[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5781-5791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 20, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 20) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  Pending:

       Specter/Harkin amendment No. 157, to provide for funding of 
     biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health.
       Craig amendment No. 146, to modify the pay-as-you-go 
     requirement of the budget process to require that direct 
     spending increases be offset only with direct spending 
     decreases.
       Dodd amendment No. 160, to increase the mandatory spending 
     in the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $7.5 billion 
     over five years, the amendment reduces the resolution's tax 
     cut and leaves adequate room in the revenue instructions for 
     targeted tax cuts that help families with the costs of caring 
     for their children, and that such relief would assist all 
     working families with employment related child care expenses, 
     as well as families in which one parent stays home to care 
     for an infant.
       Voinovich amendment No. 161, to use on-budget surplus to 
     repay the debt instead of tax cuts.
       Reed amendment No. 162, to provide for certain Federal 
     revenues, total new budget authority, and total budget 
     outlays.
       Crapo/Grams amendment No. 163, to create a reserve fund to 
     lock in additional non-Social Security surplus in the 
     outyears for tax relief and/or debt reduction.
       Graham amendment No. 164, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that funds recovered from any Federal tobacco-related 
     litigation should be set-aside for the purpose of first 
     strengthening the medicare trust fund and second to fund a 
     medicare prescription drug benefit.
       Graham amendment No. 165, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Congress and the President should offset 
     inappropriate emergency funding from fiscal year 1999 in 
     fiscal year 1999.
       Lautenberg amendment No. 166, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on saving Social Security and Medicare, reducing the 
     public debt, and targeting tax relief to middle-income 
     working families.
       Lautenberg (for Schumer) amendment No. 167, to express the 
     sense of the Senate that the Community Oriented Policing 
     Services (COPS) Program should be reauthorized in order to 
     provide continued Federal funding for the hiring, deployment, 
     and retention of community law enforcement officers.
       Lautenberg (for Feinstein) amendment No. 168, to express 
     the sense of the Senate regarding school construction grants, 
     and reducing school sizes and class sizes.
       Lautenberg (for Feinstein) amendment No. 169, to express 
     the sense of the Senate on the social promotion of elementary 
     and secondary school students.
       Lautenberg (for Reid) amendment No. 170, to express the 
     sense of the Senate regarding social security ``notch 
     babies'', those individuals born between the years 1917 and 
     1926.
       Lautenberg (for Boxer) amendment No. 171, to ensure that 
     the President's after school initiative is fully funded for 
     fiscal year 2000.
       Lautenberg (for Murray) amendment No. 172, to fully fund 
     the Class Size Initiative, the amendment reduces the 
     resolution's tax cut by ten billion dollars, leaving adequate 
     room in the revenue reconciliation instructions for targeted 
     tax cuts that help those in need and tax breaks for 
     communities to modernize and rebuild crumbling schools.
       Lautenberg (for Murray) amendment No. 173, to express the 
     sense of the Senate on women and Social Security reform.
       Lautenberg (for Hollings) amendment No. 174, to continue 
     Federal spending at the current services baseline levels and 
     pay down the Federal debt.
       Lautenberg (for Boxer) amendment No. 175, to ensure that 
     the substantial majority of any income tax cuts go to middle 
     and lower income taxpayers.


                           Amendment No. 157

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Yesterday 
evening, the pending amendment which had been offered on behalf of 
Senator Harkin and myself, as principal sponsors, on the National 
Institutes of Health, was debated shortly before 8 p.m., when voting 
started on four items. I believe the order was that we would resume 
consideration today with that pending amendment. My inquiry is, is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator has 5 
minutes 20 seconds remaining under his control.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. That seems not 
correct to me. I debated this issue for maybe 10 minutes at the most 
yesterday. Isn't there an hour allotted to each side on each amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amount allocated 
to the amendment was reduced to a half-hour for each side for all 
first-degree amendments.
  Mr. SPECTER. A half-hour for each side for all first-degree 
amendments?

[[Page 5782]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. We did not use 24 minutes yesterday, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania spoke from 7:40 
to 7:55. The Senator from Iowa spoke from 9:28 to 9:38.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am advised by my staff that it would 
be appropriate to ask for some time off the bill. I ask for an 
additional 15 minutes off the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, to briefly recapitulate, this amendment seeks to add 
$1.4 billion to the allocation for the National Institutes of Health. 
The NIH is the crown jewel of the Federal Government, having made 
really phenomenal advances on medical research in its drive to conquer 
so many of the maladies confronting mankind today.
  Last year the budget for NIH was increased by $2 billion and, in the 
view of the Members, at least the chairman and the ranking, on the 
appropriations subcommittee having jurisdiction over the Department of 
Health and Human Services, $2 billion are absolutely necessary by way 
of increase of the existing budget for NIH, which now is $15.6 billion. 
There have been really remarkable advances in so many lines, with the 
research on stem cells having been completed, posing the opportunity 
for curing so many of the very, very serious ailments.
  Testimony was given before the appropriations subcommittee that with 
diseases like Parkinson's, the cure may be in the range of 5 to 10 
years. Great strides have been made on Alzheimer's, on cancer, and so 
many very other serious matters. We have an offset to cover the $1.4 
billion by changing the rules on deductibility from the tobacco 
settlement.
  Madam President, after consulting with the managers on the second 
slot, which had been reserved, it is my intention to offer a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution on behalf of Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, 
Senator Sessions, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Schumer, and myself which 
would increase the funding to the Department of Justice on the 
prosecution of gun cases from $5 to $50 million. We have seen examples, 
in Richmond, VA, in Philadelphia, PA, and in Boston, MA, where gun 
cases have been handled with great success. This follows the passage in 
1984 of the armed career criminal bill which provided that any career 
criminal, someone with three or four major convictions, found in 
possession of a firearm, would receive a sentence up to life 
imprisonment.
  In 1988, there was an experiment with a program called Trigger Lock 
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which produced extraordinary 
results, again, focusing on guns. It was a national model. More 
recently, in Richmond, VA, there has been experience with prosecutions 
as to guns and also a special program again in the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, coordinated with New Jersey across the river, with $1.5 
million going to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and $800,000 to 
New Jersey--again, very remarkable results.
  In this year's budget, the Department of Justice has allocated only 
$5 million to this important function. An important hearing was held on 
Monday of this week, presided over jointly by Senator Thurmond and 
Senator Sessions, on two Judiciary Committee subcommittees. And there 
the evidence was very forceful about the effectiveness of this gun 
program.
  Madam President, I am not going to offer this amendment at this time, 
but I did want to utilize just a few moments, as I have, this morning 
to explain the purpose of the amendment. It will be offered in due 
course.
  How much time remains, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 and a half minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I wonder if I might make an inquiry of 
the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, if I might have the 
attention of Senator Domenici.
  The second slot was reserved, Mr. Chairman, and has been used for a 
sense of the Senate on guns, as I have just explained. I wonder if it 
would be acceptable to the managers if the amendment was sent to the 
desk and offered at this time, or would it be preferable to wait until 
a later point to make the submission for the Record?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, if you are asking me, it would be 
preferable to wait, if you would.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to accommodate the chairman's schedule.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I also thank the Chair for the 
additional time. And I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 176

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
         modernization and improvement of the medicare program)

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the previous amendments 
will be set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] for himself, Mr. 
     Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
     Nickles, Mr. Grassley and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 176.

