[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24103-24124]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2267 To Amendment No. 1851

 (Purpose: To reject indiscriminate across-the-board cuts and protect 
Social Security surpluses by closing special interest tax loopholes and 
                    using other appropriate offsets)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2267 to amendment No. 1851.
       At the end of the amendment add the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The Congressional Budget Office has projected that 
     Congress is headed toward using at least $19,000,000,000 of 
     the social security surplus in fiscal year 2000.
       (2) Amendment number 1851 calls for across-the-board cuts, 
     which could result in a broad-based reduction of 10 percent, 
     taking into consideration approved appropriations bills and 
     other costs likely to be incurred in the future, such as 
     relief for hurricane victims, Kosovo, and health care 
     providers.
       (3) These across-the-board cuts would sharply reduce 
     military readiness and long-term defense modernization 
     programs, cut emergency aid to farmers and hurricane victims, 
     reduce the number of children served by Head Start, cut back 
     aid to schools to help reduce the class size, severely limit 
     the number of veterans served in VA hospitals, reduce the 
     number of FBI and Border Patrol agents, restrict funding for 
     important transportation investments, and limit funding for 
     environmental cleanup sites.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that instead of raiding social security surpluses or 
     indiscriminately cutting defense, emergency relief, 
     education,

[[Page 24104]]

     veterans' health care, law enforcement, transportation, 
     environmental cleanup, and other discretionary appropriations 
     across the board, Congress should fund fiscal year 2000 
     appropriations, without using budget scorekeeping gimmicks, 
     by closing special-interest tax loopholes and using other 
     appropriate offsets.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, obviously, I went in a slightly 
different direction as we introduced our second-degree amendment 
because I wanted the clerk to particularly read some of the 
implications of what it is we are facing if we adopt the Nickles 
amendment.
  My amendment is a substitute for the Nickles amendment. It is very 
simple. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the Congress must not 
permit raiding Social Security surpluses nor indiscriminately cut 
defense, emergency relief, education, veterans' health care, law 
enforcement, transportation, environmental cleanup, and other 
discretionary appropriations across the board. Instead, we should fund 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations--I point out that the year began 
October 1--without using budgetary gimmicks by closing special interest 
tax loopholes and using other appropriate offsets.
  In my view, this is a much more rational and appropriate way to 
approach the budget. Deep across-the-board cuts are a bad way to do 
business. They will prove extremely unpopular. Americans didn't send us 
to Washington to simply use a meat ax approach to governing. They want 
us to do it thoughtfully. They want us to go after waste and 
inefficiencies, to use our judgment and support essential programs such 
as education. The Nickles amendment, by contrast, puts the budget 
process on automatic pilot. It would cut indiscriminately.
  I read from the text of the Nickles amendment where they say in the 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment that ``Congress should ensure that the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations measures do not result in an on-budget 
deficit''--that on-budget is excluding Social Security trust funds. 
They put parentheses around it--``by adopting''--this is the solution 
they offer--``an across-the-board reduction in all discretionary 
appropriations sufficient to eliminate such deficit if necessary.''
  The language is quite clear. But to further clarify, it says cut 
these programs--the ones I talked about--cut veterans' health benefits, 
cut educational benefits, cut law enforcement, cut FBI, cut border 
guards even though our border is saturated by illegal immigration. And 
we ought to make an orderly process about that.
  The Nickles amendment makes no distinction between critical 
priorities such as education, defense, and lower priorities such as 
corporate subsidies or pork barrel spending.
  There is no need for a meat ax approach. The Republicans' own tax 
bill proposed to close various tax loopholes. Now that the bill has 
been vetoed, why not use some of the same loopholes to help protect 
Social Security, to prevent potentially painful cuts in education and 
other priorities?
  Why not search for waste from other Government programs? How many of 
us have talked about that waste as we campaigned for office? Shouldn't 
we go after that before we take money away from our schools or our 
Armed Forces?
  My amendment does not specify the offsets we should adopt, and it in 
no way endorses raising income taxes on ordinary families, but it does 
say we have to treat the budget candidly.
  One of the things we should all be alerted to--the public in 
particular, but certainly we who are going to vote on this--it says: 
``GOP Using Two Sets of Books,'' in a commentary by the Wall Street 
Journal of July 27:

       Republicans are double-counting a big part of next year's 
     surplus, papering over the fact that their proposed tax cuts 
     and spending bills already have exhausted available funds.

  If it were up to me, as I said earlier, I would ask the tobacco 
industry to compensate the taxpayers for the damage they have caused 
and help pay for the tobacco-related diseases that cost us some $20 
billion a year. If we could get that $20 billion a year, we wouldn't 
have to be faced with the prospect of cutting Social Security surpluses 
by some $19 billion.
  Once again, my amendment doesn't endorse that particular approach, or 
any specific provision. It just says: Let's be honest with the American 
people, and let's find real offsets.
  I will tell you what I learned from the Congressional Budget Office 
in a letter to one of my staff people:

       Our estimates of the outlays available to be cut is $351.7 
     billion. Dividing the projected deficit by the available 
     outlays results in an across-the-board cut of 5.5 percent.

  Across-the-board cuts--that is all of those programs that we have 
discussed several times.
  We shouldn't use gimmicks. We shouldn't use that kind of treatment, 
and not indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts which drastically slash 
funding for teachers, military personnel, veterans, and other 
priorities. In fact, we have an endorsement of that view, I think it is 
fair to say, when Appropriations Committee chairman Bill Young of 
Florida says to cut 2.7 percent of all discretionary spending would 
result in cuts of about $7 billion from defense which would wipe out 
the pay increase that lawmakers recently provided for the military.
  We all know the military is having a problem recruiting new members 
and getting new recruits to join the various branches. Would we want to 
discourage that effort even though we are having a problem filling 
those important positions that we must have to protect ourselves? I 
think not.
  Mr. President, pretty simply, I hope my colleagues will support the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, several comments: First, I commend the 
Senator from New Jersey for at least a more, in my judgment, candid 
discussion of this debate than we heard last week because the 
resolution that he offers says the Congressional Budget Office has 
projected that Congress is headed toward--headed toward doesn't mean 
they are there--whereas last week in the debate you would have thought 
it was a fait accompli.
  The point is, we don't know if any funds or spending levels would 
have been at such a level that they would have affected Social 
Security. No one knows that now. Everybody is trying to avert that. 
Here comes Senator Nickles' amendment which says if we don't avert 
that, it would relate to across-the-board cuts. I think all of us 
understand that the number, if any of it applies to Social Security, 
would never be of the magnitude discussed in the amendment by the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The point I wish to make is that it is a nebulous amendment because 
it says it is headed for--in other words, we don't know. But then they 
draw the conclusion that it might result in reductions of 10 percent 
across the board. We heard 1 percent. If it were around $5 billion, it 
would be 1 percent. If it were $19 billion, it would be probably around 
5 percent. To get to 10 percent, we would probably have to be at about 
$40 billion.
  The point is, this is a very imprecise amendment about something. It 
is like an attempt to be a crystal ball. What are the appropriators, 
what is the Senate, and what is the Congress going to ultimately do 
with the pressure?
  The amendment also has a technical flaw because it suggests in the 
language that it would cut emergency aid to farmers and hurricane 
victims when across-the-board cuts do not apply to emergency funding--
something the authors may want to review.
  Senator Nickles said if spending is such that it utilizes some Social 
Security receipts, they will require an across-the-board cut. I think 
the American people can understand that.
  This resolution says we could cut spending, which of course is what 
Senator Nickles suggests ought to happen as well; but if that doesn't 
work, we will just raise taxes. The Senator from New Jersey points out 
these are taxes that would not affect ordinary families. All taxes 
affect ordinary families. There is no such thing as a corporate tax. It 
really doesn't exist. Corporate taxes are expenses to the corporation. 
The ladder consumers buy, the loaf of

[[Page 24105]]

bread consumers buy, the gasoline consumers buy, on anything consumers 
buy, consumers pay all corporate taxes.
  He talks about the possibility of taxing tobacco companies yet again 
after the settlement. Who pays any charge to the cost of the tobacco? 
The people who buy it, the ordinary people who use the product.
  The major distinction has at least been reduced between the two 
bills. They both say ``if,'' ``could,'' ``maybe,'' but the principal 
distinction is that the Senator from Oklahoma says if any of those 
funds come from Social Security receipts, they have to be replaced by 
an across-the-board reduction, which is an incentive to reduce spending 
so that doesn't happen; and the Senator from New Jersey says there is a 
major incentive to reduce expenditures to keep it from happening, but 
if it does, we will raise taxes; we will take more out of everybody's 
pocket. That is the principal distinction.
  I am pleased the debate has eliminated both suggestions that anyone 
really understands what that amount, if any, might be. I am pleased the 
amendment of the Senator from New Jersey acknowledges that.
  It boils down to two different approaches about what to do if it were 
to happen. The Senator from Oklahoma says we would have across-the-
board spending reduction; the Senator from New Jersey says we would 
raise taxes. He does admonish it would not be a tax that would affect 
an ordinary person. I point out that all corporate taxes are paid for 
by all consumers.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to continue to use some of the 
time we have reserved. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 and a half minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened to our colleague from 
Georgia with interest. He said we were not too specific about things. 
But we are specific about one thing, and that is we do not want to 
touch Social Security.
  A long time ago, someone said: Touch not a hair on that old gray 
head. I have the color hair that evokes thoughts of Social Security, 
and I am eligible to be a recipient. I know how important it is, as 
does everybody here. I do not want to diminish everybody else's view. 
They all know how important it is.
  Let's start with what is in the Nickles amendment. It says that 
Congress should eliminate any on-budget deficit by adopting an across-
the-board reduction in all discretionary appropriations, if necessary. 
All discretionary appropriations --that could mean anything: Farmers' 
aid, Veterans Administration, FBI, drug enforcement, Coast Guard, you 
name it. All these programs would have to suffer deep cuts under this 
amendment because, according to CBO, the Senate has already approved 
legislation that would use $19 billion of Social Security funds. And 
we're likely to use even more Social Security funds when we conference 
with the House, which is proposing higher spending levels, and when we 
provide relief to hurricane victims and others suffering from genuine 
emergencies. Mr. President, before I go further, I see my colleague 
from Illinois on the floor. I yield 5 minutes to him, and then we will 
be able to come back to our point.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those who are trying to follow what is 
happening on Capitol Hill at this moment in time should be aware of 
some of the basics. Our calendar year for budget purposes ended on 
October 1. We started a new year. So, ``happy new year'' to all who are 
following this debate. Unfortunately, we do not have our spending bills 
passed.
  In fairness, neither Democrats nor Republicans have a very good 
record of passing these bills on time. But I think most people would 
concede, we are at a moment in time in the history of this institution 
where we have never faced such chaos as we do today. There does not 
seem to be any exit strategy. People are getting too comfortable here. 
Instead of thinking about ending this session in a responsible way and 
going home, we are still jousting back and forth politically, and that 
is sad.
  What is even sadder is the situation in which we find ourselves 
today. After all the time we spent on the budget and after all the 
suggestions about how to resolve it, we do not have anything near a 
dialog between the President and the leaders on Capitol Hill. Some say 
they do not want the President to come up to Capitol Hill because that 
may not be a good environment for the debate. Some say the Republican 
leaders are afraid to go to the White House because they have had their 
pockets picked there in the past. I suggested we set up folding chairs 
on The Mall and let them meet there, let the whole world watch, and 
let's see if we can bring it to a conclusion.
  I think the American people ought to pay attention to this debate 
because now what we hear from the Republican side of the aisle is that 
in order to exit this place, they want to have an across-the-board cut 
in all the appropriations bills. That may sound eminently fair: 
Everybody suffers. But keep in mind, some suffer more than others. When 
you start cutting back in programs such as Head Start and you have the 
kinds of cuts we need to balance the budget, 43,000 children are taken 
out of this program where we try to get them ready for school. How many 
people do you want the cut at the Federal Bureau of Investigation? How 
many people do you want to cut from the border guards to stop drugs 
from coming into the United States?
  These are legitimate questions, and spending committees make these 
decisions as they build their budget bills. Now, in a effort to get out 
of town, we hear from the Republican side of the aisle, ``Let's just 
have an across-the-board cut,'' and I think that is sad. We have had 
entirely too much gimmickry in this budget debate already. At one point 
in time, one of the Republican Senators suggested we should amend, not 
a bill but the calendar, not the legislative calendar but the real 
calendar; let's create a 13th month in a year. We were going to have a 
contest to see if we could come up with a name for it in an effort to 
at least have some bipartisan agreement. But after it did not pass the 
laugh test, it was dropped as an idea.
  Then last week, the Republican leaders in the House said: We'll take 
the millions of Americans, working Americans, who get some tax relief 
called the earned-income tax credit, and let's just delay paying those 
people. That was a suggestion from the House Republican leaders. That 
did not even pass the George W. Bush compassionate conservative test. 
He announced to his party and America: Don't do that. You have to find 
a way out of this short of hurting people who are working for a living 
and struggling to get by.
  It seems as if every week there is a new notion, the latest one being 
this across-the-board cut. Let's try to get to the bottom line here. 
You will hear us toss out CBO, OMB, on and on. We love to do that in 
Washington. The Congressional Budget Office comes up with some 
estimates on spending and the economy. The Office of Management and 
Budgeting does the same. Sometimes they agree; sometimes they don't. It 
is a calculated guess. But they both seem to agree at this point in 
time that we will be borrowing money from the Social Security trust 
fund in order to bring this to a conclusion. I don't want to see that 
happen. But it has happened for years and years and years, and this 
year we would borrow less than we usually do. I hope we do not have to 
borrow any, when it is all said and done.
  President Clinton came to us and said: Here are some offsets. Here 
are some things you can do that will, in fact, provide the revenue we 
need for us to leave on time.
  I think some of them were reasonable. Let me give you an idea. One of 
them suggested a 50-cents-a-pack tobacco tax. I know from serving in 
this

