Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it has been said that the core issues in politics are: Who wins, who loses, and who decides. Historically, the decision as to the level of exemption of a person's homestead has been set by the States. In my State, it has been set in a constitutional amendment which required a vote of a majority of the citizens of Florida. I believe that is where the decision should continue to rest. The amendment that is being offered by the Senator from Texas, and her supporters, would provide for the States to continue to exercise that authority, by making an affirmative election to opt out of the arbitrary $100,000 limit which is being proposed by the advocates of the underlying amendment. I urge adoption of the second-degree amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Police Athletic League (PAL) Youth Enrichment Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that youth will become victims of crime. By providing productive activities during non-school hours in communities across this country, we can provide the healthy environment that our young people deserve. Outside the home, there is no safer place in any community than a school, a playground, a community center, or a park where law enforcement personnel are coordinating the activities. The Police Athletic League actually started back in the 1910's. A group of New York youth tossed a rock through a shopkeeper's window. That rock pioneered a new approach to juvenile delinquency prevention. Lieutenant Ed Flynn used that incident to create the Police Athletic League--an organization that makes police officers into role models and friends rather than enemies. PAL brings cops and kids together in activities where mutual trust and respect can be built. It is a statement to young people, particularly in less advantaged neighborhoods, that the community cares about them. It extends a hand of friendship to children--boys, girls, young men and women--who do not have many opportunities. Mr. President, there is clearly a direct link between crime prevention and PAL participation. Young people who are idle have the potential to be drawn into crime. In Baltimore, the PAL centers have cut juvenile crime by 30 percent and decreased juvenile victimization by 40 percent. In El Centro, California, PAL has reduced juvenile crime and gang activity in the HUD Housing Development by 64 percent. PAL, staffed by police officers, has numerous success stories of helping to shape the lives of individuals. In my own state of Florida, former PAL kid Ed Tobin is now a successful attorney. Steve Colin is a well known radio station personality in Miami Beach. In Jacksonville, 23 Sheriff's Officers were PAL kids. Derrick Alexander of the Cleveland Browns and Shawn Jefferson of the New England Patriots were both PAL kids. Our legislation seeks to expand services of current chapters and provide seed money for 50 new chapters per year for the next 5 years (2000-2004). New chapters will offer programs providing a combination of mentoring assistance; academic assistance; recreational and athletic activities; technology training; and drug, alcohol, and gang prevention activities. This list is by no means exhaustive. PAL centers also offer health and nutrition counseling; cultural and social programs; conflict resolution training, anger management, and peer pressure training; job skill preparation activities; and Youth PAL conferences or Youth Forums. PAL currently has 320 chapters serving over 3,000 communities with a network of 1,700 facilities. Today, they mentor and serve more than one and half million young people, ages 6 to 18, throughout the United States, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. In my home state, the Miami-Dade PAL serves over 13,000 youth annually, and Jacksonville serves over 12,000. We know, however, that many areas are still undeserved by PAL chapters. Law enforcement, community organizations, and local governments strongly support this bill. Mr. President, this investment in our youth will pay for itself many times over in reduced crime and law enforcement costs. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this much needed legislation. Together with the Police Athletic League, we can fill playgrounds instead of prisons.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Police Athletic League (PAL) Youth Enrichment Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that youth will become victims of crime. By providing productive activities during non-school hours in communities across this country, we can provide the healthy environment that our young people deserve. Outside the home, there is no safer place in any community than a school, a playground, a community center, or a park where law enforcement personnel are coordinating the activities. The Police Athletic League actually started back in the 1910's. A group of New York youth tossed a rock through a shopkeeper's window. That rock pioneered a new approach to juvenile delinquency prevention. Lieutenant Ed Flynn used that incident to create the Police Athletic League--an organization that makes police officers into role models and friends rather than enemies. PAL brings cops and kids together in activities where mutual trust and respect can be built. It is a statement to young people, particularly in less advantaged neighborhoods, that the community cares about them. It extends a hand of friendship to children--boys, girls, young men and women--who do not have many opportunities. Mr. President, there is clearly a direct link between crime prevention and PAL participation. Young people who are idle have the potential to be drawn into crime. In Baltimore, the PAL centers have cut juvenile crime by 30 percent and decreased juvenile victimization by 40 percent. In El Centro, California, PAL has reduced juvenile crime and gang activity in the HUD Housing Development by 64 percent. PAL, staffed by police officers, has numerous success stories of helping to shape the lives of individuals. In my own state of Florida, former PAL kid Ed Tobin is now a successful attorney. Steve Colin is a well known radio station personality in Miami Beach. In Jacksonville, 23 Sheriff's Officers were PAL kids. Derrick Alexander of the Cleveland Browns and Shawn Jefferson of the New England Patriots were both PAL kids. Our legislation seeks to expand services of current chapters and provide seed money for 50 new chapters per year for the next 5 years (2000-2004). New chapters will offer programs providing a combination of mentoring assistance; academic assistance; recreational and athletic activities; technology training; and drug, alcohol, and gang prevention activities. This list is by no means exhaustive. PAL centers also offer health and nutrition counseling; cultural and social programs; conflict resolution training, anger management, and peer pressure training; job skill preparation activities; and Youth PAL conferences or Youth Forums. PAL currently has 320 chapters serving over 3,000 communities with a network of 1,700 facilities. Today, they mentor and serve more than one and half million young people, ages 6 to 18, throughout the United States, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. In my home state, the Miami-Dade PAL serves over 13,000 youth annually, and Jacksonville serves over 12,000. We know, however, that many areas are still undeserved by PAL chapters. Law enforcement, community organizations, and local governments strongly support this bill. Mr. President, this investment in our youth will pay for itself many times over in reduced crime and law enforcement costs. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this much needed legislation. Together with the Police Athletic League, we can fill playgrounds instead of prisons.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair and my colleagues. Under current projections, these surpluses will reverse in the year 2014 when the baby boom generation begins to retire. Their demand for retirement benefits will outpace the revenue collected from payroll taxes after the year 2014. These shortfalls will require that the assets, the Federal Government's securities which have been accumulated by the Social Security trust fund, be redeemed. In essence, the Social Security trust fund, with a large pile of several trillion dollars' worth of Federal securities, will now be going to the Federal Treasury and saying: We are going to turn these pieces of paper back to you, and we need the cash they represent in order to meet the current obligations to Social Security beneficiaries. The most effective way to plan for the demands that will be created by the baby boomers' retirement is to utilize the current Social Security surpluses in a very thoughtful and prudent manner, in a manner to reduce that portion of the national debt which is held by the public. Lowering our outstanding debt today will put the United States in a much stronger financial position should we need to borrow funds to redeem the U.S. Treasury securities currently held by the Social Security trust fund. The cash obtained from redeeming those assets will be used to pay benefits when the baby boom generation retires. The Social Security surplus can lower the debt held by the public by $2 trillion if we do not waste it. That $2 trillion reduction in debt held by the public will serve as a critical cushion to meet our Social Security obligations. In summary, we are about to lose a great opportunity to address the long-term fiscal challenges facing our country. Instead of preserving both the on-budget and the Social Security surpluses for uses in saving Social Security, Medicare, investing in America, or returning it to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief, Congress is frittering the money away. We have spent the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus, and we have spent at least $20 billion of this year's Social Security surplus. The outlook for 2001 and 2002 is not any better. We should stop these actions now, pay for the spending we enact, and avoid the use of accounting gimmicks. We stand at a unique point in history. Two months from now, we will move into a new century and, indeed, a new millennium. Instead of taking a ``get the appropriations bills done and get out of here approach,'' we should direct our sights to larger goals. We should be prepared to act boldly. We can seize upon this opportunity provided for us by a strong economy and an improved financial state of affairs and embark on a fiscal agenda that will pay rich dividends for decades to come. Our predecessors, at the beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, faced similar opportunities and challenges. Each chose the bold approach. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the building of the Panama Canal in 1904 were emblematic of a proud, vigorous, bold new nation at the beginning of a new century. Although controversial in their day, the Louisiana Purchase and the building of the Panama Canal are examples of courageous endeavors that have stood the test of time. The question facing this Congress is whether we will live up to the example of the 19th century and the 20th century as we commence the 21st century or whether we will squat in the narrow, visionless box built for parliamentary pygmies. Will we validate Proverbs 19:18, wherein it says: ``Where there is no vision, the people perish''? Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the beginning of this congressional session was filled with hope and promise. A strong economy and improvements in the Federal budget gave us a wonderful opportunity to make important investments in our Nation's future. A portion of these surpluses could be used to extend the solvency of the Social Security program. A portion of the surplus could be used to restore solvency to Medicare and to modernize its benefit structure to reflect current medical practices. A portion of the surplus could be used, as was urged in the full-page ad in the Washington Post of October 28, ``to use this opportunity to preserve our parks and open spaces forever.'' This could be accomplished by such things as fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and a portion of the surplus could be used to fund tax relief and economic stimulation. Instead of devoting the surplus to these important matters, Congress is dribbling away the surplus with a combination of get-out-of-town spending and budgetary trickery. Our actions--emergency spending, scorekeeping adjustments, administrative directives--have one simple result: They are spending our surplus. Once current revenues are spent, the non-Social Security surplus will be spent and the Social Security surplus will be spent. If Congress continues on this gimmick-potholed path, we will be harshly judged by the American people for our shortsightedness. On October 4 of this year, the Washington Post ran an article on the 10-year anniversary of the reunification of Germany. In that article, Wolfgang Schaeuble, the Christian Democratic leader and Chancellor Kohl's most trusted adviser, lamented the fact that Germans had avoided making the tough political choices 10 years ago that would have made their country stronger today. The spirit of reunification created an atmosphere for reform. The Germans could have used that spirit to make fundamental changes to their overly generous social contract that all acknowledged was unsustainable. They deferred, and the result was a tripling of the national debt in less than a decade. We face the same choice today. Our positive economic outlook creates a similar potential for the United States. The budget surplus gives us the resources to convert a substantial part of that potential to reality. At the beginning of the year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated we would have a non-Social Security surplus of $21 billion. What have we done in the last 10 months? The combination of excessive spending and the budget trickery designed to disguise even greater spending have placed the on-budget surplus in serious jeopardy and threatened to undermine the Social Security surplus. These actions-- spend and then hide--have occurred in waves throughout 1999. As with our coastline, no single wave erodes our beaches. Rather, it is a succession of waves that erodes the sand. These spending waves have eroded our surplus, eroded our opportunities, eroded our vision of what could be accomplished. In May of 1999, the Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill which provided for $15 billion for everything from reconstruction aid for Central America and the Caribbean to farm loan assistance. Much of the May supplemental bill was designated as an emergency. No spending cuts or revenue increases were enacted to offset the emergency spending contained in that May 1999 supplemental appropriation. The consequence? A $15 billion reduction in the non-Social Security surplus. The May supplemental appropriations lowered for 1999 the surplus by $4 billion. That was a significant number because without that additional $4 billion of unpaid-for spending, we would have actually ended 1999 with an on-budget surplus. But because of it, we have ended 1999 with an on-budget deficit of $1 billion. The May supplemental will lower the current fiscal year 2000 on- budget surplus by $7 billion. It will lower the next fiscal year 2001 by $2 billion; 2002 by $1 billion; and 2003 by $1 billion. By this action, we not only adversely affected the fiscal status of the year in which the action was taken but for 4 years into the future. This chart shows we started with a $21 billion on-budget surplus; as a result of that portion of the supplemental appropriations which was applied to fiscal year 2000, we reduced it by $7 billion. So now we only have a $14 billion on-budget surplus. The next wave hit in August of 1999, the Agriculture Appropriations Act: $8 billion of emergency spending, again, none of which was offset by reductions in spending elsewhere or increased revenues. So we have reduced the on-budget surplus by another $8 billion from $14 billion to $6 billion. In October of 1999, the Defense appropriations bill included more than $7 billion in emergency spending, of which $5 billion reduces this year's on-budget surplus. So our $6 billion on-budget surplus is now down to $1 billion. Also, in October of 1999, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill designated $4.5 billion of spending for the emergency of the decadal census. More than $4 billion of that amount will come directly out of the 2000 on-budget surplus and, thus, as a result of that, we have exhausted our on-budget surplus, and we have reduced the Social Security surplus from $147 billion to $144 billion. What have we done thus far? We have initiated a series of waves of unfunded spending which have gone through all of our regular revenue for the year 2000 and now have gone through all of the on-budget surplus and have eaten into the Social Security surplus by $3 billion. That was not all. In addition to this spending, we have also had a series of accounting tricks. In the summer of 1999, to give the appearance of meeting the discretionary spending caps established as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Budget Committee directed the Congressional Budget Office to alter its estimates of spending included in several of the appropriations bills. These so-called scorekeeping adjustments which total $17 billion make it look as if we are spending less in the current year than is actually the case. The Budget Committee justifies these directions by claiming they are more in line with those used by the Office of Management and Budget. What is happening is we are cherry picking. For example, the Office of Management and Budget spending estimate for the year 2000 for the Department of Defense is lower than the Congressional Budget Office. Therefore, the Budget Committee says: Use the Office of Management and Budget. But guess what. When we turn to the energy and water appropriations bill where the reverse is true--that is where CBO's spending is lower than the Office of Management and Budget--they said: Use the Congressional Budget Office estimate. It is a case of trickery: Pick the lowest estimate of spending and force that lower estimate to be the one used to assess whether or not we have eaten into the Social Security surplus. The analogy would be a business which used two sets of books. The difference is that the business man or woman who did that would go to jail. No Halloween mask can hide our identities as we engage in these trick-or-treat charades. When these scorekeeping adjustments are added to the emergency spending listed previously, Congress will have spent the entire amount of its current revenue, the entire amount of its on- budget surplus, and will have spent at least $20 billion of Social Security surplus for fiscal year 2000. The trickery does not end there. Another bit of trickery is directed at administrative action. In an effort to avoid paying for additional spending, congressional leaders have asked the administration to make changes in the Medicare rules allowing for higher reimbursement levels to Medicare health care providers. These payments, anticipated to be approximately $4.5 billion over the next 5 years, will not show up in any action taken by Congress, but they will certainly result in higher spending and smaller surpluses. The analogy is to a family which sends a son or daughter to college and gives him or her a credit card to pay for college expenses. The credit card receipts may not be signed by the parents, but they are ultimately going to be responsible. At the day of reckoning, they will have to pay for them and reduce their bank account in so doing. The threat to the on-budget and Social Security surpluses are not confined to the current fiscal year. There are other waves that have yet to hit the beach but are forming on the ocean's horizon. As an example, we are proposing paybacks, additional reimbursement to Medicare providers for the current fiscal year of $1 billion; for the fiscal year 2001, $5 billion; and over the next 10 years, $15 billion. None of those are currently proposed to be offset by either spending reductions or revenue increases. In the House of Representatives, they are proposing to marry a minimum wage increase with tax cuts. Those tax cuts over 10 years will total $95 billion. They are not proposed to be offset by either spending cuts elsewhere or revenue increases. Mr. President, $5 billion of the discretionary spending authorized in the last few months will not occur in the current fiscal year but, rather, have been pushed into 2001, and another $2 billion has even been pushed into the year 2002. The spending limits of fiscal years 2001 and 2002 are even more restrictive than this year's limit. The spending cap for 2000 was set in 1997 at $579 billion. We are probably going to spend in excess of $610 billion before this session concludes. We have blown through the spending cap for this year by some $31 billion. The problem gets worse because in fiscal year 2001, we have set ourselves a spending limit of $575 billion, $35 billion below what we are spending this year. In the fiscal year 2002, the spending cap is $569 billion, another $6 billion below current year spending. Given the fact that Congress cannot pass spending bills within this year's limit of $579 billion, it is wholly unrealistic to believe Congress will have even greater success with the significantly lower-- $35 billion next year and $41 billion 2 years out--limits than we have today. Spending above those limits will further threaten the Social Security surplus. In fiscal year 2000, we will spend all of the tax revenue we collect, we will spend all of the on-budget surplus, and we will dip into Social Security by about $20 billion. In the year 2001, we will spend all the revenue we collect, and at this rate, we have already spent all but $3 billion of the on-budget surplus. Why is this recounting of the reality of our spendthrift year of 1999 important? Some say it does not matter if we spend the Social Security surplus; we have done it for 30 years, so why not 1 more year? Why stop the spend-and-borrow party today? Spending the Social Security surplus is stated to be good for the economy. I argue just the opposite, that preserving the Social Security surplus is intricately linked to a strong American economy. Most economists agree that increasing national savings is important to maintaining a strong economy. Greater savings results in greater investment in plant and equipment, which creates jobs and raises productivity. Greater productivity translates into a higher standard of living. The surest way to increase national savings is to reduce the Federal debt. The Finance Committee even has a subcommittee dedicated to this proposition. It has a subcommittee with the title, Long-Term Growth and Debt Reduction. We have denominated one of our very institutions to the proposition of the relationship between economic growth and debt reduction. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year: Increasing our national saving is critical. The President's approach to Social Security reform supports a large unified budget surplus. This is a major step in the right direction in that it would ensure that the current rise in government's positive contribution to national saving is sustained. I would say that quotation is even more relevant today, as we have just gotten the latest monthly report on the national personal savings rate and it is virtually at an all-time low. It is, in fact, the savings that are occurring at the national governmental level that are providing most of the savings which are available in our economy. Reducing the Federal debt frees capital for use in the private sector. Lowering the public debt reduces the Federal Government's interest costs, freeing scarce resources for other important public investments. The Office of Economic Policy reported in August that over the last 7 years, because of the greater fiscal discipline that has been practiced at the national level, we have saved for the American taxpayer $189 billion in interest costs--$189 billion which is now available for other constructive public uses, including financing tax relief for American taxpayers. Reducing the Federal debt also has a positive effect on individual American families. When the Federal Government decreases its borrowing, it results in greater availability of capital for all other borrowers. The same Office of Economic Policy estimates that a typical American family with a $100,000 mortgage on their home will save about $2,000 a year in mortgage payments if interest rates are reduced 2 percent as a result of the Federal Government's more austere fiscal policy. So saving the Social Security surplus is important in the economic life of our Nation and for individual American families today. It also will be a critical factor in the challenge we are going to be faced with in the next two decades as Social Security begins to meet the demands of the baby boom generation. Demographic changes taking place in our country will dramatically alter the Social Security program. An aging post-World War II generation, declining birthrates among young- and middle-aged adult Americans, and increasing life expectancies will quickly deplete the assets which are currently accumulating in the Social Security trust fund. By law, surpluses generated by Social Security may only be invested in U.S. Government or U.S. Government-backed securities. The Social Security surpluses being generated today were planned as part of the changes made to the program in 1977 and then in 1983. The surpluses were created for the express purpose of prefunding the retirement benefits of the baby boom generation. It is much like the biblical principle of saving during 7 good years to prepare for 7 lean years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to complete my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the third period be allocated to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, the business before the Senate will soon be the conference report on Labor Department and Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. We are now considering various trade measures. Since we will be taking up the D.C./Labor-HHS conference report tomorrow, I appreciate the Presiding Officer's generosity in allowing me to discuss this very important piece of legislation. I think it is fair to describe that one night within the last few weeks, through back-door negotiations, various members of the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriations Committees crafted the conference reports that we have before us today. The end result was that a very large elephant, weighing $313.6 billion, The Labor/HHS conference report, being placed upon the back of a relatively small and not particularly compliant ant weighing $429 million, the District of Columbia's Appropriations bill. Out of that marriage of elephant and ant, we now have before the Senate the conference report on the District of Columbia with the enormous addition of a $313 billion of Labor-HHS ``rider''. Unfortunately, when these bizarre marriages occur, the public interest is not necessarily served. This parliamentary tactic has stolen from Members of the Senate the right to offer motions instructing the conferees on how we believe they should proceed in conference. We have also lost the right to challenge the existence of authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill during the process of negotiation between the two Houses. There will be no opportunity for Congress or the President to independently consider the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. While one is an elephant and one is an ant, they are both important and deserve separate and distinct consideration. There is not the opportunity to protest the inclusion of items which were not included in either the Senate or the House bill, or were so altered as to be unrecognizable. This bill is purely the creation of that late-night negotiation. This lack of democracy has allowed the will of a small minority to triumph on a variety of provisions of great importance. I will take the opportunity this afternoon to focus on only two of the issues that are a part of this marriage of elephant and ant: First, the proposal to terminate competitive bidding for Medicare's payment of health maintenance organizations' reimbursement; and, second, preventing the Congress from fully funding the Social Service Block Grant Program. Let me begin the discussion with the absconding of funds from two congressionally authorized competitive pricing demonstrations. This takes us back 2 years to 1997 during the consideration of the Balanced Budget Act. Both Houses of Congress voted to create demonstration projects based upon community participation in an attempt to learn more about how HMOs, which provided services to Medicare beneficiaries, could be priced; that is, how the amount of that reimbursement from the Federal Government could be determined by competitive bidding. In order to understand what this issue is about, I am afraid some discussion of how HMOs currently are priced when they provide services for a Medicare beneficiary is required. In a simplified form, the way in which an HMO receives reimbursement when it provides funds to a Medicare beneficiary is a function of how much is paid within that county for fee-for-service payments. While there are some modifications to this overly broad statement, basically if, let us say, in a particular county the average payment for a fee-for-service Medicare patient is $5,000, then the HMO is reimbursed at, more or less, 95 percent of that level, or $4,500. There is some blending of the national fee-for-service rate and the local fee-for-service rate, but as of today, and in the past and in the immediate future, the description I have given is essentially an accurate representation. What has been the result of this reliance on a percentage of fee-for- service within a narrow, local area on the amount that HMOs are reimbursed? It has resulted the fact that in many areas of your State and mine, where fee-for-service charges are relatively low--that is particularly true in rural areas--there are no HMOs. Why? Because HMOs cannot economically justify operating with the reimbursement levels they would get based on 95 percent of those relatively low fees for service. On the other hand, in some areas which have very high fees for service--for instance, an area that has a large tertiary hospital, particularly one associated with a medical school where costs tend to be very high because of the nature of the service they provide--that community will have a high fee-for-service rate. Therefore, 95 percent of that high level will result in high reimbursement levels for HMOs. So, you have not just one HMO, but typically many HMOs that want to compete to get that fixed-formula-based percentage of fee-for-service reimbursement. The purpose of the 1997 action of the Congress was to try a different model; to not rely on this central planning use of fee-for-service but rather go out and test the marketplace. What will the market in a rural area say is called for to engage managed care as an option for Medicare beneficiaries? What is the appropriate level of HMO reimbursement in a large urban area with high fee-for-service costs? That was the purpose of this competitive bidding demonstration project. The Balanced Budget Act, in conjunction with the Health Care Financing Agency, set up a structure which included area advisory committees. These committees consisted of health plans, providers, and beneficiary representatives. It was decided the two communities in which demonstrations would take place were Kansas City and Phoenix. The function of the area advisory committees was to recommend how to best implement the competitive pricing demonstrations in these two communities. Unfortunately, in the bill that will be before us tomorrow, the bill that the conference has reported as the funding for Departments of Labor, HHS, and the District of Columbia, all funding for these two demonstrations in Kansas City and Phoenix has been removed, removed by those who do not want to find out if there is a means to use the competitiveness of the marketplace to arrive at what should be the appropriate reimbursement level for health maintenance organizations. Experience has shown us in other areas of the Medicare system that there is the potential for preserving high levels of quality and saving money by using the dynamism of the marketplace as determined by competitive bidding. Let me use an example from my own State. One of the other provisions in that 1997 Balanced Budget Act was to set up competitive bidding on the Part B, or hospital component of Medicare, as it related to a variety of items, including durable medical equipment. The demonstration for durable medical equipment was settled to be in Lakeland, FL. In its first year, this project has substantially reduced the amount Medicare pays for the five products that were included in the demonstration, and in that one community has saved Medicare approximately $1 million. What are the areas that are being competitively bid? Let me say that these products, durable medical equipment, for most of America today are the subject of a price list. It would be as if you suddenly needed, let's say, a wheelchair--you had broken your leg and you had to have a wheelchair for temporary use--and the way you would pay for that wheelchair, or decide what was the appropriate rental for the wheelchair, was to have Government give you a price list and say this is what thou shalt pay to purchase or lease that wheelchair. That is exactly what Medicare does today for a list of hundreds of durable medical equipment items. So we are going to find out, was there a different way to establish what those prices should be? Was there a means by which we could use the marketplace to set the price? That was the purpose of the demonstration in Lakeland, FL. What results? Competitive pricing has reduced the price of oxygen supplies and equipment by 17.5 percent over what was on that price list, for exactly the same oxygen supplies and equipment. Competitive bidding for hospital beds and ancillary hospital items has been reduced by 29.8 percent by competitive bidding as opposed to the price list. For enteral nutrition, where a person is taking his or her