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, 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 end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE MODERNIZATION AND 
                   IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage provided under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial 
     security for retired and disabled individuals, as such 
     coverage protects those individuals against the financially 
     ruinous costs of a major illness.
       (2) Expenditures under the medicare program for hospital, 
     physician, and other essential health care services that are 
     provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired and disabled 
     individuals will be $232,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
       (3) During the nearly 35 years since the medicare program 
     was established, the Nation's health care delivery and 
     financing system has undergone major transformations. 
     However, the medicare program has not kept pace with such 
     transformations.
       (4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert 
     Reischauer has described the medicare program as it exists 
     today as failing on the following 4 key dimensions (known as 
     the ``Four I's''):
       (A) The program is inefficient.
       (B) The program is inequitable.
       (C) The program is inadequate.
       (D) The program is insolvent.
       (5) The President's budget framework does not devote 15 
     percent of the budget surpluses to the medicare program. The 
     federal budget process does not provide a mechanism for 
     setting aside current surpluses for future obligations. As a 
     result, the notion of saving 15 percent of the surplus for 
     the medicare program cannot practically be carried out.
       (6) The President's budget framework would transfer to the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund more than 
     $900,000,000,000 over 15 years in new IOUs that must be 
     redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public, and these new 
     IOUs would increase the gross debt of the Federal Government 
     by the amounts transferred.
       (7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the 
     transfers described in paragraph (6), which are strictly 
     intragovernmental, have no effect on the unified budget 
     surpluses or the on-budget surpluses and therefore have no 
     effect on the debt held by the public.
       (8) The President's budget framework does not provide 
     access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.
       (9) The Comptroller General of the United States has stated 
     that the President's medicare proposal does not constitute 
     reform of the program and ``is likely to create a public 
     misperception that something meaningful is being done to 
     reform the medicare program''.
       (10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted changes to the 
     medicare program which strengthen and extend the solvency of 
     that program.
       (11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that 
     without the changes made to the medicare program by the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the depletion of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would now be imminent.

[[Page 5783]]

       (12) The President's budget proposes to cut medicare 
     program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, primarily 
     through reductions in payments to providers under that 
     program.
       (13) While the recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
     Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
     of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on the Future of Medicare, all of the President's 
     appointees to that commission opposed the bipartisan reform 
     plan.
       (14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new 
     prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries 
     within a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the 
     medicare program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the 
     public.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions contained in this budget resolution 
     assume the following:
       (1) This resolution does not adopt the President's 
     proposals to reduce medicare program spending by 
     $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, nor does this resolution adopt 
     the President's proposal to spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare 
     program funds on unrelated programs.
       (2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or 
     borrowing more from the public.
       (3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend 
     the solvency of the medicare program and to ensure that 
     benefits under that program will be available to 
     beneficiaries in the future.
       (4) The American public will be well and fairly served in 
     this undertaking if the medicare program reform proposals are 
     considered within a framework that is based on the following 
     5 key principles offered in testimony to the Senate Committee 
     on Finance by the Comptroller General of the United States:
       (A) Affordability.
       (B) Equity.
       (C) Adequacy.
       (D) Feasibility.
       (E) Public acceptance.
       (5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman 
     Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for the 
     neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially 
     improves the solvency of the medicare program without 
     transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new 
     IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public.
       (6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen of the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (7) Congress should continue to work with the President as 
     he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the 
     medicare program.

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, this amendment is sponsored by myself, Mr. 
Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, 
Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Hatch.
  Madam President, one of the most important bipartisan efforts we will 
undertake in the months ahead will be to address the challenges 
confronting the Medicare program--a program whose reach and importance 
in the lives of Americans cannot be overstated. In years past we have 
looked at the demographics, studied the statistics, and struggled with 
a sense of vulnerability concerning Medicare and its future.
  Our population is aging. Health care costs seem to be growing 
exponentially. New and necessary technologies are becoming more 
expensive. And the financial base of the Medicare program provided by 
working Americans is shrinking in proportion to the number of seniors 
who depend on it. In less than 10 years, the population of Medicare 
beneficiaries will begin growing at a rate unseen in the program's 
history.
  In the past, the Medicare population has grown by about 1 percent a 
year. Beginning very soon, that growth rate will begin to double. In 
just 10 years, the Medicare program will be required to serve a 
population that is 20 percent larger than it is today--that is, 46 
million seniors--and at that point the baby-boom generation will have 
only just begun to retire.
  Concerning the growth in the cost of health care services, Gene 
Steuerle of the Urban Institute recently testified before the Finance 
Committee that an average couple retiring now receives about $250,000 
in lifetime Medicare benefits. Once the baby-boom generation is in full 
retirement, that amount will double. As a result, we will need to 
dedicate a larger and larger portion of the Nation's budget to pay for 
Medicare. Medicare is expected to consume an expanding share of the 
Nation's economy.
  In 1998, Medicare spending was an estimated 2.6 percent of the gross 
domestic product. It is projected to grow to $518 billion--or 3.5 
percent of GDP--in 2010. By 2030, Medicare is forecasted to grow to 
$2.2 trillion, representing 5.9 percent of the GDP.
  It is good news that people are living longer, that they are spending 
almost a decade more in retirement than they were when the Medicare 
program began. These are demographics we have worked long and hard to 
bring to pass and we should celebrate them.
  However, these were, and continue to be, serious challenges to the 
Medicare trust fund. The balance in the Part A Hospital Insurance Trust 
Fund is declining. The end-of-year balance began to drop in 1995, when 
payments from the trust fund began to exceed income to the trust fund. 
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 helped to delay the bankruptcy of the 
trust fund for a few years, but it will still occur in our lifetimes if 
something is not done now.
  As I said, each of these represents a serious concern, Madam 
President. But as of late, there appears to be a growing sense of 
optimism that we can take the favorable economic conditions our Nation 
is enjoying and, with bipartisan leadership, we can find long-term 
solutions to these pressing challenges.
  Not only is there consensus on both sides of the aisle that something 
must be done, but there is growing confidence that something can be 
done. An important component of the answer, we have come to see, rests 
in the potential of a strong economy and with the willingness of the 
American people.
  Toward meeting the challenges confronting Medicare, we must be guided 
by five specific criteria:
  First, our efforts, if they are to succeed, must have bipartisan 
support, and they will require leadership from the White House. 
President Clinton must articulate his strategy for securing and 
strengthening the Medicare program.
  Second, we must assure that the measures we adopt do not undermine 
the economic growth our Nation needs to continue providing jobs, 
opportunity, and security for Americans now and in the future.
  Third, we must see that our policies are fair, that those who are 
being called upon to strengthen the system in the short term have the 
confidence of knowing that the system will be there for them in the 
long run.
  Fourth, reform measures must be holistic in nature, taking into 
account the challenges we have to preserve and strengthen Social 
Security and to coordinate other programs that can serve the same 
constituency benefited by the Medicare and Social Security programs.
  Fifth, our reform efforts must find acceptance with the American 
people. They must take what has been a good program and make it 
better--make it better by making it financially sound and easily 
accessible to those who depend on it.
  I am hopeful that the President will provide the genuine leadership 
required to address the future of Medicare. I encourage him and his 
administration to come work with us on the Finance Committee. We look 
forward to working with them. Certainly there are few issues as 
important as this one.
  It demands our immediate attention, and the best effort we have to 
offer. Our work must go beyond the few items he included in his budget. 
It must take into account the long-term needs of the program, a careful 
analysis of benefit expansion, such as pharmaceutical drugs, and other 
concerns.
  We must look at how we can best serve the Medicare program in a way 
that the reforms we offer will positively affect Medicaid. Too often 
lost in the debate over Medicare reform is the direct impact that 
Medicare changes will have on Medicaid. These two programs are most 
obviously linked through the 5.4 million low-income elderly and 
disabled individuals who are eligible for both. For this dually 
eligible population, Medicaid essentially serves as a source of 
wraparound benefits, providing among other