[[Page 24106]]

body, my colleagues are not going to warm up to that idea. I support 
it. Yes, it is true, the Senator from Illinois just said he supports a 
tax increase on tobacco products, because when the price goes up, the 
kids stop buying them. When kids stop buying them, they start weaning 
themselves from an addiction that can ultimately lead to death and 
disease--50 cents a pack, $6 to $8 billion a year, money that can be 
spent for education, for health care, for priorities in this country. I 
think the President is on the right track.
  So I sincerely hope, before we resort to cutting such things as 
education and FBI, border guards, military personnel--personnel 
staffing reductions--we ought to step back for a minute and see if 
there is not some common ground left here.
  The most amazing thing about this across-the-board cut debate is that 
the ink is hardly dry on the Republican proposal that was offered, and 
then thrown off the table, to give America a $792 billion tax cut. You 
may remember it. It has only been a few weeks ago. We had so much 
money, we were awash in money, we were going to start giving it back in 
huge sums. Thank goodness the American people and many leaders in 
Washington said wait a minute, take another look at it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the time to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. So when the proposal was made by the Republican side for 
the $792 billion tax cut, many people said: Wasn't it 24 months ago 
that this Senate floor was consumed in a debate about amending the 
Constitution of the United States to pass a balanced budget amendment 
to stop the deficits once and for all, to bring discipline by the 
Federal court system imposing limitations on spending?
  Yes, it was a little over 2 years ago. That is what we were talking 
about.
  Then the proposal came from the Republican side: We have so much 
money now that we can give away a massive tax cut, primarily to the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  The idea was rejected by Alan Greenspan who has no political ax to 
grind and wants to see the economy move forward. The idea was rejected 
by economists, as well as leaders from the President on down, and most 
important, it was rejected by the American people.
  A few weeks later, the same Republican Party that had this massive 
tax cut tells us we are in desperate straits as to this year's budget, 
and we have to do across-the-board cuts in law enforcement, education, 
and health care. That tells us, frankly, the captain on the ship does 
not know where he is headed. The captains, in these cases, are the 
leaders in the House and the Senate on the Republican side.
  I will tell you where I think they should be heading, and I think the 
American people expect this to happen. We have to end this in a 
sensible fashion. We have to make certain when it is done we meet our 
basic obligations--obligations to kids and school, obligations to those 
who depend on us for the very basics, obligations to Social Security to 
make sure it is strong beyond the year 2032, and as for Medicare, 
beyond the year 2015. These should be viable systems. That is our first 
obligation.
  It is our obligation, as well, to provide for the basics of this 
country--the national defense, to make sure the men and women in 
uniform are treated humanely and they have not only good assignments 
but are adequately compensated for the service they give to our 
country.
  The list is pretty obvious and most American families would agree 
with them, but we have not gotten the dialog underway between Democrats 
and Republicans on Capitol Hill. I sincerely hope this idea of an 
across-the-board cut is rejected. I believe the Appropriations 
Committee has to make priority judgments on spending. The President's 
offset package will save us some money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I hope this happens soon. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nebraska--
how much time does the Senator need, 5 minutes?
  Mr. KERREY. Five or 6 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Five or 10. I prefer he not take the ``or''; take the 
5 or 6 minutes, please. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 6 
minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia and the Senator from New Jersey if I can split my time because 
though I do support the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey, I have an unusual argument. It may sound as if I am both for it 
and against it. I appreciate him yielding time to me.
  It is terribly important we do save Social Security, but my 
frustration in the entire Social Security debate is to date, what has 
happened is the Social Security issue has prevented us from increasing 
discretionary spending and getting a budget that meets the needs of the 
American people. It has prevented us from doing a tax cut of any kind, 
whether it is $300 billion or $500 billion or $700 billion. It has 
prevented us from doing Medicare reform. It locked us up in a box.
  We cannot seem to get anything done because we are not willing to fix 
Social Security. We want to have the issue, but when we get down to the 
details of the problem, it is not an easy problem to solve because we 
basically--not basically--we have a liability on the table that is 
about 33 percent larger than what current taxes will fund. That is the 
problem.
  For 150 million Americans under the age of 45, that means they are 
going to face a benefit cut of between 25 and 33 percent. Thus, the 
announcements recently sent out by Mr. Apfel, the head of the Social 
Security Administration, are not accurate. He is telling people how 
much money they are going to get if Congress raises taxes. The last 
time I checked, there is not a single vote in this body to raise 
payroll taxes. If that is the case, it is likely to be every 
beneficiary under the age of 45 is going to be looking at a pretty 
substantial benefit cut. That is the problem we have to address.
  There are a number of legislative proposals that have been 
introduced, but, again, relevant to this debate, you would think 
everybody is about to fix Social Security. The lockbox does not fix 
Social Security. All it does is use the payroll tax to pay down the 
debt. After having used the payroll tax to keep the deficit low for 16 
years, we are now saying to Americans who get paid by the hour: You get 
the pleasure of reducing all the debt.
  For the median family of $37,000 a year, they will pay about $5,500 
in payroll taxes versus $1,300 or $1,400 in income taxes. It is not, in 
my view, a very fair transaction.
  If we enact Social Security legislation, it could be a very good 
transaction because we could do tax reduction for those families. We 
could help them on the discretionary side helping their children go to 
college by doing some things as well to make certain their kids get a 
good education in our K-12 system. There are a lot of good things that 
could occur if we fix Social Security.
  There are only 29 Members of Congress who have signed on to any 
specific legislation at all. I call that to the attention of those who 
are watching this debate because, again, one would think, given all the 
interest in Social Security, they were about to pass Social Security 
reform legislation.
  Earlier today, the chairman of the Finance Committee had a meeting in 
which he was discussing the need to extend some tax provisions, the R&D 
tax credit most specifically, but also making some changes in the 
individual alternative minimum tax, a very unfair and pretty heavy tax 
on working families that have multiple deductions.
  We were talking about that, and I suggested to the chairman that the 
Finance Committee take up Social Security reform; let's mark up the 
bill.

[[Page 24107]]

There is a majority on the committee who would vote for a specific 
piece of legislation. It is not likely we are going to.
  As I see it, the Republicans are a little bit distrustful of what the 
President might do. The President has a proposal on the table that 
takes $25 trillion of income taxes to extend Social Security solvency 
for 20 years. Republicans, I believe, have correctly identified that as 
a mistaken way to sort of fix Social Security.
  I am willing to join with Republicans in that regard and hope, as we 
debate these various proposals, that enthusiasm will grow as a 
consequence of looking at what is happening to 150 million 
beneficiaries who will not be eligible for another 20, 30, or 40 years. 
What happens to them if we do not take action? They are the ones who 
are going to pay a price. The terrible paradox about that is not only 
are they going to pay a price with delay, but the lockbox basically 
says to them: You are going to shoulder the burden for debt reduction 
until we finally come to grips with this particular problem.
  Time is not on our side. The problem does not get easier. If you 
favor tax increases, the tax increases will be larger the longer you 
wait. If you favor cutting benefits, the benefit cuts get bigger the 
longer you wait. If you favor, as I do and a number of us in the 
Senate, making some modest reduction in benefits but coupling that with 
increased payments for lower-wage individuals and the establishment of 
savings accounts that would enable individuals, in combination with a 
defined benefit program, to actually get more than what is currently 
promised--with either one of those three proposals, the longer you 
wait, the more the beneficiaries and taxpayers are going to suffer. It 
does not get easier for them. It gets harder for them. It may be easier 
for us as we head to elections, but it is not easier for the American 
people to watch this debate get locked up over this lockbox issue, 
seeing who favors saving Social Security the most. It does not benefit 
the American people for us not to enact legislation that will fix 
Social Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 17 minutes; 
the Senator from New Jersey has 5.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Oklahoma how much 
time he wishes.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator can give me 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, shortly, within the next 10 or 15 
minutes, we will be voting on the Lautenberg second-degree amendment. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. I looked through the 
amendment. Although it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, it should be 
factual. This is not factual. Amendment No. 1851 calls for across-the-
board cuts which could result in a broad-based reduction of 10 percent. 
That is not true. There is no way in the world it can be 10 percent 
unless Congress goes on a drunken spending spree. Maybe some people 
want to do that. We are not going to do that.
  You can get into all kinds of discussions using CBO or using OMB.
  Further, the amendment says we should do it without using budget 
scorekeeping gimmicks.
  The gimmick is, we are using the administration's scorekeeping. That 
is a gimmick. Maybe it is wrong, but I have heard many people on the 
other side say OMB is more accurate than CBO. If you used all CBO 
numbers, it would be, at most, a 5 percent reduction. So 10 percent 
does not even belong in this debate. Using OMB scorekeeping, you are 
talking about 1 percent. I actually believe we will not have to.
  I have talked to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he 
says we can make it. We are talking about spending $500 billion. We are 
only $5 billion off. That is about 1 percent. We ought to be able to do 
that.
  The Labor-HHS bill we are debating right now has some big increases 
in some programs. Maybe we could scale back those increases just a 
little. NIH grows from $15 billion to $17 billion, but the President 
only requested an increase of $300 million. Does it have to grow by $2 
billion?
  Education. I have heard some of my colleagues say, oh, those 
Republicans are cutting education. The bill has a $2.3 billion increase 
over last year and $500 million more than the President requested. 
There is a $500 million increase in the bill that is before us dealing 
with labor.
  So my point is, I think we can tighten up a little bit and not have 
across-the-board cuts. I just mentioned Labor-HHS. Maybe we could also 
do it in defense; maybe we could do it in a couple of other areas.
  But the way I read the Lautenberg amendment, getting around the false 
statements that it could cut up to 10 percent, it says: ``closing 
special-interest tax loopholes''--that is another way of saying let's 
raise taxes--``and using other appropriate offsets.''
  If the Senator has the votes to raise taxes, let him try to raise 
taxes. This Congress passed a tax cut, not a tax increase. The Senator 
had a chance to offer tax increases. They did not pass. I am just 
saying maybe he still wants to raise taxes, but that did not happen. 
The tax cuts were not signed into law. The President vetoed that. So we 
are not going to get tax cuts.
  So I am saying, whatever happens, let's make sure we do not dip into 
this money of the Social Security surplus. We are saying 100 percent of 
that should be used to pay down the national debt--100 percent of it. 
We should not be raiding that money to spend on all these other 
appropriations bills. That is what I am saying.
  I look at the substitute offered by my friend and colleague from New 
Jersey that says: Hey, let's raise taxes; let's use other appropriate 
offsets. I do not know what they are. If he has ``other appropriate 
offsets,'' offer them.
  I want to help work with my colleagues to make sure we don't take 
money out of the Social Security fund. I am willing to do it. We have 
bills on the floor now where we can do it.
  Maybe we should have other offsets for the Labor-HHS bill. Maybe we 
should have other offsets for other appropriations bills. But if we try 
to put them all together, let's make sure we do not dip into Social 
Security money. Let's not do that. We should not do it.
  I think this amendment by my colleague from New Jersey says: Well, 
instead of any cuts in spending, let's raise taxes. I think that would 
be a mistake. I do not think the votes are there to do it. I do not 
think it will happen in this Congress.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to make some brief observations in 
reference to the debate on the Lautenberg amendment to the Labor/Health 
and Human Services/Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. 
The Senator from New Jersey suggests that there is an aversion to 
identifying and addressing tax loopholes. I would point out that in the 
Finance Committee we have worked in a bipartisan manner to identify and 
address areas of our tax code which are viewed as candidates for 
change. These measures have raised tens of billions in revenue over the 
last few years. Some examples in this area include action the committee 
took to effect the tax treatment of corporate owned life insurance 
(COLI), liquidating REITs and tax shelter registration requirements.
  Indeed, we are required to consistently look for avenues where we can 
adjust our tax code to enact change going forward. We are faced with 
just such a situation right now in crafting our so called extender 
bill. The items we are seeking to go forward with include permanently 
shielding individuals from the alternative minimum tax--an important 
item to ensure that our families are able to take advantage of measures 
designed to advance their education and child care needs. We are 
looking to create job opportunities with the extension of the work 
opportunity tax credit, the R&D tax credit and the welfare to work tax 
credit and to enable working men and women to