nutrition through intravenous means rather than more normal oral means, the price of that has been reduced by 29.2 percent as a result of competition, rather than using the price list. Surgical dressings have been reduced by 12.9 percent, and urological supplies by 20 percent. All of these savings were accomplished by the use of competitive bidding as opposed to relying on almost a Soviet system of a prescribed price list. It is estimated, if this Lakeland demonstration were to be applied on a nationwide basis and applied to a broader range of items that are just as susceptible to competitive bidding as the five which were selected for the demonstration in Lakeland, we could save the Medicare programs over $100 million a year. The Medicare program is a big program, but even for that big program, even for the Federal Government, saving $100 million a year is an important achievement. It is interesting that, while we are about to take a vote on whether we should terminate even a demonstration on competitive bidding to establish the appropriate price for HMO reimbursement, we are applying competitive bidding in other areas. We are using the competitive marketplace, rather than centralized planning, to determine what is a fair price. For example: In 1998, Congress reformed the means by which national parks reimbursed their concessionaires. To put it more accurately, the concessionaires paid for the privilege of operating within one of our national parks. Previously, prior to 1998, concessionaires had a preferential right of renewal allowing them to match any other offers, thus eliminating competition. You can imagine if, Madam President, there were a firm which had a concession in a national park in your beautiful State of Maine and they knew that in order to keep that concession, all they had to do was match any other competitor who would deign to try to take the concession. That would not encourage very many people to go to the effort of offering a competitive bid because they knew all the incumbent concessionaire had to do was just match their best price and they would continue to have the concession. In 1998, we changed the system. We said we would go to an open, competitive bidding process and let those who could offer the highest quality and the best return to the park system be the concessionaires. Yesterday, I had the privilege of visiting Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico. It exemplified the concession's contract law's positive effect on the national parks system. The new concessionaire improved the quality of products and provided such things as handicapped access to facilities that had not been available previously. We can anticipate that the rates of return to the Government at Bandelier and other national parks will increase because we have a good example at Yosemite National Park. At Yosemite, the application of competitive bidding resulted in almost a 15-percent increase in the rate of return to the Government of the lease of their various concession facilities. I commend Senator Craig Thomas, our colleague, who was the leader in assuring this movement towards a fair price and quality goods and services for the users of our national parks. Unfortunately, the zeroing out of funds for competitive bidding demonstrations in Phoenix and Kansas City, as this conference report on the Labor-HHS/District of Columbia appropriations will do--it ensures that we will never know if we can achieve similar savings in the Medicare+Choice Program; that is, we can never know there will be a better, fairer way of reimbursing health maintenance organizations, which provide services to Medicare beneficiaries than what we are getting today through this percentage of fee-for-service formula. Here is a riddle for the Senate to answer: Why would the appropriators eliminate funding for a program that saves money without harming quality, that gives us the opportunity to learn if there is a free-enterprise approach to reimbursing HMOs as opposed to a socialist approach? Madam President, it does not take a Sherlock Holmes to solve this mystery. Chapter 1 of our mystery: It is July, 1999. The United States spends a full week debating managed care reform. The end result of this debate is vapid, weak legislation that impacts less than one-third of all Americans whose health care is covered by HMOs. It has weak standards on issues such as emergency room, access to specialists, a woman's right to use an OB/GYN as a primary physician, the right to continue to use a doctor if an HMO changes its plan. The legislation the Senate passed earlier this summer also had very limited enforcement and no right to sue. It is interesting that the House of Representatives has written a different chapter with a much stronger and more effective bill of patients' rights when they are members of a health maintenance organization. We have a second chapter in our book. The Senate is about to eliminate two demonstration projects that will allow us learn whether the marketplace might be an appropriate determinant of how Medicare HMOs should be reimbursed. Chapter 2 continues with the Senate Finance Committee designing a bill to give funds back to providers who have made the case they have been negatively, excessively impacted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is the same Balanced Budget Act that weaves its way through this whole volume. What does the Senate Finance Committee decide to do? Nearly one-third of the money that will be provided back to physicians, hospitals, home health care agencies, skilled nursing facilities --a whole variety of medical providers--nearly one-third of the total money goes to the health maintenance organizations that provide services under the Medicare+Choice Program. The irony is that only about 15 percent of the beneficiaries of Medicare receive their health care through a health maintenance organization. The remaining 85 percent of Medicare beneficiaries get their Medicare through the traditional fee-for-service system; that is, they make an unrestrained choice as to what doctor they want to see and then receive the services of that physician, and they, along with Medicare, then reimburse that physician. The 85 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who use fee for service get only two-thirds of the additional payback money. Clearly, there is something fishy about the way these critical funds, intended to allow for the providers of health care to Medicare beneficiaries avoid draconian cuts in their service levels, were divided. Clearly, there is something amiss when one-third of the money in the Balanced Budget Act ``add back'' measure goes to one-sixth of the Medicare beneficiaries. Adding to this peculiar situation is the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that up until the end of this decade, the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving their reimbursement through an HMO will still be less than the one-third of the total Medicare population. Yet, one-third of the money in the Balanced Budget Act ``add back'' bill is allocated to Medicare HMOs. Chapter 3: A Republican Member of the House of Representatives introduces a bill to give doctors the right to collectively bargain with HMOs. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee brings this bill up before his committee for consideration. What happens? Let me read from the Daily Monitor of Wednesday, October 27. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Under the headline ``GOP Leaders Order Hyde To Kill Bill On Doctor Bargaining'': Managed care lobby pushed to halt measure allowing doctors to negotiate with health plans. After an intense lobbying campaign by managed care plans, House GOP leaders have killed for this year--at least--a bill that would allow doctors to bargain collectively with health plans. The bill (H.R. 1304), sponsored by Tom Campbell, R-Calif., had been scheduled for a markup in the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday. But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., on Monday asked committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., to yank it. ``It won't be dealt with this year,'' Hyde said. ``The leadership decided that they were involved with other health care issues and this was the. . .one that broke the camel's back. It's extra weight on a complicated issue. They felt it was another area of focus they don't need right now.'' On Oct. 7, after months of heated negotiations and debate, the House passed a broad patients' rights measure (H.R. 2723, later H.R. 2990) after voting down a much narrower package backed by Hastert. The issue has long been a thorn in the side of the GOP leadership, which favors allowing the marketplace--rather than government--to regulate managed care. The Campbell bill would for the first time allow independent doctors who contract with health plans to bargain collectively on everything from fees to who determines the treatment a patient receives. Health insurance groups strongly oppose the bill, arguing that doctors would be able to fix prices and drive up health insurance premiums. Doctors, led by the American Medical Association, backed the measure. They say health plans are beginning to monopolize the patient market, and that doctors often have no choice but to sign restrictive contracts in order to stay in business. Hyde said that, along with Hastert, rank-and-file members who had been contacted by the health insurance industry asked him to pull the bill. The chairman said he still wants to pursue the issue in the future but could not say if he would ever mark up the Campbell bill. ``I don't know,'' he said. ``I'm interested in doing something with the difficult relationship between doctors, HMOs and insurers. I don't think the problem will go away, nor will our responsibility [to address it].'' We have had the HMO industry delude, almost to total lack of effectiveness, the Patients' Bill of Rights in the Senate. We have had the industry increase its reimbursement at twice the rate that fee-for- service medicine is having its reimbursement increased as a part of the Balanced Budget Act ``add-backs'' legislation that we will soon be considering. We have had the House kill a bill to allow doctors to collectively bargain when they negotiate with HMOs. And now, after the HMOs have said what they want is to have the marketplace, not Government, run their business, they seem to have said they do not want to participate in the competitive bidding process to determine their levels of reimbursement. It appears that they would rather rely on the socialist-based theory of percentage of fee-for-service cost. The managed care industry has successfully used its influence to move forward one of its key policy objectives: To strengthen Medicare managed care at the expense of Medicare fee for service. You might think that my statement is extreme, but I assure you it is accurate. The policy objective is very clear. Using the words of the former Speaker of the House, Speaker Newt Gingrich, which he used to describe his view of Medicare reform, I quote from an Associated Press article of July 30, 1996, in a speech given to the Health Insurance Association of America. This is what the Speaker said: We don't get rid of it [Medicare] in round one because we don't think that's politically smart, and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it [traditional Medicare] is going to wither on the vine. ``Wither on the vine.'' If you had to have a series of events that all had as