[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 7 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S69-S79]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    BEGINNING OF THE 107TH CONGRESS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as always, it is good to see you present and 
ready for a new beginning. I think we have a new opportunity in this 
107th Congress. Again, I extend appreciation to our Chaplain for the 
spiritual leadership he provides to the Senate, all Senators and our 
Senate family.
  I see the distinguished Democratic whip, Senator Reid from Nevada, is 
on the floor also ready to go to work. I appreciate the work he did in 
the last Congress and look forward to working with him this year. We 
are now at a stage in our country's history where we will be able to 
take a new look at what we want to do for the benefit of all of our 
people. We have completed the election, we have completed the 
inauguration, and now we begin to get down to business.
  I am pleased today that we will have an opportunity to go down with 
leaders of both parties from both the House and the Senate to meet with 
the new President to begin to discuss the agenda and how he would like 
to proceed and how we would like to proceed in our own way.


                                Schedule

  This is the first day for bills to be introduced. The Senate will 
then have a period of morning business until 3 p.m. for the purpose of 
general statements, most of them, of course, with respect to the bills 
introduced.
  As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today. 
Votes, if necessary can be expected during this week's session 
regarding the confirmation of the President's Cabinet nominees. 
Senators will be notified as votes are scheduled. I expect there could 
be a vote or two scheduled on Tuesday, perhaps also on Wednesday, but 
we will give Members specifics on that once we have had an opportunity 
to consult with leaders on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  I also thank all the Senators for their willingness to allow us to 
move seven of the President's nominees through confirmation on 
Saturday. There had been some indication that perhaps recorded votes 
would be necessary, but after a great deal of working back and forth 
and the fact that Senator Daschle was willing to be supportive of 
moving the nominees through quickly, we were able to get that done. I 
think that was a wise decision on behalf of myself and I know the new 
President is glad six members of his team have already been sworn in 
and the seventh will probably be sworn in today, especially those 
dealing with national security issues, economic issues, and even the 
new Energy Secretary who will have to immediately begin to address some 
of the energy needs in this country. I think we are off to a good 
start.

[[Page S70]]

  We will have the first 30 minutes I believe on this side of the 
aisle, and then the second 30 minutes goes to the Democratic side. 
Traditionally, we introduce the first five, the majority party 
introduces the first five, and then the other side does the next five, 
and back on this side for five more, and back to the other side. Then 
any Senators who wish would be able to offer their bills after that.
  I notice the Senator standing. Before I go further, I am happy to 
yield to Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. If the majority leader would yield for a brief statement, I 
say to the leader I hope during this coming year, he will look at what 
happens here that is positive in nature. I was very happy to hear the 
majority leader talk about what we did last Saturday, in one fell 
swoop, approving seven of the Cabinet positions given to us by the 
President.
  There will be times during this year that we won't be approving seven 
major nominations or doing anything that is that large of a step. I 
think there is a spirit of bipartisanship. I have to say it was 
generated and improved by the work of the two leaders in allowing us to 
have the committee structure as indicated.
  I think there is a good feeling on both sides of the aisle that we 
can get things done. As the year proceeds, when there are things that 
don't go the way of the majority, with Vice President Cheney making 
that majority, I hope he would reflect on those things we do that are 
positive in nature.
  This is a legislative body. To get things done we have to compromise. 
Legislation is the art of compromise. I hope we can maintain this 
feeling of bipartisanship that we now have. There is no reason we 
cannot do that, especially if we look at things done here as the glass 
being half full rather than half empty.
  I have told the leader personally how much I appreciate what he has 
done. I look forward to a very fruitful legislative year for our 
country.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his 
comments. That is why I did make specific mention of the fact that we 
confirmed seven of the nominees on Saturday. That was a very good 
gesture, very positive gesture. I had noted earlier that 8 years ago we 
had confirmed three of then-President Clinton's nominees the first day 
and all of the rest of his nominees the second day except one, which we 
did have a recorded vote on subsequently. But I thought in this case 
the fact that we moved seven was very good. I think as long as we can, 
and as many times as we can find a bipartisan way to work together, we 
should do that and we will do our best to do that.
  Back to the schedule today of introducing bills, the leadership may 
opt in some instances to go ahead and introduce a bill that is fully 
prepared, fully vetted and properly drafted or they may decide to have 
what we call place holders for their bills--S. 1 through S. 5 on our 
side or S. 6 through S. 10 on the other side.

  We will probably have place holders today because we would like to 
have an opportunity to honestly have more consultation with leaders on 
both sides of the Capitol in the majority party, but also to have input 
from the President. This week, the President will go forward with his 
commitment to make education his highest priority, and he, as I 
understand it, will speak to different aspects of his proposal each 
day, or two or three times during this week. We would like to make sure 
we have a bill that has been worked through and we will have an 
opportunity to work with our new chairman of the Senate Republican 
Conference, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Santorum. So, within a couple of weeks we will have the specifics of 
this legislation.
  Again, without saying these are the order of priorities, I do think I 
should at least touch on the issues we are going to be focusing on in 
these early bills. Education, as the President has indicated--I think 
everybody in America is in agreement, regardless of region or party or 
financial background--has to be addressed. We have lost some ground in 
comparison to previous generations, compared to other countries. We can 
do a better job in education. No child should be left behind in 
America. We are going to focus on accountability and reading. I feel 
very strongly about this whole issue.
  I am the son of a schoolteacher who taught school for 19 years. I 
went to public schools all my life, as did my wife and both of our 
children. It really pains me to see what is happening in some of our 
schools. The quality has deteriorated. The accountability has left. The 
schools are dangerous. The schools are not safe from drugs. So we have 
work to do there.
  Also, clearly we need to continue to try to address the Tax Code. The 
Tax Code is unfair. It is too complicated; it is too long--it is 
endless. But even beyond that, now, we see there is some softening in 
the economy. Without trying to predict what might happen in that area--
we always look for a way, in America, to have more. But when you look 
at the surplus we have and look at what can be done with the Tax Code 
to make it more fair and also to encourage economic growth. I think 
that should be one of our high priorities.
  I believe it will be. The President has said he is going to seek 
that, and I believe there are Members of Congress, again, on both sides 
of the aisle in both Chambers, who are going to try their best to 
achieve that goal. Will there be arguments over some of the details? 
Surely. This is a legislative body and different Senators and different 
House Members will have different approaches. But we should get this 
done and do it as quickly as possible because we need to start having 
some impact. That is why I do support the ideas that have been 
suggested, that it be across-the-board rate cuts and that we look at 
retroactivity and other ways to really affect the economy.
  Over the past week, in various settings, I did also have the 
opportunity to talk to some of our leaders in defense. I spent some 
time with the new Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld. I had the 
opportunity to talk to a number of Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
but, more important, to individual military men and women. I believe 
there are more problems in our military and greater needs there than we 
have acknowledged or that people are prepared to recognize at this 
point. It does go to morale, the quality of the facilities for our 
military personnel: readiness and modernization. So defense has to be 
at the very top of any agenda we discuss.
  Then you start looking to your grandparents and your parents, to your 
own future and that of your children and grandchildren. We have to go 
ahead and address the issues that are difficult politically but 
essential for the future security of all of us; that is, Social 
Security and Medicare, and how do you provide prescription drugs to our 
needy elderly. It will not be easy, but as the President said in his 
Inaugural Address at his swearing in on Saturday: We cannot just pass 
these issues on to the next generation because it is tough for us to 
deal with them.
  That is not exactly what he said, but that was the gist of it. That 
is what he meant. So I think we have to find a way to do these things, 
and we can do them. There are a lot of different ways to approach this. 
Again, the substance will be hotly debated. I really think that Social 
Security can be dealt with, with just a few changes that would protect 
it for 90 years or more. Medicare has more moving parts, and I think it 
has more difficulty right now, but we should start early to try to find 
a way to work on those.
  On Medicare, I think a good place to begin would be where the 
Medicare Commission left off. We had a bipartisan Medicare Commission 
with some of the most thoughtful Members of the Congress serving on 
that Commission, chaired by Senator John Breaux. They did a lot of good 
work. Have we learned more? Surely. But that would be good place to 
start because unfortunately that Commission's recommendation never had 
a good airing by the Senate committee or the House Ways and Means 
Committee.

