[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12927-12932]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 12927]]

THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
            RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--Continued

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we are now prepared to go ahead 
with the Ashcroft amendment and the Conrad amendment.
  We propounded a unanimous consent before, but I will repeat it.
  There will be two votes on amendments, each treated as a first-degree 
amendment. The first vote will be on the Conrad amendment in regular 
order. The second vote will be on the Ashcroft amendment. There will be 
no points of order raised. Senator Ashcroft will have 20 minutes 
because he already had time to speak. Senator Conrad will have 30 
minutes to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the only 
addition I would like is that the two votes occur at 2 o'clock. We 
would be happy to have other amendments. Can we finish the debate on 
this? I know Senator Lautenberg, our ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, wishes to speak. Senator Conrad wishes to speak on this 
matter. There are other Members who want to speak. I think it would be 
appropriate to lock in the time on this.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might respond, we want to come back 
to the Daschle amendment with the second-degree amendment. We want to 
come back to the Dorgan amendment. We have a Helms amendment. I urge 
that we defer these votes until later when we can have 10-minute votes. 
Perhaps we can get the majority leader to crack the whip, and, as the 
Senator from Nevada suggested, stay on the floor and limit them to 10 
minutes, if we are going to finish this bill by midafternoon.
  Mr. REID. There is no problem with that. I hope we do not vote before 
2 o'clock on these matters.
  Mr. SPECTER. We will not vote before 2 o'clock.
  May we proceed, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
clarify: How much time will be available on the Ashcroft amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Twenty minutes is requested.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I would only indicate that I know Senator Domenici 
wishes to speak on this issue as well.
  Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator like 30 minutes?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I think at least that much time.
  Mr. SPECTER. We will take 30 minutes. It will save time in the long 
run.
  Mr. REID. Now we have others who wish to speak. How long does Senator 
Conrad wish to speak?
  Mr. CONRAD. As long as it takes to persuade my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Mr. REID. As articulate as the Senator is, that should only take 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I need about 20 minutes.
  Mr. REID. We should reserve 10 minutes for Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to be able to speak about 5 
minutes, if possible.
  Mr. SPECTER. Now we are up to 35 minutes.
  Mr. President, the unanimous consent request is modified to 35 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. Now we are up to 55.
  Mr. NICKLES. We want equal time. I insist on equal time.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have already had a considerable amount of time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield it back if we don't need it. I 
want equal time.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we proceed with 
45 minutes on each side to get this moving.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I previously spent some substantial time in talking 
about the need for a Medicare lockbox. I spent time indicating that as 
Social Security is off budget, I think it would be good to protect 
Medicare with a lockbox. In addition to talking about the common sense 
of not taking trust funds and spending them for things other than that 
for which they were paid into the trust fund, I indicated there were a 
broad group of people who supported this concept, including the Vice 
President, who has endorsed the concept of a Medicare lockbox, and the 
President of the United States, who very recently has endorsed the 
concept of a Medicare lockbox.
  I was in the midst of reading an extensive set of points that had 
been made available by the White House supporting the concept. I 
believe the concept is worthy of our support.
  I think it is important that we do it with integrity, that we don't 
leave any gaping holes or opportunities for the lockbox to be invaded 
or otherwise dispersed. It is important we not have a lockbox that 
appears to be a lockbox that doesn't satisfy the idea of a lockbox.
  I hope Senators will join with me and with an almost unanimous House 
of Representatives and join the President and the Vice President of the 
United States, who have all voiced support for this concept of a 
Medicare lockbox.
  When I came to Washington 5 years ago, people said it would be 
impossible to balance the budget, but we did it. They said we could not 
and would not balance the budget without using the Social Security 
trust fund. We have done it. And there are those who say we cannot and 
will not balance the budget and protect Medicare Part A surpluses. But 
we can and we will. We are more than halfway to this point. The House 
has voted. The President has expressed himself in support of a lockbox, 
as has the Vice President. Now it is the Senate's turn.
  I believe the Senate will sign a Medicare lockbox measure. That would 
send a powerful message. A lockbox amendment also requires the 
President to protect Medicare and Social Security by submitting a 
budget that does not spend either surplus. We make these changes. They 
are beneficial changes for the people. I call upon the Members of this 
body to enact a Medicare lockbox that is durable and strong and real--
not one with loopholes but one that will protect Part A Medicare 
surpluses for expenditure for their intended purpose.
  It is with that in mind I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
amendment I proposed.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, and 
the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be included as a cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.