their common objective diverting energy, resources, and attention away from the program where 85 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries receive their health care services towards the program where 15 percent receive their health care services--and nobody is estimating that within the next 10 years any more than 30 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries will receive their health care through HMOs--you couldn't have had a better strategy than the chapters that we have either written or are in the process of writing in the Congress in 1999. On behalf of the 39 million Medicare beneficiaries in America today, and the millions more who will rely on the program tomorrow, I pledge to make certain that when Congress embarks upon true Medicare reform it will be focused on what is best for all beneficiaries, both fee-for- service and Medicare+ Choice participants alike. We must reverse the course of this Congress. This Congress has shielded HMOs from patient protections, balanced negotiations with physicians, and competition in pricing. This Congress has rewarded HMOs with one-third of the additional money for one-sixth of the Medicare beneficiaries. And this Congress has refused to enhance the fee-for- service programs for 85 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries. This Congress can begin to reverse this record by sustaining the President's veto of the outrage which describes itself as the Labor- HHS/District of Columbia appropriations bill. I am confident that the President will reject this legislation. We will have our next opportunity when we sustain his veto. Madam President, having talked about just one of the outrages in this bill, let me turn to a second. That is the funding of the social services block grant. On September 30, by a 57-39 vote, the Senate placed its strong bipartisan support behind the continued funding of the Social Services Block Grant Program at its authorized level of $2.38 billion. The Social Services Block Grant allocates funds to States, enabling them to provide services to vulnerable, low-income children and elderly, disabled people. The Social Services Block Grant is a mandatory program established under Title XX of the Social Security Act. The purpose of Title XX is to intervene with vulnerable populations before they reach the point of disability or other condition that might make them eligible for a Social Security entitlement program. In 1996, the Senate Finance Committee joined the House Ways and Means Committee, and then the full Chambers, in promising that this program of social services block grants would be funded at the authorized level of $2.38 billion for the fiscal year 2000. In fact, we made a commitment to the States that the social services block grant would be guaranteed at the $2.38 billion annual level until welfare reform was fully completed in the year 2002. When this commitment was recommended to be breached by the Senate version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, on September 30, the Senate stood up, and by that vote of 57-39 voted to restore full funding to comply with our commitment to our constituents and to the States. Once again, the appropriators have nullified our vote. They have voided our promise to the States. In the conference report that will be before us, the Labor-HHS/District of Columbia appropriations bill, the Social Services Block Grant Program will be recommended for funding at $1.7 billion--over a half billion dollars below what is our authorized level, what is our commitment to the States. This figure is below what was approved by the Senate. This figure is also below the $1.9 billion that the House Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee approved for this program. The raiding of the Title XX program should serve as an example of what can happen when a program is block granted. Our experience with the social services block grant should serve as a red flag as we structure other social services funding. Those, for instance, who might succumb to the siren call of block grants for education should take note. A Federal program which serves a largely politically voiceless group of Americans, as Hubert Humphrey described, those who live in the dawn of life, our children, those who live in the twilight of life, our elderly, and those who live in the shadows of life, the disabled, these are the Americans who will be at risk, just as they are at risk today with the slashing of funding of the social services block grant. They will be at risk if we move towards the same pattern of funding for important national programs such as education. Because they will not have the HMOs' lobbyists, they will not have the PACs to represent their interests, to ensure they get their share when the Federal largess is divided, they are likely to get the scraps that are left over. I urge the President of the United States to veto this legislative elephant which is squashing the ant. I urge that he veto the legislation that would fund the Departments of Labor and HHS, and the District of Columbia because we, the Congress, can do better. We need to be given the opportunity and the challenge to do so. Exhibit 1 [From the CQ Daily Monitor, Oct. 27, 1999] GOP Leaders Order Hyde To Kill Bill on Doctor Bargaining (By Karen Foerstel) After an intense lobbying campaign by managed care plans, House GOP leaders have killed for the year--at least--a bill that would allow doctors to bargain collectively with health plans. The bill (HR 1304), sponsored by Tom Campbell, R-Calif., had been scheduled for a markup in the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday. But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Ill., on Monday asked committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., to yank it. ``It won't be dealt with this year,'' Hyde said. ``The leadership decided that they were involved with other health care issues and this was the . . . one that broke the camel's back. It's extra weight on a complicated issue. They felt it was another area of focus they don't need right now.'' On Oct. 7, after months of heated negotiations and debate, the House passed a broad patients' rights measure (HR 2723, later HR 2990) after voting down a much narrower package backed by Hastert. The issue has long been a thorn in the side of the GOP leadership, which favors allowing the market place--rather than government--to regulate managed care. The Campbell bill would for the first time allow independent doctors who contract with health plans to bargain collectively on everything from fees to who determines the treatment a patient receives. Health insurance groups strongly oppose the bill, arguing that doctors would be able to fix prices and drive up health insurance premiums. Doctors, led by the American Medical Association, back the measure. They say health plans are beginning to monopolize the patient market, and that doctors often have no choice but to sign restrictive contracts in order to stay in business. Hyde said that, along with Hastert, rank-and-file members who had been contacted by the health insurance industry asked him to pull the bill. The chairman said he still wants to pursue the issue in the future but could not say if he would ever mark up the Campbell bill. ``I don't know,'' he said. ``I'm interested in doing something with the difficult relationship between doctors, HMOs and insurers. I don't think the problem will go away, nor will our responsibility [to address it].''

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask that we return to morning business for a period of 30 minutes for remarks on the Labor-HHS conference report.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Every August and September, another school year begins. Thousands of young Americans enter the classroom. Almost every year at this time, I hear from school districts throughout Florida about teacher shortages. What did I hear in 1999? I heard from Miami Dade that they had hired 1,700 new teachers for the 1999 school year but still had 300 vacancies to fill on the first day of classes. Hillsborough County, Tampa, hired 1,493 teachers for the start of the school year. They were still 238 teachers short when the first school bell rang. Orange County, Orlando, needed 1,300 teachers for the new year and still had 50 vacancies a month after school started. These concerns will only get worse. Forty percent of current schoolteachers are over the age of 50. They are nearing retirement. Who will be the future role models to the next generation of Americans? Who will take their places in the classroom? The importance of having high quality teachers in sufficient numbers is crucial, if we are to look at the challenges facing education in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Dr. Robert McCabe entitled, ``A Twenty-First Century Challenge: Underprepared Americans.''

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which is entitled ``Transition to Teaching. This legislation starts from a personal experience. Bill Aradine is a first-year teacher. He tells me he is greatly enjoying his experience in the classroom. He has 150 students from the 9th to the 12th grade at North Marion High School near Ocala, FL. Mr. Aradine teaches automobile mechanics. He has sparked an interest in students that may lead many of them to rewarding, lucrative, and challenging careers. I know Mr. Aradine because I did one of my workdays--in fact, my most recent workday--at North Marion High School. It is the story I learned that day at North Marion that brings me to the Senate floor today. Up to this point, it may not seem that unusual of a story--a beginning teacher facing new challenges--but Mr. Aradine brings something else to his first year at North Marion High School. He brings a previous career of 11 years on-the-job experience. He has years of experience in a local Chevrolet car dealership. He is now starting a second career as a teacher. The students look to him with a different perspective. When he says, you will need to know this if you are going to get the job done, they know he knows what he is talking about. Having just come directly from the industry, he teaches at the cutting edge. The information he brings to his students is what he was actually doing in the workplace not that long ago. Mr. Aradine is also a bridge. He is a bridge between North Marion High School students and the world of employment. He offers them advice, counsel, and real-life connections to future jobs. Mr. Aradine learned of the opening at the high school when one of the automobile mechanic's teachers retired. He applied for the job. He was allowed to obtain a temporary teaching certificate based on his prior work experience. He will take four courses over the next 3 years to obtain a permanent teaching certificate. North Marion High School principal, Walter Miller, could not be more pleased with the situation. Mr. Aradine is doing an excellent job with the students. North Marion High School was able to fill a vacancy and ease its teacher shortage. More and more schools will be turning to teachers who are in their second career. The Washington Post of October 4 of this year remarks on the trend of professionals entering teaching after years of work in a nonacademic job. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks, a copy of an article entitled, ``Disillusioned Find Renewal in Classroom,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk the legislation and ask for its appropriate reference.

