy is as deeply rooted in the American conscience as 
almost any other principle I can think of. Yet, there is this uneasy 
sense that with the explosion of technology, too many people have too 
much information about us that they ought not to have--at least without 
our permission. The idea that people can peer into our financial 
records and our medicine cabinets and that information can be 
disseminated to broad audiences, violating our sense of privacy, is of 
great concern. And the genome breakthrough raises similar issues.
  Let me share with you one anecdote. Last year I visited Yale 
University to hear about some of the genetics research that is being 
conducted there. One of the studies is attempting to determine the 
likelihood of certain women developing breast cancer by studying twin 
girls. They are getting to the point where they can determine almost at 
the birth, the possibility of individuals contracting breast cancer as 
adults. It is incredible information to have. Imagine parents of a 
newborn baby knowing, because of the genetic makeup of that child, that 
the baby has a possibility of contracting breast cancer. All of a 
sudden, diets change and lifestyles change. Prevention measures can be 
taken. These are the kinds of things the deciphering of the genome is 
going to be able to do for us.
  It is wonderful to be able to have that kind of information. But 
imagine just that the information Yale Medical School is uncovering 
becomes available, as that child gets older, to an employer or to an 
insurance company--not information that the person has contracted the 
disease--but just that they might possibly do so. Just that 
predisposition for a certain illnesses can have a devastating impact on 
whether than individual gets insurance or keeps their job.
  This amendment says that when it comes to that information--the 
propensity for acquiring these problems--we ought to be able to protect 
people in their jobs and in their ability to receive or get health 
insurance.
  This need not be a partisan issue. Senator Domenici and I, 3 years 
ago, introduced legislation similar to this bill. We thought it was 
critical to bring

[[Page S6052]]

up and address both insurance and employment discrimination. Two years 
ago, many colleagues joined our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, 
who also offered strong legislation protecting patients from genetic 
discrimination in insurance. We have an opportunity today, with the 
breakthroughs announced on Monday of this week, to really say as a 
body--Republicans and Democrats across the board--this is an area where 
we are going to, early on, establish some ground rules when it comes to 
the use of genetic information.
  I see that time has expired in terms of my few minutes.
  I want our colleagues to know how important this amendment is, and I 
urge them to support it when the vote occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, am I to be recognized for 7 minutes? Is 
that the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 7 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I had intended to speak about this 
amendment. But I am compelled to speak about the point that the Senator 
from Connecticut discussed at the start of his comments because it is 
so important, and it is timely.
  At this moment, I understand there are meetings going on right now 
somewhere in this building by a small group of people who are dealing 
with a piece of legislation that was cobbled together around 3 o'clock 
in the morning a couple of days ago dealing with the issue of imposing 
sanctions on food and medicine around the world, and whether that will 
be added to the supplemental bill that will be considered perhaps later 
today or tomorrow. If that is added, in my judgment, it is going to 
cause significant trouble.
  Here is why: The House leaders have done what I am reminded of as the 
``Moon walk''. You know the Moon walk Michael Jackson used to do. It 
looked like he was walking forward, but he was actually going backward. 
That is what they have done with respect to this issue of sanctions.
  Senator Dodd from Connecticut, myself, and others are saying we ought 
to end the use of sanctions on food and medicine anywhere in the world 
where it exists. This country has imposed sanctions on the shipment of 
food and medicine. It is wrong. When we take aim at dictators, we hit 
poor people and hungry people and sick people. It is not the best of 
what America stands for.
  We ought to end all sanctions on food and medicine. Yet what was done 
in the House of Representatives 2 days ago, in my judgment, comes up 
far short. In fact, in some areas, it loses ground.
  I want to point out an article in the Washington Post. I will come 
later with the legislation itself. But the Washington Post describes 
this legislator from Florida who opposes eliminating sanctions. She 
said the agreement will make it as difficult as possible for such sales 
to take place with respect to Cuba. Why? Because they prohibit private 
financing of the sale of food to Cuba. What is that about? It has 
nothing to do with good or common sense. They are not trying to get rid 
of sanctions. It has everything to do with the irrational notion about 
Cuba, and that if we can somehow restrict the food and medicine going 
to Cuba, we will enhance America's foreign policy. It is crazy. It 
doesn't make any sense at all.
  Here is where we have sanctions: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North 
Korea, and Sudan. These countries are countries that our Government has 
decided are not behaving properly. I support slapping them with 
economic sanctions. I do not support including food and medicine in 
those sanctions.
  I do not support using food as a weapon. We are trying very hard to 
get rid of this practice of using food as a weapon. Seventy Senators 
voted last year to stop using food as a weapon.
  We have a provision in the Senate agriculture appropriations 
committee bill that will come to the floor of the Senate within several 
weeks that includes an approach that will eliminate the use of food and 
medicine as part of our sanctions.
  I think we ought not give up here. We ought to fight on behalf of our 
family farmers and others to say that we want to abolish the use of 
sanctions that include food and medicine.
  The proposition that was cobbled together over in the House at 2 
o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning by some people who really do not 
want to do this, have made it seem as if they have made progress in 
this area. But, in fact, they have lost ground in a couple of cases, 
and especially with respect to Cuba in a couple of other circumstances. 
There will be no U.S. sales of food to Cuba. Canadian farmers can sell 
to Cuba. European farmers can sell to Cuba. Venezuelan farmers can sell 
to Cuba.

