[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18684-18697]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 4516, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 
     4516 making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand that under this conference 
report that is now on the floor, the Senator from Wyoming has an hour 
reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use up to 10 
minutes of that hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           prescription drugs

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the course of the last hour and a half, 
I have been both in committee and in my office. While in my office, I 
watched a good deal of the discussion going on here on the floor by 
some of my colleagues on the other side--Senator Graham from Florida, 
Senator Boxer from California, Senator Durbin from Illinois, and 
Senator Dorgan from North Dakota--talking about the issue of 
prescription drugs.
  There isn't a Senator here who does not recognize the importance of 
this issue primarily with the senior community in America today--
primarily with the poorer of that community who cannot afford some of 
the new drugs that are on the market that are clearly improving their 
lifestyle, extending their health, and allowing many of our citizens to 
live better and longer.
  That is why some of us, if not all of us, for the last couple of 
years have recognized the need to respond to the prescription drug 
issue within Medicare as a primary health provider in this country for 
our seniors. When that belief first came about, it came about in the 
context of the reform of Medicare. I think it is important to give a 
little history.
  With a health care program in this country that is 30 years old, we 
began to recognize that it was in trouble; that it was continuing to 
pay for health care needs that were sometimes no longer needed and 
costs continued to go up. We were constantly working to adjust it.
  In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we made adjustments. Some of 
those

[[Page 18685]]

were right; some of those were wrong. Some of those were interpreted by 
the Federal health care administrators in a way that Congress didn't 
intend, and we are going to make some of those corrections this year 
for nursing homes and hospitals. The fundamental question is and should 
be, Was Medicare providing the necessary health care needs of our 
seniors?
  Out of that grew the prescription drug issue. No question about it, 
as the President knows, these new designer drugs that are out on the 
market that are a result of our science, our technology, are doing 
wonderful things. They are not included. They are not a part of the old 
Medicare model that we created 30-plus years ago. That is why in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 this Congress and this Senate said: Let's 
create the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. 
Let's reform it to fit the 21st century and the needs of the seniors of 
America in the 21st century, and let's do that in the context of 
shaping it differently, making sure prescription drugs are a piece of 
it. That will be the new health care paradigm.
  The President appointed people. We appointed people. We worked. They 
studied. We brought in the best health care experts in the country and 
they brought about a report. Something happened along the way. We were 
getting closer and closer to an election cycle, and it appeared 
tragically enough that the other side saw this much more as a political 
issue than a need for substantive reform. As a result, that commission 
reported it lacked the one vote necessary for a majority to report back 
to Congress its findings and its proposal for the Congress to act.
  Interestingly enough, the two Democrats from the Senate, Senator 
Breaux and Senator Kerrey, who served on that committee, voted for the 
report. They saw it as a major step in the right direction and, of 
course, the President's appointees were advised to vote against the 
report, or so we understand. They voted against it. Eleven votes were 
needed to approve the commission's recommendation; 10 of the 17 
commissioners voted yes. We needed one more and we simply did not get 
it.
  Before the vote ever took place, President Clinton announced the 
commission had failed and that his own advisers would draft a plan to 
serve the Medicare program. I think what he was saying was that his own 
advisors would draft a political plan to serve the next Presidential 
election.
  The politics of Mediscare and prescription drugs moves now into the 
political arena. That announcement occurred in March of 1999. It 
literally was the sounding of a trumpet, the sounding of the fact that 
prescription drugs and Medicare without reform would become a part of 
the political mantra of the day; every Senator, Democrat and 
Republican, recognizing that we had to deal with prescription drugs. In 
fact, it was interesting to me that Senator Breaux said: We are not 
going to fix Medicare; we are going to be looking for issues to beat 
each other over the head with once again.
  That is what he said in the Congressional Record of March of 1999--a 
Democrat, referring to the commission and a failure of the commission 
and a failure of this President to stand up and be counted for at a 
time when we had a chance, a window of opportunity to make major 
national reform in Medicare and to include prescription drugs in it. We 
would not be here today voting or debating this issue had that report 
come forward, been crafted into law, in bill form, and been debated. We 
would have debated it. With that kind of bipartisan support it could 
have and it would have happened. But it didn't happen. And tragically 
enough, it is not going to happen this year.
  We are engaged in a national debate over which side can provide the 
best form of prescription drug program for the seniors of America. The 
debate in the field today between candidate George W. Bush and 
candidate Vice President Al Gore has now moved to the floor of the 
Senate. Prior to that debate, the Congress, in its budget resolution, 
said: Let's put $200 million in there to deal with prescription drugs 
this year so that seniors who are in true need, the truly neediest of 
the senior community who are making those choices between food and 
prescription drugs could be cared for. I hope we can still get them.
  While we have the national debate ongoing today between Governor Bush 
and Vice President Gore--and it is an appropriate debate to have--the 
Vice President, I don't believe, deserves another bite at the apple. He 
has had 8 years and he had a chance to go to this President and say: 
Let's do Medicare reform. Let's do it now in a bipartisan way. Let's 
take this issue off the table.
  That isn't what happened. It is just too ripe for politics. It is 
just too tasty an issue to engage in a national debate about it. That 
is what we are about today. It is now on the floor of the Senate. Vice 
President Gore has his prescription drug plan out; George W. Bush has 
proposed his; we will attempt to deal with ours.
  I have the privilege of now serving on the Finance Committee. The 
Finance chairman has brought about a bill and we hope to have it on the 
floor and we hope it will comply with the amount of money necessary in 
the budget to fund this in the short term to deal with the problem in 
the immediate sense. Governor Bush says: Let's deal with it now and 
let's give truly needy seniors the solution to the problem now.
  And Al Gore says: No, no, no; let's work on this--18 months, 2 years; 
We will have a better plan; we will have an all-inclusive plan.
  There are very real differences in what is proposed. Our Vice 
President says an all-Government plan, Government control, Government 
managed, universal for everyone. We are saying, no, no, we like the one 
in the model that the Governor from Texas has put up, with greater 
flexibility, more choice for seniors. It is very similar to what I 
have, and very similar to what the Presiding Officer has, under 
insurance, allowed to be provided for Federal employees by private 
providers. There is flexibility to make choices.
  I don't think I want a Federal warehouse in Boise, ID, distributing 
drugs to seniors 500 miles away at the other end of the State. I want 
the local pharmacy allowing the local senior to make the choice with 
his or her doctor as to what their true needs are and for those needs 
to be covered in Medicare. That is what the seniors of America want. 
They don't want the Government saying yes or the Government saying no.
  There are very real and fundamental debates. I suspect we are going 
to hear Senators such as the Senator from Florida now on the floor--and 
this is an important issue in a State with so many seniors, as has the 
State of Florida, and I don't dispute that. But it is important that we 
engage in this debate and that the American public stop and say, gee, 
is there a free lunch and are there free drugs? The answer is no. It 
will cost someone, and it will cost $200 or $300 or $400 or $500 
million, or $12 billion a year to do a universal program, or a lot more 
than that. We know it will be very costly. Therefore, it is right and 
proper to decide who can afford to pay and who can't afford to pay.
  How about those seniors who have their own health care program now 
that pays? Why would Al Gore want to wipe out those insurance programs 
and go to a Government program? I don't think any seniors who study the 
program and understand that are going to like that idea. They are going 
to want their own health care program that they paid for and that maybe 
is a condition of their retirement coming down from the company they 
had worked for all their lives. And they ought to have it. That is the 
kind of flexibility and the dynamics we ought to have in the 
marketplace.
  This Congress, in a bipartisan way, will ultimately solve this 
problem. We can do it this year a little bit of the way to help the 
truly needy. That is what we ought to do. I hope we can resolve that in 
a bipartisan fashion. Then we will allow the national debate to go on. 
We will ask every senior to compare the score charts, the Governor Bush 
plan versus the Al Gore plan--a Government plan versus a plan of 
choice, versus a plan of individualism; a relationship between a doctor 
and his

[[Page 18686]]

or her patient versus a relationship with a Government provider.
  That choice is going to be very simple for Americans when they are 
given it in a clear, understandable way. That is why I am on the floor 
today. Let's back away from the clutter and the finger pointing. Let's 
compare the plans--they are both out there now--on a point-by-point 
basis, and let us do what we can do here this year.
  We have $200 million built into the budget. We did it in advance, 
knowing we ought to deal with this issue. We ought to deal with it now 
for the truly needy seniors of America, those who make the horrible 
choice of food versus prescription, heat versus prescription. Not in 
America. Never in America should that be allowed to happen.
  I hope the politician will step back for a moment from the 
restrictions or complications of that issue and solve that problem now 
for our truly needy seniors while we allow the national debate to go on 
as to what America and American citizens wish to choose as a part of 
their overall health care needs.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
time of Senator Thomas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        The 90 Percent Solution

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the primary reasons I came to 
the Senate, was the fact that I believed we had spent money over the 
years on many things that, while important, we were unwilling to pay 
for, or, in the alternative, do without. We had a policy of ``let the 
next guy worry about it'' or more precisely, ``let the next generation 
worry about it.'' I have said this before and I will keep on saying it 
until everyone realizes that we have a national debt that is costing us 
$224 billion in interest payments a year, and that translates into $600 
million per day just to pay the interest.
  Out of every Federal dollar that is spent this year, 13 cents will go 
to pay the interest on the national debt. In comparison, 16 cents will 
go for national defense; 18 cents will go for non-defense discretionary 
spending; and 53 cents will go for entitlement spending. Right now, we 
spend more Federal tax dollars on debt interest than we do on the 
entire Medicare program.
  It still amazes me to think that 38 years ago, when my wife Janet and 
I got married, only 6 cents out of every dollar was going to pay 
interest on the debt. It is high time for our nation to make some 
headway into bringing down our national debt and lowering those 
interest costs.
  As my colleagues know, our nation currently enjoys the greatest 
economic expansion in our history. We have a robust economy, and across 
the nation, states are reporting record low unemployment rates. 
Congress should take advantage of this incredible opportunity to create 
a lasting legacy for the young people of our country, and pay down our 
national debt and get this burden off the backs of our children and off 
the backs of our grandchildren.
  All the experts say that paying down the debt is the best thing we 
could do with our budget surpluses.
  Indeed, CBO Director Dan Crippen said earlier this year:

       . . . most economists agree that saving the surpluses, 
     paying down the debt held by the public, is probably the best 
     thing that we can do relative to the economy.

  Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan also said:

       My first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus 
     to flow through into a reduction in debt to the public. From 
     an economic point of view, that would be, by far, the best 
     means of employing it.

  Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main 
Street. It encourages more savings and investment which, in turn, fuels 
productivity and continued economic growth. It also lowers interest 
rates, which in my view, is a real tax reduction for the American 
people.
  Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the 
only way we can ensure that our nation will not return to the days of 
deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn down or a 
national emergency arise.
  In the time that I have been in the Senate, I have worked tirelessly 
to ensure that our on-budget surplus is used to pay down the national 
debt.
  In fact, during consideration of the fiscal year 2000 and the fiscal 
year 2001 budget resolutions, I offered amendments that would direct 
whatever on-budget surplus we received in each particular fiscal year 
towards debt reduction.
  In addition, I have been a staunch advocate of ``lock boxing'' both 
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to prevent the expenditure 
of these funds.
  Further, I offered an amendment with Senator Allard this past June to 
direct $12 billion in FY 2000 on-budget surplus dollars toward debt 
reduction. By the way, it passed by a vote of 95-3.
  It was a great victory, but the celebration did not last long.
  Unfortunately, all but $4 billion of that $12 billion disappeared: 
used for other spending in the Military Construction Appropriations 
Conference Report.
  My disappointment was somewhat tempered by the news that the on-
budget surplus that had been predicted earlier in the year was entirely 
too low an estimate.
  As my colleagues know, in July, the CBO announced that our fiscal 
year 2000 on-budget surplus had grown to $84 billion--$60 billion more 
than was projected in January.
  We have to be careful not to squander this windfall, because if we 
are able to maintain some fiscal restraint--and resist the temptation 
to spend it in the time we have remaining--at the end of this fiscal 
year, that $60 billion will be used for debt reduction.
  We must resist the temptation to tap it before the end of this 
month--particularly in light of the fact that as of the first of this 
month, Congress had increased non-defense discretionary spending in 
fiscal year 2000 to $328 billion: a 9.3 percent boost over the previous 
fiscal year, and the largest single-year increase in non-defense 
discretionary spending since 1980.
  If we do resist the temptation to spend it, I think we should 
celebrate the fact that we have made a major dent in our national debt; 
the most significant payment using on-budget surplus funds in more than 
30 years. Think of that.
  But, the fiscal year 2000 budget cycle is just about over. The issue 
today is what are we going to do to strike a blow for fiscal 
responsibility in the coming fiscal year.
  As my colleagues are likely aware, Majority Leader Lott and Speaker 
Hastert have developed legislation, the Debt Relief Lock-Box 
Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 5173, that will allocate 
90 percent of the fiscal year 2001 surplus towards debt reduction.
  What will that mean?
  Under H.R. 5173, both the Social Security and the Medicare surpluses 
will be ``lock-boxed,'' and approximately $200 billion will be 
protected from those who would use those funds for more spending.
  I think the public should know, so there is no confusion, that it is 
not a literal ``lock box''--like a safety deposit box--but it is an 
iron-clad commitment that Congress cannot touch these funds for 
spending. Instead, those surplus dollars could only be used to pay down 
the debt.
  It took Congress until just last year to finally stop using our 
Social Security surplus as a means to mask more than three decades of 
spending and instead, use it for debt reduction. We should continue 
this ``hands off'' approach of the Social Security trust fund.
  Sadly, we have not yet been able to do the same with respect to the 
Medicare surplus--having used nearly all of it on spending in fiscal 
year 2000. Now is the time to treat the Medicare surplus the same as we 
have treated the Social Security surplus and make sure that it is 
subject to the same ``hands off'' policy as well.
  Putting these trust funds in a ``lock box'' doesn't mean that we will 
have solved the problems of Social Security

[[Page 18687]]

and Medicare, but using them to lower our debt now gives us added 
flexibility in the future to address the long-term solvency of these 
two programs. It is about time we reform Social Security and Medicare.
  Also under this bill, some $42 billion of the on-budget surplus that 
the CBO is estimating for the next fiscal year will be used strictly 
for debt reduction. No smoke-and-mirrors, no gimmicks, just straight 
debt reduction.
  Therefore, under H.R. 5173, 90 percent of all fiscal year 2001 
surplus funds will be used for debt reduction.
  I have heard the President and some of my colleagues say that this is 
just going to squeeze the ability to meet ``pressing needs'' in the 
coming fiscal year. I do not agree.
  If the disparity between the preliminary and supplemental surplus 
projections of fiscal year 2000 are any indicator, there will likely be 
an upward readjustment of the surplus projections in FY 2001.
  If our economy should slow and these projections turn out to be too 
optimistic, then we could cut spending--which would be fine as far as I 
am concerned. But in the meantime, this proposal will hold our feet to 
the fire with respect to spending, and our feet need to be held to the 
fire.
  My colleagues and I are not asking for a lot, simply that this body 
stand up and be counted. I hear people every day saying let's do 
something about the national debt. I hear the President of the United 
States say it is a problem and we need to address it. So, I say to my 
colleagues that if we agree that we need to bring down the debt, then 
let's take advantage of the chance to do so and let's enact this 
proposal.
  Reducing the national debt has been a principle of my party. It has 
been a principle of mine throughout my political career. First of all, 
you don't go into debt. But, if you do, you get rid of it.
  Here we have an ability to put our money where our mouths are, and 
say, yes, we do believe in reducing the national debt. We are going to 
take this money, put it aside, and pay down the national debt.
  And while I personally would like to see as much of the on-budget 
surplus used for debt reduction as humanly possible, I believe this is 
the best proposal we are going to see as negotiations get underway over 
the fiscal year 2001 budget.
  Nevertheless, I believe by capping spending and tax cuts for fiscal 
year 2001, and locking in set amounts of debt reduction, as this 
proposal does, we will have effectively established a good first step 
towards further fiscal responsibility in fiscal year 2002 and beyond. 
In other words, it establishes a down payment for us to do even more 
meaningful debt reduction in years ahead.
  I think GAO Comptroller General David Walker said it best when he 
testified last year before the House Ways and Means Committee. Here is 
what he said:

       This generation has a stewardship responsibility to future 
     generations to reduce the debt burden they inherit, to 
     provide a strong foundation for future economic growth, and 
     to ensure that future commitments are both adequate and 
     affordable. Prudence requires making the tough choices today 
     while the economy is healthy and the workforce is relatively 
     large--before we are hit by the baby boom's demographic tidal 
     wave.

  When I came to the Senate, I had one grandchild. Today, I have three. 
Like all other Americans, I think about what the future has in store 
for them and about the legacy I want to leave to my grandchildren.
  We have a moral obligation to remove the debt-burden that we have 
placed on their backs. It is up to this Congress--in the weeks we have 
left--to pass the Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for our 
children and grandchildren and for the future of our Nation.
  The House of Representatives has already stepped up to the plate and 
passed this bill overwhelmingly, by a vote of--listen to this--381 to 
3. It is up to the Senate to do the same.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak on the time that has been 
reserved for Senator Kennedy and ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are now debating a conference report 
that includes both the legislative branch and the Treasury and general 
government appropriations bills. Unfortunately, the Treasury and 
general government bill was never considered on the Senate floor. It 
went directly from the Appropriations Committee into this conference 
report.
  There are some critical deficiencies in the Treasury and general 
government appropriations bill, deficiencies that I had hoped to 
address on the floor with an amendment. I am now prevented from doing 
that. The deficiencies to which I want to call the attention of my 
colleagues involve counterterrorism funding, an issue that should be of 
particular concern to each of us.
  As you know, terrorism is a national security threat, a threat which 
Americans have experienced in reality. Just to mention the names: 
Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, Pan Am 103. Each 
of these reminds us of how deadly terrorism can be and how vulnerable 
we are to it.
  What most Americans do not know is that there are many more instances 
of attempted terrorist activities that have been averted by a 
combination of good intelligence and effective law enforcement.
  The apprehension of a terrorist crossing into the United States by 
Customs agents just prior to the millennium celebration is one well-
known example of the success that we have had in interdicting 
terrorists before they can strike.
  While terrorists have been around for a long time, their actions are 
becoming increasingly more deadly. In the past 5 years, over 18,000 
people someplace around the world have been injured or killed in a 
terrorist incident. That 18,000 number of persons injured or killed by 
terrorism in the last 5 years represents a threefold increase over the 
preceding 5 years.
  With the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and 
even nuclear weapons as a real threat, the potential for even deadlier 
attacks is a reality. This makes efforts to prevent attacks even more 
vital.
  Earlier this year, the congressionally mandated National Commission 
on Terrorism issued its report. The report is called: ``Countering the 
Changing Threat of International Terrorism.'' This report concluded 
that international terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and 
difficult threat, and that countering the growing danger of this threat 
requires significantly enhancing U.S. efforts.
  It further states that priority one is to prevent terrorist attacks 
using U.S. intelligence and law enforcement as our principal tools to 
prevent such attacks.
  I would also like to cite a recent report by the Commission on 
America's National Interests. The Commission on America's National 
Interests is a commission on which Senators Roberts, McCain, and myself 
are members.
  The commission's report on ``America's National Interests,'' dated 
July 2000, lists as a vital interest that:

       Terrorist groups be prevented from acquiring weapons of 
     mass destruction and using them against U.S. citizens, 
     property and troops.

