[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.
____________________