  In the case of Social Security, I think a good idea would be to 
consider a commission somewhat similar to the commission we had in the 
1980s, sort of a base closure-type commission, where we have a 
distinguished blue ribbon commission that would look at this area and 
make recommendations. Then Congress would have to review it and then 
vote it up or down. But these are

[[Page S71]]

just some ideas, ideas I am not advocating on behalf of any group of 
Senators and not the new President, but just some thoughts that we can 
work on.
  Another area--and this goes beyond five categories but is something 
we have to look at very quickly--is energy. We have ignored this energy 
problem. We don't have a national energy policy. How many times are we 
going to have to be shaken to wake up and realize that we do not have a 
national energy policy; we are not making use of the resources we have 
in America, we are not properly providing the right incentives for 
conservation; we are dependent on foreign oil? This makes no sense.
  Then we have the situation in California where they say they have 
deregulation but it is not deregulation, or it is half deregulation 
which is worse than no deregulation. They deregulated at one end and 
not at the other, and we see there are real problems. But we should not 
protest and damn the darkness. We should prepare for the light. We 
should find a way to have a broad policy in this area.
  On Sunday, I spoke to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski. I thought that issue 
was so important that I took some time to give him a ring and talk 
about what he has in mind and the preparation he is doing to have a 
bill ready within the next few days. It can be introduced in our first 
grouping of bills.
  We have a lot of work to do, but I am excited about the 
possibilities. This is by no means a complete list. There will be 
issues we will be working on beyond the first five or first six bills, 
things that are left over from last year that I know we are going to 
need to address.
  We will have to address them. It will be in a variety of areas all 
the way from transportation to housing to health care, obviously, that 
is still pending. So we will have plenty of other things that will be 
moving.
  But as Winston Churchill would say, I think, and as he said, you do 
need to give the people a few really big ideas.
  You do need to step up to the difficult issues. You need to stretch 
people to reach beyond their own comfort and try to think about the 
next generation. So the issues I have addressed here are big issues, 
issues that we need to speak to quickly. With the leadership of our new 
President, one who is going to be very aggressive in promoting ideas 
but also very willing to listen, to reach out to Members of both 
parties and Americans of all stages in life, I think he is set up now 
in such a way, with his own efforts and also some things that have 
happened here in the Senate, that give us an opportunity to achieve 
some really wonderful things for the American people.
  So I look forward to this opportunity, working with Senators on both 
sides of the aisle. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania 
for being willing to be here this morning and go over this list, 
perhaps in some more specificity. I yield the floor at this time, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his opening 
remarks and for setting the stage for what we all hope to be a very 
productive session of Congress. It is like the first day of a football 
season or baseball season. Everybody is even right now. Nobody has lost 
a game yet. Everybody has high expectations and high hopes for a good 
season.
  I believe we have a good team here. We have a good team here in the 
U.S. Senate. We have a good team in the House, a good team in the White 
House. I am very optimistic that we can work together and really 
produce for the American public, because that is really what it is all 
about. It is about delivering and meeting the concerns that the 
American public have with how we here in Washington, D.C. interact with 
them.
  There are certain issues that are very important to average 
Americans--I always use the term kitchen table. What are people talking 
about at their kitchen table, and what is relevant in their daily lives 
and how do we react to that and intersect with that here in Washington, 
D.C. I think it is vitally important for us to approach what we do here 
in part based on that.
  Obviously, there are great issues of national security and foreign 
diplomacy that may not be kitchen-table conversations on a daily basis 
to which we obviously have to pay attention. Making sure Government 
runs efficiently and effectively may not be on the front burner of the 
American people but certainly is the responsibility of Congress. But 
when it comes to the agenda of changing to improve our system to 
reflect the concerns of the American public, I think that is what we 
really want to focus on today.
  Senator Lott did a good job of running through those items that he 
believes and I believe are on the minds of millions of Americans, where 
they see problems and they see ways in which the Federal Government 
can, by some level of involvement, make a positive difference in making 
their lives better and America better. I want to walk through those.
  We, as a Republican Conference, a few weeks ago met across the street 
in the Library of Congress. We had a discussion about what we thought 
were the issues of importance to the people of America where Congress 
could make a difference, where Congress could improve the quality of 
life in America and improve the prospects for future generations of 
Americans to live free and to have opportunities.
  The six we came up with are these: Improving our national defense. 
Obviously, a big concern with this new administration and I think with 
the entire Congress on both sides of the aisle is the low level of 
morale in many areas of our military and the fact that we have not 
faced up to the challenges we have in national security. I will go 
through those.
  First, morale. Let's make no mistake about it; we have the best 
fighting force ever seen on the face of the Earth. We have outstanding 
young men and women who are serving this country and serving it well, 
but we have not provided leadership in two ways: No. 1, providing basic 
care for them as people, whether it is the military health care system 
which has an inordinate amount of problems or whether it is simply pay, 
salary. We gave a pay increase, but it is still lagging far behind the 
private sector. We ask our people to serve and put their lives on the 
line, and yet the compensation is such that most of our people in the 
military live hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck.
  We need to do something to improve quality of life in housing. We 
need to improve quality of life in another area, and that is 
deployment. Our front-line troops in particular are stretched out, even 
several members of a family and friends who are in the Reserves and 
Guard and are being asked to do much more and many more deployments. 
That is stretching them at home and at their work, all because of our 
inability to focus our resources in America appropriately.
  I am hopeful with this new President that we will reduce the number 
of deployments, and not just because we should not be involved in a lot 
of the areas in which we have been involved, but certainly because of 
the strain it takes on our military in morale and readiness. That is 
another area in which I am looking forward to doing some work.
  The final area in defense I want to talk about today is we have not 
prepared our military for the next generation, the new threats that are 
out there, whether it is missile defense and the threat of terroristic 
missile attacks on this country and our allies or cyberwarfare. There 
are 20 countries around the world developing offensive capability to 
attack not just our military installations and our military computers, 
but our commercial computer systems through cyberwarfare. We have to do 
a better job of responding to that and chemical and biological weaponry 
and other types of terroristic attacks--homeland defense.