                           Amendment No. 3690

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a lockbox amendment 
with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Reid designed to protect Social 
Security and Medicare.
  This amendment is simple but important.
  First, it says we must protect Social Security surpluses each and 
every year. The budget has finally been balanced without counting 
Social Security, and we must make sure it stays balanced without 
counting Social Security and Medicare.
  Second, my amendment takes the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund 
surpluses off budget to prevent those surpluses from being raided for 
anything but Medicare.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Medicare trust 
fund will run a surplus of over $400 billion from the year 2001 to 
2010. Taking these surpluses off budget and locking them away will 
ensure that they are

[[Page 12928]]

used only for Medicare and to pay down the debt. Taking the Medicare 
trust fund off budget, as in Social Security off budget, will ensure 
that these payroll taxes that workers pay will be used to meet the 
future demographic challenges Medicare and Social Security face.
  We have reached a bipartisan agreement that Social Security belongs 
off budget and that its surpluses should be preserved solely for Social 
Security. For seniors, Medicare is just as critically important for 
financial independence in their golden years. It is now time to give 
the same protection to Medicare that we already accord to Social 
Security, by taking Medicare off budget, too.
  Medicare is absolutely critical to the health and economic well-being 
of nearly 40 million senior citizens. Before Medicare, many of our 
senior citizens were one major medical event away from poverty. Today, 
our seniors enjoy the security of knowing Medicare is there for them. 
We should not put at risk Medicare because of a failure to protect 
Medicare from raids for other purposes. We have been through this on 
Social Security.
  The amendment I am offering says we are going to treat Medicare the 
same as we are treating Social Security. Unfortunately, the amendment 
of the Senator from Missouri fails to do that. It suggests it is a 
Medicare lockbox, but it really isn't. When we examine the amendment of 
the Senator from Missouri, we find there is a fatal flaw. The fatal 
flaw is that the Senator from Missouri has no enforcement mechanism for 
its provision taking Medicare surpluses off budget. In fact, it does 
not move Medicare off budget. It only removes Medicare surpluses off 
budget.
  The result is, under the Ashcroft amendment, no point of order would 
apply against legislation that uses Medicare surpluses for other 
reasons. Under the Ashcroft amendment, the Medicare trust fund could be 
depleted for any purpose, as long as the overall budget remained in 
balance. Unfortunately, because of the way the amendment of the Senator 
from Missouri has been drafted, it is opening Medicare to raids for 
other purposes. That is a fatal flaw. That is what my amendment 
corrects. My amendment takes Medicare trust fund surpluses off budget, 
protecting them with points of order so there could not be a raid on 
Medicare.
  Let me make my point as clearly as I can. If we look at the fiscal 
year 2000, we have a unified surplus projection of $224 billion. Social 
Security is in surplus by $150 billion. We will not permit that to be 
raided.
  Medicare is in surplus by $24 billion. We will not permit that to be 
raided under my amendment. But under the amendment of the Senator from 
Missouri, one could take every penny of the $24 billion in surplus in 
Medicare because the overall budget would still be in balance. That is 
the fatal flaw of the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. The 
Senator does not protect these Medicare funds if the overall budget is 
in balance. I don't know if that was realized by the other side, but 
that is a fatal flaw. That is why the amendment of the Senator from 
North Dakota, my amendment, the amendment I am offering with Senator 
Lautenberg and Senator Reid, is critically important; we would prevent 
any raid on Medicare funds.
  Our lockbox is simply stronger. We establish points of order that 
protect the integrity of the Medicare trust fund in each and every 
year. Our plan was drafted to make the Medicare trust fund status 
exactly the same as Social Security. For some reason, the amendment of 