[[Page 24108]]

continue their education both at the undergraduate and graduate level 
through the employer provided education assistance program. In the 
environmental area we are looking to continue provisions which enable 
communities and businesses to address brownfields. I would point out 
that millions of people benefit from these provisions.
  I believe it is possible to craft legislation which will provide for 
programs which have been identified as priorities--health care for our 
veterans, education, aid for our farmers, environmental programs and 
health research. We have worked in the Finance Committee to advance 
these priorities as well and will continue to do so going forward in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask if the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania wants to use any of the time available on that side 
at this time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I intend to make comments for a few 
minutes, and then I will be prepared to yield back the remainder of our 
time so we can proceed to a vote, if the Senator from New Jersey is 
prepared to do the same.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will use just a couple minutes to 
respond, and then we will have finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I listened very carefully. One of the things that 
sometimes the public does not understand is, we can disagree on things 
because it is an honest view of what is taking place. Perhaps our 
friends on the Republican side would see things one way and we on this 
side see them another way. But when we talk about OMB and CBO, these 
are rather arcane acronyms for the public at large. We work with them 
all the time. They are arcane for us.
  But OMB is something that usually is thought to represent the White 
House view, the administration view, on calculating where we are, our 
budget--how much we are spending and how much we are taking in. So I 
guess it is easy to say that those of us who are on the same party side 
as the White House want to pay attention to what OMB says and those who 
represent the majority in the legislature--the House and the Senate--
want to rely exclusively on CBO--except when it is convenient. This 
difference is what we are seeing now in talking about whether or not we 
use OMB scoring.
  Our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma said: Well, we want to use 
some of the scoring the President uses, from OMB. But, Mr. President, 
they only want to use OMB scoring selectively--only when OMB's numbers 
make it appear that they are using less of the Social Security surplus.
  In court, you are not allowed to do that. I am not a lawyer, but I 
know lawyers can't pick and choose from the laws of various states when 
they present their cases, and use only those laws most favorable to 
their clients. They have to live under the rules of their jurisdiction.
  But here in the Congress, the Republican majority wants to use CBO 
scoring when it suits their purposes, and OMB scoring when it doesn't.
  For example, the majority is using CBO's estimate of the non-Social 
Security surplus. That's because CBO is projecting a $14 billion non-
Social Security surplus, whereas OMB's estimate is much lower--$6 
billion.
  But then when it comes to scoring the defense appropriations bill, 
all of a sudden the majority wants to use OMB numbers.
  In other words, they are using two sets of books.
  Mr. President, there may be rare occasions when the majority will 
truly believe that CBO has erred in their scoring. But that is not what 
is going on here. This ``directed scoring'' is not based on the merits. 
The Republicans are simply trying to make it appear that they are 
spending less than they really are. And that they are using less Social 
Security surpluses than they actually are.
  I also would point out that when the Senator from Oklahoma says, 
well, they want to raise taxes, let me remind the Senator that when the 
tax bill was sent to the President, it had $5.5 billion over 10 years 
of tax increases. So the Republicans themselves have admitted that 
there are legitimate savings to be had from closing loopholes. But 
apparently now their position is that there is not a single loophole to 
be closed in the tax code. Or at least that we should not close any 
loopholes before we cut education and defense first.
  I say, let's take a look at the tobacco industry. Let's try to 
recover some of the expenses they force us to incur. Let's see if we 
can't get back the $20 billion a year it costs taxpayers to treat 
tobacco-related diseases. That by itself would essentially solve our 
budget problem and allow us to avoid dipping into the Social Security 
trust fund.
  Mr. President, if there is any time left, I yield it back and hope 
our colleagues will support this sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey would yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are only 8 seconds remaining of the time 
of the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the 8 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am interested in the comment by the 
Senator from New Jersey about ``he is not a lawyer, but'' with respect 
to what has been offered on the floor of the Senate. I would suggest 
that if the Presiding Officer were a judge and was looking for 
competent evidence, evidence that had a factual basis, the speeches 
would be much shorter in this Chamber.
  One of the things I have been impressed with over the years is the 
difference in the kinds of assertions--on both sides of the aisle. I am 
not referring to anything the distinguished Senator from New Jersey has 
said. But when he talks about the authenticity of representations of 
fact, this body takes extraordinary liberty in what is represented as 
fact. When it comes to the numbers, my preference would be--and I know 
the Senator from New Jersey did not use the expression ``lying about 
the numbers,'' it is some budget expert--but I do not think a comment 
about lying, suggesting untruthfulness, is very helpful.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In my opening comments, I said that we viewed things 
differently. There was no suggestion of lying or dishonesty. I 
displayed this because that is what was said by a bunch of experts. I 
was careful not to accuse any of my colleagues of acting unethically.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for that. I walked 
in a little late and hadn't heard him say that. Maybe he repeated it. I 
respect the comment that there are different views. But to have a chart 
about lying, when the matters are subject to widespread disagreements 
as to how you calculate numbers, I would be very critical of budget 
expert Stan Collender--not critical of Senator Lautenberg--for using 
the expression ``lying.'' I don't think that advances the ball very 
much.
  I agree with a great deal of what is in the Lautenberg amendment. I 
agree we ought not cut Head Start, education, VA hospitals, border 
patrols, transportation, environmental funding, defense funding. I 
think that is exactly right. But when the Senator from New Jersey comes 
down to the sense of the Senate and says we should avoid using budget 
scorekeeping gimmicks, close special interest tax loopholes, and use 
other appropriate methods, starting with the budget loopholes--the 
President's budget had more than $20 billion of advance funding. 
Advance funding, regrettably, has become a commonplace practice that 
has been engaged in on all sides. I think the precedent and the custom 
are used generally and not subject to criticism from someone who uses 
them.
  When the President submits a budget with a tax increase of 55 cents a 
pack on cigarettes resulting in revenues of $6.5 billion, I might 
support that kind of a tax increase, but it is not money in the bank. 
It is pie in the sky. It is not even Confederate money. It doesn't

[[Page 24109]]

exist anywhere. So when the President includes that in his budget, that 
is hardly a subject to criticize Republicans on grounds of gimmickry.
  When the advance funding is accepted that the President uses, and the 
Republicans have used it, too, but you can't have a tax increase to pay 
for discretionary programs under the Balanced Budget Act. I don't know 
if that is a very good provision, but I do know it is the law. I do 
know it is a law the President signed. So when the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution calls for eliminating gimmicks and you have that approach--I 
won't call it gimmickry; why disparage the administration; just call it 
``that approach''--it hardly is valid.
  Then the final line on the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey 
is ``and by using other appropriate offsets.'' I am all for appropriate 
offsets, but what are they? Where are they?
  I think what we have to do--and we are still struggling on this--is 
to bring our appropriations bills within the caps, not to cut Social 
Security. I agree totally with the Senator from New Jersey on not 
touching Social Security. I think that is an accepted conclusion on all 
sides.
  We are struggling with this bill, and we have a lot of amendments yet 
to be offered. This is a very massive bill, $91.7 billion. This bill 
was crafted in the subcommittee, the full committee, to take the 
maximum load that could be borne on this side of the aisle. I may be 
wrong about that. My distinguished colleague from Oklahoma raises some 
significant questions with me about the propriety of that amount of 
money.
  Well, we have to really, my metaphor is, run between the raindrops in 
a hurricane to find a bill which shall be passed by this body and go to 
conference with the House and can be signed by the President. I had 
occasion to have a word or two with the President about this bill last 
night, when we were talking about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 
The President doesn't like the bill because it takes out a lot of his 
programs.
  The Constitution gives some authority to the Congress on 
appropriations--a little more expressed, explicit authority to the 
Congress than to the President, although the President has to sign the 
bills, but we do have some standing. So when we disagree with some of 
the priorities and have added $2.3 billion to education and are $500 
million more than the President, we are trying to fit this bill within 
the budget constraints and within the caps which we have.
  While we have dueling sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, I intend to 
vote against the resolution offered by the Senator from New Jersey. I 
voted for the resolution offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. I think, 
in all candor, that neither of these resolutions advances this bill a 
whole lot. What we have to deal with on this bill are the hard dollars 
and the specific programs. In the interest of moving the bill ahead, I 
will inquire how much time I have remaining in anticipation of yielding 
it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time. I know if we 
are not out of time, we are just about out of time. I will take a few 
minutes of my leader time to talk about this amendment.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment. I do so in large measure 
because I believe it reflects the approach that represents the only way 
we are ever going to bring about a consensus on spending and the budget 
before the end of this year.
  I don't have it at this moment--I have asked my staff to bring it--
but the chairman of the appropriations committees in both the House and 
the Senate have expressed themselves publicly about the impropriety of 
across-the-board cuts. They have said it is the easy way; it is not the 
most appropriate way.
  Indiscriminate cuts have never been the right way to approach deficit 
reduction, but these indiscriminate cuts are not the only way our 
Republican colleagues have suggested we go about meeting our budget 
objectives in the past. They have used a number of devices. Some of 
them have been the subject of a good deal of discussion in recent days.
  George W. Bush has noted how inappropriate it is to use the EITC, and 
they appear to have backed away from using the tax credit available to 
working families. They have suggested accelerating the timing of the 
spectrum auction by $2.6 billion. They have suggested using two sets of 
books, one by and for congressional Republicans and one by the CBO. 
They have suggested declaring LIHEAP an emergency, the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. They have suggested declaring the year 2000 
census as an emergency. They have suggested that we raid the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill. None of these have worked. Now we find our 
Republican colleagues suggesting maybe just an across-the-board, 
indiscriminate cut.
  We made some very difficult decisions with regard to defense earlier 
this year. We made the decision to provide them a pay raise for the 
first time in some time. Yet it appears our Republican colleagues are 
now prepared to go back and cut that pay raise and cut the other 
portions of the defense budget as well. We estimate that if you are 
going to pay for everything Republicans suggest with across-the-board 
cuts, a 3 percent cut won't do; the cut required is closer to 10 
percent. That is what the Office of Management and Budget says.
  So if we cut defense by 10 percent, if we cut all the programs 
associated with disaster and agriculture by 10 percent, if we cut 
education by 10 percent, I wonder whether our colleagues want to do 
that. Yet that seems to be where they have relegated themselves, given 
the fact that none of their other budget gimmicks have worked. You 
can't accelerate spending. You can't turn the EITC program into an ATM 
machine.
  You can't use many of the approaches that have been previously 
proposed by our Republican colleagues. They now know that. However, as 
I said, congressional Republicans didn't figure this out until after we 
witnessed the unusual occurrence where they were criticized by one of 
their Presidential candidates. They will soon find out that across-the-
board spending cuts will not work either.
  What works is what the senior Senator from New Jersey is now 
suggesting. What works is that we demonstrate some real leadership and 
find the offsets necessary to pay for these programs, or find the cuts 
that may be required to pay for these spending bills--not 
indiscriminately, but by making some tough choices. That is what we are 
suggesting. We are going to have to make tough choices in cuts or in 
offsets, but we have to make the tough choices together--Republicans 
and Democrats negotiating how to resolve this. We resolved it last 
year. That is how we should do it this year. In many cases, we have 
been locked out of the deliberations. Up until now, we haven't been 
involved in some of the conference committee deliberations.
  So I hope everybody realizes that in the end, if we are going to 
solve this problem, we have to do it in the way the senior Senator from 
New Jersey is suggesting. Let's solve it by showing some leadership, 
let's solve it by working together, let's solve it in the age-old 
traditional way of sitting down and finding the cuts and the offsets 
required to pay for the commitments we are making in the budget this 
year.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if a lot of this debate isn't 
about some here running for cover on the Social Security issue.
  Isn't it the case that several years ago, we had a very substantial 
debate about amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget? 
Isn't it true the author of the previous amendment and others were 
demanding on the floor of the Senate that we write into the 
Constitution the proposition that Social Security revenues ought to be 
able to be used to pay for other programs in order to claim a balanced 
budget? Isn't that the case?

[[Page 24110]]

  If that is the case, how do they come to us now and say we don't want 
to use Social Security moneys for the operating budget when, in fact, 
they wanted to put it in the Constitution 3 years ago?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota makes a very interesting 
point. We had that debate and we had some votes back then. I think the 
Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nevada were the prime 
sponsors of the amendment that said you cannot use Social Security 
trust funds for the purposes of general revenues in calculating a 
balanced budget. I think we lost that amendment fight on a party-line 
vote. And now, in the last couple weeks, the CBO has already said: 
Look, Republicans are now acting in a manner consistent with their 
votes on this constitutional amendment. We now know that, according to 
CBO, they have already used $18 billion. Those aren't our numbers, 
those are CBO numbers. They have already done that. But that is the way 
they voted 3 or 4 years ago when we had that constitutional amendment 
debate--to use Social Security trust funds for the purposes of general 
revenues, for the purposes of meeting whatever obligations there may 
be. So they are consistent.
  But I don't think anybody ought to be misled. Now there is some talk 
about, well, we ought to use across-the-board cuts. They know across-
the-board cuts involve deep cuts in defense, in education, in 
commitments to the environment, and in disaster and emergency 
assistance. They know that isn't going to happen. The only way it is 
going to happen is to do what is now on the table. This ought to be a 
100-0 vote. Every Republican and Democrat ought to be supporting this 
amendment because it is the only way we are going to resolve this 
impasse. The sooner we recognize that, the better.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question 
before I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In listening to the Senator's explanation of his 
understanding of what the underlying issue was, and also the Lautenberg 
proposal, did the 1 percent underlying proposal consider tax 
expenditures? We have about $4 trillion in tax expenditures. The 1 
percent, as I understand it, doesn't take into consideration a review 
of tax expenditures, where we might be able to find places where we 
could tighten the belt on some of these tax expenditures, and we would 
not need these kinds of offsets in the areas of education or health. I 
wonder whether the Senator's understanding of the 1-percent cut would 
include a review of tax expenditures.
  We have seen some important cutbacks in terms of freezes in various 
expenditure programs, and we have seen some cutbacks in various 
programs in the period of the last few years in some important areas of 
education and health, but we haven't had a real review of these tax 
expenditures. I wonder whether the Senator--as we come down to this 
period of time--thinks that issue might be at least something we ought 
to consider or debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts makes a very important 
point. Not $1 of tax expenditures are on the table in their proposal. 
What they are suggesting is that we cut education first, that we cut 
disaster assistance first, that we cut LIHEAP first, that we cut 
defense first; and only after we have done all of that, I suppose they 
would assume we might look at tax expenditures. But there is not a word 
about looking at the $4 trillion of possibilities in the tax 
expenditure category before we look at cutting education for children, 
before we look at cutting Head Start, before we look at cutting 
afterschool programs, before we look at cutting title I and funding for 
disadvantaged children. All of those cuts are on the table but not $1 
in tax expenditures. So the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely 
correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, does the Senator not agree with me that we have 
seen a comprehensive review of these various programs, as we should, to 
find out how effective the programs are? These programs that we 
authorize and appropriate money for have been watched carefully in the 
past several years. But I don't know of a single hearing that has been 
held in the Senate of the United States to have a similar kind of 
review of tax expenditures, to find out whether there are 
inefficiencies and waste, or whether they are accomplishing what the 
public purpose and goal was when they were devised. There very well may 
be an opportunity to squeeze some resources out of tax expenditures so 
we don't have to cut education and health and home heating oil. Does 
the Senator think that ought to be part of this debate and discussion 
as we talk about the questions of funding these critical programs?
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I may respond, the irony is that the only tax matter 
that has been on the table for our Republican colleagues has been the 
earned-income tax credit, the tax credit affecting working families who 
are trying to get off welfare, who are trying to ensure that they pay 
their bills on time, who appreciate the importance of having that 
little help in April of every year. In fact, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, and on the other side of the Capitol, made the 
point last week that these families need some help in managing.
  Well, I have heard, ``I am from the Government and I am here to help 
you'' in a lot of different ways, but this is a new chapter. There is 
no way we are going to help working families manage their money better 
by taking away the one financial tool they have in the Tax Code. That 
doesn't help them. It is a charade that even George W. Bush fully 
understood and appreciated and spoke out on.
  I think the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. That 
ought to be a consideration as well. We ought to be looking at $4 
trillion in possibilities there, at least prior to the time we commit 
to cut the first dollar of education, the first dollar of health care 
for children, or the first dollar of Armed Forces personnel stationed 
abroad. That, it seems to me, would be the prudent approach.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield for a brief question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada for a 
question.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from South 
Dakota talked about tax expenditures. Is that the same thing some of us 
refer to as ``corporate loopholes,'' ``corporate welfare,'' and ``tax 
loopholes"?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is what I am talking about. Obviously, when we talk 
about tax expenditures, people sometimes wonder what reference that is. 
In many cases, we are talking about loopholes. In fact, it is 
interesting that our Republican colleagues, in order to pay for the 
huge tax cut they had proposed earlier this year--which ended up going 
nowhere--used corporate loophole closures as a way to pay for part of 
it. So even they have acknowledged on occasion that these corporate 
loophole closures are something we should be looking at; not in this 
case, however. In this case, they are proposing that we cut education 
first, that we cut health care first, and then we look at other things, 
perhaps--although it isn't addressed in this proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an 
additional amount of time be granted to this side equal to the time 
used in excess of the leader's allotted time. I first make an inquiry 
as to how much in excess of the leader's allotted time was just used.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry. Reserving the right to object, how 
much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A total of 20 minutes was used.
  Mr. REID. Is there a request pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request pending.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Parliamentary question: Is there not time usually 
reserved as leader time and as time allocated outside of debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is time reserved for the two leaders.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes.