  We have to do a better job in this new millennium to respond to the 
threats of the new millennium. Frankly, we just have not put forth the 
resources we need and have not given it thought. I am hoping to work on 
that on a bipartisan basis in the Congress.
  We all recognize--many on the other side of the aisle have worked in 
these areas--we need to work in these areas and move this country 
forward.
  I am doing these items in alphabetical order.
  Education: I do not know of anything President Bush has focused on 
more than providing a quality education for every child. We heard over 
and over

[[Page S72]]

that no child should be left behind. I am excited to see he already has 
a growing volume of information, suggestions, and ideas for the 
Congress to improve the quality of education by insisting on 
accountability through testing and setting goals, but ensuring and, in 
a sense, restoring local control where, yes, there are goals and, yes, 
there is testing, but there has to be local control and flexibility for 
the schools to be able to accomplish that. We have to do something to 
improve education overall. One way to do that is by improving safety in 
our schools. I know President Bush is very sincere about that, as we 
all are. One way is to ensure that people who are going to a school 
where they do not feel safe is to give them a choice to go to another 
school that is safe.
  There are schools in this country--I have been to a few. I remember 
going to a school in Philadelphia and asking a group of kids, of whom a 
very small percentage are going on to college, what is the No. 1 
concern they have at school. Was it not enough computers? Quality of 
teachers? Classroom size? Their No. 1 concern was getting to school 
alive every day. That was the consensus in the room.
  If one's first concern is getting to school alive every day, how well 
can one learn when they get there? We have to do something to provide 
the opportunity, for people who want to learn, to go to school where 
they feel safe. Obviously, we need to improve safety in every school, 
but we need to give choices to people who do not feel safe in their 
school.
  One of the things President Bush did when he was Governor of Texas 
was close the gap between those schools that were ``advantaged'' and 
those schools that were in poor neighborhoods, focusing on getting more 
resources into our disadvantaged schools to help kids. Yes, parental 
choice and giving parents the choice to send their kids to another 
school is one aspect, but obviously bringing up the standards in those 
poorer schools is another way to do that. That has to be a big focus of 
our education agenda.
  Third is energy. Senator Lott spoke very eloquently to the fact we 
simply have not had a national energy strategy. We have been able to 
get away with it. OPEC and the rest of the world were allowing oil to 
flow very freely, and we had relatively cheap oil for some time in this 
country. The result of that is we have seen our dependence on foreign 
oil go up to 56 percent.
  One of the objectives of this Congress and this administration should 
be to get back to the level of dependency on foreign oil that we had 8 
years ago, which was 50 percent. We are talking about a 10-percent 
reduction in our dependency on foreign oil. It is vitally important we 
do that, and we can do that through a variety of ways. Developing 
alternative sources of energy is one. It is vitally important we use 
renewables but also use the fossil fuels we have in our country.
  I come from coal country. I can tell you, the poorest counties in my 
State are counties in which coal used to be king. We need to do 
something--and we can--to use our coal resources--and we have literally 
hundreds and hundreds of years of coal reserves in our country to use 
our coal resources to create power and to do it in a clean way. We can 
do it in a clean way if we are willing to invest in it. We have to 
invest in using our domestic capability, but do it in a way that is 
clean, and we can do it by investing in technology to burn coal 
cleanly. It can be done.
  We have to have a comprehensive strategy; we have to come together as 
a nation and say what our agenda is going to be for energy and do it in 
a bipartisan way, and we need leadership from the White House. We did 
not have that leadership. We did not have any real effort made. I am 
excited our former colleague, Secretary Spence Abraham, will be leading 
that charge, and I am very excited about the opportunities we will have 
in the area of energy strategy.
  Third is Medicare. Medicare is probably one of the most popular 
programs in the United States. It is popular because it provides much 
needed health care to those who are the most vulnerable to illness, and 
they are our seniors. But the problem with Medicare is that it simply 
doesn't do the job of providing enough benefits, enough services in an 
efficient way to a population that is ever increasing in need and in 
size. So it is vitally important for the Congress to do something to 
improve the quality of Medicare and to improve the expanse of Medicare. 
In other words, we need to expand it.
  I think everybody in this Chamber would agree, we have to have a 
prescription drug component for Medicare. I think everyone would also 
agree that the only reason we don't have a prescription drug component 
of Medicare--I am talking about an outpatient prescription drug 
benefit--is because Medicare is a Government-run health care system. 
For many years, while every private plan in America had a prescription 
drug program to it, Medicare didn't for probably 10 to 15 years. The 
reason it didn't is because the Government had to change it. We were 
running big deficits at the time and we simply didn't have the money. 
We didn't have the money to add a benefit onto an existing system as 
other programs did, to change their insurance policies--to change 
theirs from less utilized care to more utilized care, to respond to 
what the public wanted and the changes in Medicare.
  We are stuck with a one-size-fits-all Government program that would 
not do that. So now millions of people in America don't have 
prescription drug coverage as seniors. We need to change the Medicare 
system so it can change as medicine changes, not as Congress changes 
because Congress doesn't move as quickly as medicine does. So we need 
to do something to make sure Medicare is responsive to the changes in 
medicine, and to the changes people who are on Medicare want, with the 
kind of medicine they want to have provided to them.
  So it is vitally important for us to change Medicare to be patient 
friendly, to respond to the needs of the American public. That includes 
a prescription drug program, but it also includes choices for people. 
It includes changing the system to allow it to evolve as the needs and 
wants of seniors in this country change and as medicine changes.
  So that is what we are going to be focusing on with the Medicare 
Program. It is vital for us to do so right now because we have too many 
people who are not getting the kind of services they need under 
Medicare. We need to give them those choices. We need to give them the 
chance to get quality health care the way they want it delivered, on a 
timely basis.
  Next is Social Security. I can't think of any Member of either the 
House or the Senate who has done more work on Social Security than the 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. But he 
and I, and several of us here, have been working to try to communicate 
to the American public: If you think there are problems in Medicare--
and there are, as shown in the reasons as I laid them out before--the 
same problems really exist in Social Security. I know there are 
probably people listening whose sole income comes from their Social 
Security check. They are living hand to mouth. They are probably not 
even surviving simply with their Social Security. They are probably 
having to get supportive services like Meals on Wheels or other food 
support from charitable organizations. They are probably getting help 
from relatives or friends because the Social Security check alone isn't 
enough anymore.
  The fact is, the Social Security system is not enough. It is not 
going to be adequate for future generations. We have to do a better job 
to improve it because as much as we encourage people to save and 
invest, there will always be those who either don't or can't--and in 
most cases can't--so we have to make sure that basic level of security 
is there, and we have to improve that system.
  No. 1, we have to improve the system. No. 2, we have to make sure it 
is not a system that is going to have to be dramatically cut in the 
future because of demographic changes, such as the mass retirement of 
the baby boom generation. If we do not improve Social Security now, and 
in the appropriate manner, we will have tremendous tax increases as a 
result of this demographic shift that I mentioned.
  I love the people who say, well, just leave Social Security alone and 
it will be fine. If we do nothing, we will either have to cut benefits 
by 30 percent, or increase taxes by 50 percent within 20 years for this 
system to survive. Let

[[Page S73]]

me repeat that. We will either have to cut benefits by 30 percent or 
increase taxes by 50 percent, or some combination thereof, if we keep 
the system the old way, which is a completely Government-operated 
system, where all the money comes in and just goes straight back out in 
the form of benefits.
  The only way we can change the system and improve it is to add a 
third component. Instead of cutting benefits or raising taxes, we can 
add investment. Every other retirement system in America is funded 
through investment. It is good enough for those who have the choice as 
to how they want to create a retirement system, and I don't know of 
anybody out there who would trade their retirement system at work, 
whether it is a 401(k) or whether it is a defined benefit plan, whether 
they would take that contribution they make, that is invested--that 
money they give is invested--that they would trade that for the current 
Social Security system. Instead of investing their money, we just take 
it, we just use it, and then we promise, 20 years from now, when they 
retire, we will pay them.

