[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5793-5800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The Senate continued with consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 177

(Purpose: To reduce tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers and reserve 
                       the savings for Medicare)

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 177.

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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:

       Increase the levels of Federal revenues in section 
     101(1)(A) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $25,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $13,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $18,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $31,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $57,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $58,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $59,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $56,000,000,000.
       Change the levels of Federal revenues in section 101(1)(B) 
     by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $25,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $13,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $18,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $31,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $57,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $58,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $59,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $56,000,000,000.
       Reduce the levels of total budget authority and outlays in 
     section 101(2) and section 101(3) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $0;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $1,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $3,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $4,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $6,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $10,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $13,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $17,000,000,000.
       Increase the levels of surpluses in section 101(4) by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of public debt in section 101(5) by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of debt held by the public in section 
     101(6) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of budget authority and outlays in 
     section 103(18) for function 900, Net Interest, by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $0.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $1,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $3,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $4,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $6,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $10,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $13,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $17,000,000,000.
       Reduce the levels in section 104(1) by which the Senate 
     Committee on Finance is instructed to reduce revenues by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) $0 in fiscal year 2000.
       (2) $59,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004.
       (3) $320,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2009.
       On page 46, strike section 204.
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EXTENDING THE SOLVENCY OF 
                   MEDICARE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that the savings from the amendment 
     reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers should be 
     reserved to strengthen and extend the solvency of the 
     Medicare program.


[[Page 5794]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over these past 2 days, we have had some 
good debates and discussions about what is in the budget, and also what 
is not in the budget; and the particular emphasis and thrust of these 
various debates and discussions have been primarily on the issues of 
Medicare and Social Security.
  The thrust of the amendment that I offer today, on behalf of myself 
and others, is targeted on the issue of Medicare. It basically gives an 
opportunity for the Senate of the United States to say we are going to 
deal with the shortfalls in terms of the financial situations in 
Medicare prior to the time that we are going to consider a tax cut for 
wealthy individuals in this country. That will be the real choice for 
the Members here--whether we are going to say that at least meeting the 
financial obligations of Medicare comes before the tax breaks for 
wealthy individuals.
  As we have seen over the past 2 days, there is broad agreement that 
we not only need to provide financial security for the Medicare system, 
but we are also going to have to deal with the serious kinds of changes 
in the Medicare system. One of the important changes, I believe, is to 
put in place an effective prescription drug benefit for the elderly.
  In 1965, I remember being on the floor of the Senate when this issue 
came up. At that time, most health care plans did not include a benefit 
program for prescription drugs. At that time, we were attempting to 
follow what was a generally agreed benefit program. We did that. We did 
not include prescription drugs. Now prescription drugs are part of 
about 98 percent of all of the private company programs. We want to 
make sure we have an effective prescription drug benefit, not only 
because most companies have that benefit, but because of the enormous 
need our elderly have for getting prescription drugs at reasonable 
prices, and also because as we have all seen the breakthroughs in the 
use of prescription drugs in relieving suffering, illness, and 
sickness.
  So it is very simple, Mr. President. We are saying, let's move toward 
what has been recommended by the President, what we have referred to in 
general debate on other Social Security and Medicare issues, that 
before we are going to expend, over the 10-year budget period, $778 