[[Page 24111]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had inquired of the Parliamentarian how 
much time was being used when it was up to 17 minutes. I was informed 
that the Parliamentarian never interrupts the leader when the time is 
in excess. I didn't want to break with that custom. But it seemed to 
me, as a matter of comity and fairness, that if excess time was being 
used, there ought to be that much additional time on this side. But I 
understand the rules. If there is objection to that, so be it.
  How much more time is left on this side of the aisle?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the arguments 
by the Senator from South Dakota. When he talks about Democrats being 
locked out, certainly he isn't talking about this bill. The ranking 
member and I worked on this bill in a collaborative partnership. I 
don't know if he is referring to other bills or just this bill, but 
there was no lock out here. When the Senator from South Dakota objects 
to across-the-board cuts and says--may we have order, Mr. President--
that we ought to take a look at matters one by one and make the tough 
choices, we ought to have the offsets, I would certainly be in favor of 
that.
  If the Senator from New Jersey had made specific requests on offsets, 
I would have been glad to vote on them one by one instead of saying 
``other appropriate offsets.'' If he had identified special interest 
tax loopholes, I would have been prepared to vote on those one by one 
instead of the generalization. But I think it is worth noting that on 
this bill nobody on that side of the aisle has made any suggestion for 
any offset--not at all.
  We added to block grants $900 million by an amendment from the 
Senator from Florida. We had $900 million offered from day care and 
added to the bill by the Senator from Connecticut. We had $200 million 
offered but rejected by the Senator from California for afterschool; 
$200 million offered but rejected on class size by the Senator from 
Washington. We have amendments pending now by the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, $3 billion for disadvantaged education; $3 
billion for Head Start. Other amendments, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, $200 million on one; the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Bingaman, $200 million on another.
  I think those are all very worthwhile programs. But it hardly lies in 
the mouth of those on the other side of the aisle to talk about hard 
decisions of offsets when they don't talk about any offsets and they 
don't talk about any hard decisions. They don't talk about specifics.
  I don't like across-the-board cuts, either. I have said so. I don't 
think we are going to have across-the-board cuts. I think that is the 
sword of Damocles which is hanging over this appropriations process to 
keep us within the caps. But we have hardly heard of any offsets or any 
tough decisions on the other side of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will make a couple of comments, and 
then we will vote.
  For the information of all of our colleagues, we will have a vote 
momentarily on the Lautenberg amendment, or at least in relationship to 
the Lautenberg amendment.
  I have heard: Well, if you follow the amendment that has already 
passed, we will have to have a 10-percent reduction.
  I want to say categorically that is false, and people shouldn't try 
to mislead people. What we are saying is we should not be taking money 
out of Social Security trust funds to spend it on a bunch of other 
programs. We should show some discipline. I absolutely don't want 
across-the-board cuts. I want to make those cuts. I want us to live 
within the numbers necessary so we don't touch Social Security. That is 
$14 billion more than the caps. All right. We will go up to that 
amount, but not more than that amount. We need some limit.
  This bill has been growing like crazy. The Labor-HHS bill, as Senator 
Specter mentioned, the bill that he reported out of committee, had 
significant growth; it had more money than the President requested for 
education. Somebody said: Well, if we adopt the last amendment, which 
is already adopted, and we followed that, we would have cuts in 
education.
  We would have maybe 1 percent. But guess what. The education bill 
went up by $2.3 billion. You could have a 1-percent reduction in that 
and still spend more than the President requested.
  The Labor-HHS bill over the year has been growing like crazy. In 
1996, it was $63.4 billion; in 1997, it was $71 billion; in 1998, it 
was $80.7 billion. The bill we have before us is $84.4 billion. As 
Senator Specter mentioned, we already have amendments adding a couple 
of billion dollars on top of that. We defeated amendments to try to add 
a couple billion dollars more.
  There is a whole slew of amendments to spend billions more as if 
there is no budget, as if there is no restraint whatsoever. And 
Senators are saying, wait a minute, you really are spending Social 
Security surpluses, and we shouldn't be doing that. We said we are not 
going to do it. We passed a resolution that says if it is necessary, we 
will have across-the-board cuts. We don't want to touch Social 
Security. Yet we have amendment after amendment saying let's spend 
more. Many of us reject that.
  I yield the remainder of our time.
  I move to table the Lautenberg amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2267. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 314 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                     Amendment No. 1851, Withdrawn

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
underlying amendment No. 1851.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the motion of the 
Senator from Oklahoma?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. On our sequencing, we are now ready for an amendment

[[Page 24112]]

from the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. He and I have had an 
informal discussion on a unanimous consent request to not have any 
second-degree amendments, to vote on or in relation to the Kennedy 
amendment after 30 minutes equally divided. And I supplement that with 
no second-degree amendments prior to the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I do not object to doing 
half an hour. I am instructed by the leadership on our side that they 
not start a vote until 4:15. But I can wind up if you want to start on 
a second.
  Mr. SPECTER. It is my intention to stack the votes, to take them up 
later today, so there will be no vote before 4:15.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, was the request for a 
time agreement on the Kennedy amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania still has the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I renew my unanimous consent request to have 30 minutes 
equally divided, no vote before 4:15, no second-degree amendments, and 
a tabling motion on or in relation to the Kennedy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2268

                    (Purpose: To protect education)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I 
understand, therefore, that not withstanding other previous agreements 
in regard to first-degree amendments, this would qualify as a first-
degree amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2268.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       In order to improve the quality of education funds 
     available for education, including funds for Title 1, the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Pell Grants 
     shall be excluded from any across-the-board reduction.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. Simply stated, this 
amendment says:

       In order to improve the quality of education, funds 
     available for education * * *

  And then it says, such as:

       Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     [IDEA] and Pell Grants shall be excluded from any across-the-
     board reduction.

  Just a few minutes ago, we were having a debate on the floor of the 
Senate on the questions about overall general reductions in the budget 
which would have affected these education programs. We had a brief 
debate on alternative ways in order to try to deal with some of the 
budgetary considerations and constraints.
  During that discussion and debate, I asked whether we had actually 
even given consideration to trying to find additional kinds of funding 
by closing some of the tax expenditures which are generally understood 
as tax loopholes. We did not receive any assurances on that. Really, as 
a result of that debate, as we are moving on through this whole 
appropriation bill, and in anticipation there may be another 
opportunity or another occasion where Senators will come forward and 
ask for a reduction in the funding levels across the board, this 
amendment just excludes the education programs.
  We can ask why we ought to exclude education programs. Why not other 
programs? We could have some debate and discussion on that issue. But 
the principal reason for excluding these programs is because over the 
period of recent years, we have seen a series of reductions in 
education programs as a result of House and Senate Appropriations 
Committee action.
  Going back to 1995, we had a House bill--this is just after the 
Republicans had gained control of the House and Senate--that actually 
requested rescission of $1.7 billion. Then the House bill in 1996 was 
$3.9 billion below 1995; in 1997, $3.1 billion below the President's 
request; in 1998, $200 million below the President's request; in 1999, 
$2 billion below the President's request.
  We know this appropriation bill that has been reported out by the 
Appropriations Committee is in excess in total numbers of what the 
President requested. We also know it is on its way to the House of 
Representatives for negotiation.
  The purpose of this amendment is, no matter what we are going to do 
in terms of other kinds of activities to reduce funding of various 
provisions of the legislation, we are not going to reduce funding in 
the area of education. That is basically the reason for this amendment. 
We know that the title I program works; the Pell program works; IDEA 
works; the other education programs work. We have had good debates on 
those measures over the past months. It is very important that we 
understand that.
  We are now experiencing a significant increase in the total number of 
students who are going to be involved in K through 12 education. We 
will see 500,000 students this coming year attending our schools, an 
all-time high. We know we will need 2.2 million teachers over the next 
10 years, and we are getting further behind, hiring only about 100,000 
teachers a year. Even with the current efforts we have made in 
recruitment we are still falling further and further behind.
  We are also finding that more young families and needy families are 
able to get their children through college. One of the most interesting 
developments that has taken place in this last year is, we have the 
best repayment of student loans in over 10 years. This means that young 
people who are going to post-secondary education are taking advantage 
of the federal loan programs, and are repaying those loans. This is a 
very important and significant indication that there is a great need 
for these federal loans, and that young people across this country are 
demonstrating a responsible attitude by repaying those loans on time.
  I had raised the question earlier of whether we should not fully fund 
these important education programs, and other health care measures, 
child care measures and the community service block grant--I yield 
myself 3 more minutes. I have asked if we couldn't find some reductions 
in terms of tax expenditures to find that funding.
  Only a few months ago, under the Republican tax bill, they 
effectively found $5.5 billion over 10 years in their legislation. All 
we are saying is, if you can find $5.5 billion over 10 years, you can 
certainly find enough now to protect the programs dealing with 
education, dealing with health care, dealing with the LIHEAP program 
and some of these other nutrition programs. These are programs which 
are a lifeline to the neediest people in our society. That is what we 
are resisting. We are resisting this wholesale way of trying to 
diminish the continued commitment and responsibility we have to the 
neediest children and to the neediest workers and the neediest parents 
in our society. That is what brings us to the floor of the Senate 
today.
  I see my friend and colleague from Iowa. How much time do I have, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Eight minutes 41 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes 30 seconds to the Senator from Iowa 
and the other 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time. I 
compliment him on this amendment.