  The commission's report goes on to state:

       As one of the most free and open societies in the world, 
     the U.S. is also among the most vulnerable to terrorism. . . 
     .
       Protecting American citizens both at home and abroad 
     requires a well-coordinated counter-terrorism effort by all 
     U.S. government agencies, giving due regard for fundamental 
     American civil liberties and values.

  The report on ``America's National Interests'' continues:

       Given the severity of the potential consequence of a weapon 
     of mass destruction terrorist incident, as well as the rising 
     technical capacity of non-state actors, the U.S. government 
     should attach the highest priority to developing the capacity 
     to preempt these threats if possible, and mitigate their 
     consequences if necessary.

  Mr. President, I repeat from the report on ``America's National 
Interests''

[[Page 18688]]

that ``the U.S. government should attach the highest priority to 
developing the capacity to preempt these threats if possible, and 
mitigate their consequences if necessary.''
  This report could not have been more clear. Yet still another group 
of experts studying U.S. national security, the U.S. Commission on 
National Security, commonly known as the Hart-Rudman commission, 
concluded in its April 2000 report that our No. 1 priority should be to 
ensure that the United States is safe from the dangers of a new era: 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It 
specifically mentions ``strengthening cooperation among law enforcement 
agencies, intelligence services, and military forces to foil terrorist 
plots. . . .''
  The words of these three significant reports, as well as many other 
Americans, did not go unheeded by the administration. The President 
recognized the growing importance of law enforcement and intelligence 
in countering the terrorist threat even before these reports were 
released. He sent to Congress a request for over $300 million in 
additional funding for exactly the types of enhanced counterterrorism 
efforts that these three commissions are recommending.
  What has happened in the Congress? Of the approximately $300 million 
requested, a portion of which was requested in a classified form, as it 
will be used by various intelligence agencies, $28 million of that $300 
million was for reprogramming requests in the fiscal year that is about 
to conclude on September 30. What happened? That request for 
reprogramming was rejected, rejected including $10 million for the 
Department of the Treasury and $18 million for the Department of 
Justice.
  I am sad to report that in the bill before us today, the fiscal year 
2001 appropriations request, which begins on October 1, did not fare 
much better. There was a $71.1 million request for the Department of 
Justice. This has been completely unfunded in both the House and the 
Senate appropriations committees and thus in this conference report. 
There was a $77.2 million request for the Department of the Treasury 
which should have been included in the bill we are currently debating; 
$74 million of that remains unfunded.
  In addition, the request for the intelligence community was not 
funded in the fiscal year 2001 legislation. In total, of those amounts 
which are available for public review, of the $300 million requested by 
the President, $146.1 million was unfunded.
  Let me describe a couple of specific initiatives that are 
particularly important and that so far have not been funded in either 
the House or Senate appropriations bill.
  First, the administration requested over $40 million to support the 
Joint Terrorism Task Forces. These are interagency law enforcement 
groups which combine resources and expertise for a more effective and 
efficient effort to deter and investigate terrorists. This is a proven 
concept that brings agencies together to solve problems, hopefully 
problems before they mature into tragic instances. The Joint Terrorism 
Task Forces were very successful in deterring and preventing terrorism 
during the millennium. I cannot understand why this Congress would not 
support this request.
  Second, the President requested $6.4 million to create a unit within 
the Office of Foreign Asset Control dedicated to uncovering and 
tracking the financial assets of terrorist organizations. This is an 
area of law enforcement in which America, in the area of terrorism, is 
woefully deficient. It is vitally important that we establish this new 
office and that we gain an insight and an ability to oversee and 
control terrorist financing. This was a specific recommendation of the 
National Commission on Terrorism. This item was rejected, and so our 
woeful deficiency will continue for another year, if the current 
position of Congress, including the position of the legislation before 
us this afternoon, becomes law.
  In fact, there were several items that were included in the 
President's request that the Commission on Terrorism specifically 
recommended. They include increased resources to meet technology 
requirements, expansion of linguistic capabilities, increased funding 
for investigative initiatives--all of those unfunded.
  There is also an as yet unfunded request to establish a Center for 
Anti-Terrorism and Security Training. This will provide a centralized 
training facility for those on the front lines fighting terrorists 
around the world, including our own Capitol Police, diplomatic security 
officers protecting our embassies abroad, and our allies who look to us 
to help them in their fight against terrorism. The counterterrorism 
funding I am highlighting is desperately needed. All agencies have 
agreed that we need to do more to step up our efforts against 
terrorism. These requests are supported by the bipartisan National 
Commission on Terrorism and, in more general terms, the Commission on 
America's National Interests, and the Hart-Rudman commission.
  What I find especially hard to imagine is why we would refuse this 
$300 million request when it is so widely recognized that the cost of 
failure, when it comes to terrorism, involves weapons of mass 
destruction and could be in the billions of dollars. This is an area 
where we must do absolutely everything we can on the prevention side to 
avoid, to interdict acts of terrorism before they are inflicted upon 
our citizens.
  Mr. President, there is yet another consequence of the action we are 
being asked to take by supporting an appropriations bill which is so 
deficient in meeting this key area of our Nation's security. All too 
often we are seen as pushing other governments to do more in the fight 
against terrorism, to help us in an international effort against 
terrorism. If we are unwilling to support what our own experts tell us 
is needed, what is in our national interest, how can we be effective in 
convincing others to do more? I don't think there is an answer to that 
question. We must practice what we preach.
  The good news is there is still time to remedy the situation. I hope 
the appropriations committees will fund the President's request for 
counterterrorism funding. This is about a real threat that is here 
today and cannot be ignored. Failing to take action on this modest 
request is irresponsible. Those who call for spending more for 
potential future threats and for increasing spending on other national 
security priorities cannot ignore the vital national interest, the 
first-line priority of an effective national protection against 
terrorism.
  I will express my dismay, my shock at what has been done by the 
Congress thus far by voting against this bill. And should the Congress, 
in its lack of attention or lack of appropriate recognition of the 
importance of terrorism, should we pass this appropriations bill, which 
is so deficient in responding to the challenges of terrorism, then I 
will urge the President to veto this bill and give the Congress an 
opportunity to redeem itself from what is potentially a very serious 
error--placing the national security of the United States at risk.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some of my leader time to 
comment briefly on the pending legislation.
  I come to the floor to express my strong objection to the manner in 
which this was presented to the Senate. It is wrong, it is dangerous, 
it is shortsighted, and it does a real disservice to this institution, 
period.
  I have no objection to appropriations bills coming to the floor, as 
they must. I have no objection to perhaps even limiting the amendments 
at this late date to relevant legislation that may be affected in the 
bill. But I do have a strong reservation when we gag the Senate, as we 
have once again, limiting debate about important matters directly 
relating to tax and appropriations in a way that precludes the right

[[Page 18689]]