[[Page 5784]]

important services nursing home care and prescription drugs.
  In addition, nearly 600,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive 
Medicaid financial support to meet Medicare's cost-sharing 
requirements.
  Together, these six million individuals represent 16 percent of the 
Medicare population, but they consume 30 percent of all Medicare 
spending and 35 percent of all Medicaid spending. Medicare reform 
proposals that would impact these low-income populations must be very 
carefully undertaken to avoid simply shifting costs or responsibilities 
from one program to the other.
  As we face the challenges of reforming the Medicare program, we must 
explore opportunities to substantially improve the health care 
experiences of these dually eligible populations. Currently, efforts to 
coordinate the services covered by the two programs are stymied by 
barriers to integration.
  These barriers include the need for complicated waivers, arbitrary 
restrictions on mingling Medicare and Medicaid dollars, and 
difficulties in coordinating program oversight. A reform process 
undertaken by this Senate presents an opportunity to better meet the 
needs of a very vulnerable population.
  Immediately after passage of this budget, I will begin, as chairman 
of the committee that has jurisdiction over the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs, the process of developing a bipartisan, consensus proposal 
for real Medicare reform. In developing this plan, the Finance 
Committee will conduct a series of hearings to take testimony from 
Medicare consumers, trustees, providers, and other experts who are 
intricately involved with this program and who are in a position to 
make worthy recommendations on how to proceed with improving the 
Medicare program.
  We will indeed carefully study the recommendations of the bipartisan 
Commission on the Future of Medicare led by Senator Breaux. Senator 
Breaux and the other members of the bipartisan Commission on the Future 
of Medicare worked very hard and committed a great deal of time during 
the past year to try to find a solution to the impending Medicare 
crisis. They deserve our appreciation for their efforts. The 
discussions that they had has certainly furthered the Medicare debate 
and will be invaluable to us as we proceed with this important work. In 
addition to these measures, the committee will also take into 
consideration the many concerns and proposals of Senators--on both 
sides of the aisle--for improving this program which is so important 
for all of those we represent and are here to serve.
  Our effort to lay a solid foundation for the future of Medicare will 
be a major undertaking. I believe that the budget resolution we are 
considering now provides the necessary framework. The budget committee 
has set aside on-budget surplus funds of up to $133 billion that--if 
needed--can be used for Medicare reform, including prescription drug 
benefits. Once we have achieved a bipartisan agreement on a 
comprehensive Medicare plan, we may indeed find it necessary to revisit 
this budgetary framework--and I expect that we would be able to obtain 
the necessary votes to proceed with such adjustments.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to set aside attempts to legislate 
Medicare reform in the budget resolution. This is not the time or place 
for such a complex undertaking. Instead, I urge that we work together 
over the next few months on a Medicare reform plan. Such a plan should 
provide the nation's current and future seniors the assurance of health 
care that is comprehensive in benefits, superior in quality and 
financially sustainable. This is important to them. It is important to 
the future. And it is something that can and will be done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time has the Senator used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Roth is in control of 15 more minutes, so if 
the Senator desires to yield time.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I want to ask a couple of questions, 
if I may, because I'm struck by a paragraph on page 5, beginning with 
line 8:

       This resolution does not adopt the President's proposal to 
     reduce medicare spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, 
     nor does the resolution adopt the President's proposal to 
     spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare program. . .

  That is followed by:

       Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or 
     borrowing more from the public.

  Would that preclude any use of surpluses if there were additional 
surpluses that arose?
  How can you attribute a tax increase, or more borrowing, directly to 
this? This is out of the general revenues, and I am curious how the 
connection is made and whether or not a surplus would be able to be 
used.
  Mr. ROTH. I say to my distinguished colleague that if there are 
surpluses in the budget, they could be used for Medicare.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So we are specifically targeting raising taxes. Could 
this be competitive by using--and this is said with all due respect to 
the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. If tax cuts are 
put into place, or attempted to be put into place, would the response 
be, then--and if we prohibit that by virtue of an agreement here and in 
the House, would that be considered raising taxes if we didn't cut 
taxes? Would that, in turn, be considered a tax increase?
  Mr. ROTH. If I understand your question, no. If we fail to make a tax 
cut, I don't see that in and of itself being considered a tax increase.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So that it is possible that there could be a 
competitive environment where tax cuts are competing with our capacity 
to continue to fund Medicare. You know, we have a debate about these 
transfers and whether IOUs are really significant. If we transferred $1 
billion in cash to the Medicare trust fund--the insurance trust fund, 
and they were to go out into the public marketplace and buy $1 billion 
worth of insurance bonds, or what have you, those IOUs would have 
established their value--that cash, rather, I am sorry, would have 
established its value.
  Why wouldn't an IOU from the Federal Government, which is where so 
many companies and individuals put their money because it is the full 
faith and credit of our Nation, thereby guaranteed by strength more 
there than anyplace else--why wouldn't those IOUs be considered the 
same as a cash transfer? It is true that they are going to come out of 
general revenues to be paid for, but it would also ensure that no 
pressure on the Appropriations Committee could say, all right, we are 
not going to be able to fund that, and then a later Congress says, OK, 
we are going to have to cut back on benefits by raising age or raising 
deductible, raising copays, or what have you. This at least ensures 
that that money will be there; those funds will be there off into the 
future; am I correct or not on that?
  Mr. ROTH. Well, let me answer you in general, and then I will ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. But it is our position 
that there are adequate funds both to provide reform of the Medicare 
program, to ensure its solvency in the long term, as well as to provide 
for a tax cut and, of course, protect and strengthen Social Security. 
As to the specifics, I yield to my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to Senator 
Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am interested in asking, is there 
anything in this proposal of the Senator from Delaware that will 
provide the additional funding for Medicare, as we are attempting to 
move forward, to try to bring about the reforms? These two members of 
the Budget Committee are here. I am interested in understanding,

[[Page 5785]]