Mr. GRAHAM. Dr. McCabe raises several crucial demographic and societal changes that will affect American education in the coming years. Let me mention two of these issues. First, the American family structure will change in the coming decades. Half of all children will spend some of their childhood in single-parent homes and are more likely to live in poverty. Of the children who grow up in a nuclear family, very often both of their parents will work; thus, they will be less able to be involved in the child's school and schoolwork. That is what is happening to American families. That is what will increasingly in the family environment from which American schoolchildren will enter the classroom. But as they exit the classroom, societal expectations for students upon graduation will be greater. In the middle of this century, 50 years ago, 20 percent of American jobs required a specific skill. At the end of this century, today, 80 percent of jobs need skilled workers. Thus, the American student will need to graduate from school better prepared for the high-tech world than ever before; but single-parent families and dual-income families, in general, will face more challenges in being able to be actively involved in the support of that child's education. These challenges, and others, will face the American educational system. I rise today to take one step forward in easing the nationwide teacher shortage and offering challenging new opportunities for America's professional working people by introducing the Transition to Teaching Act of 1999. Senator Kennedy is to be commended for his work in including similar language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Bill. Representatives Jim Davis of Florida and Tim Roemer of Indiana have taken the lead in the House of Representatives on this issue. We have a very successful model on which to build the Transition to Teaching program. Since 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has brought more than 3,000 retired military personnel to our classrooms, particularly as math, science, and technology teachers. Schools in my State of Florida have benefitted by more than 270 individuals who have successfully completed the Troops to Teachers program, and are bringing their life experience to the classroom today. Troops to Teachers, and now Transition to Teaching, assist in overcoming two of the main obstacles that mid-career professionals face when they want to become a teacher. It is not impossible to do this now, as Mr. Aradine has shown; but this legislation will assist with and simplify the process. The first issue that is addressed involves teaching colleges within universities. These teaching colleges are often set up for the traditional students in their early twenties, right out of high school, just starting their new lives. These programs are generally taken over a multiyear period as a full- time college student. This legislation encourages teaching colleges to develop curriculum suitable for an individual who already has many years of experience. These programs are more streamlined, more flexible in school hours, and recognize that the mid-career student brings more life and work experience than does a traditional college student. By developing such programs, teaching colleges can maintain high standards, but allow a mid-career worker, making the change into teaching to become certified in a more efficient, streamlined manner. Teaching colleges are also asked to develop programs to maintain contact with and support for these new teachers during at least their first year in the classroom. Second, Transition to Teaching will assist teachers who come to the profession in mid-career in a very tangible way. Grants will be awarded, up to $5,000 per participant, to offset the costs of becoming a certified teacher. Why are these grants appropriate? The traditional college student comes directly from a family setting. They typically have limited personal or family financial obligations. In contrast, people like Mr. Aradine have their own families, spouses, children, and they have a house and car payments. They have the kind of financial obligations that would be typical of any mid-career adult. They would need this financial assistance in order to give them that little degree of support and help that will allow them to make this transition to become a certified teacher and move into a second career in the classroom. Thus, this legislation deals with two of the biggest obstacles to becoming a teacher in mid-career. The certification process is streamlined, and stipends are provided to offset the cost of this additional education. The success can be highlighted best with a personal story--a personal story, not like Mr. Aradine who is in his first year, but the personal story of a man who is already well into his second career. Ronald Dyches grew up in a military family. His father was a noncommissioned officer. When Mr. Dyches attended college at Sam Houston State, he followed in his family's military footsteps and enrolled in the ROTC. When he graduated, he became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. For more than 21 years, Mr. Dyches served our Nation as an Army intelligence officer, living throughout the United States and Europe. He feels the highlight of his career were the three years he spent on General Norman Schwartzkopf's staff at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa during the Gulf war. Mr. Dyches retired from the Army in 1995. But you can say his service to the country did not end. With the help of the Troops to Teachers program, Mr. Dyches began a second career teaching social studies at Bloomingdale High School in Brandon, FL. He has been on the faculty at Bloomingdale since 1995--and this year he is teaching three periods of Honors World History and two periods of an elective class that he created: The History of the Vietnam War. Mr. Dyches' military experiences are an integral part of his classroom teaching. In addition to developing new elective courses, such as the one on the Vietnam war, Mr. Dyches uses the wealth of knowledge acquired living and working twelve years in Europe with the military to enliven his World History class. With his background, he offers advice and counsel to students including those considering a military career or wishing to attend one of the Nation's service academies. Mr. Dyches feels that this classroom experience would not have been possible without the Troops to Teachers program. It rekindled his interest in teaching from his college days, and it opened doors to certification that would have been closed to him. In some sense, Troops to Teachers helps make ``perfect marriages.'' Bloomingdale High School needed a social studies teacher. Ron Dyches needed a challenging, rewarding second career. He, the school, and all of Bloomingdale's students have benefited from this perfect marriage. Other professionals, other workers, should be allowed to follow in the footsteps of the retired military personnel like Mr. Dyches, who have set such a shining example for us and the students that they serve. Law enforcement, attorneys, business leaders, scientists, entrepreneurs, technically competent men and women, and others in the private sector should be encouraged to share their wisdom with students. As I mentioned, under the Transition to Teaching Act, colleges and universities would be awarded grants to design educational programs modeled after Troops to Teachers to train mid-career professionals, and others, to become teachers. Individuals would be eligible for grants of up to $5,000 to pay for the courses and training they need to become qualified teachers. In return for the training, the new teachers would agree to teach in low-income schools, determined by the percentage of title I students in the school population, for three years. This legislation is timely. We are on the cusp of retirement of millions of baby boomers. By encouraging recent retirees, or mid-career professionals, to become certified through Transition To Teaching and spend a few years in the classroom, we will bring the life skills of experienced professionals to our youngest citizens. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Our nation's children deserve our best efforts to provide them with a world class education that they will need in the 21st century. Exhibit 1 Disillusioned Find Renewal in Classroom--New Teachers Coming From Other Professions (By Liz Seymour) To become a teacher, Mary Ann Richardson left a $113,000-a- year job lobbying Congress as a U.S. deputy assistant secretary in the Labor Department. Now she's a 46-year-old intern at Falls Church High School, a substitute teacher in history, government and civics without her own classroom or even her own desk. Next year, after she receives her master's degree in education, she will be applying for teaching jobs that pay about $80,000 a year less than what she used to earn. She grapples with a new identity and the loss of family income that she worked 16 years to get and will never see again. But, she said, ``when those kids look up to you or they're having a crisis and you can help . . . I can tell you right now, I have found a purpose.'' The teaching profession, shunned for decades by college graduates in search of higher pay and prestige, is attracting a growing number of people who started their careers in another field. Some are downsized corporate executives who've heard about the national teacher shortage and are enticed by the job security. Others, like Richardson, are disenchanted lawyers and lobbyists who found that their high salaries did not make up for job pressures. They are being lured, too, by an easing of teacher licensing requirements for career-switchers in many states and school districts, a trend that is likely to continue as the national teacher shortage worsens. About 55 percent of the students currently enrolled in post-undergraduate teaching programs started their careers in another field, according to a study to be released this week by the National Center for Education Information, a Washington-based think tank. The study also found that 27 percent of universities have programs solely for second- career teachers, up from 3 percent in 1984. Officials in several Washington area school districts said they are seeing more people like Richardson, although they do not keep such figures. ``People used to be driven by the financial rewards of their career,'' said Kevin North, the director of employment for Fairfax County schools. ``People are starting to step back and say, `Other things are more important to me, and I want something more fulfilling.' '' Second-career teachers are appealing job candidates in several respects, said Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford University and director of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. They are more mature than first-career teachers and often have experience with children through parenting. And because their decision to teach usually requires a substantial pay cut, they tend to have a deeper commitment to public education, she said. Jerome ``Rick'' Peck, 55, a first-year science teacher at Loudoun County's Seneca Ridge Middle School, said the biggest attribute he brings to the classroom is ``the ability to say to the kids--and to mean it and to know it--`Hey, this is something you're going to need later in life.' '' A certified public accountant with a master's degree in business administration from the Wharton School, Peck was earning a six-figure salary as chief financial officer of a magazine publishing company until it was sold a few years ago. He was financially secure and his decision to teach was ``really selfish,'' Peck insists, because he saw it as something he would enjoy. Five weeks into the school year, he still feels that way. But the transition hasn't been easy. He is mired