of every Senator to be fully engaged in these deliberations.
  I have heard again and again from colleagues on the other side that 
it is our desire to slow things down--to stop things. Let me say that 
is poppycock. No one here wants to slow anything down. In just a moment 
I will present a list for the Record of all the things we are prepared 
to take up this afternoon--this afternoon.
  We know why this package was cobbled together in the form and manner 
in which it now appears before the Senate. It was put together to deny 
us the right to offer amendments--something we seek to do not because 
we want to slow things down but because we want a voice.
  I am not necessarily opposed to the telephone tax repeal. Senator 
Robb has been an extraordinary advocate of that. I give him great 
credit for getting us this far. But I must say I think it begs the 
question at this hour, with our Republican colleagues clamoring for 90 
percent of the surplus to be used for debt retirement, should we would 
choose the telephone tax, of all things, as one of the items to be paid 
for with the remaining 10 percent of the surplus our Republican 
colleagues suggest should be available for both tax reduction as well 
as investments?
  I am told there is about $28 billion left in the budget if we reserve 
90 percent for the surplus. If we assume for the moment that we accept 
the Republicans' proposal to use 50 percent of that $28 billion for tax 
reduction and 50 percent for investments, that leaves about $14 billion 
for tax reduction in the remainder of this year. Fourteen billion 
dollars isn't a lot of money when you are talking about the proposals 
we have had to vote on this year, but $14 billion represents what the 
Republicans would make available for tax cuts.
  The telephone tax would use up one-third of what they would allocate 
for tax reduction in this fiscal year--one-third. Maybe we want to 
commit one-third of the remaining surplus for tax reduction to the 
telephone tax.
  But this Senate is denying us the opportunity to suggest something 
else. This Senate is denying us the opportunity to offer amendments and 
to have a debate. In fact, I must say I will bet you most people are 
going to vote on this and they don't even have a clue what the 
telephone tax is. I know the Presiding Officer does. He just noted that 
to me. But I will venture a guess that a lot of people do not.
  That is just one of the problems we have with this course of action.
  I don't have any objection to taking up the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill. I don't have any objection to taking up 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill. But I do have an objection when 
the administration informs us that we have virtually eliminated funding 
for counterterrorism and have not provided the funding necessary for 
the IRS and we have been denied the opportunity to at least debate 
these issues.
  Then I am told indirectly that, well, we will come up with the money 
somewhere on another vehicle. I am mystified by that approach. What is 
it that leads us to think we can find the money elsewhere, at a later 
date, if we can't find it now? And if we can't find it now, it just 
seems to me we are premature in moving the bill forward until we can 
find it.
  There are a lot of specific practical problems that I hope my 
colleagues share about this approach--problems related to our ability 
to participate in the process, problems related to our ability to offer 
amendments, problems related to the fundamental rights of every Senator 
to be involved in the debate, problems related directly to the 
substance of the issues on which we are now voting. Those are serious 
problems, and they shouldn't be minimized. But beyond that, I have 
fundamental problems with the precedent we are setting here.
  There are many who may come into the Senate in future years who, if 
we continue this process, may come to the conclusion that if it is good 
on appropriations, why not on any authorization? Why not on a tax bill? 
Let's just go from committee to conference. Let's forget this Chamber. 
This Chamber might well be additional office space someday. We don't 
need a Chamber anymore--not for deliberations, because there are none.
  Where does it end? Not in our generation. I am sure this will be a 
slow process. But, institutionally, anybody who cares about the way the 
Senate should be run should care about the process we are using now.
  I don't know what message it sends to our young Members on either 
side of the Chamber about the way we do business around here. But I 
don't want to have it heard or said on the Senate floor anytime in the 
near future that this is the greatest deliberative body, because we 
aren't deliberating. We are not deliberating on these issues, we are 
rubber stamping. We are sending them through the process the way you 
might expect it done in the House, but it doesn't, and it shouldn't, 
happen here. Institutionally, Republican or Democrat, old or young, it 
shouldn't matter. I am troubled, very troubled, by this process.
  As I said a moment ago, we have no objection--none--to moving to 
other bills. I will not do it. But I would love to ask unanimous 
consent to move, immediately following the conclusion of our debate on 
this package, to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. Guess 
what. I would get an objection on the other side. I am not sure why. I 
don't know why. But I know this. We haven't brought it up because 
somebody over there doesn't want it to come up. That isn't us.
  I would love to ask unanimous consent to take up the D.C. 
appropriations bill, the intelligence authorization bill, and the H-1B 
bill. Let's take them up. Let's have a debate. Let's offer amendments. 
I have offered to Senator Lott that we could take up the H-1B bill with 
five amendments on a side with an hour limit on each amendment, period. 
We would be done in a day. I believe we could do it in a day. The other 
side has rejected this offer.
  Don't let anybody say with a straight face or with any credibility 
that it is Democrats holding things up. Let's get to these bills. Let's 
get them done. Let's offer amendments. But, for heaven's sake, let's 
remember this institution. Let's call it the most deliberative body and 
mean it. Let's recognize the institutional quality.
  It degrades us each time something such as this happens.
  I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are about through with this debate, as 
demonstrated by the fact that Senators on neither side are coming to 
the floor. We would be able to vote more rapidly than anticipated 
except that some Senators have made appointments based on the 
assumption we would not be voting until 3:30 or 4. However, we have 
cleared on both sides that we can vote on the adoption of the pending 
conference report at 3:15 and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived. I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the adoption of that 
time and the waiving of that rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.

[[Page 18690]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly vote on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act for 2001.
  As the managers have stated, this conference report also includes the 
Treasury-general government bill for fiscal year 2001.
  Many Senators have voiced concern about the inclusion of the Treasury 
bill, which had not previously passed the Senate, in this conference 
report. Many Senators have questioned me personally about this. Having 
served in this body for nearly 32 years, I understand and share that 
commitment to the procedures of the Senate and want to do my best to 
preserve the rights of all Senators.
  I am here to ask Senators in this case to consider the product rather 
than the process by which this conference report comes before the 
Senate. This report addresses critical funding priorities for all of 
the elements of the legislative branch. Senator Bennett and Senator 
Feinstein have achieved a very balanced agreement with the House on the 
underlying bill that merits the support of the Senate.
  In the Treasury bill, substantial changes were made to the committee-
reported bill, the bill that came out of our Appropriations Committee, 
to accommodate priorities of the Members of the House and of the 
executive branch, both in terms of funding and of legislation. It would 
be preferable to have this bill come separately before the Senate, but 
the Appropriations Committee now finds itself in the stranglehold of 
the calendar.
  In all likelihood, we have about 10 voting days remaining in this 
Congress. We are working to compress weeks of work into a handful of 
days. There are additional changes that Members and the President seek 
in the Treasury portion of the conference report. I have extended my 
personal commitment to Senator Dorgan to work with him and Senator 
Campbell to try to incorporate those adjustments into another 
conference report. I also have given my word to Senator Reid concerning 
problems regarding the police section of the legislative bill itself.
  Adoption of this report now will permit us to redouble our efforts to 
conclude our work as rapidly as possible on the other bills that still 
pend before Congress, and we will be able to achieve the changes some 
sought to make in the current bill. Any other course will set the 
Senate and the Congress way back in getting our job done.
  If this conference report is not approved, we will have to find some 
way to go back to conference with the House. And if it is decided that 
we must bring the Treasury bill before the Senate, I can assure 
Senators that we will have a postelection session.
  It is just not possible to finish these bills before the election and 
get home in a reasonable amount of time--at least before the election--
for the Members of the House and Senate who are up for election to 
conduct their campaigns.
  I don't know of any other way to do what we have to do, other than to 
try to match up some of these bills in conference. There are lots of 
issues that both sides of the aisle may disagree on and fight over 
during the days that remain in this Congress.
  The bill before the Senate, I believe, is a reasonable bill, 
comprised of two separate bills that meet important national 
objectives. I have come to the floor to urge the Senate to support this 
conference report, to accept the commitments that I and others have 
made concerning the additional concerns expressed on the floor, and let 
our committee complete its work.
  I report to the Senate that conferences are scheduled today on the 
Interior bill and Transportation appropriations bill. But there is one 
thing Senators should know; our committee will be working every day--
not just the 10 days of votes--between now and adjournment to try to 
finish the bills before the scheduled day of adjournment, October 6. 
Even when that day comes, it will not be the last day for the 
Appropriations Committee. We will have to await the outcome of the 
President's review and determine whether there have to be changes made 
in the bills following the veto, should that occur. I am not predicting 
it will occur, but it might.
  If the Senate votes and approves this bill and sends it to the 
President, it is going to lend real momentum to concluding the 
appropriations process in a very responsible way this year. There have 
been things that held up these bills this year, including many days on 
the Senate floor with cloture motions and other matters. I am not 
critical of those. That is very important work for the Senate to do.
  Now we are in the appropriations process and we are trying to deal 
with a period that will really end on the 28th, not the 30th, because 
of the holiday and our recess next week. We have to find a way to 
complete these bills.
  The Senators who want to vote against the bill ought to be prepared 
to come back after the election. We are not going to be able to finish 
these bills separately this year. We are going to have to find a way to 
join them together. I, for one, have lived through too many 
postelection sessions. I don't want to live through another one. I urge 
Members of the Senate to support this conference report and let us get 
on about our work.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, with passage of the legislative branch 
appropriations conference report, the Senate will successfully roll 
back one of the most regressive taxes in history and given Americans 
everywhere a much-deserved break.
  For some time, now, I have pushed to repeal the telephone excise tax, 
a tax that is placed on individuals and families, regardless of income 
or circumstances.
  Quite simply, if you owned a phone, you paid the tax, and along with 
its regressive nature, the tax was lamentable because it stood as one 
more example of how antiquated, unfair, counterproductive government 
policies not only outlive their original design, but become almost 
impossible to abolish.
  The telephone excise tax was first imposed in 1898, more than 102 
years ago. Its purpose was to fund the Spanish-American War, to provide 
for those who, like Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, needed the 
wherewithal to defend U.S. interests.
  At the time it was imposed, it came as something of a luxury tax--a 
tax on the wealthy, as few Americans owned telephones.
  Roosevelt rode up San Juan Hill. The war came to an end. But 
Washington couldn't resist holding on to the revenue. From time to 
time, the tax was repealed, but it always seemed to get reinstated--
rising as high as 25 percent at one point--and placing an unfair burden 
on millions.
  Today, however, we shall successfully eliminate the telephone excise 
tax, and this--in my mind--is cause for celebration. Studies show that 
individuals and families with income less than $10,000 spend almost 10 
percent of their income on telephone bills. Individuals and families 
earning $50,000 spend 2 percent of their income for telephone service. 
Because of what we have done here today, these families--and all 
families--will benefit.
  I'm proud of this action, grateful to those who supported repealing 
this excise tax. What we have done is not only in the interest of 
Americans everywhere, but it is a clear demonstration that we are 
willing and able to appropriately address the need to reduce the 
excessive tax burden that has been placed on the back of America's 
middle class.
  My sincere hope is that this is the beginning of a long and 
successful trend.