as we are trying, in the final hours of the budget debate, to make sure 
the budget is going to have the additional 15 percent so that we can 
put it on a sound financial basis. I am wondering if there is any 
indication in this proposal that the Senator from Delaware wants to 
make sure of the financial security of Medicare before tax cuts, before 
we are going to go ahead with tax cuts. Is there anything in this 
resolution I have just received--maybe the Senator from North Dakota or 
the Senator from New Jersey can show me anyplace in here where this 
resolution says, all right, let's move ahead with the reform of 
Medicare before we go ahead and provide these major tax cuts. Is there 
anything in this resolution that the ranking minority member can tell 
the membership?
  That is really what I think has been the heart of the debate of the 
proposal of the Senator from North Dakota and others--that we are going 
to put in place a sound, solid solvency for the Medicare system before 
we go to tax cuts. And now that we have a new resolution, I am just 
wondering whether this resolution says we are going to defer the tax 
cuts, we are going to make sure of the financial stability of the 
Medicare system and move toward perhaps even a consideration of the 
Breaux proposal as we consider reforms in the future.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask the Senator from North Dakota 
to oblige, or we will refer it to the author of it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Maybe you should ask the author of the proposal. I ask 
the author of the proposal whether there is any provision in this part 
that says we are going to defer tax cuts for wealthy individuals, 
across-the-board tax cuts that are mentioned in the report of the 
budget--that we are going to defer that until we get Medicare on a 
sound financial basis? Is there any reference to that in the proposal? 
Or if we accept this proposal, is it still the position that we are 
still going to go ahead and have the tax cuts now in the budget?
  Mr. ROTH. In answer to my friend and colleague, I say there is no 
language in the budget resolution that sets these priorities. But as I 
said earlier, it is my intent, as chairman of the Finance Committee, 
which has jurisdiction over these matters, to begin hearings and to 
develop a consensus on Medicare when we return from the Easter recess. 
This will be a bipartisan effort. There is no way we can get anything 
done unless we are able to develop, as I said, a bipartisan consensus. 
It is my intent to move as expeditiously as possible upon our return.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just to clarify it further, then, it is the position of 
the Senator from Delaware to go ahead and pass a budget resolution that 
commits us on a course for significant tax cuts prior to the time that 
we are going to have the hearings in the Finance Committee to develop a 
bipartisan proposal on Medicare; that is his position? Or are you going 
to recommend that we defer the tax cuts until we have the kind of 
hearings the Senator has suggested and really shape a proposal to put 
Medicare on both a sound fiscal basis and also to deal with some of the 
inadequacies of Medicare, like the prescription drug issue?
  Mr. ROTH. Well, as I indicated, it is the intent of the chairman to 
proceed expeditiously, upon our return, with hearings and developing a 
program on Medicare. As far as tax cuts are concerned, I don't intend 
to begin work on them probably until sometime early fall. But it is my 
intention to work immediately on Medicare.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts asked 
the very question that I was trying to find out about. And that is that 
it has the appearance of another attempt to limit the development of a 
solvent Medicare program in deference to the possibility of across-the-
board taxes. That is the sense, with all due expect, that I get out of 
this. I don't know whether the Senator from Massachusetts views it the 
same way. But it would be good if we could kind of straighten that out 
before a vote occurs on it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could just ask, because I see others on their feet, 
on page 2 of the proposal, at the bottom, line 22 says, ``The 
President's budget framework does not devote 15-percent budget 
surpluses to the Medicare Program.''
  This has been the intention of the Senator from New Jersey and the 
Senator from North Dakota. It is a goal I support--that we provide at 
15 percent. The Senator's resolution says it does not devote the 15 
percent. Would the Senator tell us whether he would support the 15-
percent allocation? He has it in the resolution, saying that the 
Federal budget does not devote the 15 percent. Does the Senator want us 
to devote that 15 percent, or not?
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, let me just point out that as far as the 
so-called 15 percent is concerned, the Comptroller General said that 
the President's proposal does nothing to alter the imbalance between 
the program's tax receipts and benefits payments. It has been cash 
deficits since 1992, and remains a cash deficit even with the new 
Treasury securities. Thus, the President's proposal does provide 
additional claims on the Treasury, not additional cash to pay benefits.
  Let me make it very clear, under this resolution we intend to do 
three things: To strengthen and preserve Social Security, to reform 
Medicare, and to provide a major tax cut for the working people of 
America.
  Let me stress that this resolution has been carefully crafted by the 
chairman and others on the Budget Committee to do exactly that. That is 
our intent, and we shall follow through on the policies laid down in 
this resolution.
  I think the distinguished Senator from Louisiana may care to comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, before that, may I ask that Senator 
Thompson be added as a cosponsor? I did include Senator Grassley and 
Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I support the Senator's sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. I will start off by saying that sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions are pretty senseless, because it really is not making law; 
it is just an expression of what people think. To that extent, it is 
very important.
  Let me just start off by saying that if the debate on Medicare is 
whether we want a tax cut or whether we want to reform Medicare, we 
will never reform Medicare. Medicare has been here since 1965, and it 
has been a political football every year. Every year that we run out of 
money with Medicare, we fix it by using the SOS approach--same old, 
same old. Every year when there was a shortfall, we simply tried to 
reduce reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and said, ``Well, we 
fixed it because we gave them less money to treat 40 million Americans 
who need health care in this country.''
  The President's budget this year again talks about approximately $20 
billion in further cuts to the Medicare program. That is $20 billion 
less that is going to be available to provide medical benefits to 40 
million seniors. That, I would suggest, is not reform. That, I would 
suggest, doesn't fix anything. That, I would suggest, just makes the 
problem greater and not less.
  The reason I call into question the concept that a 15-percent 
transfer of the surplus in the form of IOUs to the Medicare trust fund 
is not what it seems to be is that, in fact, it is not.
  The GAO came to the Senate Finance Committee and they testified very 
specifically on this proposal. What they said, in bipartisan, 
unequivocal economic language that I think everyone can understand, is 
the following. They said this transfer ``. . . has no effect on the 
current and projected cash-flow deficits that have faced the [Medicare 
program] since 1992--deficits that taxpayers will continue to finance 
through higher taxes, lower spending elsewhere

[[Page 5786]]

or lower pay downs of publicly-held debt than the baseline. 
Importantly, the President's proposal would not provide any new money 
to pay for medical services.''
  So the concept of saying we are going to fix Medicare by taking 15 
percent of the surplus and putting IOUs in the trust fund and that 
somehow we have fixed the problem is nonsensical. It does not make any 
sense economically. It is not good policy. It gives us a false sense of 
security that somehow we have solved Medicare by loading up the trust 
fund with IOUs. That is not reform. That is not saving the program. 
That is not giving the program one nickel more in money. It is merely 
giving the trust fund more IOUs. We are in effect transferring publicly 
held debt from one account and putting it in another account and saying 
we fixed the program.
  I could not live with that, because I don't think it does anything. 
It doesn't help the program. It doesn't hurt the program, but it 
doesn't fix the program.
  This resolution says in essence that we are going to have to work in 
a bipartisan fashion to look at real reform. Our National Bipartisan 
Commission worked on this for a year. We have a recommendation which 
will be submitted in the form of legislation. We will have hearings in 
the Senate Finance Committee. I would like them to report on exactly 
what we send over there. But if they don't, hopefully it will be 
something similar. Hopefully, it will be real reform. Hopefully, it 
will be something that we can quit arguing about--whether we want tax 
cuts, or whether we want to save Medicare.
  The program needs more money. There is no question about that. But it 
desperately needs reform. The 1965 model runs like a 1965 car, and 
putting more gas in an old car, it is still an old car. And putting 
more IOUs in the Medicare trust fund doesn't make it a modern, 
efficient delivery system for health care in this country.
  I think the resolution is a good resolution. It is offered in a 
bipartisan fashion. It is a sense of the Senate. Big deal. I don't 
think it will change public policy. But it is so important that it 
needs a discussion on how we solve this particular issue. It says that 
Congress should move expeditiously in a bipartisan fashion to reform 
the program. Yes; we should. It says that Congress should continue to 
work with the President as he develops and presents his plan to fix the 
problem with the Medicare program. Yes; he should.
  We are not going to fix it. We are going to be looking for issues to 
beat each other over the head once again. That is the old way of doing 
it. That is old politics. And people are sick and tired of it on both 
sides of the political spectrum outside of Washington. Maybe in 
Washington we love to play political games. We beat them up, they beat 
us up, and nothing gets done. We end up arguing about failure: It is 
their fault we didn't fix it. No; it is your fault we didn't fix it. 
And absolutely nothing is ever fixed with that kind of a procedure.
  How much better would it would be for us to gather and work together 
and fix it? And we can always argue the political argument about who 
fixed it: We fixed it. No; they fixed it. But at least we are arguing 
about success about fixing something instead of trying to argue about 
whose fault it is that nothing gets done on something as important as 
Medicare, and trying to figure out which wedge issue we are going to 
use this week and which wedge issue they are going to use next week. Is 
it not time that we kind of come together and say, ``Look, we have a 
big problem''?
  Today, we spend more money in Medicare than we take in in revenues to 
pay for it. Today, not in 20 years. Today. If you use all of the 
revenues in the trust fund, plus the revenues coming in, we are totally 
insolvent in the year 2008. My fear is that in the year 2007 we are 
going to still be arguing about whether we want to fix Medicare or 
whether we want to have a tax cut. That is not the appropriate 
argument. That is not the discussion we should be engaged in. We can 
argue whether we need a tax cut, and how we should craft it, and who 
should benefit from it. That is a separate argument.
  We should concentrate now on how to reform Medicare in a bipartisan 
fashion. I think this sense-of-the-Senate resolution suggests that.
  It makes the point that the 15-percent surplus is nothing more than 
IOUs in the trust fund. It does not add a nickel to the trust fund. 
That is a correct statement, and that is why I support the resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President and fellow Senators, we have before us 
a historic resolution, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution with historic 
and brave Senators on it. If we adopt this and follow it, we will save 
the Medicare program instead of arguing about it. The basic contention 
here, plain and simple, is that prominent Democrat Senators are joining 
with Republicans saying let's quit arguing; let's fix it.
  That is the principal thrust of this resolution. I say to Senator 
Breaux, Senator Kerrey, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and 
Senator Frist, you are to be commended and lauded, because I predict on 
this day we have started down a short path before the year ends of 
fixing Medicare for the seniors permanently. We do not have to sit 
around here and argue about IOUs that the President wants to transfer 
to a trust fund without dedicating any revenue to the trust fund.
  How do you fix a trust fund by putting in IOUs when it is all based 
on revenues coming into the trust fund to pay the bills?
  I join Senators--I am the fifth Member--as the Budget chairman, 
because I believe you are on the way, on the road to real success for 
our seniors.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                     Amendment No. 176, As Modified