[[Page 24113]]

  There is all this talk going around about across-the-board cuts. We 
just had the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma which he 
withdrew. As you can see, there is some sentiment on the other side of 
the aisle to have some across-the-board cuts. Again, we have tried to 
resist those because, as the Senator from Massachusetts said so 
eloquently, there are a lot of people out there who could be 
drastically hurt--low-income people, needy people, seniors, veterans, 
and others.
  What this amendment addresses is the education end of it. Both sides 
of the aisle have said time and time again that education is our No. 1 
priority. The leader said that earlier this year. Both sides have been 
saying education is our No. 1 priority. What this amendment basically 
says is, as I understand it, if there is going to be any across-the-
board cut--and there shouldn't be because we have plenty of offsets; we 
don't need an across-the-board cut--if there is an across-the-board 
cut, we will exempt education, only education, including IDEA, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, title I, and Pell grants.
  What the Nickles amendment would have done--again, it is sort of 
rolling around out there about an across-the-board cut--CBO said the 
Nickles amendment would translate into a 5. 5-percent cut. For title I, 
that would be a $380 million cut. OMB said it would be as much as a 10-
percent cut. That would be $800 million. So somewhere between a $380 
and a $800 million cut in title I. Afterschool programs would be cut 
$20 to $40 million; ed technology, $35 to $70 million; and special 
education would be cut from $300 to $600 million, if, in fact we had an 
across-the-board cut.
  Again, I urge Senators to vote for this amendment because it will 
send a signal, loudly and clearly, that if there are any across-the-
board cuts, we are not going to take it out of education. We understand 
that education is our No. 1 priority. We understand we have to invest 
in education. The last thing we want to be included in any kind of 
across-the-board cut would be any cuts in education.
  I compliment the Senator from Massachusetts. This is a great 
amendment. This ought to receive a 100-0 vote to protect education from 
any across-the-board cuts.
  I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois had been yielded 4 
minutes. Does the Senator from Oklahoma wish to speak at this time?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, two or three comments are in order.
  Some people are still debating the amendment to which we have already 
agreed. I withdrew it. It was a sense of the Senate, a sense of the 
Senate which said we shouldn't be raiding Social Security funds. I 
don't think we should be raiding Social Security funds for education or 
for defense or for other issues. We have a lot of money. Defense is 
going up by $17 billion. Education alone is going up by $2.3 billion, 
even more than the President requested. As I stated before, if you do 
have an across-the-board cut, it is only 1 percent. And if you cut 1 
percent off that 37.3, you are talking about $370 million off an 
increase that is $2.3 billion. So you still have an increase of $2 
billion in education alone.
  People are entitled to their own interpretation. They are not 
entitled to their own facts. Education has grown dramatically. The 
entire Labor-HHS bill, on which I have already quoted the figures, has 
grown from--I don't have it right in front of me--about $50 billion a 
few years ago to about $90 billion today.
  So when I see charts: ``Republicans slashing education,'' it is just 
absolutely false. We have more money in this bill than the President 
requested. And even if you have a 1-percent reduction--and I hope we 
don't; I have said this time and time again; I hope we don't have an 
across-the-board reduction--I hope the appropriators will work with 
everybody to stay within the limit to which we agreed, which actually, 
so everybody will know, is $592 billion, and if we do that, we won't be 
touching Social Security. That is what we ought to do.
  You can fund an increase in education, an increase in NIH, an 
increase in defense, an increase in HUD, an increase in veterans, and 
still not raid Social Security. That is what we are trying to do.
  Just for the information of my colleagues, I withdrew the amendment. 
I don't believe the Senator's amendment is in order. I don't know how 
you amend something that is not underlying. I make that point and yield 
the floor at this time.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, if he wishes.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator may go first.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
raising this issue. In reply to my colleague, the Senator from 
Oklahoma, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts is making it clear, 
now that we know that lurking at least in the backs of the minds of 
many of the Republican leaders is the idea of an across-the-board cut, 
to somehow develop an exit strategy, the Senator from Massachusetts 
reminds us that across-the-board cuts means a cut in education.
  Let me give you some specifics, if I might. When I look at the 
committee report from this education funding bill, I see that if the 
5.5-percent cut that is envisioned by some of the Republican leaders is 
put into place, we will reduce the amount of money for title I, the 
major Federal educational program for disadvantaged children, to below 
last year's level of funding. So those who say this is a harmless cut 
that will never be noticed are not portraying this accurately, I'm 
afraid.
  I am prepared to discuss the facts with the Senator from Oklahoma, 
and the facts, unfortunately, lead to the conclusion that if we take 
his across-the-board cut strategy, we are going to cut educational 
funding below last year's level of spending. In so doing, whom do we 
jeopardize? Title I, of course, sounds pretty general and pretty 
bureaucratic, but this program is critically important for 11 million 
kids across America. Who are these kids? These are the kids most likely 
to drop out of school; these are the kids most likely to need special 
help to stay up with their classes and not fall behind; these are the 
kids who need that extra tutor for reading so they don't get behind the 
class, get discouraged, and drop out of school or, frankly, become a 
problem in the classroom. That is what title I is about. That is the 
program that would be cut by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  It is not the only program. The Congressional Budget Office says that 
the 5.5-percent across-the-board cut that is envisioned by some 
Republican leaders will cut many other programs as well: $26 million 
from the COPS Program, a program to put more police on the street and 
in communities, which is bringing down crime in America. Is there a 
higher priority? I don't think there is in my State of Illinois. The 
Head Start Program, from which millions of kids from poor families get 
a helping hand before they start kindergarten so they can succeed, we 
would see $290 million cut from that program by this idea of an across-
the-board cut. National Institutes of Health: Of all of the progress we 
have made in improving Federal funding for medical research, we would 
cut $967 million out of the progress and research into diseases and 
problems facing American families. I think that is a serious mistake. 
Title I education grants, a $380 million cut.
  Let me tell you some of the other cuts in education effected by this 
Republican strategy of across-the-board cuts. Afterschool programs: All 
of us stood on this floor in horror over what happened at Columbine 
High School in Littleton, CO. We knew something went wrong in a very 
good school. Children lost their lives. We said: What is it that we 
need to do to protect our kids in school and to make sure fewer kids go 
astray? We were told by the experts time and time again that we need

[[Page 24114]]

counselors at the schools to seek out troubled kids, and we need 
programs at the schools so kids can use their time effectively.
  An across-the-board cut would reduce the amount of money available to 
American schools for afterschool programs. By reducing that amount of 
money, it is just going to lessen our opportunity to reach out to kids 
who need something constructive to do in a supervised environment after 
school. So when my friends on the Republican side say that the easy way 
out, the painless way, is an across-the-board cut, they don't want to 
face reality. Those cuts will touch people who need a helping hand. 
They are going to touch kids who might drop out of school. They are 
going to cut afterschool programs. They are going to cut the kind of 
tutoring we need to make sure that kids succeed.
  In this day and time, at this time in our history, with the 
prosperity of the American economy, with the strength of this budget 
and of our budget process, have we reached a point where we have no 
recourse but to cut the most basic program for America--education? I 
think not. The President has come up with a list of offsets that will 
preserve the Social Security trust fund and still keep our budget in 
balance. I urge this Senate to adopt the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the anticipation is that we are not going 
to have across-the-board cuts because the totality of the appropriated 
bills will come within the caps. Senator Stevens was on the floor and 
we were discussing the last amendment. That continues to be the 
reassurance from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I can 
personally vouch for the fact that we are striving mightily on a 
conglomerate of 13 bills to come within the caps. I am personally 
opposed to the cuts across the board, as I have already said. When the 
Lautenberg amendment was argued a few moments earlier this afternoon, I 
said if there were specific proposed cuts, we ought to take them up one 
at a time. I hope we don't get to that either. If we do get to cuts, I 
think that education ought to be preserved.
  This bill has an increase in education of $2.3 billion, some $500 
million more than the President's budget. That reflects the concerns 
that the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, and I have had. 
If there are to be cuts, I would want to exclude education.
  It is true that it becomes difficult, once something is excluded, to 
not want to exclude other items. I would not want to see a cut in NIH. 
It hardly makes a lot of sense to add $2 billion to NIH if it is going 
to be cut almost $1 billion. Senator Harkin and I probably would have 
increased it $3 billion in that case.
  The Senator is laughing. It is good to have a laugh in the middle of 
the afternoon.
  But what we have to do is avoid across-the-board cuts. If it comes to 
that, then we will start to make exclusions, and we are making choices 
to have other cuts instead of these cuts. Then when we start to exclude 
virtually everything, we will ultimately have to come down to what cuts 
are necessary if these 13 appropriations bills do not come within 
budget.
  Mr. President, I see no other Senator on the floor seeking 
recognition. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten-and-a-half minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. We are looking for a Senator to offer the next 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. If we can yield back time, then the vote on this would be 
held at what time?
  Mr. SPECTER. We are going to stack them later in the afternoon, but 
not in advance of 4:15, which was the point raised by Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask the chairman, are we then through with this 
amendment and we are open for other amendments right now?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct, as soon as I yield back the balance of 
the time, which I intend to do.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for me to make a couple of 
comments?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have a list of amendments. I urge Senators on our side 
to please come over and offer the amendments that we have listed. 
People are protected in their amendments, but we want to get the bill 
done. Any Senators who may not be on the floor but who are available, 
please come over and offer your amendments. We have time agreements, 
and we can get these out of the road this afternoon before we start 
voting later on. It would be a shame not to use the time we have right 
now available to us to offer amendments and get them debated.
  Again, I urge Senators on the Democratic side to please come over.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is speaking on time 
yielded from the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wonder if we could have the attention 
of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania controls the 
remaining time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was inquiring if the Senator would 
yield just for a question.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I saw the Senator from Iowa indicating that we might 
have a lull. I see the Senator from Texas on her feet. There was a 
desire by the committee to move forward on this bill and I would be 
glad to move on to one of the other amendments with a short time 
agreement as well. I see the Senator from Texas. We will be glad to 
cooperate.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, I would be glad to entertain the next 
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts on a short time agreement. 
We are sequencing. We would like to now yield to the Senator from Texas 
to make a statement, and then we will proceed with an amendment on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Maine and I have 10 minutes equally divided to speak on an 
issue pertaining to the bill but not actually offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If it is agreeable to go ahead, we will be set to go. I 
am willing to work out a time agreement. As far as I am concerned, the 
Senator from Texas may want to go right ahead. I can follow her right 
away.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have another amendment on this side. We are 
sequencing time. We will be yielding to Senator Hutchison now. We have 
another amendment on which we hope to have a short time agreement. Then 
we will return. Is the Senator from Massachusetts prepared to accept 
another time agreement of 30 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator from Rhode Island wishes to speak, 
if we can make it 45 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. All right. Let's do this. I ask unanimous consent that 
in sequence after the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Maine are 
recognized for 10 minutes equally divided, there then be an amendment 
offered on the Republican side. We would then go to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for his amendment, a second-degree 
amendment, with 45 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, does the Senator from 
Pennsylvania know how long the second amendment will take? Ours will be 
45 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I haven't worked that time agreement out. I haven't 
talked to the proponent. But I expect it to be 30 minutes equally 
divided. I would not want to make a commitment to that because I 
haven't cleared that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 24115]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I would not object with 
an amendment with a short-time agreement. There was some talk that 
there may be an offering of another type of amendment--one that might 
require a longer time agreement.
  Mr. SPECTER. We don't anticipate offering the ergonomics amendment--
if that is the Senator's question--at this particular time.
  Mr. REID. Continuing to raise the objection, it is my understanding 
that Senator Kennedy would be able to debate for 45 minutes equally 
divided prior to there being a motion to table.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. And no amendment would be in order.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Prior to the motion to table.
  Mr. SPECTER. No second-degree amendment would be offered prior to the 
motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, the Senators from Texas 
and Maine are recognized for 10 minutes each.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that after 5 minutes I be 
notified so I can yield my colleague her 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am talking today about an amendment 
that I would like to offer but am not able to because it would be 
subject to a rule XVI point of order. It is an amendment that has been 
offered before and passed by the Senate. Yet we have not been able to 
prevail in conference. It is just an amendment that would clarify the 
law in a particular area, and one that I think would improve the 
options that would be available in public schools.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield for a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. We now have the intervening amendment to be offered by 
Senator Coverdell, after Senators Hutchison and Collins speak, and I 
ask unanimous consent that on Senator Coverdell's amendment there be 30 
minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we need to see the 
amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will get a copy for the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Could we know the subject?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time 
start now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment I hope to provide in the 
ESEA authorization that is going to take place either later this year 
or next year would allow public schools the option of offering single-
sex classes or single-sex schools in the public arena.
  We all know that the hallmark of America is that we have a public 
education system that would give every child an equal opportunity to 
fulfill his or her potential. Many of us acknowledge that the public 
school systems throughout our country are failing the test today. What 
we are trying to do is give more options to public schools to acquire 
the necessary tools to provide each child the nurturing and the special 
attention they need to succeed.
  My amendment would clarify existing Federal law by allowing Federal 
education funds to be used for single-sex public schools and classrooms 
as long as comparable educational opportunities are made available for 
students of both sexes. Remember, there is an option. It could not even 
come into being unless a school district and the school itself and the 
parents wanted this option.
  Due largely to the fear that many schools throughout our country 
believe the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights will not 
allow single-sex education efforts, most schools and school districts 
are reluctant to use even their own money on same-gender education 
programs, much less Federal funds. Ask almost any student or graduate 
of a same-gender school, most of whom are from private or parochial 
schools, and they will almost always tell you they have been enriched 
and strengthened by their experience.
  Surveys and studies of students show that both boys and girls 
enrolled in same-gender programs tend to be more confident and more 
focused on their studies and ultimately more successful in school as 
well as later in their careers, particularly if they have something to 
overcome in the way of either rowdiness, shyness, or something of that 
sort. Girls report being more willing to participate in class and to 
take difficult math and science classes they otherwise would not have 
attempted. Boys report less fear of being put down by their classmates 
for wanting to participate in class and excel in their studies. 
Teachers, too, report fewer control and discipline problems, something 
almost any teacher will tell you can consume a good part of class time.
  Study after study has demonstrated that girls and boys in same-gender 
schools, where they have chosen this route, are academically more 
successful and ambitious than their coeducation counterparts.
  Single-sex education has benefited students such as Cyndee Couch, an 
eighth-grader at Young Women's Leadership School in East Harlem, NY. 
Cyndee and the other students at their school, located in a low-income, 
predominantly African American and Hispanic section of New York City, 
have an attendance rate of 91.8 percent, significantly above the city 
average. They also score higher on math and science exams than the city 
average. In fact, 90 percent of the school's students recently scored 
at or above grade level on the standardized public school math problem-
solving tests. The citywide average was 50 percent.
  Last year, Cyndee bravely appeared on the television show ``60 
Minutes'' to talk about why she likes this all-girls public school, one 
of the very few in the nation. She told host Morley Safer ``. . . as 
long as I'm in this school and I'm learning, and no boys are allowed in 
the school, I think everything's going to be OK.''
  Unfortunately for Cyndee and for the other students in fledgling 
same-gender public school programs across the country, everything is 
not OK. Opponents of same-gender education have sued to shut down the 
Young Women's Leadership School and other schools like it around the 
country. I cannot imagine why they would do this when the success has 
been proven. We want to give the options to public schools that private 
and parochial schools now have.
  It is not a mandate. It is an option. We want to pursue this so 
public schools will succeed in giving every child his or her full 
educational opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by commending 
my friend and colleague from Texas for her leadership on this issue and 
for bringing it to the Senate's attention.
  I wish to share with my colleagues a wonderful example of the 
accomplishments that can be realized by a same-gender class. A gifted 
math teacher, Donna Lisnik, at Presque High School, pioneered an all-
girls math class some years ago. She believed it would result in 
greater achievement by the young girls who were studying math at 
Presque High School. She began to offer the same-sex class in math and 
she proved to be absolutely right. The class was offered for over 5 
years and the results were outstanding. Both the achievement of these 
girls and the number of them participating in advanced math and science 
classes increased.
  I had the privilege of visiting Mrs. Lisnik's classroom. I cannot 
overstate the excitement of the girls in her class studying advanced 
math. They were learning so much and they were so excited by this 
opportunity to learn together.
  Incredibly, the Federal Department of Education concluded that this 
math