billion in tax cuts, we will put aside some $320 billion over the 10-
year period in order to meet the financial needs of Social Security. 
That is basically what this amendment is all about.
  The fact is, Mr. President, if you look through the budget 
recommendation that has come from the Budget Committee, there is not 
one single penny in this budget resolution, in addition to current 
services, being put aside for the protection and the continuity of the 
Medicare system--not one, not a single penny. There will be references 
out here during the course of the debate that we have put aside $190 
billion, which is a new infusion of resources. That really represents 
current services. If you didn't do that, you would be having cuts in 
existing Medicare benefits. That $190 billion, over the 10-year period, 
which is referred to by the Budget Committee members, is just the 
current services program. To say we are going to keep what we are 
currently providing in the Medicare system, that has been understood 
and recognized.
  Secondly, there is a reference by some on the Budget Committee that, 
well, we have an additional $100 billion that can be used at some time 
for the Medicare system. But as we have seen over the course of the 
debate, those funds are also being designated, on the one hand, for 
natural disasters. It has been pointed out by members of the Budget 
Committee that they average about $9 billion to $10 billion a year over 
a 10-year period. There is the $100 billion. When our Budget Committee 
friends are asked how we are going to deal with the issues of natural 
disasters, the response is that we have the $100 billion in there to 
deal with natural disasters. If Budget Committee members are asked how 
are we going to provide additional funds for Medicare, they say, well, 
we have a $100 billion reserve that can be used for Medicare. Then when 
they are asked, well, where in this program is there a prescription 
drug benefit, they say, oh, haven't you seen the part of the Budget Act 
that is going to provide for prescription drugs? This is the most 
overutilized $100 billion that we can possibly imagine.
  As I pointed out in the Record, we will not see any of those funds 
realized, really, for the first 5 years. There is effectively a deficit 
in the first year of more than $6 billion, and effectively zero for the 
next 4 years is returned. So none of those funds are going to be 
available to try to deal with Medicare or any of these other issues for 
at least 5 years. Mr. President, what we are saying is that the money 
is out there.
  The other point that is made and has been recently debated is, you 
really can't get the 15 percent of the budget surplus earmarked for 
Medicare because it will be IOUs. I think my friend and colleague from 
North Dakota addressed that issue in the earlier debate and discussion. 
I found it interesting that they can use the IOUs for tax breaks, but 
they cannot use IOUs for Medicare. Clearly, you can use it for 
Medicare. That is what we are attempting to do.
  The vote will be very clear: whether we, on the one hand, are going 
to set aside the $320 billion--over the 10-year period--of the $778 
billion and say we are going to do that first. After we set aside that 
$320 billion, there will still be $458 billion that will be remaining.
  There is a difference in this body on whether that money should be 
used for the Republican tax cuts or whether we ought to use $273 
billion out of that for the President's tax cuts. We can debate that at 
another time. But there will still be a generous amount of resources 
available there for tax reduction.
  This amendment assures that we put priorities first. That is a very 
simple and fundamental concept--that is, whether we are going to put 
tax breaks first or whether we are going to be putting the protection 
of Medicare first. That is the choice. That is the issue that will be 
before the Senate. Without this particular amendment, we are not going 
to provide the needed financial resources in time for the preservation 
of Medicare.
  Now, Mr. President, I think it is important to realize who those 
funds we are talking about really belong to. The amounts I am talking 
about--$320 billion in this amendment, or the GOP tax cut, $778 
billion--those are basically the revenues that have been paid in by 
hard-working men and women in recent years. They have been paying into 
the Medicare system as well as into Social Security. That reflects the 
resources of hard-working men and women that are paid into the Federal 
Government. The question now is whether those resources that 
effectively have been paid in by working families, we are asking 
whether we ought to use those resources to protect the Medicare system, 
or whether they ought to be used for tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals. I don't think there is really a question about what the 
answer would be. This amendment gives the opportunity to do so. That is 
what we are attempting to do.
  Now, Mr. President, let's look at who these people are. The average 
Medicare recipient's income is $10,000 a year, is 76 years old, lives 
alone, has one or more chronic diseases, and is paying 19 percent of 
their income primarily for prescription drugs.
  That is the profile across this Nation of the Medicare recipient. 
When we talk about Medicare recipients on the higher end of the level, 
we are talking about individuals who are getting $25,000. But the 
overwhelming number of Medicare recipients are below the $12,000 or 
$13,000 level. We now asking in the Senate whether we are going to 
protect the health care system which they depend on prior to granting 
the tax break. That is the issue. We couldn't be clearer.
  As this chart shows, 80 percent of the Medicare expenditures are used 
for recipients with annual incomes of $25,000 or less. These are not 
individual incomes, these are household incomes. So you have 60 percent 
with $15,000 or under, you have 21 percent with $25,000 or under. 
Effectively, 80 percent of all