the Senator from Missouri has been drafted differently. It does not 
give the full protections to Medicare that we have given to Social 
Security. Why not?
  If we look at the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I direct my 
colleagues to page 17, on the bottom of that page are laid out the 
specific protections we provide for Social Security. We provide them 
for Medicare in the amendment that I am offering. The Senator from 
Missouri has failed to do so. He has left them out. For some reason he 
is giving lesser protection to Medicare than we give to Social 
Security. My amendment solves that fatal flaw that is in the amendment 
of the Senator from Missouri.
  In our plan, we treat Medicare similar to Social Security by 
excluding all receipts and disbursements of the Federal Hospital 
Insurance trust fund from budget totals. We exclude the Medicare trust 
fund from sequestration procedures and create parallel Budget Act 
points of order to protect the surplus in the Medicare trust fund in 
each and every year.
  Our plan also creates a new point of order against legislation that 
would cause or increase an on-budget deficit. So it protects the 
integrity of the Medicare trust fund and the on-budget surplus for debt 
reduction. Our plan also strengthens existing protections for Social 
Security by enforcing points of order against reducing Social Security 
surpluses in each and every year.
  The Ashcroft amendment is silent on Social Security. It has verbiage 
there, but there is no new protection for Social Security in the 
amendment of the Senator from Missouri. Our amendment adds a point of 
order against violating the off-budget status of Social Security and 
requires Social Security revenues and outlays to be set forth for every 
fiscal year in a budget resolution rather than for only the 5 years 
under current law.
  In addition, we strengthen existing points of order protecting Social 
Security by enforcing points of order against reducing the Social 
Security surplus in every year covered by the budget resolution rather 
than only in the first year and the total of all years covered by the 
budget resolution as current law provides.
  The amendment I am offering with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Reid 
is very clear: We are protecting Social Security and Medicare in a 
lockbox that has real protections, and we treat them in the same way. 
Unfortunately, the proposal of the Senator from Missouri creates a 
difference between the protection we provide Social Security and the 
protection we provide Medicare. The Senator from Missouri provides much 
less protection for Medicare than we provide Social Security. It has a 
fatal flaw: no enforcement mechanism. The result is, under the Ashcroft 
amendment, the Medicare trust fund could be depleted for any purpose as 
long as the overall budget remained in balance. That is a profound 
mistake.
  The amendment of the Senator from Missouri would allow the Medicare 
trust fund surplus in the year 2000 to be raided of every penny. We 
should not allow that. That is not a lockbox; that is a ``leakbox.'' We 
are trying to construct a lockbox here to protect Medicare, not a 
figleaf that will make people believe we protected Medicare but really 
open up a gigantic loophole that would allow for raids on Medicare as 
we used to see on Social Security.
  This is a defining vote. Those who care about protecting Social 
Security and Medicare, and are serious about it, will support our 
amendment. Those who want a figleaf and a press release will be in 
opposition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think the Senator from North Dakota 
is going to yield the time. How much time do the proponents of the 
second-degree amendment have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 34 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the second-degree 
amendment, which I am pleased to be cosponsoring with Senator Conrad.
  This amendment would establish a lockbox to protect both Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses from being raided to pay for other 
programs or tax breaks. The amendment would take Medicare completely 
off-budget, and it would add iron-clad guarantees to ensure that 
neither Social Security nor Medicare surpluses can be used for any 
other purposes.
  This amendment is based on a proposal first put forward last week by 
Vice President Gore. And I want to commend the Vice President for his