  Seventy Members of the Senate said we ought to get rid of sanctions 
on the shipment of food and medicine--yes, to all countries, including 
Cuba. But now we have cobbled together a deal sometime early in the 
morning by a group of people who are going to apparently put it on a 
supplemental bill so we will have a circumstance where we don't solve 
this problem. The proposal that fails to solve this problem was not 
debated in the House. It was not debated in the Senate. But it was 
concocted at 3 a.m. in the morning and apparently was stuck on a 
supplemental appropriations bill. It is the wrong way to do it.
  I just talked to a farm group that supports this. When I asked them a 
question about it, they admitted they had not read the language. They 
read the paper, I guess. The implication was that I was impeding the 
efforts to remove sanctions.
  Another major farm group has just come out in opposition to it, 
saying this doesn't solve the problem; let's fight to solve the 
problem. The problem is that we include medicine and food as part of 
our sanctions.
  The solution is that this country should not include food and 
medicine in sanctions that we impose on these countries. We should not 
use food as a weapon.
  It is a very simple proposition. Seventy Senators have already 
weighed in in the Senate saying let's stop it. If they would allow a 
vote in the House, they would get 70 percent in the House of 
Representatives as well.
  I hope we will not decide to cave in on this issue. Let's not make 
the perfect the enemy of the good. But let us at least continue to 
fight. We have some more months in this legislative session. We have a 
provision coming to the floor of the Senate in about 3 weeks that 
includes a real effort to stop using food and medicine as part of our 
sanctions. Let's fight for that. Let's not let a couple of people who 
run the other body decide for us at 3 a.m. in the morning what we were 
going to do in this circumstance.
  Let's stand up and fight for family farmers, and let's fight for the 
moral principles that this country ought to hold dear. We should not 
use food and medicine as a weapon any longer. This is not about 
Republicans and Democrats.
  Both administrations in recent years have used this approach, and 
they were wrong.
  The Senate was right last year with 70 votes that said let us stop 
it.
  And what was put together over in the House is now billed as some 
sort of a compromise. It is not a compromise at all. It falls far short 
of what we ought to expect. Those of us who are clearheaded enough 
believe we should not use food and medicine as part of economic 
sanctions in this country.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. I urge people to read the bill. Unfortunately, a lot of 
people do not read the legislation. But if you read this legislation, 
section 808 imposes a prohibition on financing U.S. assistance. One 
part of this says no more sanctions. Then it says no more sanctions, 
except--``Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this law, the export 
of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to the 
government of a country''--as of June 1, 2000.
  These are the countries that have been termed by the Secretary of 
State to be ``terrorist states.'' Those are the very countries. The 
only countries that we have sanctions against are those countries. The 
very countries we say we have sanctions against are these countries. If 
you are on the list on June 1, 2000, none of this law applies.
  Second, it says on financial assistance that you can't have any 
Government support for Libya, Iran, North

[[Page S6053]]