[[Page 5795]]

the expenditures are in that area--families, individuals, elderly 
people, or elderly couples, who have worked hard, paid into the system.
  As we have heard, the Medicare system has serious challenges, serious 
problems. No one denies that. The issue is, given the fact that the 
system is going to face ``financial instability''--to use it lightly--
by the year 2008, should we effectively put in place, as the President 
has, the recommended resources that will stabilize that to the year 
2020, and then move ahead and implement the kinds of recommendations? 
That is the issue. These are hard-working retirees who have devoted 
their lives to this country, built this country, and they depend upon 
the Medicare system for their livelihood.
  If we do nothing at all, what will the alternatives be? If we are 
going to try to keep the Medicare system functioning to the year 2020 
without this, there will be $686 billion necessary in benefit cuts or 
premium hikes for these elderly people. If we do nothing at all, we are 
going to have to collect that amount in benefit cuts or premium hikes. 
Those aren't my figures, those are the figures that have been given by 
the Commission, by the Budget Committee, by the independent actuaries, 
by the trustees. Those are the choices.
  I doubt if there will be a clearer opportunity for us to go on the 
record on the issue of priorities. The budget items are issues of 
national priorities, where we as the elected membership of the people 
feel the priorities ought to be. We are saying to those who are going 
to support this amendment that we believe the priority ought to be to 
provide financial security and stability for the Medicare system to the 
year 2020 before we give tax breaks to wealthy individuals. It is as 
simple as that.
  Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from North Dakota 
might want.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
this amendment, because I think it puts into stark relief what the 
choices are. Fundamentally, this debate is about what we do with the 
projected surpluses over the next 15 years. On our side, we believe 
that the best use of the surpluses is, first and foremost, to protect 
every dollar of Social Security surplus for Social Security.
  Then we turn our attention to Medicare, because we believe Medicare 
is also critically important to this country's future, and we recognize 
that it is endangered. We recognize that in 2008 it will be insolvent 
unless we take action. So we say take, of the surplus over the next 15 
years, 15 percent of that surplus--15 percent of that total unified 
surplus--over the next 15 years. Dedicate that to Medicare. That is 
some $700 billion.
  That still leaves resources for high-priority domestic needs like 
education and health care, defense, and, yes, tax relief. It is much 
less in the way of resources available for a tax cut plan than in the 
Republican priority list, because they really only have two priorities. 
Their priorities are safeguarding Social Security, which we commend 
them for; but their other priority is a massive tax cut. They don't 
provide an additional dollar out of the surpluses that we now project 
over the next 15 years to strengthen Medicare. We think that is a 
mistake.
  We have heard the other side repeatedly saying that putting this 
transfer of resources to Medicare will require raising taxes, benefit 
cuts, or increasing gross debt to pay for Medicare in the future. We 
have heard that said repeatedly on that side of the aisle. I would like 
to give an alternative view, because I don't think that is right. It 
sounds right. If one were expecting budget deficits in the future, it 
would be right. But that is not what we are anticipating.
  The fact is, we now project that there will be a surplus for more 
than a decade even after we dedicate part of the surplus to Medicare 
and Social Security. That is because by paying down the publicly held 
debt, the President's plan reduces net interest costs to the Federal 
Government and increases economic growth. Therefore, even after we 
start using the surplus to pay for Medicare and for Social Security, 
there will still be a budget surplus, hence no need for benefit cuts or 
for premium increases.
  Mr. President, that is central to what we are proposing and what we 
are advocating. We believe it is critically important to put Social 
Security first, but also to put Medicare first, because it has made a 
profound difference in the life of this Nation. We now know that 
without Medicare and Social Security, a significant chunk of our senior 
population would be below the poverty level. Two programs in the life 
of this country have lifted senior citizens out of poverty: Social 
Security and Medicare.
  So we believe that is where the priority ought to be: Social 
Security, and Medicare. After they are taken care of--after they are 
taken care of; after they are taken care of--then we can deal with 
other domestic priorities, certainly education and health care. And, 
yes, defense. And, yes, there would still be resources available for 
tax relief--not as much as the tax cut plan in the Republican budget 
resolution, because they don't provide one thin dime out of these 
projected surpluses to strengthen Medicare. They provide resources for 
Social Security surpluses to support Social Security. That is in our 
plan as well. Where we diverge is on the question of whether or not we 
are going to use some of these surpluses we now project to strengthen 
Medicare. That is really at the heart of this debate and this 
discussion.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Kennedy's 
amendment. This amendment will address critical needs and ensure that 
education investments are a top budget priority in FY 2000.
  Mr. President, as we know the problems facing education today are 
great. We need a strong commitment and partnership between federal, 
state and local governments to meet the needs of all students. Senator 
Kennedy's amendment will strengthen the effort to reduce class size, 
provide the full 40% federal share of special education program costs 
and free up resources for other education priorities. Importantly, this 
amendment is paid for in the budget we are now debating with a simple 
20% reduction in the $778 billion tax cut proposed by the majority.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, some of my colleagues who oppose this 
amendment are in effect asking school districts to choose between 
providing smaller class sizes and funding for special education. This 
is a false choice, Mr. President. Both special education and small 
class size are important national priorities, both deserve funding and 
we can responsibly fund these programs without busting the budget. 
Forcing school districts to choose between these critically important 
education programs will only dilute the effectiveness of both programs.
  Mr. President, funding for smaller class sizes should not be a 
partisan issue. Last year when we agreed to fund a serious effort to 
reduce class size there was broad support for the program proclaimed on 
both sides of the aisle. What has changed Mr. President? Only a few 
months after praising the class size program, some are now blocking 
class size funds and have pit one valuable education program against 
another all to fund a tax cut we cannot yet afford.
  Mr. President, there is wide consensus, based on solid research, that 
investing in smaller class size is the right thing to do. Research 
shows that smaller classes help teachers provide more personal 
attention to students and spend less time on discipline, as a result 
students learn more and get a stronger foundation in the basic skills. 
My own state of Wisconsin is doing its part to reduce class size. 
Wisconsin's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education or SAGE class 
size reduction program, has proven conclusively that smaller classes 
make a difference in our children's education. Mr. President, SAGE 
officials in Wisconsin want a partnership with the federal government. 
Now is the time when school districts in Wisconsin and in other states