[[Page 12929]]

leadership in this area. As he has argued so forcefully, it is wrong 
for Congress to use Social Security or Medicare surpluses as a piggy 
bank either for tax breaks or new spending. Instead, Social Security 
and Medicare should be taken off the table, and out of the Federal 
budget.
  Social Security already is officially off budget. That is the law. 
There is a bipartisan consensus that we should not use Social Security 
surpluses for any other purpose. We all agree on that.
  But what we have not all agreed on is that Medicare surpluses should 
be protected, as well.
  Senate Democrats have long argued that Medicare must be included in 
any Social Security lockbox. That is why last year, when Republicans 
sought to move a lockbox that dealt only with Social Security, we held 
firm and insisted on our right to offer at least one amendment. The 
amendment we wanted to offer would have added Medicare to the GOP 
proposal.
  But the Republicans were so opposed to that, they pulled the bill 
from the floor. In fact, this happened several times. Each time, we 
Democrats insisted that Medicare be part of the equation. And, each 
time, Republicans said: No.
  I am hopeful that Republican opposition to protecting Medicare is 
softening, and I give Vice President Gore a lot of the credit for that. 
He has taken the lead and put this issue at the forefront of the public 
agenda. With the spotlight now clearly on the Congress, I am optimistic 
that we will respond.
  We should not respond with half-hearted measures, like the bill 
approved in the House of Representatives or the pending Ashcroft 
amendment. We should do ti right, and that means taking Medicare 
completely off-budget, with all the procedural protections now provided 
to Social Security.
  That is what this amendment does.
  It treats Medicare just as we are already treating Social Security. 
It says: Medicare, like Social Security, will now be taken completely 
off of the Government's books. It will not be counted in the 
President's budget calculations. It will not be counted in the budget 
resolution, and it will not be used as a piggy bank for tax breaks, or 
for any other Government programs.
  The legislation also creates points of order against any legislation 
that would deplete the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for any 
other purpose. Similar points of order already apply for Social 
Security. Medicare deserves the same protections.
  In addition, the amendment would protect Medicare from across-the-
board cuts that could be triggered if Congress exceeds other budgetary 
limits. Under current law--the so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' rules--if 
Congress raids surpluses either for tax breaks or mandatory spending, 
Medicare automatically gets cut. That is not right, and that will end 
under this amendment.
  In addition to taking Medicare off-budget, the amendment also 
strengthens existing rules that protect Social Security. For example, 
the amendment would establish a supermajority point of order against 
any measure that would put Social Security back on budget, or violate 
the prohibition against including Social Security in a budget 
resolution.
  Our amendment also strengthens existing law by requiring every budget 
resolution to include Social Security totals for each year covered in 
the resolution, and then establishing a point of order to protect those 
funds in each year. This is an improvement over current law, which 
protects Social Security surpluses in the first year of a budget 
resolution, and for the entire period of the resolution, but not in 
each individual year. There is no similar provision in the pending 
Ashcroft amendment.
  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to comment on the Ashcroft 
amendment.
  The Ashcroft amendment is described as taking Medicare offbudget, 
something deserving consideration. But the proposed amendment does not 
really do it. It does not fully protect Medicare. And the public must 
know why it is an inferior proposal to the second-degree amendment 
proposed by Senator Conrad and myself.
  The Conrad-Lautenberg amendment calls for more than a surface 
accounting change. Yes, we take Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust 
Fund off-budget, and that's important. But we are also insisting that 
we include procedural protections against any budget resolution or 
legislation that would use Medicare funds for other purposes, and 
permit undermining its solvency.
  We do that by establishing a process that will protect Medicare by 
requiring a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would 
invade the trust fund's solvency to be used for other purposes. Under 
our amendment, if you want to use Medicare funds to pay for tax breaks, 
or for anything else, you will need those 60 votes to do it.
  That is not true of the prevailing amendment, however. The Ashcroft 
amendment isn't really able to protect Medicare. It does establish a 
point of order, a higher hurdle, that obstructs creation of a larger 
budget deficit. And that's a good thing that will help promote debt 
reduction.
  But preventing an on-budget deficit is not the same thing as 
protecting the Medicare Trust Fund.
  For example, if legislation was proposed that reduced revenues into 
Medicare's Trust Fund and increased the possibility of earlier Medicare 
insolvency, that legislation would not be subject to a point of order 
under the present Ashcroft amendment. That is because, again, the 
Ashcroft amendment isn't really designed to protect the solvency of 
Medicare. It is only designed to prevent on-budget deficits. And that 
just doesn't go far enough.
  The point of all this talk about Medicare is to ensure that the 
program will still be solvent and strong in the future, when the baby 
boomers retire. Well, if you don't protect Medicare's solvency, you are 
really not accomplishing that goal.
  That is why the Ashcroft amendment is grossly inadequate and why I 
urge my colleagues will instead support the Conrad-Lautenberg second 
degree amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself, initially, 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what we have before us is a genuine 
lockbox amendment by the Senator from North Dakota, and we have a 
``box'' amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. Now, notice I 
said ``lockbox.'' A lockbox is what has been offered by the Senator 
from North Dakota; no lockbox by the Senator from Missouri. That really 
is the difference.
  What do I mean by ``lockbox''? What I mean is that we are trying to 
treat Medicare as we treat Social Security; that we are going to say 
that in the future, the Medicare trust fund should be off budget, 
should not be counted in budget totals, that it should be off budget 
and should not in any way be able to be tapped into by this Congress or 
any succeeding Congress to pay for any deficit, to pay for any tax 
cuts, to pay for any other kind of spending in which this Congress or 
any future Congress wants to engage.
  That is really what a lockbox is. You take funds and you set them 
aside; you put them in a box and you lock it. That means you cannot tap 
into it.
  That is what the American people want us to do with Medicare and with 
Social Security. This is money that they have paid into out of payroll 
taxes. This is money that has been set aside for them for Medicare--and 
for Social Security, if we are talking about Social Security. We are 
only talking about Medicare here.
  The American people believe very deeply about this; that no Congress 
ought to be able to say: We want to give a tax cut to the wealthy, and 
we are going to pay for it by taking it out of the surplus. And if the 
only surplus we have is Medicare, we will take it out of there, or, if 
the only surplus we have is Social Security, we will take it out of 
there.
  What we are saying on the Democratic side is, no, no deal. We are 
going to take Social Security and Medicare