[[Page 24116]]

class violated title IX of the Education Act. Consequently, Presque 
High School was required to open the class to both boys and girls. It 
is interesting to note, however, that it is girls who continue to 
enroll in this class even though it is open to both boys and girls.
  It is unfortunate that schools are prevented by the Federal 
regulations from developing single-gender classes in which both young 
women--and in other classes, young men--can flourish and reach their 
full potential. Senator Hutchison's proposal assures that other schools 
with innovative education programs designed to meet gender-specific 
needs will not face such obstacles.
  This proposal does not weaken or undercut in any way the protections 
for women and girls in title IX. It does not allow a school to offer an 
education benefit for only one sex, to the exclusion of the other. 
Schools must have comparable programs for both boys and girls. However, 
it does give schools the flexibility to design and offer single-gender 
classes when the school determines that such classes will provide their 
students with a better opportunity to achieve high standards, the kind 
of high standards and achievement that I witnessed firsthand in Mrs. 
Lisnik's exciting math class in northern Maine.
  Although Senator Hutchison has decided to withdraw her amendment, I 
am going to work with her to ensure that it is incorporated in the 
rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that will be 
undertaken by the health committee later this year. This is a proposal 
that is designed to help young girls and young boys excel by using the 
device of single-sex classrooms. It deserves support.
  I am very pleased to join with the Senator from Texas in supporting 
this effort.
  I yield back any remaining time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for 
cosponsoring this amendment with me and for being willing in the 
committee to work on getting it included in the reauthorization.
  This is an option, not a mandate. Coed education is better for a 
number of students. However, when students have a problem with not 
being willing to speak up in class or have a particular problem in math 
and science where it is indicated that they would do better in a 
single-sex atmosphere, let's have this option open for public school 
students, students who may not be able to afford the option of private 
school or parochial school, so that our public schools will be the very 
best they can be, offering every option they can offer to the public 
school students so every child in this country will have the same 
opportunity to excel.
  I hope we can approve this amendment. The last time it was offered we 
adopted it in the Senate by a vote of 69-29. It was very bipartisan and 
very strong. I know Members on both sides of the aisle who have 
attended single-sex schools and who believe this is an option that 
should be allowed will fight for this amendment for every public school 
child to have this option without the hassle and threat of being sued 
that might deter the opportunity for them to have what would meet their 
needs.


                           Amendment No. 1837

   (Purpose: To decrease certain education funding, and to increase 
                       certain education funding)

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask that Senate amendment 1837 be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1837.

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

       On page 54, line 19, strike ``$1,151,550,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,126,550,000''.
       On page 55, line 8, strike ``$65,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$90,000,000''.
       At the end, insert the following:

     SEC.  . FUNDING

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (1) the total amount made available under this Act to carry 
     out part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 shall be $39,500,000;
       (2) the total amount made available under this Act to carry 
     out part C of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 shall be $150,000,000; and
       (3) the total amount made available under this Act to carry 
     out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be $451,000,000, of 
     which $111,275,000 shall be available on July 1, 2000.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to 
the Coverdell amendment, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the precedent of the Senate, the second-
degree amendment would not be in order until the time for debate has 
been utilized or yielded back.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will reoffer at the appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, amendment No. 1837 increases funding 
for Reading Excellence by $25 million; it would increase charter school 
funding by $50 million, and increase Safe and Drug Free Schools by $25 
million. The amendment is paid for by an offset of $100 million from 
the fund for the improvement of education which is currently funded at 
$139.5 million. I repeat, the amendment increases funding for Reading 
Excellence by $25 million, increases charter school funding by $50 
million, and increases Safe and Drug Free Schools by $25 million.
  Charter schools are offering some of the most promising educational 
reform today. Since 1991, 34 States and the District of Columbia have 
enacted charter school programs. This year, more than 1,700 charter 
schools will be serving 350,000 of our Nation's students. As most 
Members know, charter schools are public schools which have been set 
free from burdensome Federal, State, and local regulations. In place of 
the intrusive regulations, charter schools are held accountable for 
academic results by the consumers, parents, and students.
  In the last 2 years, exciting studies have been released that provide 
data on the success of charter schools around the country. In May of 
1997, the Department of Education released its first formal report on 
the study of charter schools. The findings include the two most common 
reasons for starting public charter schools: flexibility from 
bureaucratic laws and regulations, and the chance to realize an 
educational vision.
  About 60 percent of public charter schools are new startups rather 
than public or private school conversions to charter status.
  In most States, charter schools have a racial composition similar to 
statewide averages, or have a higher proportion of minority students. 
Charter schools enroll roughly the same proportion of low-income 
students, on average, as other public schools.
  The Hudson Institute also undertook a study of charter schools 
entitled ``Charter Schools in Action.'' Their research team traveled to 
14 States, visited 60 schools, and surveyed thousands of parents, 
teachers, and students.
  Some of the study's key findings: Three-fifths of charter school 
students report that their charter school teachers are better than 
their previous school's teachers; over two-thirds of the parents say 
their charter schools are better than that child's previous school with 
respect to class size, school size, and individual attention; 90 
percent of the teachers are satisfied with their charter school 
educational philosophy, size, fellow teachers, and students.
  Among students who said they were failing at their previous school, 
more than half are now doing excellent or good work. These gains were 
dramatic for minority and low-income youngsters and were confirmed by 
their parents.
  The Hudson Institute study found that charter schools are 
successfully serving students, parents, and teachers. Currently, there 
are national and State studies that demonstrate a positive ripple 
effect. The study on the impact of Michigan charter schools found

[[Page 24117]]

that charter school competition has put pressure on traditional public 
schools to become more accountable. A similar study done on 
Massachusetts charter schools found that district schools have been 
adopting innovative practices that mirror charter school efforts. A 
study on Los Angeles charter schools shows that charter schools have 
influenced district reform by heightening awareness and initiating 
dialog.
  The implication of the success of charter schools is that successful 
public schools should be consumer oriented, diverse, results oriented, 
and professional places that also function as mediating institutions in 
their communities. Charter schools offer greater accountability, 
broader flexibility for classroom innovation, and ultimately more 
choice in public education.
  Many in this Chamber are aware of my strong support of the 
opportunity for low-income parents to choose the best educational 
setting for their child, whether public or private. I believe this 
ability to choose the best educational environment for our children is 
something all parents should have, not just those parents who can 
afford the choice.
  Another provision of this amendment deals with reading excellence. To 
get an idea of our children's future, one has only to look in the 
Sunday paper at all the high-tech firms looking for applicants. There 
is no more clear indicator of where our economy is headed. Without 
basic skills, many of our children will be shut out of the workforce--
left behind. We have a literacy crisis in the Nation. More than 40 
million Americans cannot read. Those who cannot learn to read are not 
only less likely to get a good job but they are also disproportionately 
represented in the ranks of the unemployed and homeless. Consider that 
75 percent of unemployed adults, 33 percent of mothers on welfare, 85 
percent of juveniles appearing in court, and 60 percent of prison 
inmates are illiterate.
  The Federal Government spends more than $8 billion on programs to 
promote literacy, with little result. More than 40 million Americans 
cannot read a phone book, a menu, or the directions on a medicine 
bottle, and only 4 out of 10 third graders can read at grade level or 
above. That is why last fall we passed an important piece of 
legislation to address the serious problem of illiteracy in our 
country. This legislation, the Reading Excellence Act, seeks to turn 
around our Nation's alarmingly high illiteracy rates by focusing on 
training teachers to teach reading, increasing parental involvement, 
and sending more dollars to the classroom.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 3 seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The legislation provide $210 million for research, 
teacher training, and individual grants for K-12 reading instruction 
and requires that funds for teacher training be spent on programs that 
are demonstrated by scientific research to be effective. It also 
authorizes grants to parents for tutorial assistance for their 
children. Most important, Reading Excellence ensures that 95 percent of 
the funds go to teaching children to read, not to administrative 
overhead. The Reading Excellence Act provides today's children with the 
tools they need to be successful in tomorrow's workforce. Helping to 
ensure every child can read is one of the best bills Congress can pass.
  We also deal in this amendment with safety in schools. In 1996, 
students ages 12 through 18 were victims of about 225,000 incidents of 
nonfatal, serious, violent crimes at school and 671,000 incidents away 
from school. These numbers indicate that when students were away from 
school, they were more likely to be victims of nonfatal serious crimes 
including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.
  In 1996, 5 percent of all 12th graders reported they had been injured 
with a weapon such as a knife, gun, or club during the past 12 months 
while they were at school; that is, inside or outside the school 
building or on a school bus; and 12 percent reported they had been 
injured on purpose without a weapon while at school.
  So I come back to the basic tenet of this legislation; that is, we 
are reinforcing, through the amendment, in a significant way, Federal 
assistance to charter schools, the Reading Excellence Act, and Safe and 
Drug Free Schools--$50 million more to charter schools, $25 million 
more to the Reading Excellence Act, and $25 million into Safe and Drug 
Free Schools.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. The minority yields back its time on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The majority yields back its time on this amendment. I 
believe we have an agreement to accept it. I suggest this be dealt with 
by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1837) was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1819

(Purpose: To increase funding for title II of the Higher Education Act 
                                of 1965)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to have the 
attention of the Senate on a measure which I think has compelling 
support of families across this country. I know we have a 45-minute 
time limitation. So we have 22\1/2\ minutes on our side.
  I yield myself 5 minutes at the present time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would need to call up his 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I call up amendment No. 1819.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1819.

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

       On page 60, line 10, before the period, insert the 
     following ``: Provided further, That in addition to any other 
     amounts appropriated under this heading an additional 
     $223,000,000 is appropriated to carry out title II of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, and a total of $300,000,000 
     shall be available to carry out such title, of which 
     $300,000,000 shall become available in October 1, 2000''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, if this amendment is accepted, it will provide some 
$300 million nationwide to improve the quality of teaching in the 
public schools of America. If we have had some important testimony over 
these past several years, it has been along these lines. Let's get 
along with having smaller class sizes in the various early years. 
Senator Murray, from the State of Washington, has made that case very

[[Page 24118]]

clear. And the STAR report, that has focused in on the work of 
Tennessee, has also demonstrated that in a very compelling way.
  The second area is afterschool programs. Our good friends, Senator 
Boxer from California, Senator Dodd, and others, have spoken about the 
importance of afterschool programs for children in reducing violence 
and enhancing academic achievement and offering opportunities for 
business communities to work with children in these afterschool 
programs to offer career improvements.
  There have been important needs which have been demonstrated for 
building additional kinds of facilities and improving the facilities 
that exist. The General Accounting Office says that is in excess of 
over $100 billion. That amendment will follow on tomorrow. It is very 
important to make sure when every child goes to class in a public 
school system that the school is going to be in the kind of condition 
to which all of us want our children to go. If we do not do that, we 
send a very poor message to children. We say, effectively, it does not 
matter what that classroom looks like or what that classroom is really 
all about. That sends a powerful message to a child that perhaps 
education is not so important.
  But when you consider that, and consider also the steps that have 
been taken in terms of improving technology in the classroom, improving 
the work that is being done in the areas of literacy, there is one 
important, outstanding additional issue which demands and cries out for 
attention in the Senate; and it is this: The American families want to 
have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom in America, period.
  I think if you ask parents all across this country, at the end of the 
afternoon, where the greatest priority is--if you said, look, if we 
could have a well-qualified teacher in your child's classroom, I bet 
every family in America would put that just about at the top of their 
various lists.
  Over the last 3 years, our Committee on Education has had extensive 
hearings on this issue. We made some recommendations in the last 
Congress on this issue. It had very strong bipartisan support on the 
issue of quality teaching. The approach that was taken in that 
legislation says: All right. We want to provide teacher enrichment for 
individuals who are already teachers.
  We had ideas about mentoring with older teachers and working with 
professional teachers, but what we have not addressed in an adequate 
way is how we are going to recruit the kinds of teachers who would be 
the best teachers for our children and how we are going to train them 
in the most effective ways so they will be the very best.
  This amendment, if it is accepted, amounts to $300 million. We have 
some $77 million in there now. The President had asked for $115 million 
to do it. But certainly the applications for this kind of training has 
far exceeded even the amounts we are talking about today.
  This offers an opportunity to say to the young people of this 
country, and to those kinds of local partnerships--the effective State 
programs, the universities across this country in the States--that we 
are going to help and assist you in, as a top priority, recruiting the 
best teachers for the students in this country.
  Finally, we have pointed out, in the education debate over the period 
of the past days, the need for new teachers. Some 2 million teachers 
over the next 10 years--200,000 a year--is what we need. We are only 
getting 100,000 at the present time. The Senate has rejected the 
excellent proposal of the Senator from Washington to increase the 
number of teachers in the early grades.
  I yield myself 3 more minutes.
  In fact, with the rejection of the Murray amendment, we are going to 
find in excess of 30,000 well-qualified, well-trained teachers who are 
working in grades K through 3 actually getting pink slips. It makes no 
sense at all. It makes no sense at all.
  So it does seem to me that in an overall budget of $1.7 trillion--do 
we understand? $1.7 trillion--we ought to be able to have $300 million 
in the tried and tested way of recruiting teachers, additional 
teachers, who we know we are in short supply of; well-trained teachers, 
who we know we are in short supply of; and make them available to an 
expanding, growing population in our K through 12th grade system. We 
are increasing the number of students by 477,000 this year. So we are 
falling further and further behind.
  This is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It is saying that 
of all of the priorities--and there are many--education is certainly 
among the very highest; and of all the priorities in the areas of 
education, getting good teachers, recruiting young and old people alike 
who will be good teachers, giving them the inspirational kind of 
training so they can go into the classroom, use the latest in 
technologies, adapt that to the kind of curricula to benefit the 
children of this country, should receive these additional funds.
  Mr. President, I know there are others who want to speak on this 
issue. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen and one-half minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Reed. I think all of us understand that he has made the issue of 
quality and highly trained teachers his issue in this body, as well his 
interest in providing pediatric specialists for all children. These are 
among the many other areas of public policy in which he has been 
actively engaged both on the Education Committee in the House of 
Representatives and here in the Senate. I certainly think all of us on 
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate are 
very fortunate to have his insights about the importance of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy for those kind words, and also for 
offering this very important amendment. I am a very proud cosponsor of 
this amendment with Senator Kennedy.
  Last Congress, on an overwhelming bipartisan vote the Senate passed 
the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program as part of the Higher 
Education Act Amendments of 1998. This was the first time we looked 
seriously at reforming the way our teachers are trained by enhancing 
the linkage between teacher colleges and elementary and secondary 
schools.
  What we tried to emphasize is the connection between the teacher 
colleges and the real-life experiences of teachers in the classroom. 
The best way to enhance the quality of teaching in America is at the 
level of the entry teacher.
  This is something the Kennedy-Reed amendment will provide more 
resources for. What we want to do is form a strong, vibrant, and vital 
link between the teacher colleges and the elementary and secondary 
schools. We want to ensure that teachers who leave teacher colleges are 
not just experts in theoretical and pedagogical subjects. We want them 
to be, first and foremost, experts on the subject matter that they 
teach, be it mathematics or science or any other subject. In addition, 
we want to ensure that they have extensive clinical experience.
  The model to follow is our medical education system. No one would 
dream of certifying and licensing a physician after simply going to 
school and hearing lectures and then maybe having 2 or 3 weeks in a 
hospital. It is a long-term, extensive clinical education. That model 
is applicable also, I believe, to education.
  In fact, what we have found from our hearings is a disconnect between 
what teaching students are learning in college and the reality of the 
teaching experience in the classroom. We want to eliminate that 
disconnect.
  The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 sought to do just that by 
authorizing partnerships between teacher colleges and elementary and 
secondary schools. There are examples of partnerships that already 
existed and inspired us; examples such as Salve Regina University in my 
home State of Rhode Island, which has a partnership with the Sullivan 
School in Newport. It is exciting and challenging, not only to