  How many people would trade the ability to see that investment--see 
it grow, manage that investment or have someone help them manage that 
investment, and then get that return when they retire--how many would 
trade that for a promise of the company, 20 years from now, to pay them 
a benefit? I don't know of one person who would do that. But that is 
what Social Security is. Instead of taking the money we now put in as 
12.4 percent of every dollar most people earn, instead of taking some 
of that money and putting it in an investment and managing it and 
seeing it grow, to use that to provide for retirement, we say: Just 
trust us. It will be there.
  The problem is, it won't be there. It won't be there in the sense 
that we are going to have to make dramatic changes to either the 
benefit structure or the tax structure.
  If we make big changes to the tax structure--that is, increasing 
taxes to 18 percent or 19 percent instead of the now 12.4 percent----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Seeing no one else on the floor, I ask unanimous 
consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So we really do have a real choice here. And the choice 
is between preparing for what we know is to come, preparing for the 
demographic cliff we are going to fall off, which is the baby boom 
generation, where we are going to go right now from 3\1/2\ workers for 
every retiree to 2 workers for every retiree, we can prepare for that, 
allowing for a voluntary contribution for existing workers, allowing 
them to put money aside to be able to invest that money and grow that 
money and use it to help pay their benefits, or we can sit back and 
wait.
  The Senator from New Hampshire and I probably aren't going to be 
around then. We are not going to be around 20 years from now. We can 
very casually say: Hey, we tried. Let someone else worry about it. We 
are not going to be here. We will not be blamed for it. Someone else is 
going to have to raise those taxes and someone else is going to have to 
make those benefit cuts.
  I think it would be unconscionable in a time of record prosperity and 
in a time when I think most people would argue there is no great 
pressing issue facing the American public, that we can't look forward 
and say we know there is a problem out there, and it is a major 
problem. It is not a little problem; it is a big problem. We can't just 
look forward a few years. We can prevent a big problem right now by 
just a little courage and a little consensus.
  So I am hopeful. I think, with the leadership out of the White House, 
and with people of good faith, we can look forward, and we can do 
something we have not done in Social Security ever before. I underscore 
this. We have a tremendous challenge before us. We have always fixed 
Social Security when the disaster was on the doorstep--the checks were 
not going to be written, there wasn't enough money in the fund. It was 
only then that we mustered the ``courage''--I put that in quotations--
we mustered the ``courage'' to act. That is not leadership. In fact, it 
has resulted in a system that, as I mentioned before, is not the best 
system for retirement for our seniors. Had we done it, looking forward, 
back in the 1960s and 1970s--particularly in the 1970s--had we looked 
forward and seen the baby boom generation projected out which we, of 
course, knew of then, and had said, we know this problem is going to be 
ahead of us, so why don't we begin new investment now--instead of 
raising taxes, let's create the opportunity for investment--we would 
not be in the situation we are in today.
  We were at the point where the checks were not going to get paid so 
we blinked. We did the old, safe thing. We just increased taxes or 
reduced benefits.
  I am hopeful we will have more courage than that this time around, 
and we will be better public stewards. That is what it is really about. 
It is about stewardship for future generations.
  Finally, turning to tax relief, aside from education I don't know of 
any issue on which President Bush is more focused than the issue of tax 
relief. This conference, as with all these issues, is going to support 
the President in reducing taxes.
  I remember my good friend, Paul Coverdell, used to give a talk--and I 
heard it many times--where he would discuss taxes and how paying taxes 
to Washington really equated to freedom. The more taxes you paid, the 
less free you were. Someone who would pay 40 percent of their taxes to 
Government was less free than someone who only paid 10 percent.
  There are a lot of economic reasons why we should reduce taxes. There 
are a lot of reasons from the point of view of not providing more money 
to Washington, letting the Government grow. It really is a fundamental 
issue of personal freedom. When we can say to a family of four making 
$35,000 a year that we are going to reduce your taxes by $1,500, which 
is basically eliminating your tax liability, that certainly, for a 
family of four at $35,000 a year, creates more economic freedom and 
more opportunity for them to provide for themselves, not to look to 
Washington but to be able to do more for themselves. It provides 
opportunity and freedom. For a family of four making $50,000, it 
provides a $2,000 tax cut. That is a 50 percent reduction in their 
taxes. It is not a tax break for the wealthy. It is a tax break 
predominantly focused on average working Americans who need that tax 
relief.
  We do provide across-the-board tax relief, but even with the 
reduction the President has suggested, the top rate of taxation will 
still be higher than it was 8 years ago. So it won't even go back to 
the level it was under former President Bush. It is, in fact, a modest 
reduction in taxes, but it is important--in the top rate particularly--
because it provides, at a time when the economy seems to be slowing 
down somewhat, the opportunity for more available capital and 
investment to keep the economy chugging along.
  There are good economic reasons for doing this. There are good policy 
reasons for doing this. The fundamental issue is freedom.
  When we get down to it, people who have more of their own resources 
are simply more free to provide for themselves and are less dependent 
upon Washington to do things for them.
  That is our agenda. It directly impacts every American--whether it is 
the bill you pay at the utility or the school you send your children 
to, your parents, your grandparents, providing them with a stable 
Social Security system as well as quality Medicare coverage that is 
appropriate for the medicine being practiced at the time--it changes as 
medicine changes; it changes as your needs change--finally, tax relief 
that affects all of us who are taxpayers and says that Washington, in a 
time of surplus, can do with less. We don't need to grow the size of 
Government. We need to grow the opportunity of the American people.
  This is our agenda. We are very excited about it. I am hopeful there 
will be bipartisan support for each of these because I know there are 
many of these items on our list that our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle care as deeply about. We need to find that common ground 
and we need to share our conviction that America can do better and that 
its best days are ahead. We can do that in a bipartisan way, with 
strong leadership from the White House.
  As we start the season, everybody without any wins and losses, let us 
set

[[Page S74]]

our sights high and, in so doing, provide a great vision and great 
opportunity for America and its citizens.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand that time is reserved for the 
Democratic side. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed 
in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, those of us who had the opportunity--and I 
think most of America did, I hope--to listen to President Bush's 
inaugural address were tremendously impressed by the tone of it and its 
purpose, which was to bring civility back to politics and governance in 
Washington and to call us to a higher purpose beyond partisanship, 
beyond pettiness and rather to move into trying to bring back the 
dreams, in essence, that have made this country great. Part of this 
initiative is to direct a significant amount of energy at our 
educational system in an attempt to make sure no child is left behind, 
and by doing that we give every American citizen the opportunity to 
obtain the American dream.
  We all recognize that education is the first and most important 
element of success in our society. It is not only important for the 
individual, but it is important for our Nation because we are a Nation 
which clearly thrives and expands and grows and prospers on the basis 
of a well-educated people, and our capacity to compete in the 
international community is tied directly to our capacity to have a 
well-educated people who can lead us on the cutting edge in areas of 
technology and other areas that are necessary for the productivity of 
our Nation. Thus, focusing on education is the appropriate thing to do 
as we move forward as a government, and it is truly appropriate that 
the President has chosen this to be his first and most significant 
initiative. I understand that either later today or tomorrow he is 
going to outline the principles upon which he intends to move on the 
issue of education policy here at the Federal level.