[[Page 12930]]

off budget, lock the money away, you cannot tap into it for tax cuts or 
spending or anything else.
  The Senator from Missouri may think that is what he is doing. I heard 
him describe his amendment as a lockbox, taking it out, but that is not 
what his amendment does. His amendment does not do that. It does not 
protect the Medicare trust fund from procedures that might be used by a 
future Congress to pay for spending or tax cuts totally unrelated to 
Medicare.
  I could get into the jargon used around here by talking about points 
of order and sequestration and stuff such as that. Who understands what 
all that means, unless it is just a few of us around here. And I am not 
certain all of us understand it either.
  But just to put it in simple lay terms that the American people can 
understand, the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri sort of 
puts the Medicare surplus in a box. It closes the lid. That looks 
pretty good, but the next Congress or two Congresses from now may 
decide: Hey, we have had a downturn in the economy. We might want to 
give a tax cut to a group. We might want to do some spending. We don't 
have enough of a surplus in our budget, but we do have a big surplus in 
that box. In that box there is a big surplus. We will just go open the 
lid and scoop a little bit out. That is what the Ashcroft amendment 
allows. It allows a future Congress to open the lid on the box, put the 
scoop in there, and dig some money out for whatever that Congress 
wants.
  What the Conrad amendment does is take the Medicare money our people 
have paid out of their payroll taxes and puts it in a box, just as 
Ashcroft does, closes the lid, locks it, and throws the key away. That 
is the difference between the Conrad amendment and the Ashcroft 
amendment. What the Conrad amendment says to a future Congress is, if 
you want a tax cut for the wealthy, if you want to spend on some 
programs, go somewhere else to get the money. You can't pry open the 
box in which we have Medicare and Social Security funds; that is to be 
used only for Medicare and only for Social Security. That is what the 
Conrad amendment does.
  Don't be misled that these two amendments are the same. They are not 
the same. The American people should not be misled. If your goal is to 
set aside Medicare funds and put them in a box but if a future Congress 
wants it can go in and open the lid and scoop some money out, vote for 
Ashcroft. Maybe some people think that is legitimate. Maybe some people 
say: Well, we should not tie the hands of future Congresses. If they 
want to take some of that Medicare surplus and use it for something, 
let them open the lid on the box and take the money out.
  Maybe some people here believe that. I don't believe that. Senator 
Conrad does not believe that because it is his amendment. What he says 
is, we will put it in that box and lock it. The only thing you can use 
that money for is Medicare, just as we should only use Social Security 
for Social Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 7 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much more time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remain.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take 1 more minute.
  If you want to secure Medicare funding and you want to lock it away, 
you have to vote for the Conrad amendment. If, however, you want to 
take Medicare funding and put it in a box and say that future 
Congresses can go in there, open the lid and take the money out for 
other things, then vote for Ashcroft. It is that simple.
  I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield such time to the Senator from 
Michigan as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be brief because in many ways I am 
very pleased with the direction of today's debate, particularly with 
the fact that it actually will result in some votes. We have been on 
the floor talking about trying to lock up Social Security on many 
occasions. I was seeking to get a final vote on a lockbox that I think 
really does do the job of protecting Social Security. I think we did it 
four times and couldn't get to a final vote.
  Today, we are moving in the direction of getting final votes on both 
a form of Social Security lockbox and on the issue of locking up 
Medicare. I think that is an important step.
  While I am happy to support almost any effort that makes it more 
difficult to spend the Social Security surplus, I do not believe that 
the forms offered today go as far as we should to ensure a permanent 
off-limits nature of the Social Security surplus. I hope the spirit 
which we have seen today, of working towards giving people options to 
vote, is one that we can build on, and that I will soon have an 
opportunity to have a vote on the Social Security lockbox proposal on 
which Senator Domenici, Senator Ashcroft, and I have been working.
  I think it is a very productive debate to talk about treating the 
Medicare surplus, the Part A of the Medicare trust fund, in the same 
fashion. The disagreements over details are ones that ought to be 
something we can work out.
  I do not think implications of intent with respect to the future 
spending of these dollars that are being made are on point with the 
intent of the draft Senator Ashcroft has offered. I think his goal is 
very clearly to try to protect the surplus in Social Security from 
being spent, period. I think that is his motive. I will leave it to him 
to comment.
  I think implications that there were any ulterior goals in his 
proposal are off the mark. In fact, I hope people will examine more 
closely his longstanding position on this issue. While it may be now, 
in the middle of a Presidential campaign, that people are talking about 
a Medicare lockbox, I remember Senator Ashcroft talking about a 
Medicare lockbox more than a year before the Presidential election and 
certainly months before it was an issue in terms of the national 
Presidential debate. As a colleague, I appreciate the fact that he was 
ahead of everybody else in trying to raise that issue on the Senate 
side. We have worked together to try to move both of these issues today 
and in the past.
  I want to go on record in favor of having mechanisms in place that 
protect these trust funds from seeing these dollars used for anything 
other than their purpose. One hopes that would be the outcome. If not 
in the context of this legislation, then let us be honest about it: The 
likelihood that this type of amendment is going to be able to survive 
the entire conference process may be questionable. I hope by going on 
record--as I suspect by the end of this afternoon every Member of the 
Senate will--in favor of locking up both of these surpluses, we will 
take a step in the direction of ultimately achieving it. I certainly 
intend to come back to the Senate and, in the context of legislation 
that can get to final passage inclusive of such lockboxes, give the 
Senate opportunities to support such an effort.
  As I talk to constituents in my State, and from comments made by 
people all over America, there is little doubt that one of the most 
frustrating things to people, whether they are already Social Security 
recipients or will be in the future, is the fact that they have watched 
as too many Social Security surplus dollars have been spent on other 
things in order to make the deficit appear smaller. I think they are 
going to be very pleased this year when we end the fiscal year not only 
with a balanced budget but also without spending one penny of Social 
Security on anything but Social Security or the reduction of debt. That 
is a sea change.
  I don't think we should lose sight of the circumstances in which it 
has come about. Senator Ashcroft, myself, Senator Domenici, and others 
in the budget process have worked to make sure there were in place the 
kinds of budget rules that precluded Social Security surpluses from 
being spent on other things. This year taxpayers who have been so 
disappointed in the past that