[[Page 24119]]

the young students in that school, but also to the prospective teachers 
who learn a great deal. In fact, at the heart of these partnerships is 
the attempt not only to change the culture of elementary and secondary 
schools but also to change the culture of teacher colleges.
  Too often the teacher college in a great university is a poor cousin 
without a great endowment, neglected by other parts of the university. 
What we want to do is get the university involved in this great effort 
so that professors in the math, English, and history departments are 
also part of this great reawakening of teacher preparation at the 
university level. This cultural change at the college level, together 
with extensive clinical involvement with local elementary and secondary 
schools, I believe, is a fundamental way to enhance the quality of 
teachers.
  The Kennedy-Reed amendment will provide more resources to do this 
very important and critical job that lies before us. We have gone 
through the first round of grants with respect to the partnership 
grants. The Department of Education funded $33 million in the first 
round to 25 institutions of higher education and their elementary and 
secondary school partners. This is a first and important step, but we 
need to do more. That is precisely what this amendment proposes to do. 
It will appropriate additional resources so we can broaden dramatically 
these partnerships, as well as increase our investment in the state and 
recruitment grants also included in the Teacher Quality Enhancement 
Grants program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. One additional minute.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.
  If we, in fact, pass this amendment, we will be able to fund up to 
100 additional partnership, state, and recruitment grant proposals, 
thereby enabling this important innovation in teacher preparation to be 
accessible throughout our nation.
  I am strongly supportive of this amendment. I think it is something 
that will allow us to make great progress. Once again, emphasizing a 
point made so well by Senator Kennedy, if you look at public education, 
and if you search for the most powerful lever that we have to improve 
it, to reform it, and to continue it as an excellent system, teacher 
training is that lever.
  This amendment will give us the power to move forward, dramatically 
and decisively to improve the quality of teaching in the United States. 
I strongly support it and commend the Senator from Massachusetts for 
his efforts.
  I yield back to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine and a half minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my senior 
colleague for this amendment, as well as for his extraordinary 
leadership on the subject of education. I think everyone here will 
agree there simply is no stronger voice for the quality of our schools 
and the opportunities for our children than my senior colleague.
  The great battle in the Senate over the past years has been to 
establish standards by which we would raise the education level of our 
schools. The fact is, a few years ago we basically won that battle 
because now 49 States in the country have agreed to put standards in 
place or have them in place. Those standards vary. In some States they 
are stronger than they are in other States, but the great challenge now 
is fourfold.
  One is to stay the course in putting the standards in place and 
raising the standards. The second is to guarantee that teachers can 
teach to the standards. The third is to guarantee that students have 
the opportunity to learn to the standards. That is not being dealt with 
specifically, though partly, in this amendment. The final one is 
accountability. All of this has to be accountable. We have learned 
that. You have to know that what you are trying to teach and what kids 
are learning are, in fact, being taught and learned.
  What the Senator from Massachusetts, my senior colleague, and Senator 
Reed and I and others are joining in is a recognition that we have an 
extraordinary challenge before us. I was going to use the word 
``crisis,'' but I don't want to use it because it is overused. We have 
all heard the quotes about the number of teachers we need to hire in 
the next few years. We know maybe as many as 2 million teachers are 
needed, perhaps half of them in the next 5 years. We also know we are 
losing 30 to 40 percent of new teachers within the first 3 to 4 years. 
We know there are ways to make a difference in teachers staying at what 
is increasingly becoming one of the toughest jobs in America.
  It is interesting that a survey, released about 4 months ago, showed 
what teachers have been telling us for some time. Our own teachers in 
this country acknowledge that they don't feel fully prepared for the 
modern classroom. By modern classroom, we mean a lot of different 
things. We mean the technology needed to teach. We mean some of the 
modern teaching methodologies, pedagogies. We also mean the nature of 
the student who comes to school today. That student comes burdened with 
a whole set of problems, unlike the students of the past. We also know 
that because of the multicultural, racial diversity of our Nation, we 
have teachers coping with different cultures, with a diversity that is 
absolutely extraordinary but also challenging.
  The fact is that fully 80 percent of our teachers tell us they don't 
feel equipped to be able to do the job. They are crying out for help. 
That is what the Kennedy amendment delivers. It makes education 
programs accountable for preparing high-quality teachers, for improving 
prospective teachers' knowledge of academic content, through increased 
collaboration between the faculty and schools of education and the 
departments of arts and sciences, so we will ensure that teachers are 
well prepared for the realities of the classroom by providing very 
strong, hands-on classroom experience and by strengthening the links 
between the university and the K-through-12 school faculties.
  We also need to prepare prospective teachers to use technology as a 
tool for teaching and learning. We need to prepare prospective teachers 
to work effectively with diverse students.
  The truth is that we as Senators talk about the difficulties of 
teaching today in America. The fact is that it is one of the most 
difficult jobs in our Nation. It is extraordinary to me that the 
Senate, at this time of urgent need in the country, might not be 
prepared to make the most important investment in the country. It is 
extraordinary to me that kids just 2 or 3 years out of college can earn 
in a Christmas bonus more than teachers will earn in an entire year. It 
is impossible to attract some of the best kids out of our best colleges 
and universities because we are not willing to provide the mentoring, 
the ongoing education, the support systems, and the capacity to really 
fulfill the promise of teaching in the public school system.
  So I hope our colleagues will support the notion that all we are 
trying to do is raise to the original requested level the spending for 
the teacher enhancement grants, with the knowledge that this is the 
most important investment we can make in America. Teachers need and 
deserve respect from the Senate and from those who create the structure 
within which they try to teach our kids so that they can, in fact, 
learn and we can do better as a country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think I have 3 and a half minutes left. 
I yield myself 3 minutes.
  On this chart behind me, we see that communities need more well-
qualified

[[Page 24120]]

teachers. Out of 366 total applications--and this is 1999--only 77 
applications were funded. With this particular amendment accepted, we 
would still be below half of what was actually in the pipeline for this 
last year, let alone what would be in there for next year. There is 
enormous need.
  Finally, I will quote from the chairman of our Education Committee, 
Senator Jeffords, who, in his representation to the Senate on the 
education bill, had this to say about this particular provision that is 
in the law--not about this amendment but about this provision:

       At its foundation, Title II embraces the notion that 
     investing in the preparation of our Nation's teachers is a 
     good one. Well-prepared teachers play a key role in making it 
     possible for our students to achieve the standards required 
     to assure both their own well-being and the ability of our 
     country to compete internationally.
       . . .Title II demands excellence from our teacher 
     preparation programs; encourages coordination; focuses on the 
     need for academic content, knowledge, and strong teaching 
     skills.
       . . .These efforts recognize the fundamental connection 
     that exists among States, institutions of higher education, 
     and efforts to improve education for our Nation's elementary 
     and secondary school teachers.

  This provision had the strongest bipartisan support in that education 
bill. We know what the need is. We know this is a very modest 
amendment. We know what a difference it will make in terms of the high 
school students of this country. I hope this amendment will be 
accepted.
  Mr. President, I understand I have a minute left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a minute and a half.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that time to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Reed, with whom I have enjoyed working, along with my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
  Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy.
  Let me emphasize one additional point that bears repeating. The 
classroom today is very different from those in the 1950s or 1960s--
different because of technology; different because families are in much 
more distressed conditions in many parts of the country; different 
because of the various cultural factors that go into the makeup of many 
classes, particularly in urban America. In fact, we are still teaching 
in too many colleges as if it were the class of 1950, as if it were the 
time of ``My Three Sons'' and ``Leave It To Beaver.''
  That is not what American education is today. What we have to do 
today--and this amendment will help immensely--is refocus our teacher 
training to confront the issues of today, such as multiculturalism, 
children with disabilities in the classroom, and technology. This is 
absolutely critical. Unless we enhance our commitment to this type of 
education--partnerships between schools of education and elementary and 
secondary schools, drawing on the resources of the whole university, 
focusing these resources on new technology and the challenges that are 
particular to this time in our history--we are not going to succeed in 
educating all of our children to the world-class standards that we all 
know have to be met.
  I urge passage of this very important amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the importance of 
teacher quality enhancement. Teachers are the backbone of the 
educational system. There is no doubt about the importance of 
education. It is a truism that education is a priority second to none. 
The bill that has been presented on the floor by the distinguished 
ranking member, Senator Harkin, and myself through subcommittee and 
full committee has recognized the importance of education in that we 
have increased education funding by $2.3 billion this year over last 
year's appropriation. It is now in excess of $35 billion on the Federal 
allocation. Bear in mind that the Federal Government funds only about 7 
percent of education nationwide.
  When we talk about teacher quality enhancement, this is a program 
which is a very new program. It was not on the books in fiscal year 
1998. For the current year, fiscal year 1999, we have an appropriation 
in excess of $77 million. When we took a look at it this year, we 
provided a $3 million increase. This is a matter of trying to recognize 
what the priorities are.
  The President had asked for $115 million, and we thought that in 
allocating funds on a great many lines--title I, Head Start, and many 
other very important education programs--the proper allocation was $80 
million. Now, when the Senator from Massachusetts comes in and asks for 
an increase of some $220 million, he is requesting $185 million more 
than the President's request. It would be an ideal world if our funding 
were unlimited. But what we are looking at here--and we have had very 
extensive debate today on whether the budget is going to invade the 
Social Security trust fund. I think this Senator, like others, has 
determined that we do not invade the Social Security trust fund.
  We had debated whether or not there ought to be a pro rata increase 
or a decrease, if we ran into the Social Security trust fund, to make 
sure we didn't use any of the Social Security moneys, or whether, as 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, offered in an amendment, 
to have other targeted cuts. My view is that we have to structure this 
budget so we don't cut into the Social Security trust fund.
  Senator Stevens was in the well of the Senate earlier today, and I 
discussed the matter with him. We are trying to structure these 13 
appropriations bills so we don't move into the Social Security trust 
fund. But if we make extensive additions, as this amendment would do, 
adding $220 million, as I say, which is $185 million more than the 
President's request, it is not going to be possible to avoid going into 
the Social Security trust fund.
  We have already had very substantial increases in funding on this 
bill. We have a bill of $91.7 billion, which is as much as we thought 
the traffic would bear on the Republican side of the aisle, realizing 
that we have to go to conference with the House which has a lower 
figure, and realizing beyond that, that we have to get the President's 
signature. We have already had $1.3 billion added to the $91.7 billion 
for block grants. We have had $900 million added for day care. Now, if 
we look at another amendment for $220 million, it is going to 
inevitably at one point or another break the caps.
  These are not straws that break the camel's back. These are heavy 
logs which will break the back, and it is not even a camel.
  Much as I dislike opposing the amendment by the Senator from 
Massachusetts, I am constrained to do so in my capacity as manager of 
this bill.
  In the course of the past week, I have voted against more amendments 
on funding for programs that I think are very important than I have in 
the preceding 19 years in the Senate. But that is the responsibility I 
have when I manage the bill--to take a look at the priorities, get the 
allocation from the Budget Committee, have a total allocation budget of 
$91.7 billion, and simply have to stay within that budget.
  Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is remaining on the 45 
minute time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much does the Senator from Massachusetts have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. His time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, teacher quality is one of the most 
critical factors influencing student achievement and success. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment, which would increase 
Teacher Quality Enhancement grants from $80 million to the fully 
authorized level of $300 million.
  I am a cosponsor of this amendment, along with Senator Reed of Rhode 
Island and others, because I firmly believe that an investment in 
teacher quality is an investment in our children's future. We know all 
learners have the capacity for high achievement. We must increase our 
investment in teacher quality enhancement so every child in America is 
taught by the most qualified teacher available. We must invest in our 
teachers. We must help them reach the highest levels of competency, so 
they in turn can