[[Page 5796]]

are making budget decisions, they need to know if Congress will meet 
its commitment to reduce class size over the next six years to plan 
effectively.
  Again, Mr. President, I support Senator Kennedy's amendment because I 
believe Congress should meet both the commitment to help schools reduce 
class size and increase funding for special education without busting 
the budget. I hope my colleagues agree that we should not waste this 
unique opportunity to responsibly make the needed investments in 
education today for our children's future.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from New Mexico--
actually, if my colleague wants to respond, I will wait and follow his 
remarks.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator, but I would not do that at this 
point.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 
approximately 8 minutes and 10 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes remaining on the majority 
side.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the other question I want to ask my 
colleagues before I go on the time, I know the Senator from Indiana has 
been waiting to speak now. Would that happen after this debate? He has 
been waiting patiently. I don't want to precede him, but I wish to know 
what your plan is.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not choose to speak at this point.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is not my question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My question was, before I get started, I know the 
Senator from Indiana has been waiting patiently to speak, I think the 
first time he has had a chance to speak in the Chamber. I wonder if the 
Senator wants to wait until after this debate and then he can proceed?
  Mr. BAYH. If the Senator has a point he wishes to make, please feel 
free to go ahead.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. BAYH. No more than 10 minutes--general debate, not on the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to put the 
amendment aside and allow the Senator from Indiana to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair. I express my appreciation to my 
colleagues here today and find myself in agreement with what my 
colleagues from North Dakota and Massachusetts have been saying on this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, my statement today is in the nature of general debate.
  I rise to give my first public remarks on the floor of the United 
States Senate.
  I rise at this time because as debate on the last budget of the 20th 
Century begins, we have an historic opportunity to build a strong 
financial foundation for the 21st.
  The projected budget surpluses give us a once in a generation 
opportunity we must not squander. We must seize this moment of good 
fortune and replace the debt and deficit, borrow and spend mentality of 
the recent past with a more responsible approach. We must get our 
priorities right: preserve Social Security and Medicare, pay off our 
debts, target tax cuts to help working families and make investments in 
education and national defense.
  I believe strongly that the first step toward this more prosperous 
future must be to save Social Security and stabilize Medicare. To 
achieve this, I wholeheartedly support preserving 100% of Social 
Security Trust Funds for Social Security and 40% of other surplus funds 
for Medicare.
  Let me address Social Security first. By ending once and for all the 
irresponsible practice of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, we 
will extend the life of Social Security by 17 years to the year 2049. 
We owe it to our seniors to ensure that their Social Security will be 
safe, and our younger workers have a right to know that the system will 
be there for them one day. Using surplus funds to save Social Security 
first is the fiscally responsible, socially compassionate way to 
achieve this.
  Medicare, quite frankly, presents an even more urgent challenge. 
Without action, it will be insolvent in only eight years. To prevent 
this, I support dedicating an additional $376 billion of the surplus 
over the next ten years to Medicare. This will more than double its 
solvency, to 2020.
  But let me be very clear. These investments alone are NOT the 
complete answer to either Social Security's or Medicare's problems. We 
must be willing to make the difficult decisions needed to save these 
vital services, not just once, but once and for all.
  It won't be easy. None of the solutions is popular. But using the 
surplus to strengthen both Social Security and Medicare in the near 
term will make long-term, systemic reforms possible. The American 
people are much more likely to embrace difficult steps taken gradually 
than they are the more draconian action that not using the surplus for 
Medicare would entail. Those who propose nothing for Medicare today, 
court fiscal disaster tomorrow. We must not let that happen, and under 
our approach it will not.
  Our approach to saving Social Security and stabilizing Medicare has 
enormous benefits in addition to securing the future for our elderly 
and keeping commitments to our young. Doing so will also dramatically 
reduce the national debt.
  Paying down the national debt has many virtues. Lower debt will 
reduce our interest payments. Last year, 15 cents of every tax dollar 
went for nothing productive. It merely serviced our national debt. 
Under the approach I favor, interest payments shrink to only 4 cents of 
every tax dollar in ten years--a savings to taxpayers of $452 billion 
dollars. And if we continue this approach, the debt will fall to its 
lowest level--as a percentage of GDP--since 1917.
  With spending under control, a balanced budget, and government no 
longer borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars, interest rates will 
fall. This makes it easier for private businesses to invest. New 
investments mean greater productivity growth, higher wages, and more 
secure jobs for America's working men and women. The bottom line is 
clear: a better standard of living for all Americans.
  This isn't just my opinion. Last month, I had the opportunity to 
question the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, about 
this very subject. He too believes that paying down the national debt 
is the best way to guarantee a stronger economy and a responsible 
federal budget.
  As one of the principal architects of our current economic good 
fortune, Alan Greenspan knows that paying down the national debt is 
preferable at this point in the economic cycle to either spending 
increases or dramatic tax reductions the nation cannot afford. As the 
Chairman told me, ``. . . all of the arguments that one can make for 
tax cuts you can make for reduction in debt, they are the same forces. 
. .'' In addition, by paying off our debts now, we preserve the 
nation's ability to borrow again in the event of a future emergency and 
hold open the option of more aggressive tax cuts should the economy 
slow. Simply put: paying down the national debt is the responsible, 
conservative, economically and fiscally sensible thing to do.
  It is the just and morally responsible thing to do as well. It is not 
right to ask our children and grandchildren to pay our bills. No 
generation in American history has done so, and we must not become the 
first.
  Our legacy to future generations must be more than an IOU. Paying 
down the debt will keep faith with America's past and create promise 
for America's future.
  Saving Social Security and Medicare by paying down the national debt 
is a