[[Page 12931]]

such moneys were used for other purposes are going to receive the good 
news that they were not and that they are not going to be in the 
future. Indeed, this year's budget resolution, as last year's, 
incorporates the kinds of rules that will protect it. I am proud to 
have been involved in the drafting of those rules.
  I am glad we are back on this topic. It may not resolve it fully, in 
the context of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, but hopefully, after 
today, we have at least set the precedent that we will create these 
lockboxes, that we are not going to prevent votes from being taken on 
final passage of the various options that are out there, at least to 
get final votes on those options in some context.
  I look forward to bringing back an even stronger Social Security 
lockbox and for a chance to get a vote on the version we have drafted. 
I would like to have that opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time, 
time will be charged equally against both sides.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 
15 minutes out of order, without the time being charged to anyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I know 
the Senator from West Virginia has some remarks he wants to make. We 
are about to get this tangle resolved. Does that side have any more 
speakers?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend from 
Georgia, if the senior Member of the Republican side wanted to come out 
and speak, we would drop everything no matter what we were doing. I 
think we should give the Senator from West Virginia the same 
opportunity.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the question is, Is there time on your 
side that we might use?
  Mr. CONRAD. On this side, we have 4 minutes remaining. Obviously, we 
would like to reserve some of that time for the purpose of making a 
statement at the end.
  Mr. COVERDELL. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Thirty minutes. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of 
our time to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and do not 
object to the additional 5 minutes that would bring him to his 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I 
apologize for imposing myself at this moment. But I had noticed several 
quorums of considerable length, and I thought this might be a good time 
to have a statement made. I thank all Senators.