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk. On page 
4, line 15, subparagraph 13 will read:

       The recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
     Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
     of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on the Future of Medicare.

  We delete the words with respect to the Presidential appointees.
  Just let me say as a followthrough on the statement by the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator stated it 
exactly correct. We are on the road to real reform. We want to make 
sure that this Medicare program exists not only for the seniors today 
but indefinitely in the future. I pledge to the Senator that that is 
what my committee will do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 176), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE MODERNIZATION AND 
                   IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage provided under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial 
     security for retired and disabled individuals, as such 
     coverage protects those individuals against the financially 
     ruinous costs of a major illness.
       (2) Expenditures under the medicare program for hospital, 
     physician, and other essential health care services that are 
     provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired and disabled 
     individuals will be $232,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
       (3) During the nearly 35 years since the medicare program 
     was established, the Nation's health care delivery and 
     financing system has undergone major transformations. 
     However, the medicare program has not kept pace with such 
     transformations.
       (4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert 
     Reischauer has described the medicare program as it exists 
     today as failing on the following 4 key dimensions (known as 
     the ``Four I's''):

[[Page 5787]]

       (A) The program is inefficient.
       (B) The program is inequitable.
       (C) The program is inadequate.
       (D) The program is insolvent.
       (5) The President's budget framework does not devote 15 
     percent of the budget surpluses to the medicare program. The 
     federal budget process does not provide a mechanism for 
     setting aside current surpluses for future obligations. As a 
     result, the notion of saving 15 percent of the surplus for 
     the medicare program cannot practically be carried out.
       (6) The President's budget framework would transfer to the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund more than 
     $900,000,000,000 over 15 years in new IOUs that must be 
     redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public, and these new 
     IOUs would increase the gross debt of the Federal Government 
     by the amounts transferred.
       (7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the 
     transfers described in paragraph (6), which are strictly 
     intragovernmental, have no effect on the unified budget 
     surpluses or the on-budget surpluses and therefore have no 
     effect on the debt held by the public.
       (8) The President's budget framework does not provide 
     access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.
       (9) The Comptroller General of the United States has stated 
     that the President's medicare proposal does not constitute 
     reform of the program and ``is likely to create a public 
     misperception that something meaningful is being done to 
     reform the Medicare program''.
       (10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted changes to the 
     medicare program which strengthen and extend the solvency of 
     that program.
       (11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that 
     without the changes made to the medicare program by the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the depletion of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would now be imminent.
       (12) The President's budget proposes to cut medicare 
     program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, primarily 
     through reductions in payments to providers under that 
     program.
       (13) The recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
     Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
     of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new 
     prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries 
     within a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the 
     medicare program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the 
     public.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions contained in this budget resolution 
     assume the following:
       (1) This resolution does not adopt the President's 
     proposals to reduce medicare program spending by 
     $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, nor does this resolution adopt 
     the President's proposal to spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare 
     program funds on unrelated programs.
       (2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or 
     borrowing more from the public.
       (3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend 
     the solvency of the medicare program and to ensure that 
     benefits under that program will be available to 
     beneficiaries in the future.
       (4) The American public will be well and fairly served in 
     this undertaking if the medicare program reform proposals are 
     considered within a framework that is based on the following 
     5 key principles offered in testimony to the Senate Committee 
     on Finance by the Comptroller General of the United States:
       (A) Affordability.
       (B) Equity.
       (C) Adequacy.
       (D) Feasibility.
       (E) Public acceptance.
       (5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman 
     Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for the 
     neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially 
     improves the solvency of the medicare program without 
     transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new 
     IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public.
       (6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen of the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (7) Congress should continue to work with the President as 
     he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the 
     medicare program.

  Mr. ROTH. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a UC?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to seek the yeas and nays on an additional amendment that is 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 161, the 
Voinovich amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. As a member of the Budget Committee and a member of the 
Finance Committee and somebody who has worked and voted for Medicare 
reform in the Finance Committee as part of a group cochaired by Senator 
Breaux along with Senator Chafee, I believe we must have reform of the 
Medicare program. There is no question about that. I applaud the 
efforts of Senator Breaux. Nobody has worked harder over a longer 
period of time to try to get the job done.
  As a part of the centrist coalition, I voted in the Finance Committee 
for a series of difficult steps to begin the process of reforming the 
Medicare program.
  I think my record on the question of being willing to cast tough 
votes to reform Medicare is beyond question. But I must say, as I look 
at this amendment that has been offered by the distinguished chairman 
of the Finance Committee, I have real doubts about this. It looks to me 
to be a political statement as much as it is an interest in reforming 
Medicare. When I see in the resolution the suggestion that the 
President's budget framework does not devote 15 percent of the budget 
surplus to the Medicare program, I do not think that is a true 
statement. I have read the President's framework, and it says very 
clearly that of the surpluses over the next 15 years, 15 percent is 
dedicated to Medicare. He does it by making a transfer to the trust 
fund.
  People get up and quote the Comptroller General all of the time 
around here, only they leave out something very important that he said. 
The Comptroller said in his statement before the Finance Committee that 
the President's proposal ``provides a grant of a new set of Treasury 
securities for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Program which would 
extend the life of the trust fund from 2008 to 2020.''
  That is the testimony of the Comptroller General before the Senate 
Finance Committee. Others have stood in the Chamber and said that he 
denigrated the proposal. Well, he certainly did raise questions about 
it in certain ways, but he also made the very clear statement that the 
President's proposal does extend the solvency of the Medicare trust 
fund from 2008 to 2020.
  Those who stand in this Chamber and tell our colleagues and the 
American people that the President's proposal does not do anything are 
not telling the truth. To just be selective in their quotations of the 
Comptroller General does a disservice to this body and a disservice to 
anybody else who is listening.
  Let's be direct and honest. The President's proposal is to reserve 15 
percent of the surpluses over the next 15 years for Medicare. That is a 
break in policy, without question. It is a change. We should debate the 
wisdom of that change. But to stand up here and say it makes no 
difference, that is not factual and it is not honest as far as I am 
concerned.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like to complete the thought and then I will be 
happy to yield.
  As I read this resolution, it is suggesting that it makes no sense to 
make any transfer from the general fund to the HI trust fund. I do not 
agree with that. I think that is flat wrong. You