[[Page 5797]]

significant undertaking, but if we act prudently, there is room for our 
nation's other important priorities, including targeted tax cuts. 
Throughout my public career, I have been a vigorous advocate for 
cutting the tax burden on American families. In fact, I believe that 
when it comes to tax cuts--the more aggressive, the better. As Governor 
of Indiana, I was proud to be able to give Hoosiers the largest tax cut 
in our state history.
  I strongly support targeted tax cuts here on the Federal level as 
well--tax cuts that will eliminate the marriage penalty, save family 
farms and businesses from the ravages of the estate tax, help families 
meet the expenses of child care or caring for an elderly parent, and 
create jobs and stimulate investment by reducing the tax on capital 
gains.
  There must be a balance among our priorities. We can't pursue one to 
the exclusion of all others. If we give into temptation, and recklessly 
pursue immediate gratification today, we will surely regret it 
tomorrow. And therein lies the difference between what we accomplished 
in Indiana and what some now propose in Washington. Our Hoosier tax cut 
plan was conservative, fiscally responsible, like the approach I 
support today. We never threatened to throw fiscal caution to the winds 
or require massive cuts in vital services for children or law 
enforcement.
  I will be the first to sponsor a tax cut bill--the bigger the 
better--but not one out of all proportion to our ability to pay for it, 
nor one that risks returning us to the days when America was drowning 
in a sea of red ink. We must cut taxes as aggressively as possible 
while still meeting our other important national priorities.
  Included in these important priorities are additional investments for 
national defense, education and law enforcement. These are the kind of 
areas where even modest investments today yield multiple benefits 
tomorrow.
  Because I strongly believe that government must make investments--
within its means, of course--in these important areas, I am troubled by 
the current budget resolution that would force drastic and unwarranted 
across the board budget cuts in many important domestic programs 
ranging from Head Start to the FBI.
  Mr. President, it is incumbent upon the Senate to resist the twin 
temptations of immediate gratification and postponing difficult 
decisions. Both parties, quite frankly, have been guilty of this for 
too long. Today it is the Budget Resolution that succumbs to these twin 
temptations, indulging us immediately with all the things we want while 
putting off until tomorrow the things we would rather not do but know 
we really must. This may be good politics. It is not good government.
  Despite the fact that we will not achieve a bipartisan solution this 
week, I am still heartened by how much closer both parties are today on 
fiscal issues than even in the recent past.
  It seems to me there is a national consensus growing, a consensus 
that cuts across party lines, that believes in some basic core 
principles: Saving Social Security and Medicare first, paying down the 
national debt, making targeted tax cuts for working families, and 
investing in our future. We can start down the road toward 
accomplishing these goals--something that is well within the grasp of 
this Senate--and, in so doing, build a better America. Also, we will be 
able to look our children and grandchildren squarely in the eye, secure 
in the knowledge that what we have done has not been just easiest for 
us, but also what is best for them.
  Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity, and for the 
indulgence of my colleagues, and yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Bayh for his 
words. It is an honor to be on the floor while you are speaking, and I 
thank you.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator suspend for just one moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be glad to, as long as I retain the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time, actually, is controlled by the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield time to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John 
Jennings, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the 
privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. Con. Res. 20, the 
budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has about 8 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I just yield myself a minute and a half.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to express my admiration and 
respect to my friend and colleague from Indiana on his maiden speech. 
It is an important speech because it deals with the economic future of 
our Nation. He brings a perspective to this issue as someone who has 
been an effective Governor and has had a broad reputation, not only in 
his State but throughout the country, as someone who understands the 
economics of his State well and has a reputation as a skilled Governor, 
making sure his State prospered and the benefits were going to go to 
the people.
  Now he speaks in the Senate as we are making a judgment, at a very 
important, critical time, given the change in our financial situation 
with the size of the surplus, and he has given us a great deal to think 
about. It is quite clear from his statement he has given it a good deal 
of thought.
  I thank him for his statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield time to the Senator 
from Minnesota?
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think this amendment that Senator 
Kennedy has brought to the floor is a major, what I would call, 
political economy amendment. It is a major values amendment. This 
amendment goes to the heart of what we are about as a nation, and we 
have a couple of choices. Either we can go with this budget resolution, 
which goes in the direction of massive tax cuts for the years to come 
disproportionately going to the highest-income citizens, with the 
Medicare trust fund expiring in the year 2008. Or we can take part of 
this surplus and use that to strengthen the Medicare program that we 
have in this country.
  If we do not do that--I just want to be really clear, and I know I am 
right about this, even though I do not want to be right--what we are 
going to see is either a cut in benefits or we will see the age 
extended for eligibility for Medicare, or we will see other proposals 
which will do major damage to the idea of this program as being a 
universal, comprehensive health care coverage program for senior 
citizens, albeit in my State of Minnesota only 35 percent of senior 
citizens have any coverage at all for prescription drug benefits.
  We need to expand Medicare, another reason to support the Kennedy 
amendment and albeit Medicare does not do anything to cover 
catastrophic expenses, which is a nightmare for people toward the end 
of their lives if they should have to be in a nursing home or if they 
look for support from home-based health care.
  But I would like to say to colleagues, as far as I am concerned in 
this budget debate, this amendment is the heart-and-soul amendment. We 
have a really clear choice. A budget resolution is a resolution; it 
gives us some general direction. My colleague from New Mexico 
undoubtedly will have a response. I wish I had time to respond to his 
response. But from my point of view, this