                        ``The Search for Jesus''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I found disappointing Peter Jennings' ``The 
Search for Jesus,'' which aired on ABC Monday night. The promotions for 
the show promised a pilgrimage to the roots of Christianity, but I 
think what we were actually given was more of a slide show.
  All too often we are told by members of the media that they are 
constrained by time. Broadcasters divvy up air time into 30 seconds, 60 
seconds, an hour, 2 hours, and they are constrained by these blocks, 
which are further constrained by their ability to sell advertisements 
to support their use of time.
  In case after case, including that of ``The Search for Jesus,'' too 
little time is devoted to providing a serious look at important issues. 
Whatever one's view of Jesus may be, it is hard to deny that few, if 
any, other lives have so affected our world and humanity as that of 
Jesus Christ. Here is someone who literally split the centuries in two.
  The questions and controversies surrounding His life on Earth 
certainly deserve more than the 2 hours devoted to it by ABC. Two 
hours--in fact, much less than that when one subtracts the commercial 
time, which was substantial--hardly scratches the surface.
  The program presented many provocative ideas. A very limited number 
of theologians, historians, and ordinary folk had much to offer in the 
way of researched information, speculation, theory, heartfelt notions, 
and simple faith. But they were given only seconds here and there to 
provide us with what may well have been valuable insight and 
inspirational ideas. If there is a topic that deserves plenty of time, 
this is it. And, I daresay, as much as it may also cause what to many, 
including myself, is a distasteful commercialization of religion, this 
is a topic for which I assume the network easily sold loads of 
advertising time--as apparently it did for the broadcast Monday night. 
In this case, what actually aired was light on substance, but heavy on 
advertising, giving the effort the appearance, at the very least, of a 
high-toned money grab.
  I cannot be sure what motivated the show, ``The Search for Jesus.'' 
Evidently, Peter Jennings and staff spent months preparing for it, 
conducting interviews, researching, and traveling to Biblical sites. 
But viewers were certainly done a disservice by the encapsulated 
version that the network provided. As much as any journalist may try to 
let others do the talking, to give the experts the floor, and to 
present a rounded, unbiased view, when it comes right down to it, the 
finished piece--except on very rare occasions--reflects the decisions, 
good or bad, of producers and editors who must slice and trim to make 
their program fit into the time frame relegated to it by the network.
  The show's conclusion--that Jesus was a man, that he existed--comes 
as no revelation to anyone who has lost someone dear and found solace 
only in the Trinity. As the program noted, there were others before and 
during His time who professed to be the messiah. They came and went, 
sometimes by execution, and their followers were either executed 
alongside their leaders or they found new ``messiahs'' in whom to place 
their faith. But, as the ABC show noted, Jesus was an exception. There 
was something extraordinary--one might say miraculous--in the way that 
His death promoted the proliferation of His teachings, and in the fact 
that, nearly 2,000 years after His crucifixion, He continues to inspire 
followers around the world.
  There is, indeed, no need to go to the Middle East to find Jesus. He 
can be found in any West Virginia hamlet or hollow. He can be found in 
the arid West, among towering urban buildings, and along peaceful ocean 
shores.
  In the words of Job, that ancient man of Uz, ``Oh that my words were 
now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven 
with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever! For I know that my 
Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the 
earth.''
  I do not judge the intentions or the views of those who helped to put 
together ``The Search for Jesus'' program, but I know exactly where to 
place my faith.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled 
``He's everywhere but here,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 25, 2000]

                        He's Everywhere But Here

                            (By Tom Shales)

       An essentially thankless task that proves also to be a 
     pointless one, ``The Search for Jesus'' is likely to anger 
     many of those who see it--and merely bore others. A two-hour 
     ABC News special, the documentary proceeds from a foolhardy 
     premise and, in the end, doesn't accomplish much more than a 
     dog chasing its tail.
       And it's not much more illuminating to watch.
       ``Peter Jennings Reporting: The Search for Jesus''--yes, 
     Jennings gets top billing over even the Messiah--supposedly 
     aims to discover what can be learned about ``Jesus, the 
     man,'' in historical rather than religious terms. But can 
     those two aspects of Jesus's life really be separated? The 
     danger is that what you'll end up with is an exercise in 
     myth-debunking potentially offensive to devout members of the 
     Christian faith. And that is precisely what happens.
       The program, at 9 tonight on Channel 7, is peppered with 
     disingenuous disclaimers. ``We are very aware of our 
     limitations,'' Jennings says at one point, though much about 
     the