[[Page 24121]]

help their students reach the highest summits of achievement. As we 
work to bolster teacher quality, we must also focus our attention on 
reducing class size. Smaller classes have led to dramatic gains in 
student achievement. We must continue to reduce class size so highly 
qualified teachers can provide students more individualized attention. 
Reducing class size and increasing investment in teacher quality 
enhancement are key to ensuring academic success for all students.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are prepared to move ahead with 
another amendment. We are going to evaluate our schedule. I suggest, 
just a moment or two, the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, is prepared to offer an amendment, to 
speak to it for 10 minutes, and then withdraw it.
  Mr. REED. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, is it appropriate to ask for the yeas and nays until the time has 
been yielded? I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I ask for 
the yeas and nays on the previous amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  It is in order to ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient 
second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object on the request 
for the amendment, I would happy to do that. I say to my friend from 
Pennsylvania that we want to use this fill time. Senator Bingaman will 
go next, may I inquire, on the next amendment offered?
  Mr. SPECTER. I believe the next amendment would be on this side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. REID. The next Democratic amendment would be Bingaman.
  I thank the manager.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is satisfactory.
  I yield the remainder of my time on the Kennedy amendment.
  I now ask unanimous consent to proceed with Senator Reed under the 
stipulated terms of 10 minutes to offer an amendment and withdraw it.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 1866

   (Purpose: To permit the expenditure of funds to complete certain 
    reports concerning accidents that result in the death of minor 
                employees engaged in farming operations)

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1866 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1866.

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

       In title I, under the heading ``Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration--Salaries and Expenses'', insert before 
     the colon at the end of the second proviso the following: ``, 
     except that amounts appropriated to the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration for fiscal year 2000 may be 
     obligated or expended to conduct an investigation in response 
     to an accident causing the death of an employee (who is under 
     18 years of age and who is employed by a person engaged in a 
     farming operation that does not maintain a temporary labor 
     camp and that employs 10 or fewer employees) and to issue a 
     report concerning the causes of such an accident, so long as 
     the Occupational and Safety and Health Administration does 
     not impose a fine or take any other enforcement action as a 
     result of such investigation or report''.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment is a result of a tragic 
accident in my home State of Rhode Island where a young worker on a 
farm was killed accidentally.
  The police came immediately and determined that there was no foul 
play and concluded their investigation. But the parents were deeply 
concerned because no one could explain to them what happened.
  As we looked into the matter for them, we discovered that for many 
years, because of a rider on this appropriations bill, OSHA has been 
prohibited from investigating deaths on farms that employ 10 or fewer 
workers.
  If this terrible, tragic accident had taken place in a McDonald's, 
OSHA would be there. There would be an investigation. They would 
discover the cause. They would suggest remedies. They would do what 
most Americans expect should be done when an accident takes place in 
the workplace. But because of this small farm rider, OSHA is powerless 
to investigate.
  I think it is wrong. I think it is wrong not only because these 
parents don't know what circumstances took the life of their child, but 
they also regret that it might happen again because there might be some 
type of systematic flaw or some type of problematic process on the farm 
that could also claim the life of another youngster.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield 
for a moment on a managers' matter?
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. We are ready to proceed on the votes on the two 
amendments pending by the Senator from Massachusetts when Senator Reed 
concludes. I thought perhaps we should notify the Members that the 
first vote will start at approximately 4:55.
  I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for yielding.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me continue.
  My amendment would simply state that OSHA has the authority to 
conduct an inspection when a minor, someone under 18 years of age, is 
killed on a farm regardless of the size of the farm, but they would 
also be prevented from levying any type of fine or enforcement action. 
Their role would be very simple and very direct: Find the cause of the 
action; then, not with respect to that particular farm, not with 
respect to any particular sanction of penalty, generally, if they can 
learn something that would help protect the lives of others, they would 
incorporate that, of course, in their overall directions and 
regulations for farming and other activities.
  These goals are very simple and straightforward: Identify the cause 
of the accident so that the employer knows what steps are needed to 
prevent similar deaths, and make that information available so that 
other farmers can take steps to avert similar tragedies.
  This is not an academic or arcane issue because there are numerous 
youngsters working on farms. There are also in the United States about 
500 work-related deaths reported each year. Moreover, although only 8 
percent of all workers under the age of 18 are employed in agriculture, 
more than 40 percent of the work-related deaths among young people 
occur in the agricultural industry.
  So this is an issue of importance.
  Let me stress something else. This particular amendment would only 
apply if the individual youngster was, in fact, an employee of the 
farm. This would not affect a situation where a son or daughter are 
doing chores around the farm. This is a situation when someone is hired 
to work on the farm, and that person is involved in a fatal accident. I 
think it is only fair because I believe the parents in America, when 
they send their children into the workplace--be it a supermarket or 
McDonald's or a farm, large or small--expect their children will at 
least have the coverage of many of the safety laws we have in place; 
but failing that, at least we will have the power, the authority, the 
ability to determine what happened in the case of a fatal accident.

[[Page 24122]]

  This proposal is not unique to the situation I found in Rhode Island. 
The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of 
Science, issued a report entitled ``Protecting Youth at Work,'' and 
among the recommendations:

       To ensure the equal protection of children and adolescents 
     from health and safety hazards in agriculture, Congress 
     should take an examination of the effects and feasibility of 
     extending all relevant Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration regulations to agricultural workers, including 
     subjecting small farms to the same level of OSHA enforcement 
     as that apply to other small businesses.

  My proposal goes not to that great length, not to that extreme. It is 
much more constrained and limited. It simply says when there is a 
fatality involving an employee under 18 years of age on a farm--small 
or large--OSHA can conduct an inspection to determine the cause and 
perhaps propose remedial actions but cannot invoke any type of sanction 
or fine.
  That is the height of reasonableness, given the experiences we have 
seen, given the report of the National Academy of Science, given all of 
these factors.
  I believe this should be done. In fact, it is long overdue. It is 
simple justice, not only for the families of those youngsters who are 
fatally injured on these small farms, but also it will give us the 
impetus to save lives in the future.
  Some have criticized this amendment as potentially imposing an undue 
burden on small farms. This is erroneous criticism. There is no burden 
here other than facing up to the facts and finding out what happened. 
Indeed, I believe knowledge is power; if we know what caused these 
accidents, we can prevent them and, even, I hope, make the operators of 
these farms more conscious of what they are doing, particularly as they 
employ youngsters.
  This is an amendment I believe is important; it is critical. I 
offered a variation on this amendment in the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions when we were considering the SAFE Act. 
We had a vigorous debate but, I will admit, it met resistance.
  I believe passionately we can do something and we must do something. 
I also recognize this process will not end today, that in the last few 
hours or moments of this debate it is unlikely this amendment will 
pass. I will, as I indicated to the Senator from Pennsylvania, withdraw 
the amendment. Such withdrawal does not signify retreat by me on this 
issue. I will continue to look for ways in which we can have 
investigations of fatalities on small farms, not because of any animus 
toward large or small farms but because when someone loses a child, I 
believe they deserve an answer. What happened? How did it happen? How 
can other children be spared from such a fatality?
  In that spirit, I will continue to advance this issue and look for 
additional ways we can get an investigation. Again, the emphasis is not 
on being punitive; the emphasis is on being, first of all, fair to the 
family; and second, of being remedial so we can address problems that 
may be systematic and prevalent not just on the site of the particular 
fatality but endemic and systematic throughout the farming community.


                     Amendment No. 1866, Withdrawn

  With that, I yield back my time, and I ask unanimous consent the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1866) was withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1819

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a few minutes ago we gave notice to 
Members we would have a vote at 4:55 and it is now 4:57.
  I move to table the Kennedy amendment on teacher enhancement, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to table amendment 
No. 1819. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 315 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2268

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The question is on agreeing to the 
Kennedy amendment No. 2268. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Kennedy Amendment No. 2268. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

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

[[Page 24123]]


     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would have voted against the Nickles 
amendment because I could not endorse a plan to bust the budget caps, 
spend every dime of the non-Social Security surplus, and then use 
budget gimmicks to keep ourselves from dipping into the Social Security 
surplus.
  The Congress has the power of the purse, and that power carries with 
it the obligation to spend the taxpayer dollars responsibly. Just 
because we have a surplus of tax dollars in the Treasury, that doesn't 
mean we should spend it.
  In fact, when we passed a tax relief bill this summer, we made it 
clear that the surplus--the portion that does not come from Social 
Security payroll taxes--should be given back to the taxpayers, not 
spent on big government. That bill was vetoed, as expected, and the 
Congressional leadership and the Administration have given up on 
providing meaningful tax relief to American families this year. But now 
we are apparently planning to use this year's surplus--the surplus that 
we were going to give back to the people--for more government spending.
  The Nickles amendment does seek to protect the Social Security 
surplus, and I applaud him for that effort. I have consistently 
supported a lockbox to keep Congress' hands off these retirement funds.
  However, I oppose the Nickles amendment because it contemplates 
spending the $572 billion allowed under the budget caps, as well as the 
$14 billion in non-Social Security surplus funds, and even billions of 
dollars more--and then indiscriminately cut every program across-the-
board by whatever percentage amount is needed to keep us from dipping 
into Social Security.
  This ludicrous plan demonstrates just how badly the Congress is 
addicted to pork-barrel spending. Why not just cut out the pork?
  I have identified over $10 billion in wasteful, unnecessary, and low-
priority spending in the appropriations bills that have passed the 
Senate this year. Last year, when all was said and done, Congress spent 
over $30 billion on pork, some of it disguised as emergency spending, 
but most of it everyday, garden-variety pork.
  If we cut out every one of these pork-barrel spending projects--
projects added by Members of Congress for their special interest 
supporters and parochial concerns--we wouldn't have to resort to budget 
gimmicks like creating a thirteenth month in the next fiscal year, or 
delaying payments to our neediest families, or resorting to a 
Congressional sequester.
  I have published on my Senate website voluminous lists that include 
every earmark and set-aside added by Congress this year and for the 
previous two years. I urge my colleagues to look over these lists. 
Surely, these pork-barrel projects aren't as deserving of taxpayer 
funding as, say, funding for our children's education, veterans health 
care programs, getting our military personnel and their families off 
food stamps, and the many other national priorities that would be cut 
in an across-the-board sequester gimmick.
  Mr. President, I also want to make the point that voluntarily 
returning to the indiscriminate sequestration process of Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings--a process that was instituted as a last-ditch effort to rein 
in enormous annual deficits--is not responsible budgetary stewardship. 
It is an admission of defeat, an admission that the Congress cannot 
control its appetite for pork-barrel spending.
  Regarding the Lautenberg amendment, I voted to table that amendment 
for two reasons. First, by its silence on the issue, the amendment 
implicitly endorses spending the $14 billion non-Social Security 
surplus in the appropriations process. Second, the amendment 
contemplates closing special interest tax loopholes, which I fully 
endorse, but for the purposes of raising more money to spend on more 
government. I believe any revenues raised by making our tax code fairer 
and less skewed toward special interests should be used to provide tax 
relief for American families.
  I agree that we must not dip into the Social Security Trust Funds; 
that would merely exacerbate the impending insolvency of the system. 
But I cannot support a plan to use the non-Social Security surplus for 
anything other than shoring up Social Security and saving Medicare, 
paying down the $5.6 trillion national debt, and providing tax relief 
to lower- and middle-income Americans. Neither the Nickles or 
Lautenberg amendments protect the entire surplus from the greedy hands 
of government.
  Mr. President, we have a budget process and we have spending caps to 
make sure we keep the budget balanced. We should ensure that 
appropriations stay within the caps. We should cut out the wasteful and 
unnecessary spending. And we should make sure that America's priorities 
are funded, not the priorities of the special interests.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Abraham be recognized to offer his amendment, that immediately 
following the reporting by the clerk the bill be laid aside until 9:30 
a.m. on Thursday, and at that time Senator Abraham be recognized to 
make his opening statement on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been authorized by the leader to 
say that in light of this last agreement there will be no further 
rollcall votes this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 1828

    (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any program for the 
    distribution of sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic 
                     injection of any illegal drug)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1828.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham), for himself, Mr. 
     Coverdell, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1828.

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

       On page 80, strike lines 1 through 8, and insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry 
     out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes 
     for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could, based on the prior agreement 
that was entered into, we will begin a fuller discussion of this issue 
tomorrow morning, and I will be here along with other Members who wish 
to speak on it.
  In a nutshell, this amendment to the appropriations bill before us 
would prohibit the use of our Federal dollars for the purpose of 
engaging in needle exchange programs.
  I simply wish to indicate that when we discuss this in the morning, I 
will lay out arguments in support of the amendment. I believe the 
arguments would strongly buttress the case that we should not use the 
taxpayer dollars for purposes of needle exchange programs.
  I am sure there will be a spirited discussion of this in the morning. 
I look forward to it.

[[Page 24124]]

  At this point, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation such that 
the Senator from Virginia can make a unanimous consent request on a 
matter not related to the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

                          ____________________