[[Page 18691]]

  On another issue, I am concerned that the legislative branch 
appropriations conference report--while it contains good news for 
taxpayers--while it contains good news for taxpayers--does not meet the 
full funding needs of the Internal Revenue Service. As you know, 2 
years ago in a major bipartisan initiative, Congress successfully 
passed the largest IRS reform and restructuring effort in history. That 
law has been effective in protecting taxpayers and giving the IRS the 
direction necessary to re-engineer its business practices, upgrade its 
computer systems, and provide taxpayers with better service.
  But in order to most effectively carry out Congress' mandate, and to 
fulfill its mission to collect and protect the Federal revenue, the IRS 
needs adequate funding.
  This appropriations conference report, unfortunately, provides 
hundreds of millions of dollars less than what the agency needs. And 
the absence of proper funding will cut directly into the improved 
conditions that Congress desires. Unless additional funding is 
provided, the Service may be unable to effectively perform its audit 
and collection functions. Without adequate funding, service functions 
will diminish.
  There will be a loss of telephone and walk-in service for taxpayers, 
a decrease in the level of toll-free service, and it will become more 
difficult for taxpayers to receive assistance.
  We must provide additional funds to the IRS in other appropriate 
bills before this Congress adjourns. Only by doing this can we ensure 
that the IRS has the resources it needs to meet the standards of 
service and accountability that Congress has required.
  Along with eight members of the Senate Finance Committee, I have 
signed a letter to members of the Appropriations Committee asking that 
funding be restored. And I intend to work with my colleagues toward 
this end.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask consent that the vote occur on 
adoption of the pending conference report at 3 p.m., and that paragraph 
4 of Rule 12 be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Minimum Wage

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak this afternoon on an issue 
which is important to all Americans, particularly the 10 million who 
are presently working for a minimum wage. Senator Kennedy of 
Massachusetts will join me in a few minutes to discuss the issue, which 
has been a major crusade for him for the last several years.
  Earlier I noted that until the mid-1980s the issue of a minimum wage 
increase was never a partisan issue. In fact, Republican and Democratic 
Presidents alike endorsed the idea of periodically trying to increase 
the minimum wage to reflect the cost of living. But for some reason, in 
the mid-1980s, that all changed. It became a Democratic and Republican 
battle as to whether people who were earning a minimum wage should be 
able to keep up with the cost of living, keep up with inflation. 
Because of that battle, fits and starts and the wins and losses, many 
minimum wage workers across America started falling behind. In fact, 
their buying power, working for a minimum wage, was diminishing because 
Congress had failed to give them an adequate increase in their income 
to keep up with the cost of living.
  Some arguments on the other side suggested: If you raise the minimum 
wage for workers who have no skills, entry level workers, it is going 
to basically kill jobs because employers are going to have to make a 
choice. They are either going to pay more to a minimum wage worker on 
the job and then reduce the size of the workforce or pay less to that 
minimum wage worker and keep a larger workforce.
  It seems as if there is linear logic to this argument, but, in fact, 
when you look at it, the economic history of this country just does not 
back it up. As you will notice on this first chart which I am showing, 
as we have seen increases in the minimum wage from April of 1995 where 
the wage was increased, in October of 1996, to $4.75, and then again in 
October of 1997 to $5.15 an hour, the current minimum wage, the number 
of people working in America has continued to grow. So the argument 
that increasing the minimum wage is a job killer just does not make any 
sense.
  Just the opposite seems to be true. In a growing economy, when you 
give to the workers at the lowest level an increase in their living 
wage, they are likely to spend it. They need it for rent, for 
groceries, for their kids' shoes, for school expenses. So little of it 
is saved as lower income families are forced to spend everything to 
make ends meet; that spending, of course, creates demand in the economy 
for the production of more products and services. That is what has 
happened to us repeatedly. Since 1996, if you will take a look here at 
the minimum wage increase, unemployment is down in all the major 
groups.
  People say these minimum wage jobs are just for kids who do not have 
any skills or background. When they come to the workplace and get their 
first job, they have to be prepared to be paid very little for it. I 
used to be one of those a long time ago. Take a look at what has 
happened here between September of 1996 and August of the year 2000. 
The 1996 minimum wage increase did not kill job opportunities in a 
single category here: Among teenagers, even among high school dropouts, 
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or women in the workforce.
  One of the other misconceptions is that somehow the minimum wage is 
just going to be paid to those who are, frankly, children who have 
limited work experience, a first job, so they will get a minimum wage. 
Who are these 10.1 million workers across America who would benefit 
from an increase in the minimum wage? I think you would be surprised to 
learn, as I was, that 69 percent of the workers who benefit are adults 
over the age of 20. So the idea that this is a children's wage or a 
teenager's wage is just wrong. Mr. President, 69 percent of minimum 
wage workers, 7 million of them, are over 20; 60 percent of these are 
women and many of these women have children.
  You know what we are talking about here. We are talking about someone 
who has gone through a divorce, perhaps has a child they are trying to 
raise and do their very best by working a minimum wage job. Sixty 
percent of these minimum wage workers are women and 45 percent of them 
have full-time jobs. They are full-time minimum wage workers making 
less than $11,000 a year: 16 percent African American, 20 percent 
Hispanic; 40 percent of them work in retail. They sell us our 
hamburgers and our CDs at the store and all the things we buy; 27 
percent are in the service sector; 83 percent of the minimum wage 
workers are heads of households and they are earning between $5.15 an 
hour and $6.14 an hour. Mr. President, 40 percent of minimum wage 
workers are the sole adult breadwinners in their families.
  The argument that we are talking about a training wage for kids who 
really just want a first time on the job overlooks 40 percent of the 
minimum wage workforce who are adults trying to make enough money to 
feed a child--those are the minimum wage workers. I can recall a speech 
given many years ago by Rev. Jesse Jackson from Chicago, which I am 
proud to represent in the Senate, when he talked about these people 
going to work every day--the invisible workforce. We do

[[Page 18692]]

not see them cleaning our hotel rooms, clearing off the tables, working 
in the kitchens and the day-care centers and the nursing homes; people 
we rely on to make America a better place, who do the tough, often 
thankless jobs in America for $5.15 an hour.
  In my home State of Illinois, the estimate is we have over 400,000 
minimum wage workers. These are people who deserve an increase in that 
minimum wage for a chance to be able to get out of poverty. Frankly, 
most Americans agree: If you are a hard-working person who is not 
looking for a handout but just looking for a chance to go to work, you 
really deserve some sort of basic living wage.
  Look at this chart. ``Americans Support Wages That Keep Working 
Families Out Of Poverty.'' Overwhelmingly, 81 percent strongly agree 
with this. Does anyone really, listening to this speech, this debate, 
believe if you are making $10,700 a year you are out of poverty? That 
you have a comfortable life? Even with the Earned-Income Tax Credit, 
one of the few things with which we try to help these working families, 
by and large life is from payday to payday. They are striving just to 
meet the necessities and basics of life. So when we talk about an 
increase in the minimum wage, we are talking about helping these 
families who are going to work every single day finally reach up over 
the ledge and look ahead, beyond poverty.
  If welfare reform was not about rewarding that type of person, what 
was the debate all about? I voted for it. Some of my colleagues said 
don't do that because you are going to leave the poor behind when they 
really need help. I hope we never do.
  But I can tell you, this minimum wage debate is about those people, 
folks with limited job experience. They are finally off the dole, off 
welfare, trying to do their best, stuck in a $5.15-an-hour job; showing 
up for work on a regular basis, full-time employees--45 percent of 
them--and still stuck at $5.15 an hour.
  During the Republican Convention in Philadelphia, there was a lot of 
talk about the economy. It was amazing, in a way, because they failed 
to acknowledge, as you might expect, we are in a period of prosperity 
unparalleled in the history of the United States. We have had the 
longest run of economic expansion ever. We are now talking about 
eliminating our national debt. That has not happened since the Civil 
War, I might add--the Civil War in the 19th century, if there is any 
doubt what I am referring to.
  In Philadelphia, they said the problem with this economy is it has 
left too many people behind. It has helped create 22 million new jobs 
in this country, a lot of them in my State and other States around the 
Nation. But if you are talking about leaving people behind, how about 
the people on minimum wage who have been left behind because a 
Republican dominated and controlled Congress refuses to give a minimum 
wage increase to the hardest working people in this country?
  Oh, the Republicans in the House have come forward with a proposal. 
They have had the idea of implementing this $1-an-hour increase over 3 
years. They want to bring it down to 2 years, but there are a couple 
attachments to it and riders and things they would like to add. For 
example, they would like to really challenge paying overtime to workers 
in general--not talking about minimum wage workers but talking about 
workers in general. Frankly, many of us think that is a bitter pill to 
swallow; that a lot of hard-working families would have to give up on 
their overtime pay so the lowest paid workers in this country earning 
$5.15 an hour would have a chance to get out of poverty and have a 
living wage. That is not a deal which, frankly, any of us should buy.
  It is time for us to do the right thing. We are going to go home in a 
few weeks. A lot of Senators will be campaigning for other candidates 
or for their own reelection, and they will face a lot of crowds and 
people coming up to them. You aren't likely to see a lot of minimum 
wage workers in those crowds. These are hard-working folks struggling 
to get by, many times with more than one job; they do not have time to 
listen to politicians who get out and gab and make their speeches on 
the stump.
  But it is a shame we will not have a chance to see them because, if 
we do, we, frankly, have to ask of them some understanding and 
forgiveness, that this Congress, with its large agenda of important 
items, has failed to address the most fundamental need in their lives--
an increase in the minimum wage so they can survive and raise their 
children and live in dignity.
  If we value hard work in this country, we should compensate the hard 
workers, the minimum wage workers adequately. For over 2 years we have 
refused to do it. I see my colleague, Senator Kennedy, is on the floor. 
I salute him for the leadership he has shown on this issue time and 
time again. I am sorry we are in a position where both parties no 
longer have come to a bipartisan agreement on dealing with a minimum 
wage.
  But I say to Senator Kennedy, as I am prepared to yield the floor to 
him, that this is a battle worth fighting in the closing weeks of this 
session. As we consider all of the possibilities and all of the special 
interests that need to be tended to and made happy before we leave, let 
us not forget the people who cannot afford a lobbyist in this town--the 
minimum wage workers across America who we count on week in and week 
out to make America work.
  I think we owe it to them to increase the minimum wage by 50 cents an 
hour over each of the next 2 years, to a level of $6.15, knowing full 
well that that is not a comfort level, that isn't going to give them 
relief from concern about paying for the necessities of life; but we 
owe it to them to increase this wage. Frankly, this Senator is prepared 
to say that this experience with this minimum wage increase has 
convinced me once and for all that relying on the goodness and 
gratitude of Congress on an infrequent basis to give the hardest 
working people in this country enough money to scrape themselves out of 
poverty and make a living has to come to an end.
  We need to put into law a cost-of-living adjustment for the minimum 
wage, so we can say to the people across America, the millions who work 
for this minimum wage: Your life is not going to be hanging in the 
balance as to whether politicians in Washington are paying attention. 
You pay attention to your family and your job every day. We should pay 
attention to you by making certain you have a living wage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. BENNETT. If the Senator would withhold, I would like to make an 
inquiry about time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding that on the Republican side there 
are still 45 minutes remaining under the control of Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that that time be reserved for 
my control as manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the 
Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 4 minutes, 
and Senator Kennedy has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair and yield to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had hoped to be able to address some of 
the issues here this afternoon, but we will have to work out additional 
time later in the afternoon.
  The appropriations bill that is before us effectively will increase 
the pay for Members of Congress by over $5,000 a year. I support that 
particular proposal, but we ought to know that that is what is 
effectively included in this legislation. That is there basically 
because of the Republican leadership. As I mentioned, I support that, 
as I have supported other pay increases in the past.