[[Page 12932]]

     program suggests journalistic arrogance and hauteur. He 
     concedes that it is difficult for a reporter ``to get the 
     story right'' in this case, but isn't it rather presumptuous 
     even to try? A little later, when Jennings says the question 
     of Jesus's divinity is ``a matter of taste,'' he sounds 
     ridiculously nonchalant about a topic of the deepest 
     spiritual profundity.
       Devout Christians may not be the only ones taking umbrage. 
     Whenever Jennings parades into the Middle East, warning flags 
     are raised by American Jewish groups that have objected 
     several times to what they see as a pro-Palestinian, anti-
     Israeli bias evident in some of the anchor's past work.
       Thus one can only groan and shudder when Jennings, later in 
     the broadcast, opens the old can of worms about whether ``the 
     Jews'' or the Romans are more responsible for the crucifixion 
     of Christ. Oh how we don't need to get into that again. As it 
     turns out, the issue is rather diplomatically skirted by one 
     of several guest theologians who says, tiptoeing carefully, 
     that ``a very narrow circle of the ruling Jewish elite'' 
     probably did collaborate with the ruling Roman elite in 
     nailing Jesus to the cross.
       As for the resurrection of Christ, upon which the entirety 
     of Christian faith rests, Jennings notes in his cavalier 
     style that there is ``a wide range of opinions'' about 
     whether it occurred. Come, now. You believe it or you don't. 
     That's the range of ``opinions.'' Anyone looking for 
     scientific or historical ``proof'' is flamboyantly Missing 
     the Point.
       ``All but the most skeptical historians believe Jesus was a 
     real person,'' Jennings is willing to concede. But one by one 
     he sets about discrediting what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 
     say about the miracles and divinity of Jesus, making a big 
     fuss, for one thing, over the fact that the four New 
     Testament books contain inconsistencies in their recountings 
     of the story.
       Did a star in the east guide the Three Wise Men to the 
     manger where Jesus was born? ``I don't think there were Three 
     Wise Men,'' a biblical scholar huffs, and that's supposed to 
     dispel that detail. Jesus may not even have been born in 
     Jerusalem but rather in Nazareth, Jennings says; does it make 
     a particle of difference to the spiritual essence of the 
     matter?
       Sometimes Jennings is content with ``analysis'' of the most 
     innocuous sort. Jesus ``must have been a controversial 
     figure'' in his own time, Jennings says. No kidding. But 
     mostly we get specious debunkery. Stories of Jesus performing 
     miracles were most likely ``invented'' by ``the gospel 
     writers,'' Jennings tells us. Even as relatively mundane a 
     detail as Jesus getting a hero's welcome when he entered 
     Jerusalem on Palm Sunday is dismissed: The crowd ``may have 
     been singing and shouting, but not necessarily for Jesus,'' 
     one of the ``experts'' opines.
       It's also suggested, despite the daring Jennings 
     pronouncement that Jesus was ``controversial,'' that Jesus 
     may in fact have been ``a rather minor character'' in the 
     political turmoil of the era.
       To the credit of producer Jeanmarie Condon, ``The Search 
     for Jesus'' does contain many visually arresting images, and 
     the program was for the most part beautifully shot by Ben 
     McCoy. There are such piquant ironies as a sign warning 
     ``Danger! Mines!'' near a spot where it is believed John the 
     Baptist and Jesus himself once preached. The first image on 
     the screen is striking: a silhouette of the Bethlehem skyline 
     today, a cross atop one building and a satellite dish atop 
     another.
       Thus the program is handsomely produced yet stubbornly 
     wrongheaded and bogus, often seeming a gratuitous effort to 
     cast doubt on deeply and widely held beliefs. This isn't 
     really proper terrain for journalists to traverse. It was a 
     bad idea to do the show and it came out as flawed and muddled 
     as anyone might have dreaded.
       Some of the padding in the two-hour time slot is filled 
     with modern, hip and usually dreadful recordings of hymns and 
     religious songs. A lot of territory, physically as well as 
     thematically, is covered, but for little purpose. At several 
     of the shrines in the Holy Land, we see tourists with video 
     cameras making their own personal documentaries about a visit 
     to the Middle East. Some viewers would be quite justified in 
     wishing they could look at those tapes rather than at ABC's 
     misbegotten and misguided ``Search.''
       It is a search that leads nowhere. Slowly.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________