[[Page 5798]]

is a values debate. We can, with the surplus, as we look ahead, talk 
about tax cuts mainly going to those who are most affluent, or we can 
say we are going to reserve part of this surplus to bolster Medicare, 
which is a critically important program, not just for about 680,000 
seniors in Minnesota with an income profile pretty low, not very high, 
but, in addition, for their children and their grandchildren.
  This is a family values amendment. There ought to be nothing more 
important for us to do than to give general direction to the 
proposition and to the idea and to the core value that we are going to 
reserve part of this surplus to help bolster Medicare.
  I can make a lot of other proposals. Mr. President, how much time do 
I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just say to my colleagues, I would like to see 
also, above and beyond support for this amendment, talk about how we 
can strengthen Medicare in other areas.
  We should double the NIH budget. My colleagues, Senator Specter and 
Senator Harkin, are right, because the research and finding the cure 
for some of the diseases in our country like Alzheimer's and diabetes 
and Parkinson's will do wonders toward reducing Medicare expenditures.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 4 minutes have expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will get a chance to speak more on 
this. This is the critical vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from West 
Virginia wanted to address the Senate on a matter relating to the 
budget. I am wondering whether there is some time he can use.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator from West Virginia like?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from West Virginia would like to have 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes off the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say I don't have any objection. 
Obviously, even if I did, probably I couldn't do anything about it. But 
I do want to ask Senators if they would be somewhat helpful. I know, 
now that Senator Kennedy has a chart up that describes the Democrat 
plan that doesn't exist, and a Republican plan that doesn't exist, that 
everybody wants to come to the floor and talk about this. I remind 
everyone and ask their indulgence and help: We have about 35 to 40 
amendments that people want to be heard on. They are legitimately as 
interested as are colleagues on this issue, which we have already 
debated three times on three amendments.
  I am not going to argue about it. I say go ahead, we will give you 10 
minutes, but when you take it off the bill, it means it is not 
available for anyone at the end of this bill. So I ask we be a little 
bit helpful in that regard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I understand 
the point of the Senator. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  This particular Senator from West Virginia was a member of the 
Medicare Commission and I know, undoubtedly, several have spoken. But 
whatever amendments may be remaining, there cannot be many as important 
as the disposition of Medicare. Medicare is something that is not that 
well understood even though everybody knows what it is, and therefore 
it is subject to easy amendments and easy resolutions, and facts are 
entirely often lost.
  There is, I understand, a resolution or whatever praising the 
Medicaid Commission for its bipartisan efforts and the rest of it. 
Those of us who were on that Commission know that isn't and wasn't the 
case. It was not a bipartisan Commission; it was a Commission that was 
divided from the very beginning.
  It was a Commission in which there was really no give and take. Just 
so my colleagues can understand, the plan, which was being changed 
every 5 minutes, as certain Members sought to get votes here and there, 
was not even finally given to my office until 4 o'clock the day before 
the vote. I was in West Virginia so I didn't see the plan until an hour 
before the vote. It was really kind of a shambles of an operation.
  But that isn't nearly as important as the fact that beneficiaries pay 
more under this plan for the same or fewer benefits. It isn't nearly as 
important as the fact that the sick and the disabled were probably 
going to have to pay the most. The fact that this plan contemplates and 
its authors contemplate the numbers of years that 50 to 75 percent of 
all Medicare beneficiaries will belong to HMOs--of course, I don't 
believe that is ever going to happen. They do it, and it is reflected 
in their plan.
  Just imagine for a moment what that would mean, because HMOs would 
naturally attract the most wealthy and the most healthy. So what would 
that mean for the people in my State who are left in fee-for-service 
medicine? Fee-for-service would be a very small pot of money which 
would have to cover an enormous amount of people.
  The philosophy of the Medicare Commission fundamentally was that free 
enterprise can solve the problems of Medicare, and that is why they 
said 50 to 75 percent will join HMOs over the next 15 to 20 years. Of 
course, free enterprise had its chance to work with respect to people 
over 65 and did it so badly, that is the reason we created Medicare, in 
order not to leave it up to the market system in its entirety and to 
make sure that every senior had health care coverage.
  There was a lot of ideology involved in the Commission. There were a 
lot of people there primarily because of an ideological commitment, a 
commitment that was there from the very beginning. It was very obvious. 
There never really was any discussion of issues. There were speeches, 
but not much discussion. Seniors, I think, had very little idea of what 
was in the plan.
  Those who remember catastrophic health care--if Congress puts forward 
a plan and doesn't consult seniors and seniors aren't knowledgeable 
about it, you can have it thrown right back in your face. Medicare is 
not something you can fool around with.
  Speaking for my own point of view, representing the State of West 
Virginia, the average senior in West Virginia has a total gross income 
from all sources, of $10,763. Then, from that amount you subtract 
$2,000 to pay for their Medigap or their out-of-pocket expenses for 
health care which they can't get from Medicare, primarily prescription 
drugs. That means the average senior in the State has a gross income 
for a year of about $8,500.
  I will guarantee you, this Senator isn't fooling around with chances 
on Medicare. There is no way that I am taking a chance on Medicare, 
that I am betting on something that did not work prior to 1965, that 
suddenly people say will work after this Medicare Commission presented 
its plan which did not pass and which was basically defeated on a 
partisan vote, which was very, very sad. It was fated from the 
beginning, and it was very, very sad.
  I have chaired four national commissions. This was the fifth one I 
have been on. It was probably the worst experience I have had since I 
have been in the Senate. I say that with regret, because I care 
enormously about health care, and I care enormously about the people 
who ran the Commission. I thought they tried their very best, but it 
was fated to fail from the very beginning because of the ideological 
bent that it carried with it. I think a measure here to praise it is 
totally out of place.
  I mentioned prescription drugs. Everybody understands that when the 
President was wise enough to put aside 15 percent to pay down the debt 
so the money would become available because of the lack of higher 
interest payments for Medicare, that that was a very wise thing to do. 
That also allows us to contemplate prescription drugs. The Medicare 
Commission wouldn't even consider the use of that 15 percent. They