  Let me outline quickly some of the things we as a Republican Congress 
and as a Republican Senate have been focusing on, which I presume and 
expect to be part of the essence of what the President also wants. Last 
year, we passed out of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions of the Health Committee a truly significant step in 
the area of trying to improve education, the ESEA bill, Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, in a form which was different than it had been 
passed out in prior years. We took the basic act which is directed at 
low-achieving, low-income children and tried to rewrite it in a way 
that would assist those children and keep them from being left behind.
  We discovered that after 20 years of spending literally billions of 
dollars on elementary and secondary education for low-income children--
in fact, I think it is approximately $137 billion or $127 billion over 
that period--that those children were still being left behind; that 
low-income children in grade 4, for example, were reading at a level 
two grades behind their peers who were not from those backgrounds; that 
especially in a minority community children were simply not obtaining 
the academic levels to be competitive in society; that the children 
were not only coming to school not ready to read but once in school 
were not able to learn to read because the educational system was 
leaving them behind; that failed schools are being allowed to continue 
to be failed schools year in and year out; that children were being put 
through a system where failure had been identified but nothing was done 
to change the fact that failure was occurring.
  So we decided to change and adjust the approach. Rather than being a 
system that was based on institutions which funded the institution, the 
educational building or the educational bureaucracy, we decided to 
change to a procedure where we actually funded the child. We decided to 
take a child-centered approach to education. That is what one presumes 
is the logical approach under any scenario, but it has been in the last 
20 years the approach of the use of Federal dollars. Instead, we have 
thrown them at the education bureaucracy. We have thrown them into 
school buildings, but we have not said let's have the dollars fund the 
child who is being left behind, especially the low-income children.
  So the first element of our bill was to have it be child centered. 
The second element of our bill was to give flexibility to local schools 
because they understand how to educate the child, to say to the local 
school districts, the local teachers and principals, local school 
boards, and especially to the parents of the children: You shall have 
the opportunity to use Federal dollars in a more flexible way. We will 
not categorize how you must use those dollars. We will not control the 
decisions at the front end. We will not say how many desks you must 
have and books you must have in a classroom, or how many hours you must 
teach a child. Rather, we will give you flexibility over the use of 
dollars, but in exchange for that flexibility, we also, as a third 
element, require accountability.
  We said the local schools are going to have to achieve, that they 
could no longer leave the low-income child behind; that that low-income 
child's academic ability was going to have to be maintained at the 
level at which his or her peers were being maintained; that the schools 
could no longer ignore a failing school. For example, they could no 
longer keep in their school system a failing school year after year and 
expect to continue to get funds for that failing school; that instead 
we were going to expect that children not be shuffled through the 
system but rather the children be allowed to excel and achieve within 
the system. Those were the elements of our bill: First, that it was 
child centered; second, there be flexibility for local communities to 
make the decisions as to how to educate the children; but, third, there 
would be an expectation of results. There would be academic 
accountability so low-income children would not be left behind.

  Three of the elements that made up this package were reasonably 
controversial, at least in the sense that the educational lobby here in 
Washington was opposed to them. The educational lobby here in 
Washington is strong, and it has an iron hold over this city, or has 
traditionally had an iron hold. They do not like change. They don't 
like to be held accountable. They do not like things that require them 
to produce results. Rather, they are more interested in teaching to a 
standard which, unfortunately, has been the least common denominator, 
and not requiring that they be held accountable for the use of dollars 
which have been sent to them. But we felt those dollars should be 
accountable. So we said, first, there should be portability. In other 
words, if a child is in a school that has failed year in and year out, 
we said, rather than having the money to continue to go to that school, 
we will allow the parent of that child to get dollars and allow the 
parent of that child to take those dollars with the child either to 
another school or to a tutorial program so that the child has the 
opportunity to get out of the failing school.
  This idea of portability of funds, of attaching the dollars to the 
child, attaching the dollars to the school, has been controversial, but 
it is an idea which has worked and is working in places such as 
Arizona.
  We are not saying the school district has to pursue this activity, 
but rather we are saying a school district will have the option of 
pursuing this activity. We are not saying the school must undertake 
portability. We are saying if the school wishes to use Federal dollars 
in a portable way, they can. So we are making it, again, an option to 
the local school district as to whether or not they pursue this.
  This has been stamped a voucher program by the forces that do not 
wish to see it succeed or don't wish to try anything else. It is simply 
a statement to the local district that if they feel that attaching the 
dollars to the child so that the child and the child's parents can take 
advantage of dollars to improve the child's education, makes sense if 
the local public entity which

[[Page S75]]

manages that school district--be it a public school board or be it a 
public education authority that decides that you want to use 
portability, you can. So it is not a federally-mandated program. It is 
a Federal option given to the local school districts.
  We said to school districts what we need are teachers who can teach 
their subjects best. You--the local school districts--understood, and, 
fortunately, have been told that what you need are more teachers. The 
Federal program as it presently exists says you must hire teachers even 
if you do not need more teachers. Forty-two of the States already meet 
the teacher-student ratio which is required under federal law. But to 
get Federal dollars, you have to hire more teachers. We said that 
doesn't make much sense. We said let's let the local community decide 
whether they need more teachers or better trained teachers.

  So we passed something called the Teacher Empowerment Act which said 
to local school districts here are the Federal dollars for teaching. So 
we will put them in a bundle and give them to you. You can use them for 
any of a variety of things. You can use them to hire more teachers in 
your classroom. You don't have to use it for that but you can. You can 
use them to educate your teachers so they teach better, or you can use 
them to give technical support to your teachers so they have better 
tools with which to teach. It is the local school districts that have 
the flexibility to do that. But if you get that flexibility, you also 
have to have accountability and you have to show us the teaching of the 
students has improved over a 5-year period; that the students are 
actually learning more; that they are doing better. So, once again, we 
gave local flexibility to the community and we did it in the context of 
an accountability system.
  This, again, was opposed and is opposed aggressively by the Federal 
lobby here in Washington because it gives the local community the 
decision power over how to use the Federal dollars, and the community 
here in Washington doesn't like it. They want to be able to manage 
those dollars from Washington so it is a Washington-driven event versus 
a local event. This, in essence, is where the battle will once again 
join if there is a battle in this Congress as we move forward with 
educational reform.
  There are many people on the other side of the aisle who see the need 
for flexibility and for accountability proposals that came from the 
Senator from Colorado last year and the Senator from 
Indiana. Democratic Senators had ideas and initiatives in many ways 
similar to the initiatives we had on our side of the aisle that 
represent a positive step toward a bipartisan compromise in these 
areas. I am hopeful as we move further down the road on educational 
reform we can come together in this Congress and especially in this 
Senate on a whole series of initiatives which will accomplish this 
fundamental goal that we aren't leaving children behind or allowing 
failing schools to continue to function, that we are expecting that our 
educational system will deliver to our children the opportunity to 
participate in the American dream.

  There is great room for compromise, there is great room for 
bipartisan initiative. I congratulate the President on making this his 
first order of business. This is the essence of how we as a nation 
continue to remain strong and vibrant.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I said on January 3 that I intended to 
savor every one of the next 17 days. And I am happy to report that I 
did.
  It was a great honor to serve as Majority Leader of the United States 
Senate--however briefly.
  At noon on Saturday, I handed that title back to my friend, Senator 
Lott. Today, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to tell Senator 
Lott that, if he ever needs to take a day off--for whatever reason--
I'll be happy to pinch hit for him.
  I learned a few things about the Senate these past two and a half 
weeks that I had not known before.
  One of my favorite bits of new knowledge has to do with a former 
member of this Senate, David Rice Atchison, of Missouri.
  Senator Atchison was president pro tem of the Senate in 1849. Back 
then, new Presidents were sworn in on March 4, not January 20.
  But, in 1849, March 4 fell on a Sunday. And the new President-elect, 
Zachary Taylor, didn't think it was appropriate to conduct official 
business on the Sabbath. So he chose to wait until the next day to take 
oath of office.
  Back then, the President pro tem was third in the line of 
presidential succession, not fourth.
  So, from noon on Sunday, March 4, when President Polk's term ended--
until noon on Monday, March 5--when President Taylor was sworn in--
Senator Atchison was President. Or so he and his friends claimed.
  Today, we know that President Taylor automatically became President 
as soon as President Polk stepped down.
  But for the rest of his life, Senator Atchison loved to say that he 
had been ``President for a day''--and that his presidency was the 
``honest-est administration this country ever had.''
  I do not know that Senate Democrats' brief time in the majority will 
make as interesting an historical footnote as the Atchison presidency. 
But I do believe the Senate accomplished some things during these last 
17 days that bode well for this Congress.
  I particularly want to thank Senator Lott for the fairness he showed 
in agreeing to a distribution of responsibility that accurately 
reflects the composition of this first-ever 50-50 Senate. I also thank 
my fellow Democrats--particularly those who chaired committees.
  On Saturday, after a week of fair and thorough hearings, we confirmed 
the first seven of President Bush's cabinet officers.
  On Saturday, too, we saw, once again, one of the great miracles of 
American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one President 
to the next.
  I was moved by much of what President Bush said in his inaugural 
address, especially his conviction that there is no such thing as an 
``insignificant'' person. I also believe there is no such thing as an 
insoluble problem. My colleagues and I are ready and willing to work 
with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and with our Republican 
colleagues in Congress, to move America forward.
  Tomorrow, we understand the President will send us his ideas on 
education. We are anxious to see them. We will give them, and all of 
the President's proposals, careful and respectful consideration. We 
want to make this 50/50 Senate something to be proud of.
  Today, we are introducing our first proposals--our first priorities--
for this Congress.
  Many of them will sound familiar. That is because we have been 
working to pass them for a good long while. They are things like: a 
real, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights; a reliable, affordable 
Medicare prescription drug benefit; middle-class tax cuts, and help for 
our children's schools.