[[Page 18693]]

  But what Americans should understand is the fact that on the one hand 
the Republican leadership is prepared to have a $5,000 increase in the 
pay of Members of Congress and still deny us the opportunity to vote 
for a 50-cent-an-hour increase this year and a 50-cent-an-hour increase 
next year for the hard-working Americans who are at the bottom end of 
the economic ladder. It is basically and fundamentally wrong. And the 
American people ought to understand it.
  We have 2\1/2\ weeks left. We ought to be able to make a judgment 
decision whether those Americans--some 10.1 million who will be 
affected by the increase in the minimum wage--ought to be able to have 
an increase in the minimum wage. We believe they should. We have fought 
to try to get that to happen. We have been limited in our opportunities 
to address that issue because of parliamentary tactics which have been 
used by the Republican majority in the Senate to deny us that.
  No one needs a briefing about the issues on the increase in the 
minimum wage. They are basic. They are fundamental. Ninety-five percent 
of the Members of this body have voted on this issue. It would not take 
a great deal of time. We would be willing to enter into an hour equally 
divided if we were able to get an opportunity to vote on an increase in 
the minimum wage.
  The American people ought to understand what the priorities are as we 
are coming to the last days of this Congress with 2\1/2\ weeks left. 
This is an issue of priorities. The Republican leadership has said we 
will put this appropriations bill forward. They have basically 
sidetracked the whole debate on the education bill, even though that 
was a priority for them before and even though their standard bearer is 
out there talking about the importance of higher education. I wish that 
the candidate would just call up the majority leader and say: Put the 
education bill on the floor of the Senate. Why aren't you doing it?
  We are going to be dealing with the H-1B legislation which is going 
to affect 100,000 visas and denying the opportunity to make other kinds 
of changes in that particular program. We are saying that that is more 
important than having a short debate on an increase in the minimum 
wage?
  As my friend and colleague has pointed out--who are these people? 
They are basically people who are assistants to teachers, who work in 
the schools in this country.
  Who are they? They are helping assistants to child care workers, who 
are looking after the children of working families.
  Who are these people? They are assistants in nursing homes, who are 
looking after the parents who have retired and are now in nursing homes 
being taken care of either by their children in nursing homes or 
perhaps even under the Medicaid system.
  These are the people who are minimum wage workers. They are the men 
and women who clean the buildings around this country.
  What has happened to them over the period? I wish the Members of this 
body had seen the excellent piece on ABC this morning that talked about 
what is happening in the workforce. It pointed out that now the 
American worker is working longer than any other worker and that the 
rates of productivity have increased. Generally speaking, when you have 
an increase in productivity and you have workers willing to work more, 
they get an increase in their pay. Not here, not minimum wage workers.
  What we have seen is that those at the top part of the economic 
ladder have been experiencing a very substantial increase and those on 
the bottom fifth of the economic ladder, which include the minimum wage 
workers, have actually fallen behind in their purchasing power. If we 
do not take action on an increase in the minimum wage in the final 2\1/
2\ weeks, then the increase we had 3 years ago will effectively be 
wiped out for these workers. That is quite a message; that is quite a 
priority.
  Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 2 minutes 
remaining.
  What has happened? We have offered this. And what has come back now 
from the other side, from the Republican leadership? They say: All 
right, we will let you have a 2-year increase in the minimum wage if 
you will agree to a $76 billion tax reduction for the wealthiest 
individuals in this country. Some deal, some deal for workers--$76 
billion in tax reductions. You would think at least they would have the 
common sense just to do it for the small mom-and-pop stores. No. This 
is for the big boys, tax cuts, $76 billion. The last time we had an 
increase in the minimum wage, it was $21 billion. A lot of people 
thought that was too much. Seventy six billion dollars they want. And 
that isn't enough.
  What they also want to do is wipe out time and a half for overtime 
for 73 million Americans, cut back on overtime pay. So you don't have 
to even pay, not only the minimum wage workers, but those above them, 
overtime pay. That is part of the deal: We will give 50 cents an hour 
to hard-working Americans this year and 50 cents next year. Give us the 
$76 billion. Let us be able to make other workers work. It will save us 
billions and billions and billions of dollars in terms of payroll. That 
is the deal they are offering.
  Beyond that, I know this isn't a typical Republican position. They 
say: We are going to preempt the States that are out there in terms of 
the tax credit for workers in restaurants where they are able, instead 
of paying the full minimum wage, to say: We will only pay part. And if 
they get the rest in terms of tips, we don't have to make up the wages. 
That is a fine situation anyway. Someone is able to provide additional 
kinds of services; because of that, able to get a tip; and you are 
going to penalize them. We are going to put that into giving the credit 
to the employers. It is a lousy deal for workers in the first place. 
The Restaurant Association and their employees have gone through the 
roof anyway since the last time we passed it. Nonetheless, what they 
are saying is, OK, here is one deal for the minimum wage, but because 
some of the States have been a little more understanding and a little 
more helpful to these workers, we will preempt those States. I don't 
hear any statements on the other side of the aisle: Well, we don't want 
one size fits all. If you eliminate ``one size fits all'' and 
``Washington knows best'' from the Republican vocabulary, they haven't 
got much to say. On this bill, there is no consistency. Give us $76 
billion. Let us eliminate overtime. Then we will have a deal.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are going to take every opportunity--
and there will be some that will come down--to try to do something in 
terms of the minimum wage.
  As I have said before, this is a women's issue because the majority 
of the recipients of the minimum wage are women. It is a children's 
issue because a majority of the women who get the minimum wage have 
children. This is a family issue. We hear ``family values'' around 
here. This is a family values issue because whether those parents have 
time to spend with those children depends on income. It is a children's 
issue.
  It is a civil rights issue because the great percentage of those who 
are out there working are men and women of color. And beyond that, it 
is fairness issue. In the United States of America, with the economy 
going right through the roof, with the greatest economic prosperity in 
the history of the Nation, we are going to say: If you work hard, 40 
hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, we don't think you ought to live in 
poverty. The Republican leadership refused to let us get a vote on 
this. That is absolutely unconscionable. The American people ought to 
understand it on election day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am here in my capacity as manager of 
the conference report. We have had very