Korea, and Sudan. And then, on private financing, it says no financing 
on the part of the U.S. Government, any State or local government, 
private person, or entity--including, I suspect, even foreign 
financing.
  This says if sanctions are coming off, then we eliminate all means of 
financing it--both public and private--and we continue with the same 
list that was in effect June 1, 2000, which lists only countries on 
whom we have unilateral sanctions.
  This is a bill that needs more work. The Senate Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee bill is vastly superior to this. It is a 
bipartisan bill that colleagues cosponsored, and it deserves the 
consideration of this body.
  For those reasons, I will strenuously object to the sanctions being 
included as part of a supplemental.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Daschle 
amendment to prohibit genetic discrimination in employment. I commend 
the Senator for his leadership in this area, and I thank him for 
bringing this amendment to the floor.
  The issue of genetic discrimination is a timely debate in light of 
the recent announcement that science has conquered the genetic code. 
This is a major milestone that brings us closer to finding cure for 
cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinsons, M.S., and a whole host of 
other tragic diseases.
  The science is moving ahead rapidly, and our standards for the use of 
that science must not lag behind. We must ensure that genetic 
information is not used in discriminatory ways. If we do not take a 
stand prohibiting discrimination based on one's genetic make up, we 
could jeopardize the benefits offered by science. We must ensure that 
our genetic finger print is used only for good, and not as a tool to 
discriminate.
  I've talked to many women in my state who are concerned about breast 
cancer. They know they should undergo genetic testing to find out if 
they are predisposed to breast cancer, but they don't. They avoid 
getting tested because they are afraid that the results could be used 
against them and could adversely affect their employment or insurance 
coverage.
  They are concerned that if they use the science, it will be used 
against them. Enacting a tough federal ban on genetic discrimination 
will give these women, along with thousands of other people across the 
country, the peace of mind that they can take advantage of the latest 
tools of medicine without being taken advantage of in the process.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment now. We have made a 
significant investment in genetic research. Let's make sure that we all 
benefit from this investment. If we act now, we will ensure this 
information is used to treat patients and not to penalize them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, is recognized to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3689

  (Purpose: To protect Social Security and Medicare surpluses through 
             strengthened budgetary enforcement mechanisms)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft), for himself and 
     Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Allard, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Abraham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3689.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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, insert the following:
       On page ____, after line ____, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ACT 
                   OF 2000.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Social 
     Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 2000''.
       (b) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
       (1) Medicare surpluses off-budget.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the net surplus of any trust fund for 
     part A of Medicare shall not be counted as a net surplus for 
     purposes of--
       (A) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President;
       (B) the congressional budget; or
       (C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       (2) Points of order to protect social security and medicare 
     surpluses.--Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Points of Order To Protect Social Security and 
     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) Definition.--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) for that fiscal year.''.
       (3) Super majority requirement.--
       (A) Point of order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.
       (B) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.
       (c) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 11 of subtitle II of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding before section 1101 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 1100. Protection of social security and medicare 
       surpluses

       ``The budget of the United States Government submitted by 
     the President under this chapter shall not recommend an on-
     budget deficit for any fiscal year covered by that budget.''.
       (2) Chapter analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 11 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     before the item for section 1101 the following:

``1100. Protection of social security and medicare surpluses.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon 
     the date of its enactment and the amendments made by this 
     section shall apply to fiscal year 2001 and subsequent fiscal 
     years.


                           Amendment No. 3690

   (Purpose: To establish an off-budget lockbox to strengthen Social 
                         Security and Medicare)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), for Mr. Conrad and Mr. 
     Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 3690.

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

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

TITLE ____--SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE OFF-BUDGET LOCKBOX ACT OF 2000

     SEC. ____1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Social Security and 
     Medicare Off-Budget Lockbox Act of 2000''.

     SEC. ____2. STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY POINTS OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--Section 312 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended by inserting at the end 
     the following:
       ``(g) Strengthening Social Security 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 or amend section 13301 of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.''.
       (b) Super Majority Requirement.--
       (1) Point of order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.
       (2) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.
       (c) Enforcement in Each Fiscal Year.--The Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended in--
       (1) section 301(a)(7) (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(7)), by striking 
     ``for the fiscal year'' through the period and inserting 
     ``for each fiscal year covered by the resolution''; and
       (2) section 311(a)(3) (2 U.S.C. 642(a)(3)), by striking 
     beginning with ``for the first fiscal year'' through the 
     period and insert the following: ``for any of the fiscal 
     years covered by the concurrent resolution.''.