  They all lead our list of priorities--for two reasons.
  First, and most important, because the American people have made it 
clear, these are their top priorities. Second: Because bipartisan 
majorities in Congress support them.
  The challenges we address affect all Americans, but they effect rural 
Americans in ways that are often different and more pressing. That is 
why I am also developing a separate package of bills called ``South 
Dakota First.'' But it won't help just my State. Instead, it will help 
people in small towns and rural communities throughout America.
  As we move ahead, we cannot leave rural America behind.
  Over the past several years, relations between our parties have 
become increasingly strained. By starting with the issues on which most 
of us do agree, we can strengthen our bonds of trust. And that will 
make it easier for us to solve the next challenges.
  Under President Clinton, we experienced the longest, strongest 
economic expansion in our Nation's history. We went from the biggest 
deficits ever, to the biggest surpluses ever.
  The question now is: What should we do with that surplus?
  One of our top priorities this year will be to deliver tax relief to 
hard-working families across the country.

[[Page S76]]

  The debate over how we structure that tax cut is likely to be the 
most consequential debate we have all year.
  Our ability to achieve a strong, bipartisan compromise on taxes will 
be the biggest test of our 50-50 Senate.
  I am confident we can pass that test.
  We are willing to negotiate. At the same time, we are committed to 
two fundamental principles:
  First: The bulk of the tax relief must go to middle-class working 
families because they are the people who need tax relief most.
  Second, any tax cut must be affordable and fiscally responsible.
  The efforts we have made to restore fiscal discipline these last 8 
years have resulted in lower interest rates, record-high job creation, 
and record-low unemployment. We must protect those gains. We cannot 
squander them by going back to the old days of deficit spending.
  President Bush has indicated that he will be sending us his 
recommendations for cutting taxes in late February. We look forward to 
working with him, and with out Republican friends, to pass a fair, 
fiscally responsible tax cut this year.
  Today, we are taking our first step. We are introducing a package of 
targeted tax cuts to help working families at the key junctures in 
their lives.
  Our tax cuts will help families pay for college; save for retirement; 
care for disabled and elderly family members; and pay for long-term 
care.
  We want to eliminate the marriage-penalty tax and eliminate the 
estate tax on more than 99 percent of estates--to help keep small 
businesses and family farms in families.
  We also want to expand the earned income tax credit for low-income 
working parents so they do not have to raise their children in poverty.
  And, we want to significantly expand child care tax credits for 
middle-class families; and extend them, for the first time, to stay-at-
home parents of infants.
  Next, we must pass a real, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights this 
year.
  The Norwood-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights passed the House more 
than a year ago with strong bipartisan support.
  In the Senate, it was supported by every Democrat, and four 
Republicans.
  The bill we offer today mirrors it.
  It guarantees that you can go to an emergency room when you need to.
  It gives women direct access to OB-GYNs.
  It guarantees parents the right to choose a pediatrician for their 
children, and a pediatric specialist if they need one.
  It guarantees people the right to see qualified specialists when 
necessary, and to continue with the same doctor if they are pregnant or 
being treated for a serious illness.
  It guarantees that you will get the medicines your doctor says you 
need.
  It prohibits HMOs and insurance companies from gagging doctors to 
prevent them from telling patients all of their treatment options.
  It also prohibits them from providing doctors and hospitals with 
financial incentives for denying needed care.
  Finally, our bill holds insurers accountable. It gives patients the 
right to appeal denials of care to an independent board.
  If an insurer ignores the board, and its denial or delay of care 
results in serious injury or death, our bill allows victims to seek 
justice in a State court.
  Employers that provide health coverage cannot be sued under our plan 
unless they make the actual medical decisions that result in injury or 
death.
  Every week we delay, 350,000 Americans are denied needed health 
care--health care for which they have already paid. It is time for 
those delays to end. It is time to pass a real Patients' Bill of 
Rights.
  Next, we propose an affordable, voluntary Medicare prescription drug 
benefit.
  We all know the terrible financial--and emotional--strain paying for 
prescription drugs places on many older Americans and their families. 
Prescription drugs are an essential part of modern medicine. They ought 
to be part of Medicare, too.
  Our plan is universal. Every Medicare beneficiary is eligible, 
whether they are in traditional Medicare or Medicare+Choice.
  Our plan is voluntary. If you already have private prescription 
coverage you like, you can keep it. It is up to you.
  Our plan is affordable, and comprehensive. There is a $250 
deductible, no caps on benefits and no gaps in coverage. The most 
anyone would pay out-of-pocket is $4,000 a year.
  It is absolutely wrong that seniors pay, on average, twice as much as 
HMOs and big insurance companies for the exact same medications.
  By combining the purchasing power of 40 million Medicare recipients, 
our plan gives seniors real bargaining power--so they will not have to 
pay the highest prices at the drugstore anymore.
  We are not talking about Government-run medicine. Medicare will 
contract with private companies to offer the prescription benefit. 
Seniors will be able to choose the company they like best, and they 
will be guaranteed convenient access to local pharmacies, whether they 
live in big cities or small rural communities.
  Next: Someone once said that education is the soul of a generation as 
it passes from one generation to the next.
  We need to work together to ensure the next generation of Americans 
learns the skills and knowledge necessary to be good parents, good 
workers, and good citizens.
  The quality of our future will be determined by the quality of our 
schools. It is as simple as that.
  We agree with President Bush: No child should be left behind. Every 
child deserves the chance to go to a good public school.
  The education bill we are introducing today gives more to local 
schools and asks more of schools.
  It includes incentives for States to set higher standards for 
everyone--students, teachers, and administrators--because the stakes 
are higher. But it lets local communities decide the best way to meet 
those standards.
  Our plan gives parents more information about how their children's 
schools are performing--and more of a say in how those schools are run.
  It also gives parents more choices about the public schools their 
children attend.
  Our bill targets special attention and help to struggling schools. At 
the same time, if a school cannot or will not fix its chronic problems, 
our plan contains real consequences. We will not allow children to be 
trapped in chronically failing schools.
  Much of what we are proposing won bipartisan support in Congress last 
year.
  Our bill reduces class sizes by keeping our commitment to help 
communities hire 100,000 qualified new teachers.
  It helps communities recruit good new teachers and principals, and it 
ensures that teachers, and principals, have the opportunity to update 
their skills and knowledge.
  Our plan includes grants to help schools repair leaking roofs and 
burst pipes and other urgent safety hazards, and reduced-rate bonds 
that will enable communities to cut the costs of new school 
construction by up to 50 percent.
  It also includes assistance to make sure that all schools have up-to-
date technology and all teachers know how to use technology so all of 
our children are ready for the new economy.
  In addition, we propose to expand Head Start, so more children can 
start school ready to learn; and provide more and better child care, 
and before- and after-school programs, so children have a safe place to 
go when parents are at work.
  Our plan expands the Reading Excellence Act, to make sure every child 
can read by the end of the third grade.
  And it puts us on track to fund the Federal Government's full share 
for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to help 
students with disabilities develop to their fullest potential.
  In addition, our plan makes college more affordable for more families 
by increasing Pell grants and extending college tuition tax credits.
  And it strengthens training and other lifelong learning programs so 
workers can learn new skills and move into better-paying jobs.
  In the long run, investing in education is the surest way to increase 
a family's financial security. But, as someone once pointed out, people 
don't eat in the long run. They eat every day.