[[Page 5799]]

wouldn't consider it. As a result, prescription drugs are not uniformly 
available.
  Some seniors already have prescription drugs. They get it through 
Medigap. This would say, well, you would have to be up to 135 percent 
of poverty, but that just came in in the last week or so. That would 
disappear, I think, on the floor of the Senate, because I do not think, 
frankly, that the majority would want to see prescription drugs, 
because they would say it would cost too much. Well, they might be 
right. I think they are wrong. Seniors are now paying for it.
  Under this plan, they purport that prescription drugs are covered, 
but they are, indeed, not covered. Many beneficiaries would not have 
it. They talk about prescription drugs for low-income beneficiaries, 
but most would not have them.
  On one of the most extraordinary things that I think would very much 
affect the senior Senator from New Mexico, they punt. They don't even 
punt. They kick at the ball and miss it on the subject of graduate 
medical education. We do not have doctors in this country by accident. 
We have doctors in this country because their residencies and their 
postgraduate experiences are paid for, 50 percent by Medicare. Some 
people may not think that it should come out of Medicare, but if it 
doesn't come out of Medicare, then it should come out of some 
designated fund, an au pair trust fund or something of that sort.
  What is incredible about the Medicare Commission is that it simply 
says, we will leave graduate medical education or direct medical 
education up to the appropriations process, which is like saying 
goodbye to all foreign doctors, which are as important in New York City 
as they are in southern West Virginia, because foreign doctors are well 
trained and they get further training in their own country.
  Fifty percent of their expense is being paid for by Medicare. Under 
the appropriations process, they would disappear. So will many others. 
So will many others, because there will be no constant way of funding a 
very obscure program called Graduate Medical Education, which is the 
heart and soul of the training of good doctors and, therefore, good 
health care in our country.
  The Federal savings in this matter--and I won't talk on forever 
here--but the Federal savings in this are generally a sham. I think 
only about $95 to $96 billion out of the $346 billion or $347 billion 
that the Commission says they are saving actually comes out of what 
they call premium supports. All the rest comes out of cutting benefits, 
out of the Balanced Budget Act, which we passed in 1997, out of a whole 
series of other things, cutting doctors and hospitals, once again. The 
savings are made at the expense of the beneficiary, at the expense of 
good health care. I have very, very strong feelings.
  Just consider for one instance that 71 percent of the counties in 
this country have no medical plan, no HMO whatsoever. I represent a 
whole State. We have one. So where is the choice? There is no choice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I hope when that 
resolution comes up for a vote, Senators will vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
40 seconds remaining on the amendment. The Senator from New Mexico has 
30 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will reserve that time, and I will move 
on to another amendment, if that is agreeable to the floor managers. If 
I could have the attention of the floor managers, I am glad to either 
yield that time, if you were going to yield yours back. If you want to 
hold yours, I will hold mine. I am quite prepared to go on to another 
amendment. I do not want to hold up the Senate any further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
the leader, that at 12 noon today the Senate proceed to vote on or in 
relation to the following amendments, the first vote limited to 15 
minutes and other votes to 10 minutes each, with 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to each vote and no second-degree amendments in order 
prior to the vote--this has been cleared on both sides--Specter 
amendment No. 157; Robb amendment No. 176; Kennedy amendment No. 177. 
Is that the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Kennedy, I am just going to use a 
couple minutes.
  Did the Senator want the floor?
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if I might inquire of the Senator from New 
Mexico, I had indicated to him I have an amendment that I wanted to lay 
down. If he would not mind, I would be happy to offer it and ask 