[[Page S6054]]

     SEC. ____3. MEDICARE TRUST FUND OFF-BUDGET.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) General exclusion from all budgets.--Title III of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:


          ``exclusion of medicare trust fund from all budgets

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Exclusion of Medicare Trust Fund From All 
     Budgets.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     receipts and disbursements of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, 
     outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       ``(1) the budget of the United States Government as 
     submitted by the President;
       ``(2) the congressional budget; or
       ``(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       ``(b) Strengthening Medicare 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 or amend this section.''.
       (2) Super majority requirement.--
       (A) Point of Order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``316,'' after 
     ``313,''.
       (B) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``316,'' after ``313,''.
       (b) Exclusion of Medicare Trust Fund From Congressional 
     Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The concurrent resolution shall not include the 
     outlays and revenue totals of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund in the surplus or deficit totals required by this 
     subsection or in any other surplus or deficit totals required 
     by this title.''
       (c) Budget Totals.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) For purposes of Senate enforcement under this title, 
     revenues and outlays of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund for each fiscal year covered by the budget 
     resolution.''.
       (d) Budget resolutions.--Section 301(i) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(i)) is amended 
     by--
       (1) striking ``Social Security Point of Order.--It shall'' 
     and inserting ``Social Security and Medicare Points of 
     Order.--
       ``(1) Social security.--It shall''; and
       (2) inserting at the end the following:
       ``(2) Medicare.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference 
     report on the resolution) that would decrease the excess of 
     the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund revenues over 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund outlays in any of the 
     fiscal years covered by the concurrent resolution. This 
     paragraph shall not apply to amounts to be expended from the 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for purposes relating to 
     programs within part A of Medicare as provided in law on the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (e) Medicare Firewall.--Section 311(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 642(a)) is amended by adding 
     after paragraph (3), the following:
       ``(4) Enforcement of medicare levels in the senate.--After 
     a concurrent resolution on the budget is agreed to, it shall 
     not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     would cause a decrease in surpluses or an increase in 
     deficits of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund in any 
     year relative to the levels set forth in the applicable 
     resolution. This paragraph shall not apply to amounts to be 
     expended from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for purposes 
     relating to programs within part A of Medicare as provided in 
     law on the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (f) Baseline to Exclude Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.--
     Section 257(b)(3) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``shall be 
     included in all'' and inserting ``shall not be included in 
     any''.
       (g) Medicare Trust Fund Exempt From Sequesters.--Section 
     255(g)(1)(B) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``Medicare as funded through the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund.''.
       (h) Budgetary Treatment of Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.--
     Section 710(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 911(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' the second place it appears and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (2) by inserting after ``Federal Disability Insurance Trust 
     Fund'' the following: ``, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund''.

     SEC. ____4. PREVENTING ON-BUDGET DEFICITS.

       (a) Points of Order To Prevent On-Budget Deficits.--Section 
     312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Points of Order To Prevent On-Budget Deficits.--
       ``(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 
     cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
       ``(2) Subsequent legislation.--Except as provided by 
     paragraph (3), 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.''.
       (b) Super Majority Requirement.--
       (1) Point of order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(h),'' after 
     ``312(g),''.
       (2) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(h),'' after 
     ``312(g),''.


                     Amendments Nos. 3689 and 3690

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to address the amendment which I 
sent to the desk because for decades, in a business-as-usual context, 
Washington has constantly invaded various trust funds to spend for a 
variety of purposes and programs. One of those trust funds was the 
Social Security trust fund. We spent a lot of time and energy finding a 
way to protect the Social Security trust fund.
  Having developed at least a budget rule to protect the Social 
Security trust fund, I think it is important for us to look to the 
protection of other trust funds that are important to the well-being of 
the people of this country and to protect them as well.
  One of the other trust funds which remarkably has been invaded over 
and over and over again as a source for spending money for a variety of 
Government programs has been the Medicare trust fund. For over 30 
years, working people have been contributing to the country's welfare 
by paying the taxes they owe, paying their debts, saving for the 
future. Those values were rejected inside the beltway when we went into 
the trust funds in order to meet our spending desires.
  Washington tried to impose its own rules and values on the rest of 
the country. These misdirected rules--spending beyond our means, making 
promises we did not keep, misleading the American people about how 
their money is being spent--for too long these rules were allowed to 
continue. We have taken some very strong steps in the right direction.
  Last year, this Congress took the first step toward stopping this 
raid on the Social Security trust fund by enacting the Social Security 
lockbox rule on the budget resolution. That creates a point of order 
against any budget for spending money out of what would be called the 
Social Security surplus. The Social Security surplus is pretty easy to 
understand. It is defined in our accounting as the amount of money that 
comes into Social Security because of Social Security taxes that aren't 
required in that year to meet the obligations in that year of Social 
Security.
  Obviously, because we have a lot of young people working now, we have 
far more money coming in than we have going out with the relatively 
small group of older Americans consuming. In the years ahead, though, 
when this bulge of young people now contributing to the fund become 
consumers of the fund, we will need a lot of the money they are sending 
in. That money they are sending in is called the Social Security 
surplus. For years we spent that. I worked very hard to stop that 
spending. I worked to get included in the budget resolution a measure 
that would make it out of order for the Congress to spend money on 
other things that was sent in by taxpayers for Social Security 
purposes. That is the protection of the Social Security surplus.
  In addition, last year Senator Domenici, Senator Abraham, and I tried 
several times to enact a law, not just a budget rule which we did get 
put in place, but a law which would protect Social Security proceeds as 
a statutory measure. Obviously, the President would have to sign it for 
it to become a law. The President said he wanted a Social Security 
lockbox, but, unfortunately, despite all the words of support for 
saving the Social Security surplus and locking away the surplus, the 
Senate was unable to end the filibuster by Members of the Senate who 
opposed us and their President on the issue.