[[Page S77]]

  It has been more than four years since the last time we raised the 
minimum wage. Inflation has since wiped out that entire increase. Too 
many low-income parents who work full time don't earn enough to feed 
their families and pay for other basic necessities.
  Two years ago, we introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage $1 an 
hour. This year, we are proposing a $1.50 an hour over 25 months--to 
make up for Congress's inaction. We need to raise the minimum wage. 
This year--no more delays.
  We also need to close the wage gap between men and women. It has been 
38 years since President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. And American 
women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn for doing the 
same work. This wage gap costs America's families $200 billion a year, 
more than $4,000 for each working woman's family. It is time to close 
it once and for all by better enforcing the law, and giving victims of 
wage discrimination new options for fighting it.

  We are also proposing new ways to help parents balance family and 
work without sacrificing part of their income.
  For instance, our bill expands the Family and Medical Leave Act to 
cover more work places, to fund workplace demonstration projects to 
provide paid family leave, and allow parents to use the leave to attend 
parent-teacher conferences and other important school functions.
  We also give States and communities more resources to develop more 
and better child care opportunities for working families.
  One necessity that too many low-income working families try to get by 
without is health insurance. Two years ago, we created the Children's 
Health Insurance Program to help low-income parents obtain health 
insurance for their children.
  Today, we are proposing to expand the CHIP program to include parents 
of eligible children, and to give States the option of expanding 
coverage to 19- and 20-year olds, and to legal immigrant women and 
children.
  These are important first steps. But we will be offering additional 
ideas in coming months to make sure more Americans have access to good, 
affordable health coverage.
  We also intend to offer ideas for strengthening our Nation's 
unemployment insurance system. We expect those proposals to look much 
like the reforms suggested last year by a blue ribbon commission made 
up of business, workers and Government representatives.
  It is not just low-income families; nearly every American family 
relies on Social Security and Medicare for economic security.
  We have a responsibility to make sure Social Security and Medicare 
are always there not just for the current generation of retirees, but 
for every generation.
  When Bill Clinton was first elected President, Medicare was expected 
to run out of money in 1999. But we didn't let that happen. Instead, we 
extended the life of the Medicare trust fund to 2025. And we improved 
Medicare coverage by adding important new preventive benefits. We also 
extended the solvency of the Social Security trust fund to 2034. This 
year, we are proposing to further protect both programs by taking both 
Medicare and Social Security off budget; putting the surpluses from 
both programs in a real lockbox, and making it harder to use the money 
in the lockbox for anything other than Social Security or Medicare.
  This administration, and this Congress, must work together to 
modernize Social Security and Medicare so they will be there for the 
baby boomers and beyond. Locking away the surpluses now must be the 
first step.
  People ought to be able to feel secure in their retirement. They also 
ought to be able to feel safe and secure in their own homes and 
communities. In the last several years, we have seen major crime go 
down in almost all categories. We need to keep those trends moving in 
the right direction.
  We know community policing works. We are proposing to help 
communities hire more community police and prosecutors as a result of 
that knowledge.
  We also know that kids and convicted criminals have no business 
possessing guns. So we are proposing to extend Project Exile and other 
successful efforts to reduce gun violence.
  We are also proposing to pass the Juvenile Brady bill to make sure 
that juveniles who commit serious drug or violent crimes are not 
allowed to possess guns ever, and close the gun show loophole--once and 
for all.
  We want to strengthen the Violence Against Women Act, including 
increased support for shelters. We want tougher punishments for 
criminals who prey on seniors. We want to expand drug courts and drug 
treatment. We want to expand delinquency prevention programs, so kids 
who are at risk, or who have already had scrapes with the law, can turn 
their lives around.
  In addition--and this is very important--we want to ensure that crime 
victims are treated with fairness and respect. We are proposing that 
crime victims be notified about court proceedings involving their case, 
and have an opportunity to have their opinions heard on these matters. 
These things are just basic decency. They ought to be basic rights as 
well.
  There is another right every American deserves--the right to vote, 
and to have his or her vote count--that is a right that should never be 
compromised. And we believe that there are times when it is 
compromised. Then our entire system of Government is jeopardized.
  We have just come through the most difficult Presidential elections 
in our lifetimes. We are seeing the peaceful transition of power to a 
new administration. Now, we need to make sure we never see another 
election like this last one.
  We are proposing that Congress create a blue ribbon commission on 
election reforms. Do all Americans have equal access to vote? If not, 
what should the Federal Government do to help? We need to hear from 
experts on these and other matters.
  We are also proposing a grant program to help states and communities 
update antiquated voting equipment. No American should be forced to 
overcome unreasonable obstacles to vote. In my mind, that is doubly 
true for members of our armed services.

  So, as part of our election reform package, we want to make it 
absolutely clear that military personnel retain their rights to vote at 
home--even when they are stationed abroad. This is not a change. This 
is the law now. We need to make sure everybody knows it.
  Also, before the next election, we must pass real campaign finance 
reform. The average winning Senator spent $6.4 million in the last 
election, 530 percent more than in 1980. In all, candidates and 
political parties spent more than $3 billion on Federal elections in 
2000. An additional $400 million was spent on ``issue ads'' to try to 
influence races.
  More and more, special-interest money influences who runs for office, 
who wins, and what they do and don't do once they get here. We can--and 
must--change that.
  We are offering a plan based on the bipartisan Shays-Meehan plan that 
passed the House last year and won 52 votes in the Senate. Our plan is 
fair. It does not place one party or another at an advantage. It treats 
incumbents and challengers in both parties fairly.
  Most importantly, our plan is comprehensive. It bans unregulated 
``soft money'' to political parties--the biggest loophole in the 
current system. It also prevents soft money from being rechanneled to 
outside groups for phony ``issue ads.''
  We know Senators McCain and Feingold are also committed to passing 
campaign finance reform. We look forward to working with them to pass a 
workable, comprehensive plan this year.
  For many Americans, these past 8 years have been a time of 
unprecedented prosperity. But that is not true for most rural 
Americans.
  There is a quiet depression in many rural communities in South Dakota 
and throughout our Nation. Many small producers are being forced to 
sell farms and ranches that have been in their families for 
generations. Others are barely holding on.
  As small farms disappear, so do the small towns and businesses that 
depend on them. Sixty-five percent of the counties in my State lost 
population last year.
  Since 1996, farm income has dropped more than 20 percent. If you take 
away Government payments, it is down more