[[Page 18694]]

little conversation about the conference report or any of the items 
contained in the bill, but through this debate, we have had a great 
deal of conversation about a number of other issues.
  I suppose in the spirit of that debate, I can be excused if I respond 
to the comments made by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. The 
senior Senator from Massachusetts as well as the Senator from Illinois 
have given us a great number of statistics about the minimum wage, a 
great deal of information from various studies that have been done 
about the minimum wage. I remind them of the last time we had a 
definitive study on the minimum wage that was given to us with great 
fanfare from the Department of Labor; that further analysis of that 
study by objective academics indicated that the methodology of the 
study was false; that the conclusion of the study, which was that the 
minimum wage did not in fact destroy jobs, was false, and that the 
minimum wage does in fact have an impact.
  I don't want to debate studies and arguments and academics. I want to 
take us, for just a moment, into the real world of employment. We hear 
over and over that we are in the most prosperous economy that anybody 
can remember. That is true. That creates a real world situation which 
has not been addressed in any of the rhetoric we have just heard.
  The real world situation is this: When the economy is very strong, 
there is a very strong demand for labor. As a consequence, unemployment 
goes down. Unemployment is at historic lows at this time of a good 
economy. And in the real world, where people really seek jobs and 
employers really seek workers, there is a shortage of workers.
  I talk to employers in my State and I say: What is your biggest 
problem?
  They say: Our biggest problem is finding workers. We post jobs. We do 
everything we can to try to get people to come in and take these jobs. 
They come in off the street and if, during the presentation of what the 
job is like, we say something that they don't particularly like, they 
turn and walk out. Why? Because they can walk into another employer 
down the street and have exactly the same kind of presentation. They 
are in a position where they can pick and choose.
  I know this doesn't sound like macroeconomics, but this is the 
reality of the marketplace in which we operate. If I can talk about 
macroeconomics for a moment, let me quote Alan Greenspan, who appears 
regularly before the Senate Banking Committee and the Joint Economic 
Committee, on both of which I have the opportunity to serve. He says to 
us the one thing he watches with greatest concern in terms of the 
possibility of this economy overheating and spiraling off into 
inflation is the shortage of labor. He says the reason he has not 
raised interest rates more is because our labor is becoming so much 
more productive that we can have this kind of tremendous demand in the 
economy, even though the labor force is not expanding as rapidly as one 
would think it would have to in historic terms. The labor force is 
expanding in productivity so that it can keep up with the demand for 
labor in the economy without becoming inflationary.
  So there are microeconomic considerations and individual 
considerations, but it always comes down to the same fact in the real 
world: There is no shortage of jobs. There is no shortage of good-
paying jobs. There is no shortage of jobs above the poverty level. The 
problem is with people who, for whatever reason, cannot take the jobs 
that are available. The reason is usually training. The reason is 
usually experience.
  If I may get personal for a moment, Mr. President, I don't know how 
many other Members of this body have worked for a minimum wage, but I 
have. I did it when I was 14. The job, frankly, was something of a gift 
because I don't think I added very much value to the corporation that I 
worked for at age 14 at 50 cents an hour. For me, it was a tremendous 
experience. I look back on the time that I worked at ages 14, 15, 16, 
and so on, in the summertime, after school, and on weekends, as one of 
the most important formative experiences of my life. But I think if the 
Federal Government had come in and said, no, you can't pay Bob Bennett 
50 cents an hour and we are going to order you to pay him 75 cents, my 
employer, in all probability, would have said: What he does for us is, 
frankly, not worth 75 cents an hour, and being true to our shareholders 
and our other employees whose jobs we do not want to jeopardize, we 
will just let him go. But the minimum wage was low enough that I could 
work for 50 cents an hour, I could have that kind of experience and, 
frankly, I could get the kinds of job skills that made it possible for 
me, a few years later, to command salaries at substantially higher than 
the minimum wage.
  When I hear about the minimum wage from people in my State, it is 
always from employers who are employing--and this is a very pejorative 
term, but it is true--marginal workers. And they say: Senator, if you 
raise the minimum wage, I am going to have to let them go. The 
contribution that they make to my company, or farm, or ranch, whatever 
it might be, is marginal. I can afford to pay them the minimum wage now 
and say that I get some return from their labor. If you raise it, I am 
going to have to say, no, it isn't worth it; I can't afford this. These 
people then end up unemployed. The problem with these workers is not to 
have the Government step in and attempt to repeal the law of supply and 
demand; the problem is to find innovative, new ways to give them the 
training and skills they require in order to command a higher wage on 
the basis of their work.
  We are about to move, I hope, on to a debate on H-1B visas. People 
will say: What does that have to do with the minimum wage? It is a 
manifestation of the same basic principle I am talking about here; that 
is, we cannot, no matter how powerful we think we are as Senators, 
repeal the law of supply and demand.
  H-1B visas are used primarily by high-tech employees from other 
countries who come into this country to take high-tech jobs. What is 
the demand for those high-tech jobs? Right now, there are between 
350,000 and 400,000 high-tech jobs, paying in the high five figures and 
into the low six figures, going begging in this country, and the 
companies that have those jobs are saying: If we can't find Americans, 
we want people from outside America to come in and fill these jobs. 
Will you please allow us to give visas to these people?
  We cannot legislate that those kinds of salaries be paid to someone 
who is not capable of doing the job. The focus here, in terms of those 
who are at the lowest ends of our economic ladder, should be finding 
ways to train them, equip them, and prepare them to command, on the 
basis of their own skills, the wages they want instead of having the 
Government just automatically decree that they be paid a wage that may, 
in fact, be higher than the amount of value that they can add to their 
employer.
  The Senator from Illinois displayed a chart that showed the minimum 
wage going up and employment going up, and then he suggested that one 
causes the other. I suggest that there is no relationship whatsoever 
between those two trend lines. There is another trend line that I think 
has a relationship. What is the area of greatest unemployment in this 
country? If you break it down with the demographics and the 
metropolitan areas, you find that the area of greatest unemployment in 
this country is among young, black teenagers in the inner city, 
particularly male. That is, statistically, the area of highest 
unemployment.
  The unemployment rate among young, teenage, black males in the inner 
city in the United States is not only in double digits; it is in high 
double digits. I don't have the figures with me now. I didn't 
understand that we were going to debate minimum wage on the legislative 
branch bill. But they are in the 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent 
area. Those young, black men would benefit enormously by having a job 
experience. I know that, as I say,

[[Page 18695]]

from my own experience, when I was paid the minimum wage at age 14. But 
it was less to add value to the company than to add skills and 
understanding to myself.
  If we had the law of supply and demand operating unimpeded by 
Government instruction, I can imagine--and I think I could find jobs 
for those young, black teenagers to do in the inner city. They would 
not be $6-an-hour jobs, but they would be jobs where there could be 
some value added to the employer and tremendous experience and training 
value added to the employee. And the Government, over time, would get 
tremendous benefits out of that because if those young men could be 
trained in marketable skills and then go out and command jobs at $10 
and $12 and $15 an hour based on their skills rather than the 
Government demanding that they be paid that whether they produce value 
for it or not, the economy would be better, society would be better, 
and America as a whole would be better.
  So as I listen to these debates on the minimum wage, the emotion, the 
shouting, and the great indignation that is sent forward here, I ask 
the Senators to step away from the academic studies. Go out among the 
employers of their own States and ask this direct question: What will 
happen in your business to the people you hire if the Federal 
Government intervenes in this situation and starts to dictate the wages 
that you pay?
  A comment came out of the oil crisis of the 1970s when President 
Carter was telling us that the energy crisis was a crisis that was the 
moral equivalent of war and that we must somehow marshal the entire 
energies of the Nation to deal with it. Interestingly enough, as the 
Senator from Alaska points out, ever since we declared that kind of 
war, American dependence on foreign oil has gone up, not down. That is 
one of the main reasons we are looking at $2-a-gallon gasoline in the 
Midwest, as we are seeing the results of 8 years of an administration 
that has opposed any kind of energy development in the United States. 
In that period, an economist made this point that I have never 
forgotten. He said: When the Federal Government interferes with the 
setting of prices by the forces of supply and demand, you get one of 
two results.
  If the Federal Government sets the price higher than the market would 
set it, you get a shortage. When the Federal Government sets the price 
lower than the market would set it, you get a surplus. In other words, 
when the Federal Government says you must pay a wage higher than these 
people can return value for, you get a shortage of jobs that these 
people can fill. If the Government should arbitrarily say we will set a 
price lower than these people can produce, then you get a surplus of 
people.
  We don't need shortages and we don't need surpluses. We need jobs. We 
don't need shortages. We don't need surpluses of energy. To put it back 
in the same context, we need the energy.
  The law of supply and demand gives you a price. It is always the 
right price as supply meets demand. As soon as someone steps in to try 
to manipulate that law--be that someone a monopolist, or be that 
someone a Federal legislator--and you get a diversion between the price 
that the demand would call for and that the supply would provide, you 
get either a shortage or a surplus. It has been that way since time 
immemorial, and it will be that way forevermore into the future.
  We need to learn that lesson and be a little humble towards that 
process in the Senate as we stand on the floor of the Senate and raise 
our voices in indignation to say we must do something for these people 
in the name of fairness, and realize that in the long run we are in all 
probability hurting far more than we are helping.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
currently running virtually equally between the two sides be charged 
equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote against the combined 
legislative branch and Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bills.
  While the administration has identified a couple of funding 
shortfalls in the bill, that is not my primary concern here, and it is 
not the reason I am opposing this legislation.
  I am voting against the bill because the Senate has never considered 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. Let me repeat that: the Senate 
is being asked to vote on a conference report on a bill that never 
passed the Senate.
  This is a complete distortion of the legislative process. We are not 
potted plants. The people of the state of California elected me to 
represent them. That means debating bills, offering amendments that are 
important to the people of my state, and casting votes. It does not 
mean giving a rubber stamp to whatever conference report comes before 
us when we have not even debated the bill in the first place.
  I was considering offering an amendment to this bill prohibiting the 
sale of firearms to individuals who are drunk. Believe it or not, it is 
not against the law to sell a gun to someone who is intoxicated. I was 
considering offering an amendment regarding the carrying of concealed 
weapons in places of worship. And I was considering offering an 
amendment praising Smith and Wesson for entering into an agreement with 
the administration to change the way it manufactures and distributes 
firearms.
  But I was prevented--every Senator was prevented--from offering any 
amendments because the Treasury-Postal Service bill was never brought 
up. Normally a bill that does not come before the Senate cannot become 
law.
  But the majority wanted to avoid debating and voting on these 
amendments, and so they found a way to make an end-run around the rules 
of the Senate and to run roughshod over the rights of 100 Senators.
  I will not be a party to this process, so I will vote against the 
bill.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
contraceptive coverage provision included in the FY2001 Treasury-Postal 
appropriations conference report currently before the Senate.
  This provision is fundamental to the health of the approximately 2 
million women of reproductive age who rely on the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, for their health care, and I thank 
Chairman Campbell for again including this important language. This 
language is essentially the same language that has been signed into law 
the last 2 years.
  This provision says that if an FEHBP health plan provides coverage of 
prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover all FDA-approved 
prescription contraceptives. It also says that plans which already 
cover outpatient services also cover medical and counseling services to 
promote the effective use of those contraceptives.
  This language respects the rights of religious plans that, as a 
matter of conscience, choose not to cover contraceptives. Furthermore, 
the committee language we have before us makes it clear that this 
language does not cover abortion in any way, shape, or form.
  The contraceptive coverage provision signed into law the last 2 
years, and contained in this year's bill, contains a conscience clause 
that strikes the appropriate balance between recognizing the legitimate 
religious concerns of individual health plans and physicians