[[Page S6055]]

  Despite that opposition, Congress was able to change how business in 
Washington was done on the Social Security surplus. We are far better 
off as a result.
  Last year, for the first time since 1957, not one penny of the Social 
Security surplus was spent. Again this year, we passed a budget 
resolution that will not touch the off-budget or Social Security 
surplus, the Social Security trust fund. It will also provide tax 
relief for married couples and dedicate over $40 billion over the next 
5 years to provide prescription drug coverage for needy, older 
Americans who receive Medicare.

  When I saw what we accomplished last year, I knew we could, as well, 
protect Part A of the Medicare surplus. Part A of Medicare is the only 
Medicare provision of which there is a trust fund. It is not funded out 
of the general revenue. It is something people pay specifically their 
taxes for, with an anticipation that those resources will be available.
  On November 18 of last year, I introduced S. 1962, the Social 
Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. I did this because Social 
Security is not the only trust fund that has been raised over the 
recent years, over decades. Over the next 5 years, taxpayers will pay 
in an estimated $179 billion more into the Medicare Part A trust fund 
than will be required to sustain the purpose of that trust fund, which 
is patient hospital care in Medicare.
  The amendment I offer today will add the Social Security and Medicare 
Safe Deposit Box Act to this pending bill. The Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act takes the Medicare Part A trust fund off 
budget and creates a permanent 60-vote point of order in the Senate and 
a majority point of order in the House against any budget resolution or 
subsequent bill that uses Medicare Part A or Social Security surpluses 
to finance on-budget deficits. This amendment protects the Medicare 
Part A surplus in the same way we protect the Social Security surplus. 
It says that Congress and the President cannot consider the Medicare 
surplus as part of the on-budget surplus. They can't look to this fund 
for ordinary spending. Therefore, Congress and the President should be 
unable to spend the Medicare surplus for additional spending or for 
additional tax cuts.
  This lockbox protects the Medicare trust fund from the raids of the 
past. This is a historic time. I hope this will be a historic day. In 
this, an election year, we have an unusual bipartisan opportunity to 
support this measure. It is not surprising that this is the right 
policy. It is the right thing to do. The House of Representatives has 
already taken this step to protect the Medicare trust fund from 
invasion of spending for other Government programs. Last week, the 
House passed their version, a little different version, of the Medicare 
lockbox legislation, by a vote of 420-2. The House bill was offered by 
Representative Wally Herger and opposed by only two House Members.
  Now, there are a lot of Members of this body who will want to 
protect, I believe, the Medicare trust fund sustaining the capacity of 
our Government to provide the hospitalization we have promised to 
individuals who are eligible for Medicare. I am pleased there are 
Members of this body who join me in cosponsoring this amendment, one of 
whom is Senator Abraham from Michigan. He has been active in the 
lockbox movement to protect Social Security, to make sure that Social 
Security is not invaded for other spending, and much of the success we 
have had in protecting every dime of Social Security in the trust fund 
this year should flow to Senator Abraham of Michigan. I am pleased he 
has endorsed this and is a cosponsor of this measure with me in the 
Senate.
  It is just not several Senators who endorse this. Both the Vice 
President and the President of the United States have endorsed 
enactment of a Medicare lockbox such as the one I introduced last 
November. Earlier this month Vice President Gore announced his support 
for this kind of proposal. On June 13, Gore announced he would ``place 
Medicare in a lockbox so its surpluses could only be used to pay down 
the national debt and to strengthen Medicare, not for pork barrel 
spending or tax cuts.''
  I am pleased that the Vice President has endorsed this Medicare 
lockbox. I welcome that support. Obviously, when he says ``so its 
surpluses,'' he is referring to the kind of thing we are talking 
about--dedicated tax resources designed to support the program that are 
in excess of the needs of the program in any current year.
  As we have already recounted this morning, there are 175 billion of 
anticipated such surplus that would be directed toward the Medicare 
trust fund for Medicare Part A, which is the only Medicare trust fund 
we have. I am pleased he would endorse this concept. I think it is a 
concept that is bipartisan that deserves our support.
  Two days ago, the President of the United States called for 
protecting Medicare Part A surpluses through a lockbox. Allow me to 
quote from the President's announcement. This is from a text provided 
by the administration:

       President Clinton is proposing to take Medicare off budget. 
     This would mean that, like the Social Security surplus, the 
     projected $403 billion Medicare surplus would not count 
     toward on-budget surplus and therefore could no longer be 
     diverted for other purposes. Taking the Medicare surplus off-
     budget would ensure that Medicare is protected for paying 
     down the debt to help strengthen the life of the Medicare 
     Program.

  So the President has recognized there are funds specifically paid in, 
and that they are in surplus of what is needed immediately to be paid 
out. He has indicated that for those surpluses, we should be 
safeguarding them with a Medicare lockbox.
  Let me quote further from the White House release, because I believe 
the President has described the Medicare lockbox proposal in my 
amendment, which I proposed last November, in a very simple, 
understandable manner:
  What taking Medicare off budget means, the administration, speaking 
of itself says, is:

       The Administration projects that if current policies are 
     continued, Medicare Part A, which covers hospital expenses, 
     will run a surplus of $403 billion from [the year] 2001 
     through [the year] 2010. This surplus is the excess of 
     Medicare income, principally from the 2.9 percent payroll 
     tax, combined employer and employee, over benefit payments 
     and administrative costs. The Medicare surplus has grown from 
     $4 billion in 1993 to $24 billion in the year 2000.

  I am still quoting the President and the statement of the White House 
here:

       Under previous budget accounting conventions, this Medicare 
     surplus was treated as part of the total on-budget surplus 
     and was thus available for new spending on other programs or 
     tax cuts.
       By taking Medicare Part A off budget, the President 
     proposes to make it unavailable for other spending or tax 
     cuts.

  That is exactly what I proposed last November. I quote again from the 
White House:

       Instead, the projected baseline Medicare surplus would be 
     used to pay down the debt.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might interrupt the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri for a moment?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be happy to yield with the understanding that at 
the conclusion of this interruption I continue to have the floor for my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania, without 
objection.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. We 
were conferring about the last amendment so I was unable to be on the 
floor when this debate started. We are interested in a time agreement. 
I have just discussed the matter with the Senator from North Dakota, 
who has the second-degree amendment. It would be in the managers' 
interest to see if we could limit debate to 1 hour equally divided on 
the first-degree and second-degree amendment, and then have votes on 
both amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, I do not want to object, 
but I want to clarify. How much time have I consumed already with my 
explanation? Maybe I should ask, is the hour in addition to what I have 
already used?
  Mr. SPECTER. If it is acceptable to the Senator from North Dakota. I 
hadn't discussed that with him earlier.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. What I want to do is protect the right of my colleague, 
Senator Abraham from Michigan, to make remarks. I don't want to have 
consumed all the time. That is what I am interested in doing. So if we 
can work something out with that in mind, I am willing.

  Mr. SPECTER. I ask the Senator from Missouri, would 15 additional 
minutes satisfy you on your side?