[[Page S78]]

than 40 percent. It is expected to drop another 10 percent this year.
  We don't need another year to know that the Freedom to Farm has not 
worked, and will not work. We must enact a new farm bill this year to 
restore the agriculture safety net.
  In addition, we must ensure fair competition for family farmers and 
ranchers at home and abroad, by prohibiting agribusiness giants from 
participating in anti-competitive practices that harm family farmers 
and rural communities; and by making agriculture a top trading 
priority.
  We must also continue to invest in ethanol. And we must strengthen 
America's commitment to food safety.
  Family farms don't just produce commodities. They produce 
communities. We can't afford to lose them.
  Finally, we must take new steps to protect the basic civil rights of 
all Americans, because we agree with President Bush that civil rights 
enforcement is critical to assuring that all Americans have equal 
access to schools, workplaces, and the courts.
  We are proposing a modest and necessary increase in funding for the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other Federal agencies 
charged with enforcing our nation's civil rights laws, and for the 
Legal Services Commission.
  In addition, we seek to end racial and other types of unreasonable 
and unconstitutional ``profiling''--whenever and wherever it occurs.
  As a first step toward that goal, we are directing the Attorney 
General to analyze the investigatory practices of all Federal law 
enforcement agencies.
  If there is evidence of Federal law enforcement agencies using 
racial, ethnic, or gender profiling, we want to find it.
  We want to know what should be done about it.
  We need to know.
  Beyond that, we propose to expand Federal hate crime laws to include 
gender, sexual orientation and disability and provide greater 
protections against crimes motivated by racial or religious bias.
  Our bill also prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of 
sexual orientation.
  Last year, 57 Senators, including 13 Republicans, voted for our hate 
crimes bill. In the House, 232 members, 41 of them Republican, voted 
for it.
  Some people think of it as ``the Matthew Shephard bill'' or ``the 
James Byrd'' bill. We think of it as a matter of basic civil rights.
  Finally, in addition to preventing people from using old stereotypes 
as a basis for discrimination, we must also prevent people from using 
new technologies to discriminate.
  Our bill prohibits both employers and health insurers from using 
genetic test results as a basis for discrimination.
  It also prevents disclosure of genetic information to health 
insurers, data banks, employers, and anyone else who has no legitimate 
need for the information.
  We need to make sure that the new knowledge scientists are learning 
through the Human Genome Project--research funded largely by American 
taxpayers--is used to help America's families, not hurt them.
  In closing, Mr. President, 169 years ago this month the French 
political and social observer, Alexis De Toqueville, visited the Senate 
in session.
  Afterward, he wrote that the 1832 Senate was ``composed of eloquent 
advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of 
note, whose arguments would do honor to the most remarkable 
parliamentary debates of Europe.''
  Honorable debate and compromise has been in rather short supply in 
the Senate these last few years. Its absence has prevented us from 
doing many things we ought to do.
  The power has been transferred now to a new Congress, and a new 
Administration.
  Let's use that power to move America forward, together.
  Like ``President-for-a-day'' David Rice Atchison we are already 
assured a footnote in the history books simply by being members of the 
first 50/50 Senate.
  As we begin the work of this Congress, let us resolve that we will be 
more than a footnote. Let us agree that we will work together to write 
a new chapter of progress for the American people.
  I thank my fellow Democratic Senators--as well as some of our 
Republican friends--for helping to shape our first leadership bills of 
the 107th Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I applaud and commend our leader for his 
brilliant statement. I acknowledge that the things that we do on a 
national level have direct impact on our States. I appreciate very much 
the Senator from South Dakota talking about the need to take care of 
the rural America.
  Ninety percent of the people in Nevada live in the Las Vegas and Reno 
metropolitan areas, but rural Nevada is in real need of help. I 
appreciate his directing our attention to the needs of rural Nevada.
  His comments about taxes also are so important. I remind all of my 
friends in the Chamber and those within the sound of my voice, these 
are not election conversion statements. We badly wanted to do tax 
measures last year. We tried very hard to get rid of all 64 provisions 
of the marriage penalty. We were unable to vote on that. We hope that 
something can be done this year to take care of penalties that married 
couples have in America. Also we were willing to do something dealing 
with the inheritances taxes. Again, we were unable to vote on our 
version, which I think clearly would have passed.
  On health care issues our leader talked about a prescription drug 
benefit, a Patients' Bill of Rights--these matters we also could have 
taken care of last year.
  Today there is a new spirit of bipartisanship in this body. I am 
confident, with the leadership of the Senator from Iowa on the Finance 
Committee, that we will be able to do a lot of the things we were 
unable to do last year. I have worked with the Senator from Iowa on a 
number of issues over the years. He is a reasonable man.
  We now have the Senate divided 50/50, and it is time that we join 
together and did something regarding taxes. It is time we did something 
on health care other than just talk about it.
  In addition, the issues the Senator from South Dakota spoke about on 
education are important for the people of South Dakota, the people of 
Nevada and everyone in the country. When we pass some of these bills 
that appear to be national in scope, our individual States benefit 
greatly.
  With regards to school construction, the State of Nevada needs it 
badly. In Las Vegas, we have the sixth largest school district in 
America. We have to build one school every month to keep up with the 
growth there. We need help. This legislation which our leader spoke of 
would give us that help.
  On issues dealing with individual worker rights, the minimum wage 
issue is really important. It is important for all kinds of reasons, 
not the least of which is 60 percent of the people who work for minimum 
wage are women; for 40 percent of those women, that is the only money 
they get for them and their families. It is important that we bring 
this up today. Equal pay is also important. We have women who are 
working very hard. They work just as hard as men. They are entitled to 
100 percent of what men make for doing the same kind of work. This 
legislation is way past due.
  What we have done these last 8 years dealing with crime has been 
effective. Violent crime in America is down? Why? I believe one of the 
principal reasons is because of what we have done with providing more 
police officers. The 100,000 new police officers in Nevada and the rest 
of the country has made a tremendous impact.
  We on this side of the aisle seem to talk a lot about the need to do 
something about gun safety. We do that with every thought in mind that 
our legislation has no impact upon the sportsmen of America, no impact 
upon law enforcement officers of America, and no impact upon those 
people who shoot for recreation purposes. We believe the loopholes need 
to be closed--that is, dealing with pawnshops, dealing with gun shows--
we need to close these. That is what we are talking about.
  Finally, what the Democratic leader said regarding campaign finance 
is so important. I am reminded that 2 years ago, in the race for the 
Senate, Senator

[[Page S79]]

Ensign and Senator Reid spent $20 million in the State of Nevada. I am 
not making a misstatement. The State of Nevada has about a million and 
a half people. We spent $20 million. That is really too much money. 
That doesn't take into consideration the independent expenditures 
involved.
  So with John McCain on the floor of the Senate now, I throw bouquets 
to John McCain for the leadership he has shown. He has not backed down, 
and I appreciate that.
  I also see present my friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ 
Feingold. He has been a leader. I have admired the work he has done 
with Senator McCain. I have said it privately, but I say it publicly 
how much I appreciate the work he has done. He has truly been a leader 
of this country with his partner Senator McCain. I am glad my friend, 
the Democratic leader, talked about campaign finance.
  We want to work together. The Senate is divided 50/50. There is no 
reason in the world we can't pass legislation. When we pass 
legislation, there is credit to go around. There is credit to go to 
Republicans and credit to go to the Democrats. There is credit to go to 
the President. We can all walk out of here recognizing we have done 
something for the common good. I hope we can do that.
  The last 2 years have not been constructive or good. I hope we can 
reflect in the future on the good work we have done for our States and 
our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.

                          ____________________