[[Page 18696]]

with the equally important goal of increasing access to prescription 
contraceptives and reducing unintended pregnancy and abortion rates in 
this country.
  The religious exemption in current law specifically exempts the 
religious-based plans that the Office of Personnel Management, which 
manages FEHBP, identified as participating in FEHBP. And it exempts 
``any existing or future plan, if the plan objects to such coverage on 
the basis of religious beliefs.''
  Despite concerns voiced by opponents, this provision has caused no 
upheaval in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. When plans 
have left the program in the last 2 years they cited insufficient 
enrollment, noncompetitive premiums, or unpredictable utilization as 
the reason for leaving the program--not the requirement to cover 
prescription contraception. And other than the five plans specifically 
excluded in current law, no plan has requested to be excluded from the 
provision nor has any plan complained that the conscience clause is 
insufficient. Furthermore, OPM is not aware of any physician or other 
health care provider who requested an exclusion.
  The need to retain the current committee language is clear. Today, 
nearly 9 million Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents 
participate in the FEHBP. Approximately 2 million women of reproductive 
age rely on FEHBP for all their medical needs. Unfortunately, before 
1998, the vast majority of these women were denied access to the broad 
range of safe and effective methods of contraception.
  It is clear that the need for prescription contraceptive coverage is 
well understood by women across the country. And while we in Congress 
debate this need and delay guaranteeing coverage to women across the 
country, states are taking up the call on their own. In fact there are 
13 states--Maryland, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, New 
Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Vermont, California, Delaware, Iowa, 
and Rhode Island--who have passed their own contraceptive coverage 
legislation.
  Across America, the lack of equitable coverage of prescription 
contraceptives contributes to the fact that women today spend 68 
percent more than men in health care costs. That's 68 percent. And this 
gap in coverage translates into $7,000 to $10,000 over a woman's 
reproductive lifetime.
  So I ask my colleagues: with 10 percent of all Federal employees 
earning less than $25,000 what do you think is the likely effect of 
these tremendous added costs for these Federal employees?
  Well, I'll tell you the effect is has: Many of them simply stop using 
contraceptives, or will never use them in the first place, because they 
simply can't afford to. And the impact of those decisions on these 
individuals and on this nation is a lasting and profound one.
  Women spend more than 90 percent of their reproductive life avoiding 
pregnancy, and a woman who doesn't use contraception is 15 times more 
likely to become pregnant than women who do. Fifteen times. And of the 
3 million unintended pregnancies in the United States, half of them 
will end in abortion.
  Mr. President, I can't think of anyone I know, no matter their 
ideology or party, who doesn't want to see the instances of abortion in 
this nation reduced. Well, imagine if I told you we could do something 
about it.
  We vote year after year to restrict abortion coverage in FEHBP plans. 
My colleagues know that I vote against this restriction every time it 
comes up. At the same time I firmly believe that, if the Senate is 
going to vote against allowing FEHBP plans to cover abortion, then we 
should require this same plan to cover prescription contraceptives if 
they cover other prescription medications--prescription contraceptives 
which prevent unintended pregnancies that lead to abortion.
  That is what the committee language does. When the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute estimates that the use of birth control lowers the likelihood 
of abortion by a remarkable 85 percent, how can we ignore a provision 
like this which makes the use of birth control more affordable to our 
Federal employees, and do so--according to the Congressional Budget 
Office--with negligible cost to the Federal Government.
  The fact is, all methods of contraception are cost effective when 
compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. And with unplanned 
pregnancies linked to higher rates of premature and low-birth weight 
babies, costs can rise even above and beyond those associated with 
healthy births.
  As the American Journal of Public Health estimates, the cost under 
managed care for a year's dose of birth control pills is less than one-
tenth of what it would cost for prenatal care and delivery.
  Whatever the reason, as an employer and model for the rest of the 
nation, the Federal Government should provide equal access to this most 
basic health benefit for women. The committee language would allow 
Federal employees to have that option.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me say that if we, as a nation, are 
truly committed to reducing abortion rates and increasing the quality 
of life for all Americans, then we need to begin focusing our attention 
on how to prevent unintended pregnancies. Retailing contraceptive 
coverage for Federal employees is a significant step in the right 
direction. I thank Chairman Campbell for again including this important 
language.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
the conference report accompanying H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch 
and Treasury-general government appropriations bill for FY 2001.
  The pending conference agreement combines two of the 13 annual 
appropriations bills into one bill, which provides $34.9 billion in new 
budget authority and $30.9 billion in new outlays to fund the 
operations of the Legislative Branch, and the Executive Office of the 
President, and the agencies of the Department of the Treasury, 
including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Customs Service, Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the General Services Administration, 
and related agencies. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and 
other completed actions are taken into account the conference agreement 
totals $33.0 billion in BA and $32.5 billion in outlays for fiscal year 
2001.
  The final bill is $145 million in BA and $145 million in outlays 
below the most recent section 302(b) allocation for these two 
subcommittees filed on September 20th.
  The final bill also has a revenue effect for two provisions--repeal 
of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that temporarily 
increases federal employee retirement contributions by 0.5 percent; and 
repeal of the telephone tax enacted in the late 1800's to help finance 
the Spanish-American War. A loss of revenue totaling approximately $4.8 
billion is estimated for fiscal year 2001, and additional amounts in 
the outyears.
  I commend the subcommittee chairman and ranking members for bringing 
this important measure to the floor. I urge the adoption of the bill 
and ask for unanimous consent that the Budget Committee scoring of the 
bill be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      H.R. 4516, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 2001: SPENDING
                     COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                     [Fiscal year 2001, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            General
                                            purpose  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report\1\:
  Budget authority.......................    18,161     14,805    32,966
  Outlays................................    17,683     14,810    32,493
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.......................    18,306     14,805    33,111
  Outlays................................    17,828     14,810    32,638
2000 level:
  Budget authority.......................    16,210     14,479    30,689
  Outlays................................    16,679     14,488    31,167
President's request
  Budget authority.......................    19,057     14,805    33,862
  Outlays................................    17,951     14,810    32,761
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.......................    16,886     14,805    31,691
    Outlays..............................    17,201     14,810    32,011
Conference report compared to:
  Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.....................      -145  .........      -145
    Outlays..............................      -145  .........      -145
  2000 level:
    Budget authority.....................     1,951        326     2,277

[[Page 18697]]

 
    Outlays..............................     1,004        322     1,326
  President's request
    Budget authority.....................      -896  .........      -896
    Outlays..............................      -268  .........      -268
  House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.....................     1,275  .........     1,275
    Outlays..............................       482  .........       482
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Also reflects conference report on Treasury-General Government
  Appropriations. Conference report also includes repeal of federal
  communications excise tax, which results in a revenue loss of $4.328
  billion in 2001, and a repeal of federal employee retirement
  contribution, which results in a revenue loss of $460 million in 2001.
  Neither revenue effect is reflected in the discretionary scoring of
  this bill, and count on the PAYGO scorecard instead.
 
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, am I correct in my assumption that the 
previous order calls for a vote now on the conference report?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--69

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Feinstein
     Lieberman
  The conference report was not agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote 
by which the conference report was defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is so entered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________