[[Page S6056]]

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Let's say we would take 20 additional minutes?
  Mr. SPECTER. I suppose we then have 30 minutes. I discussed 1 hour 
equally divided with the Senator from North Dakota, so you would have 
30 minutes and 20 minutes on the other side?
  Mr. CONRAD. That will be acceptable if the understanding is this is 
``on or in relation to,'' any votes ordered for that period?
  Mr. SPECTER. We would have two votes then on the two competing 
amendments: One on the Ashcroft amendment, and one on the Conrad 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. That would be on or in relation?
  Mr. SPECTER. On or in relation.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I object and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Conrad 
amendment and the Ashcroft amendment each be considered amendments in 
the first degree; that there be 30 minutes for Senator Conrad, 20 
minutes for Senator Ashcroft, and that there be votes on both of their 
amendments with no point of order being permitted, and that the time of 
the votes be determined later in the day by agreement of the leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Conrad amendment will be voted on first.
  Mr. REID. I was talking to Senator Conrad. I apologize.
  Mr. SPECTER. The unanimous consent agreement provides that each 
amendment, the Conrad amendment and the Ashcroft amendment, be 
considered as amendments in the first degree; that the Conrad amendment 
be voted on first, that there be no points of order raised, that 
Senator Conrad will have 30 minutes, and Senator Ashcroft 20 minutes, 
and the time of the votes will be determined later in the day by 
agreement of the leaders.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow us to go into a 
quorum call for a minute, Senator Conrad and I have a couple of things 
about which we want to talk. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just so nobody will get nervous, I want to 
talk about the schedule. I am working with Senator Reid on a couple 
unanimous consent requests that we may offer later. But I wanted to 
talk about the progress being made and what our hopes are.
  I realize this is a very big, very important bill--the Department of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. It 
is important we get it done, and it is important we have a few minutes 
to think through critical amendments that are offered. We are in that 
process. I thank the managers for what they have been doing. I urge 
them to keep pushing forward. The number of amendments has been 
substantially reduced. The ones still pending are not easy amendments. 
But I think if we can keep focused, we can complete this very important 
appropriations bill at a reasonable hour today.
  I urge my colleagues, when they have an amendment, when there is an 
amendment on both sides, that we find a way to accept them both or get 
a vote on both of them and let the Senate speak its will and then move 
on. I think that would be the best way to do it.
  What I really want to comment on today about this bill, and others, 
is that there are Senators thinking we are going to finish tonight and 
there won't be votes tomorrow. Senator Daschle and I have been 
indicating for quite some time now that that is not going to happen. We 
have to complete this bill. I still would like to go to the Interior 
appropriations bill. But we also have a very important military 
construction appropriations bill with a title II that involves 
emergencies. That has to be completed and considered by the House Rules 
Committee, the House has to vote, and then it comes over here. That 
could be late this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow or later. If there 
are complications, it could take more time than that.
  I assure everybody that we are going to be in session and voting 
tomorrow. I think that hoping we can wave a magic wand and miraculously 
complete this bill and the other measures by a reasonable time tonight 
is just not likely.
  I wanted to say that now. Those who have planes booked for 10 o'clock 
tonight or 10 o'clock in the morning, you better start making other 
arrangements, unless you are willing to miss votes. Quite often, some 
Senators think that if enough of us leave, there won't be votes. That 
is not going to be the case this time. This work is too important. I 
urge my colleagues to help us get this very important work done in this 
critical week.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I say to my colleagues that I 
was here last night about 7 o'clock when the majority leader came to 
the floor. To say that he was upset is an understatement. I heard him 
clearly that there will be no more windows for the end of this session.
  I also say to the leader that it would be a big help to those of us 
on the floor if we could shorten the time of the votes. We wasted 
tremendous time yesterday. We wasted at least 2\1/2\ hours on votes 
when people weren't here. We waited 20, 30 minutes for Senators on both 
sides. I believe that if a vote is completed within 15 or 18 minutes, 
we should go on to something else. If people miss a vote or two, 
everybody's record will be down a little bit, and it will be the same 
for everybody.

  Mr. LOTT. Obviously, the Senator from Nevada is correct. We do allow 
these votes to drag on too long, and we should be prepared to cut them 
off after the 15 minutes and the 5-minute overtime. On both sides we 
try to be understanding, but the more we are understanding, the more it 
is abused by our colleagues. So, for today, I will work with Democrats 
and Republicans and be prepared to cut these votes off. It could save 
us a lot of time.
  Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, we would not be making the 
progress we have made on this and other bills without his diligence, 
his presence on the floor, and the hard work he does. I appreciate 
that. Last night, even though I was disturbed about the timing because 
of commitments that have been made, we worked that out and we got a lot 
of good work done last night. I thank those who were involved.

                          ____________________