unanimous consent we set it aside. And then he could proceed. I was 
hoping perhaps after the three votes we might debate this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. I believe the sequencing is, after the Kennedy 
amendment, we are going to do a Republican education amendment, and 
then we are going to return to your side for your amendment. If you 
would like to send it to the desk now, I ask unanimous consent that 
that be in order. We are not going to debate it now; right?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 178

    (Purpose: To provide $36,000,000,000 in additional agricultural 
                                funding)

  Mr. DORGAN. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, 
Senators Daschle, Harkin, Conrad, Baucus, Johnson, Durbin, Bingaman, 
and Kerrey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Kerrey proposes an amendment 
     numbered 178.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 43, strike beginning with line 3 through line 6, 
     page 45, and insert the following:

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR AN UPDATED BUDGET FORECAST.

       (a) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Years 2000-2004.--Pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget 
     Office shall update its economic and budget forecast for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004 by July 15, 1999.
       (b) Reporting a Surplus.--If the report provided pursuant 
     to subsection (a) estimates an on-budget surplus for fiscal 
     year 2000 or additional surpluses beyond those assumed in 
     this resolution in following fiscal years, the Chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall make the appropriate 
     adjustments to revenue and spending as provided in subsection 
     (c).
       (c) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget shall take the amount of the on-budget surplus for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004 estimated in the report 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and in the following 
     order in each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004--
       (1) increase the allocation to the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry by $6,000,000,000 in 
     budget authority and outlays in each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004;
       (2) reduce the on-budget revenue aggregate by that amount 
     for fiscal year 2000;
       (3) provide for or increase the on-budget surplus levels 
     used for determining compliance with the pay-as-you-go 
     requirements of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th 
     Congress) by that amount for fiscal year 2000; and
       (4) adjust the instruction in sections 104(1) and 105(1) of 
     this resolution to--
       (A) reduce revenues by that amount for fiscal year 2000; 
     and
       (B) increase the reduction in revenues for the period of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009 by that amount.
       (d) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised aggregates and other 
     levels under subsection (c) shall be considered for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     aggregates and other levels contained in this resolution.

     SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Adjustment.--If legislation is reported by the Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture,

[[Page 5800]]

     Nutrition and Forestry that provides risk management and 
     income assistance for agriculture producers, the Chairman of 
     the Senate Committee on the Budget may increase the 
     allocation of budget authority and outlays to that Committee 
     by an amount that does not exceed--
       (1) $6,500,000,000 in budget authority and in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $36,000,000,000 in budget authority and $35,165,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; 
     and
       (3) $36,000,000,000 in budget authority and in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  I say to Senator Kennedy, before I use a couple minutes and yield for 
your couple minutes, I ask if Senator Enzi, who has been waiting 
patiently and has an amendment to be cleared right quick, if he could 
comment on it. We could adopt it, and then we will, just before our 
11:50 time to offer all the amendments, be completed.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Will the Senator from Wyoming permit the Chair to appoint conferees 
on the supplemental?
  Mr. ENZI. The Senator will.

                          ____________________