[[Page 5788]]

can question the policy. You can say, gee, we should not be doing that, 
but to suggest that in this resolution, to adopt in this resolution 
that we are just going to be opposed to a transfer I think is a 
mistake. That has the cart before the horse.
  As I go through this resolution, there are other things that trouble 
me. I, for one, value the work of the Medicare Commission. I value the 
work of Senator Breaux, Mr. Thomas, and the others who served there, 
but as I read this resolution it is suggesting that what they came up 
with in terms of a proposal is what we ought to adopt. I am not 
prepared to say that because they also proposed a dramatic change in 
policy. They proposed, instead of what we know now as the Medicare 
program, a system of vouchers. People would be able to go out in the 
marketplace and buy insurance, and they would get from the Federal 
Government, instead of the coverage provided by Medicare, a voucher for 
a certain amount of money to go out and purchase insurance.
  That may be an excellent idea. I do not know. I think we are a long 
way from making a determination that that is the right course. We have 
not completed a hearing process in the Finance Committee on that 
question. As I read this resolution, it is fundamentally endorsing that 
approach.
  Also included in the recommendation of the Commission is an increase 
in the age of eligibility. That may be necessary, but I do not think we 
ought to conclude that in the Chamber here today.
  So, Madam President, I respect those who bring the amendment before 
us but I, for one, would not vote for it. I do not think saying, in 
effect, that we should not make a transfer from the general fund to 
strengthen Medicare is something we ought to be saying. In fact, I 
offered an amendment last night that said just the opposite, that we 
ought to, as part of a reform proposal, put more resources into the 
Medicare plan. I think it needs more resources.
  I also believe it has to be reformed. I think we need both. I am 
certainly not going to vote for an amendment that suggests that what 
the President has proposed is wrong. I also think, as I indicated, that 
some of the statements here are just factually incorrect.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I do not necessarily disagree with 
everything the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has pointed out. 
It is important for everyone to understand that the suggestion of the 
administration of 15 percent of the surplus in the form of IOUs into 
the Medicare trust fund does not give the trust fund one nickel, one 
dime, one dollar more money. It only gives the trust fund IOUs in the 
form of Treasury securities on which, in the future, Medicare can go to 
the general fund and make a claim. That is all it does.
  Basically, that is the same situation as we have today because it is 
an entitlement program. People are entitled to it. The question I have 
is, are we going to have no limit on how much of the general fund is 
going to be used to finance Medicare?
  Madam President, 37 percent of the money today comes out of general 
revenues. It was supposed to start off as a payroll tax and that was 
how it was to be funded. Are we going to go to 40 percent without any 
concern? Are we going to go to 50 percent without any concern? How much 
of the general revenues are going to finance Medicare to the detriment 
of the national defense or anything else that we have as a nation?
  I suggest to use this transfer of IOUs without making formal 
decisions and having serious debate about it is not good policy because 
it doesn't help Medicare at all. That is why it is important to 
understand it does not provide any new money to the Medicare program at 
all.
  We should have that debate. We suggested a way of looking at it, but 
I think just saying 15 percent of the surplus solves the Medicare 
problem to the year 2030 is very, very erroneous. It is incorrect. We 
should not rely on that as a way of saving Medicare.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Massachusetts consumes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from North Dakota 
will respond to a question? I listened to my friend from Louisiana. He 
talked about the IOUs. I find it somewhat difficult to understand how 
the IOUs can be used for a tax cut of some, I guess, $778 billion but 
cannot be used for the Medicare trust system.
  I have in my hand, from the Office of the Actuary of the Department 
of Health and Human Services in his submission to the Finance 
Committee--he is the chief actuary for HHS, and I will make this part 
of the Record--but it says, under this budget proposal, referring to 
the President's proposal, it would postpone the exhaustion of the trust 
fund for an estimated 12 years.
  I guess we have Members of the Senate saying these are IOUs and you 
are not going to really do anything by getting that kind of IOU for the 
Medicare trust fund. Here we have the chief actuary for HHS saying 
exactly the opposite, that it will extend it to the year 2020. I fail 
to follow the logic, where you have the IOUs and they are going to be 
used by our majority, our Republican friends, for tax breaks for 
wealthy individuals. I wonder if he can help clarify this dichotomy for 
me?
  I ask unanimous consent the letter dated January 27, 1999, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Health &


                                               Human Services,

                                  Baltimore, MD, January 27, 1999.
     From: Richard S. Foster, Office of the Actuary.
     Subject: Estimated year of exhaustion for the HI Trust Fund 
         under a proposal to augment HI financing with general 
         fund transfers.
     To: Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, administrator.

       This memorandum responds to your request for the estimated 
     year of exhaustion for the Hospital Insurance trust fund 
     under a legislative proposal developed for the President's 
     Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. At this time, we do not know the 
     full specifics of this proposal. It is our understanding that 
     the proposal would create a new transfer of revenues from the 
     general fund of the U.S. Treasury to the HI trust fund for 
     each year from 2000 through 2014. The transfer amount each 
     year would be set equal to a specified percentage of the HI 
     taxable payroll for the year.\1\ The applicable percentages 
     would be specified in the legislation and would equal 15 
     percent of the unified budget surpluses projected for the 
     President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget, expressed as a 
     percentage of the projected HI taxable payrolls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ ``HI taxable payroll'' is the total amount of all wages, 
     salaries, and net income from self-employment that is subject 
     to the HI payroll tax under the Federal Insurance 
     Contributions Act (FICA) and the Self-Employment 
     Contributions Act (SECA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under the proposal, the future transfers from the general 
     fund would depend only the specified percentages of HI 
     taxable payroll and would not be affected if actual future 
     unified budget surpluses differed from the Fiscal Year 2000 
     Budget projections. We understand that, in contrast to the 
     associated proposal for the Social Security program, there 
     would be no change in current-law investment practices for 
     the HI trust fund. Similarly, the estimates in this 
     memorandum reflect Medicare's current benefit provisions as 
     specified under present law.
       We were provided with projected additional HI revenues 
     under this proposal based on the intermediate set of 
     assumptions from the 1998 Trustees Report, as estimated by 
     the Office of Management and Budget and the Social Security 
     Administration's Office of the Chief Actuary. These amounts 
     are listed below (in billions):

[[Page 5789]]



                                                                                          CALENDAR YEAR
                                                                                      [Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007      2008      2009      2010      2011      2012      2013      2014     2000-2004   2000-2009   2000-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  $17.6      $19.6      $27.2      $26.0      $29.5      $32.6      $40.0      $45.4      $50.0     $55.7     $60.9     $65.9     $70.2     $73.7     $75.5     $119.9      $343.8      $689.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Based on the intermediate assumptions and the projected 
     general fund transfers listed above (15% of surplus), we 
     estimate that the assets of the HI trust fund would be 
     depleted in calendar year 2020 under this proposal, as 
     compared to 2008 under present law. Thus, this Budget 
     proposal would postpone the year of exhaustion by an 
     estimated 12 years.
       This estimate is subject to change if our understanding of 
     the proposal is incorrect. In addition, it is important to 
     note that the financial operations of the HI trust fund will 
     depend heavily on future economic, demographic, and health 
     cost trends. For this reason, the estimated year of depletion 
     under this proposal is very sensitive to the underlying 
     assumptions. In particular, under adverse conditions such as 
     those assumed by the Trustees in their ``high cost'' 
     assumptions, asset depletion could occur significantly 
     earlier than the intermediate estimate. Conversely, favorable 
     trends would delay the year of exhaustion. The intermediate 
     assumptions represent a reasonable basis for planning.
       The estimated year of exhaustion is only one of a number of 
     measures and tests used to evaluate the financial status of 
     the HI trust fund. If you would like additional information 
     on the estimated impact of this proposal, we would be happy 
     to provide it.
                                        Richard S. Foster, F.S.A.,
                                                    Chief Actuary.

  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Massachusetts makes an interesting 
point. We have to be very careful in our use of language around here. 
When people talk about Government instruments as being IOUs, I suppose 
in a way that is true. But it probably leaves people with a 
misimpression. These are Government bonds, U.S. Government bonds. There 
is no more valued instrument in the world than a U.S. Government bond. 
I would love to have somebody give me Government bonds worth $700 
billion. The suggestion that that has no value is an absurdity. It is 
an absurdity. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. 
Government. There has never, ever been a default on an obligation of 
the U.S. Government. So this kind of careless use of language I think 
misleads people.
  Of course they have value. They have exactly the value that is on 
their face. These are bonds that have $700 billion worth of value, plus 
they earn interest. The fact is, this suggestion that it doesn't make 
any difference if you transfer these instruments, these bonds, to the 
trust fund is just wrong. They extend the solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund by 12 years.
  Is that the only thing we should do? Certainly not. Senator Breaux is 
exactly right. That is not the only thing we should do. Maybe it is not 
even the first thing we should do. But we have to decide on a budget 
resolution right now. We do not have the luxury of waiting until the 
reform plan is passed. We have to make a decision how resources are 
going to be used around here. What we are suggesting is the resources 
ought to be used in a certain priority order.
  The first priority is using every penny of the Social Security 
surplus for Social Security. Then we are saying, in the non-Social 
Security surplus, the next priority ought to be to strengthen Medicare. 
We think that is a priority of the American people. Yes, there ought to 
be reform as well, and then we ought to also have some resources that 
are available for high-priority domestic needs like education and 
defense--and, yes, tax relief. But the first priority of the non-Social 
Security surplus is not tax relief, especially tax cuts that are 
designed to go to the wealthiest among us.
  We had, yesterday, a discussion of what some on the other side want 
in terms of an across-the-board cut. To those who are earning $800,000 
a year, they would give $20,000. To those earning less than $38,000 a 
year on average, they would give $99. I think it is a higher priority 
for the American people to strengthen Social Security and extend its 
solvency than to go out and give back $20,000 to somebody who is making 
almost $1 million a year. That is a question of priorities. It is the 
difference between us. The Senator from Massachusetts is right on this 
question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand it, and the Senator could correct me--
maybe this is better directed to the Senator from Louisiana--even with 
the Commission's recommendation--according to the Commission's own 
report, that will only extend the solvency of the Medicare system 3 to 
4 years, on the one hand, even if we went ahead.
  I am not disputing that there may be recommendations filed by the 
Commission that may be worthwhile. But on the one hand we have the 
opportunity to extend it 12 years under the transfer. On the other 
hand, even if we accept the Medicare Commission, it is only 3 or 4 
years.
  So as I understand the position of the Senator, we ought to have the 
longer extension, we ought to consider the Breaux commission report, 
and then move ahead and take what steps we need to take in order to 
strengthen and improve the program, which would certainly include the 
prescription drugs.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The distinguished Senator 
from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I hope people think very carefully about 
this amendment as drafted. Because it seems to me, if they vote for it, 
they are saying they do not want to do anything to extend the solvency 
of the Medicare trust fund. They are adopting, it seems to me, a view 
that, at least with respect to the surpluses that are projected over 
the next 15 years, they do not want to dedicate any of that money to 
extend the Medicare trust fund solvency, and the fact is the Medicare 
trust fund is in more immediate danger than is the Social Security 
trust fund.
  We expect insolvency in the Medicare trust fund by 2008. That is why 
some of us feel strongly that we ought to keep alive the possibility of 
transferring some of these surpluses that we now project to strengthen 
and preserve the Medicare system.
  Beyond that, I think we have to ask the question, are we ready to say 
that the solution we want to adopt is what the National Commission on 
the Future of Medicare adopted? They couldn't reach agreement in terms 
of the supermajority that was required of them to make a 
recommendation. It seems to me we ought to keep our powder dry until we 
consider all of the options that we might want to adopt to reform 
Medicare.
  Again, I say this with the greatest of respect for Senator Breaux and 
Senator Kerrey and other Members who served on that Commission, along 
with Mr. Thomas and others. I have real concerns about what is included 
in this amendment. Part of it, I think, is just factually wrong. The 
suggestion that the President is not reserving 15 percent in his 
framework for Medicare defies the facts. It defies what is clearly in 
his plan. I do not think it is wise to adopt something that makes false 
statements.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I have 5 minutes?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. 
Let me first say that sometimes what happens is, you find out about an

[[Page 5790]]

amendment and you don't have time to really prepare. I have just a 
couple of observations, nothing really well rehearsed or well prepared 
about this amendment.
  Let me just say to my good friend from Delaware that not only do I 
think the amendment doesn't give justice to some of the President's 
proposals, I want to express some very serious reservations about the 
work of the Commission. It is out of respect for my colleague from 
Louisiana, but it is just honest disagreement.
  I will say this right away: I have respect for Senators who are 
willing to stake out a position that they think is the right thing to 
do. Even if there is lots of opposition, they have the courage to do 
so. Senator Breaux is that kind of Senator.
  For my own part, there are at least two major concerns that I have 
and that I think should be laid out in this Senate discussion. One is I 
really do worry a lot about the effort to, if you will, voucherize 
Medicare. It worries me that we will create a system where those people 
who are wealthier and probably healthier can opt out for additional 
kind of coverage, additional plans and, therefore, I think you get into 
the problem of adverse risk selection. I think the very thing that has 
made Medicare such a stirring success for our country, which is sort of 
we are all in this together, we all pay into it, I think we do serious 
damage to that principle. I worry that the Medicare system will end up 
being a system where really what you had left were those that were the 
frailest and the sickest of our elderly, and we could not sustain it 
economically. I think that does serious damage to the universality 
principle of Medicare.
  The second point I want to make is that I think the reliance on 
managed care is profoundly mistaken. I think the record of managed care 
in rural American is a not a good one. I think the reason we are going 
to have a major debate on patients' protection, I say to my colleague 
from Massachusetts, is that many people feel that what has happened is 
that with the eight or nine largest insurance companies owning and 
controlling well over 60 percent of the managed care plans, what you 
have going on in the country is bottom line medicine, where the bottom 
line is the only line. It has become increasingly corporatized and 
bureacratized and not at all user-friendly.
  I think senior citizens will not do well with a system that relies so 
much on managed care.
  Finally, I want to express my major opposition--and before Senators 
vote on this, I think they should think about this question--to 
extending the age from 65 to 67. With all due respect, I don't think we 
should create yet another group of people who have no health insurance 
coverage or another group of citizens, in this particular case, 65 to 
67, who maybe will purchase the coverage, but they won't be able to 
afford it.
  I think that it is a grave mistake to support this amendment that my 
colleague from Delaware has brought to the floor. Frankly, I think we 
should be talking about Medicare for all--universal coverage. I 
certainly think we should be talking about expanding Medicare to 
include prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. I have 
introduced a bill with Barney Frank on the House side to do this, and 
other colleagues have done this. I think, out of respect for my 
colleague, it is an honest difference of opinion.
  I think this amendment, supporting the work of the Commission, goes 
in the wrong direction. A, it voucherizes Medicare; leads to adverse 
risk selection; no longer has the principle of universality applying; 
those people who are sickest and poorest will be left in, and the 
system will not sustain itself. That is a mistake. B, the reliance on 
managed care is mistaken. C, in no way, shape, or form, should we 
extend the age from 65 to 67.
  I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I say to 
my colleagues from Delaware and Louisiana, I have listened to this. I 
regret to say we are going to be voting on this, because there are a 
lot of things in this Commission report that I think warrant the 
support of our colleagues, and things where obviously, as my colleagues 
from Massachusetts and Minnesota and others have pointed out, there is 
serious disagreement as well.
  My concern is that we are going to have a vote on this resolution, 
and it kind of hardens positions a lot earlier than we should be. This 
is very serious work. When you get involved in this kind of a vote, 
people casting positions on a resolution that has no value in law, it 
seems to me it is not in the best interest, as we try to grapple with a 
very serious and complex set of questions.
  I am caught in a situation where there are a lot of things the 
Commission did I like. There are things the Commission did I disagreed 
with. If forced to vote up or down, I guess I have to vote no, but I 
don't want my vote ``no'' to be construed as disagreeing with 
everything the Commission has done. If I thought the vote really was 
going to change the Medicare system, that would heighten the value of 
the vote, I suppose, to some degree. But since it doesn't have any real 
impact in law, and I am being asked, as a Member, to make a choice on 
this, I don't think it is really smart or wise for us to be put in that 
position on something as important and as complex, where there are 
serious disagreements over how we ought to proceed.
  I don't know procedurally what is possible, but this has been an 
interesting discussion. I suggest that maybe there is some way this 
could be vitiated and considered an interesting discussion and debate. 
But let's not ask Members to vote on a resolution that casts us in a 
position of making choices on a Commission where there will be a lot of 
legitimate disagreements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time requested by the distinguished 
Senator has expired.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues for listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I point out to my distinguished colleague 
from Connecticut that we are not voting up or down the work of the 
Bipartisan Commission. We very clearly say in this resolution:

       Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend the 
     solvency of the Medicare program and to ensure that benefits 
     under this program will be available to beneficiaries in the 
     future.

  We go on, on the next page, paragraph 6:

       Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendation of the chairman of the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

  Paragraph 7:

       Congress should continue to work with the President as he 
     develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the 
     Medicare program.

  Mr. President, what I am saying is, we ought to forget this debate, 
trying to argue about surpluses and so forth.
  What we want to do is to get on with the job, to work in a bipartisan 
spirit. I think the Finance Committee is known for working in a 
bipartisan spirit. I say to the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota, when I say that we are going to start work on this after the 
recess, that is what I mean and that is what we will do. I think the 
distinguished Senator knows me well enough to know that I am a man of 
my word.
  I ask that we proceed. Let us get the job done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have respect for the Senate Finance 
chairman. When he says he is going to do something, my experience with 
him is, he does it. That is not at issue here or at question.
  But I must tell you, I do not read this as a bipartisan amendment. 
There may be some Democrats who are on it--and I can understand why 
they are on it--but I tell you, this does not look, to me, like a real 
bipartisan message that is being sent with this amendment. It looks, to 
me, like a lot of bash-the-President's proposal and suggestions

[[Page 5791]]

that what is at the heart of the President's proposal, to transfer some 
resources from the general fund to strengthen Medicare, has no merit 
and that the answer is what the bipartisan reform Commission came up 
with--which did not achieve the necessary agreement of that Commission 
to make a recommendation.
  Frankly, I do not think this body should be in a position now to 
decide that is the answer. I do not think a plan to----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Right here:

       (6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendations of the chairmen of the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

  That sounds to me like an endorsement of the Commission's proposal. 
Am I wrong or right about that?
  Mr. CONRAD. It reads that way to me. I read the whole thing in its 
totality.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. People can disagree, but then a vote for this would be 
an endorsement of any number of the different recommendations. That 
might be good for some, but I want to make it clear to colleagues, if 
you move the Medicare age up from 65 to 67, you go forward with the 
notion of ``voucherizing'' Medicare, which is very different from 
Medicare today. To me, this is an up-or-down vote on these 
recommendations. I could not possibly vote for this right now. I hope 
other Senators will seriously consider that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. I just reclaim my time.
  Mr. President, I hope colleagues will resist this amendment. I think 
some of the statements in here are inaccurate. I think it sends a 
message which is not the message that should be sent at this time. I 
say that as somebody who is committed to reforming Medicare, as well as 
one who is committed to putting additional resources into the program.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Roth amendment. 
I recognize, as I know all of my colleagues do, that Medicare is facing 
very serious financial problems. I agree with the proponents of this 
amendment that Congress must act carefully and expeditiously, in a 
bipartisan way, to make the structural reforms necessary to preserve 
Medicare for both current and future seniors. And I want to commend 
Senator Breaux and all of the members of the Bipartisan Commission on 
the Future of Medicare, for working so hard in this effort and creating 
a starting point for reform.
  However, at this point, that's what the Breaux plan is--a starting 
point. I do not necessarily agree with every piece of the Breaux plan, 
but frankly, it is just too early for the Senate to endorse it. The 
Commission only finished its work last week, and most of us have not 
had a chance to study the plan in detail. In addition, the Roth 
amendment dismisses too quickly the President's proposal to devote 15% 
of the surplus to Medicare. Even with enactment of structural reforms, 
it is likely that more money will be needed for Medicare, and we 
shouldn't have to cut other health and education programs to find it. 
Even more importantly, in order for Medicare reform to be truly 
successful, it is essential that we all work cooperatively with one 
another--and with the President. It is unnecessary to pass an amendment 
that blasts the President's proposal without giving it full 
consideration.
  Mr. President, while I believe we must address Medicare reform, the 
Budget Resolution is not an appropriate nor meaningful place to do it. 
The Roth amendment would tie the Senate's hands. It would force us to 
declare right now that the Breaux plan is the best plan, and that we 
will not put even a fraction of the surplus into Medicare. I think that 
would be a mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Roth 
amendment, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, through his work on the Medicare Commission, 
Senator Breaux has offered some very strong recommendations to deal 
with our long-term problems in Medicare, and I hope that the Finance 
Committee will act expeditiously in considering these and other reform 
elements. While I share many of the sentiments expressed in this 
amendment, I don't believe it will bring us closer toward finding 
common ground on the Medicare question. Realization of comprehensive 
Medicare reform will require a genuine bipartisan effort from all 
parties involved, and we ought to be working to keep the political 
tension surrounding this debate to a minimum. I'm concerned that the 
wording of the amendment offered by Senator Roth will further divide us 
rather than bring us together on this important issue. For this reason, 
I will oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We would like to proceed, if we can, with the Kennedy 
amendment. I ask the Senator, you are on that same amendment, are not 
you?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just say, we can leave time for more debate on 
this. The problem is, we are going to run out of time, and people are 
not going to get any time on a score of amendments that they think are 
very, very important, also. From my standpoint, you have control of 
plenty of the time. If we can get on with the next one, you can reclaim 
time and use it off the bill if there is somebody who wants to discuss 
this issue.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we would be pleased to go to the next 
amendment and lay this one aside. If someone wants to return to it 
later, we can provide time to them. But we are ready to move on.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask, in terms of time, we still have how much 
time on the bill? Something like 8 and a half hours?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; approximately 8 and a 
half hours.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight hours 29 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has the time been yielded on the amendment itself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 3 minutes 14 
seconds; the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has 5 minutes 13 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to ask them to yield back their time. I 
ask unanimous consent that we set this aside temporarily while the 
Kennedy amendment proceeds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could ask the floor managers, the Senator from New 
York would like to have general time for 15 minutes, and then we will 
move ahead with this amendment. We will try to move it along rapidly 
and not take all the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, we will not take it off yours, 
but take it off the bill. We will charge it equally.
  How much time, I ask the Senator?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fifteen minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleagues, the Senators from New Mexico, 
North Dakota, and Massachusetts, for allowing me to make this address, 
which is of real importance to the people in my State.

                          ____________________