in more paperwork than he expected. Many of his students fared poorly on the first test he gave, about the metric system, and some complained that he was lecturing too fast. ``When it comes to teaching, I'm definitely still learning,'' Peck said. James R. Fields, 38, a former supervisor at United Parcel Service, is studying for his master's degree in education at George Washington University and substitute teaching at Sligo Middle School in Silver Spring. Fields was earning $59,000 a year after 14 years at UPS. But when he moved from the Miami area to Montgomery County to get married, the company wouldn't transfer him. He probably won't earn more than $35,000 a year when he gets a full-time teaching job next year. Fields said he is lucky that his wife, a gynecologist, has a salary that allows him to pursue teaching. Fields, who is African American, said he hopes to be a strong influence on young black males. But right now, his main goal is to learn the routines of running a classroom. He said it's a challenge sometimes just to get his students to settle down--never mind actually paying attention and comprehending his lessons. ``It's kind of tough as a sub--[the students] think it's a field day,'' Fields said. ``In a sense I see that as a plus; you quickly develop some classroom management skills. Tom Brannan, 52, quit his $83,000-a-year job as an assistant city manager in Alexandria to enroll in the master's degree program at George Washington. He enjoyed many aspects of his job but not the long hours and frenetic pace. Time with his family was often cut short, he said. In just a few weeks as a substitute teacher at Fairfax's George Marshall High School, Brannan already has seen rewards. One day, he was assigned on short notice to teach a history class, with little time to prepare a lesson. After sweating out the period, the bell rang and the students filed out. One stopped to ask him: ``Are you gonna be back any time soon?'' Career-switchers typically take fewer education courses than students who go into teaching as a first career but often get more field work in schools. Despite the growing calls from politicians and school officials to streamline the certification process for second- career teachers, they may still face challenges getting hired, said C. Emily Feistritzer, president of the National Center for Education Information. Some may possess several advanced degrees, which would put them at a higher pay scale than most beginning teachers. Feistritzer said she has spotted another hurdle: Principals are sometimes less inclined to put older adults on their teaching staff because they won't be as easy to supervise as a 22-year-old college graduate. Amy Harris is 26, younger than many of the other teachers who started in a different profession. She gave up a job at a brokerage firm in Minneapolis to lead 27 fifth-graders at Loudoun's Cool Spring Elementary School. Although she didn't take much of a pay cut to become a teacher, she eventually would have earned far more if she'd stayed in financial services. She acknowledges that she second-guesses her decision once a month, when she writes a check to pay down $25,000 in debt from graduate school loans. But she is energized by her students. ``I really enjoy their wit and their cleverness,'' she said. Richardson's journey toward teaching began last year, when her mother was dying. She came to live with Richardson for the last four months of her life, during which mother and daughter had many soul-searching talks about careers, family and, above all, happiness. ``She said, `Look, you've got about 20 years [of working] left--you need to do what you think is important and what you want to do.' '' Richardson recalled. Richardson, whose husband is an archivist, has put her two children on strict allowances to reduce household expenses since she quit her high-paying Labor Department job. The worst of it, she said, is being viewed as an inexperienced newcomer at age 46. ``I worry that when I get done with this program, I have to start over and sell myself again,'' she said. ``If I get through this, they should want me!''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Dr. McCabe raises several crucial demographic and societal changes that will affect American education in the coming years. Let me mention two of these issues. First, the American family structure will change in the coming decades. Half of all children will spend some of their childhood in single-parent homes and are more likely to live in poverty. Of the children who grow up in a nuclear family, very often both of their parents will work; thus, they will be less able to be involved in the child's school and schoolwork. That is what is happening to American families. That is what will increasingly in the family environment from which American schoolchildren will enter the classroom. But as they exit the classroom, societal expectations for students upon graduation will be greater. In the middle of this century, 50 years ago, 20 percent of American jobs required a specific skill. At the end of this century, today, 80 percent of jobs need skilled workers. Thus, the American student will need to graduate from school better prepared for the high-tech world than ever before; but single-parent families and dual-income families, in general, will face more challenges in being able to be actively involved in the support of that child's education. These challenges, and others, will face the American educational system. I rise today to take one step forward in easing the nationwide teacher shortage and offering challenging new opportunities for America's professional working people by introducing the Transition to Teaching Act of 1999. Senator Kennedy is to be commended for his work in including similar language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Bill. Representatives Jim Davis of Florida and Tim Roemer of Indiana have taken the lead in the House of Representatives on this issue. We have a very successful model on which to build the Transition to Teaching program. Since 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has brought more than 3,000 retired military personnel to our classrooms, particularly as math, science, and technology teachers. Schools in my State of Florida have benefitted by more than 270 individuals who have successfully completed the Troops to Teachers program, and are bringing their life experience to the classroom today. Troops to Teachers, and now Transition to Teaching, assist in overcoming two of the main obstacles that mid-career professionals face when they want to become a teacher. It is not impossible to do this now, as Mr. Aradine has shown; but this legislation will assist with and simplify the process. The first issue that is addressed involves teaching colleges within universities. These teaching colleges are often set up for the traditional students in their early twenties, right out of high school, just starting their new lives. These programs are generally taken over a multiyear period as a full- time college student. This legislation encourages teaching colleges to develop curriculum suitable for an individual who already has many years of experience. These programs are more streamlined, more flexible in school hours, and recognize that the mid-career student brings more life and work experience than does a traditional college student. By developing such programs, teaching colleges can maintain high standards, but allow a mid-career worker, making the change into teaching to become certified in a more efficient, streamlined manner. Teaching colleges are also asked to develop programs to maintain contact with and support for these new teachers during at least their first year in the classroom. Second, Transition to Teaching will assist teachers who come to the profession in mid-career in a very tangible way. Grants will be awarded, up to $5,000 per participant, to offset the costs of becoming a certified teacher. Why are these grants appropriate? The traditional college student comes directly from a family setting. They typically have limited personal or family financial obligations. In contrast, people like Mr. Aradine have their own families, spouses, children, and they have a house and car payments. They have the kind of financial obligations that would be typical of any mid-career adult. They would need this financial assistance in order to give them that little degree of support and help that will allow them to make this transition to become a certified teacher and move into a second career in the classroom. Thus, this legislation deals with two of the biggest obstacles to becoming a teacher in mid-career. The certification process is streamlined, and stipends are provided to offset the cost of this additional education. The success can be highlighted best with a personal story--a personal story, not like Mr. Aradine who is in his first year, but the personal story of a man who is already well into his second career. Ronald Dyches grew up in a military family. His father was a noncommissioned officer. When Mr. Dyches attended college at Sam Houston State, he followed in his family's military footsteps and enrolled in the ROTC. When he graduated, he became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. For more than 21 years, Mr. Dyches served our Nation as an Army intelligence officer, living throughout the United States and Europe. He feels the highlight of his career were the three years he spent on General Norman Schwartzkopf's staff at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa during the Gulf war. Mr. Dyches retired from the Army in 1995. But you can say his service to the country did not end. With the help of the Troops to Teachers program, Mr. Dyches began a second career teaching social studies at Bloomingdale High School in Brandon, FL. He has been on the faculty at Bloomingdale since 1995--and this year he is teaching three periods of Honors World History and two periods of an elective class that he created: The History of the Vietnam War. Mr. Dyches' military experiences are an integral part of his classroom teaching. In addition to developing new elective courses, such as the one on the Vietnam war, Mr. Dyches uses the wealth of knowledge acquired living and working twelve years in Europe with the military to enliven his World History class. With his background, he offers advice and counsel to students including those considering a military career or wishing to attend one of the Nation's service academies. Mr. Dyches feels that this classroom experience would not have been possible without the Troops to Teachers program. It rekindled his interest in teaching from his college days, and it opened doors to certification that would have been closed to him. In some sense, Troops to Teachers helps make ``perfect marriages.'' Bloomingdale High School needed a social studies teacher. Ron Dyches needed a challenging, rewarding second career. He, the school, and all of Bloomingdale's students have benefited from this perfect marriage. Other professionals, other workers, should be allowed to follow in the footsteps of the retired military personnel like Mr. Dyches, who have set such a shining example for us and the students that they serve. Law enforcement, attorneys, business leaders, scientists, entrepreneurs, technically competent men and women, and others in the private sector should be encouraged to share their wisdom with students. As I mentioned, under the Transition to Teaching Act, colleges and universities would be awarded grants to design educational programs modeled after Troops to Teachers to train mid-career professionals, and others, to become teachers. Individuals would be eligible for grants of up to $5,000 to pay for the courses and training they need to become qualified teachers. In return for the training, the new teachers would agree to teach in low-income schools, determined by the percentage of title I students in the school population, for three years. This legislation is timely. We are on the cusp of retirement of millions of baby boomers. By encouraging recent retirees, or mid-career professionals, to become certified through Transition To Teaching and spend a few years in the classroom, we will bring the life skills of experienced professionals to our youngest citizens. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Our nation's children deserve our best efforts to provide them with a world class education that they will need in the 21st century. Exhibit 1 Disillusioned Find Renewal in Classroom--New Teachers Coming From Other Professions (By Liz Seymour) To become a teacher, Mary Ann Richardson left a $113,000-a- year job lobbying Congress as a U.S. deputy assistant secretary in the Labor Department. Now she's a 46-year-old intern at Falls Church High School, a substitute teacher in history, government and civics without her own classroom or even her own desk. Next year, after she receives her master's degree in education, she will be applying for teaching jobs that pay about $80,000 a year less than what she used to earn. She grapples with a new identity and the loss of family income that she worked 16 years to get and will never see again. But, she said, ``when those kids look up to you or they're having a crisis and you can help . . . I can tell you right now, I have found a purpose.'' The teaching profession, shunned for decades by college graduates in search of higher pay and prestige, is attracting a growing number of people who started their careers in another field. Some are downsized corporate executives who've heard about the national teacher shortage and are enticed by the job security. Others, like Richardson, are disenchanted lawyers and lobbyists who found that their high salaries did not make up for job pressures. They are being lured, too, by an easing of teacher licensing requirements for career-switchers in many states and school districts, a trend that is likely to continue as the national teacher shortage worsens. About 55 percent of the students currently enrolled in post-undergraduate teaching programs started their careers in another field, according to a study to be released this week by the National Center for Education Information, a Washington-based think tank. The study also found that 27 percent of universities have programs solely for second- career teachers, up from 3 percent in 1984. Officials in several Washington area school districts said they are seeing more people like Richardson, although they do not keep such figures. ``People used to be driven by the financial rewards of their career,'' said Kevin North, the director of employment for Fairfax County schools. ``People are starting to step back and say, `Other things are more important to me, and I want something more fulfilling.' '' Second-career teachers are appealing job candidates in several respects, said Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford University and director of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. They are more mature than first-career teachers and often have experience with children through parenting. And because their decision to teach usually requires a substantial pay cut, they tend to have a deeper commitment to public education, she said. Jerome ``Rick'' Peck, 55, a first-year science teacher at Loudoun County's Seneca Ridge Middle School, said the biggest attribute he brings to the classroom is ``the ability to say to the kids--and to mean it and to know it--`Hey, this is something you're going to need later in life.' '' A certified public accountant with a master's degree in business administration from the Wharton School, Peck was earning a six-figure salary as chief financial officer of a magazine publishing company until it was sold a few years ago. He was financially secure and his decision to teach was ``really selfish,'' Peck insists, because he saw it as something he would enjoy. Five weeks into the school year, he still feels that way. But the transition hasn't been easy. He is mired in more paperwork than he expected. Many of his students fared poorly on the first test he gave, about the metric system, and some complained that he was lecturing too fast. ``When it comes to teaching, I'm definitely still learning,'' Peck said. James R. Fields, 38, a former supervisor at United Parcel Service, is studying for his master's degree in education at George Washington University and substitute teaching at Sligo Middle School in Silver Spring. Fields was earning $59,000 a year after 14 years at UPS. But when he moved from the Miami area to Montgomery County to get married, the company wouldn't transfer him. He probably won't earn more than $35,000 a year when he gets a full-time teaching job next year. Fields said he is lucky that his wife, a gynecologist, has a salary that allows him to pursue teaching. Fields, who is African American, said he hopes to be a strong influence on young black males. But right now, his main goal is to learn the routines of running a classroom. He said it's a challenge sometimes just to get his students to settle down--never mind actually paying attention and comprehending his lessons. ``It's kind of tough as a sub--[the students] think it's a field day,'' Fields said. ``In a sense I see that as a plus; you quickly develop some classroom management skills. Tom Brannan, 52, quit his $83,000-a-year job as an assistant city manager in Alexandria to enroll in the master's degree program at George Washington. He enjoyed many aspects of his job but not the long hours and frenetic pace. Time with his family was often cut short, he said. In just a few weeks as a substitute teacher at Fairfax's George Marshall High School, Brannan already has seen rewards. One day, he was assigned on short notice to teach a history class, with little time to prepare a lesson. After sweating out the period, the bell rang and the students filed out. One stopped to ask him: ``Are you gonna be back any time soon?'' Career-switchers typically take fewer education courses than students who go into teaching as a first career but often get more field work in schools. Despite the growing calls from politicians and school officials to streamline the certification process for second- career teachers, they may still face challenges getting hired, said C. Emily Feistritzer, president of the National Center for Education Information. Some may possess several advanced degrees, which would put them at a higher pay scale than most beginning teachers. Feistritzer said she has spotted another hurdle: Principals are sometimes less inclined to put older adults on their teaching staff because they won't be as easy to supervise as a 22-year-old college graduate. Amy Harris is 26, younger than many of the other teachers who started in a different profession. She gave up a job at a brokerage firm in Minneapolis to lead 27 fifth-graders at Loudoun's Cool Spring Elementary School. Although she didn't take much of a pay cut to become a teacher, she eventually would have earned far more if she'd stayed in financial services. She acknowledges that she second-guesses her decision once a month, when she writes a check to pay down $25,000 in debt from graduate school loans. But she is energized by her students. ``I really enjoy their wit and their cleverness,'' she said. Richardson's journey toward teaching began last year, when her mother was dying. She came to live with Richardson for the last four months of her life, during which mother and daughter had many soul-searching talks about careers, family and, above all, happiness. ``She said, `Look, you've got about 20 years [of working] left--you need to do what you think is important and what you want to do.' '' Richardson recalled. Richardson, whose husband is an archivist, has put her two children on strict allowances to reduce household expenses since she quit her high-paying Labor Department job. The worst of it, she said, is being viewed as an inexperienced newcomer at age 46. ``I worry that when I get done with this program, I have to start over and sell myself again,'' she said. ``If I get through this, they should want me!''

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk the legislation and ask for its appropriate reference.

Mr. GRAHAM. Every August and September, another school year begins. Thousands of young Americans enter the classroom. Almost every year at this time, I hear from school districts throughout Florida about teacher shortages. What did I hear in 1999? I heard from Miami Dade that they had hired 1,700 new teachers for the 1999 school year but still had 300 vacancies to fill on the first day of classes. Hillsborough County, Tampa, hired 1,493 teachers for the start of the school year. They were still 238 teachers short when the first school bell rang. Orange County, Orlando, needed 1,300 teachers for the new year and still had 50 vacancies a month after school started. These concerns will only get worse. Forty percent of current schoolteachers are over the age of 50. They are nearing retirement. Who will be the future role models to the next generation of Americans? Who will take their places in the classroom? The importance of having high quality teachers in sufficient numbers is crucial, if we are to look at the challenges facing education in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Dr. Robert McCabe entitled, ``A Twenty-First Century Challenge: Underprepared Americans.''

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which is entitled ``Transition to Teaching. This legislation starts from a personal experience. Bill Aradine is a first-year teacher. He tells me he is greatly enjoying his experience in the classroom. He has 150 students from the 9th to the 12th grade at North Marion High School near Ocala, FL. Mr. Aradine teaches automobile mechanics. He has sparked an interest in students that may lead many of them to rewarding, lucrative, and challenging careers. I know Mr. Aradine because I did one of my workdays--in fact, my most recent workday--at North Marion High School. It is the story I learned that day at North Marion that brings me to the Senate floor today. Up to this point, it may not seem that unusual of a story--a beginning teacher facing new challenges--but Mr. Aradine brings something else to his first year at North Marion High School. He brings a previous career of 11 years on-the-job experience. He has years of experience in a local Chevrolet car dealership. He is now starting a second career as a teacher. The students look to him with a different perspective. When he says, you will need to know this if you are going to get the job done, they know he knows what he is talking about. Having just come directly from the industry, he teaches at the cutting edge. The information he brings to his students is what he was actually doing in the workplace not that long ago. Mr. Aradine is also a bridge. He is a bridge between North Marion High School students and the world of employment. He offers them advice, counsel, and real-life connections to future jobs. Mr. Aradine learned of the opening at the high school when one of the automobile mechanic's teachers retired. He applied for the job. He was allowed to obtain a temporary teaching certificate based on his prior work experience. He will take four courses over the next 3 years to obtain a permanent teaching certificate. North Marion High School principal, Walter Miller, could not be more pleased with the situation. Mr. Aradine is doing an excellent job with the students. North Marion High School was able to fill a vacancy and ease its teacher shortage. More and more schools will be turning to teachers who are in their second career. The Washington Post of October 4 of this year remarks on the trend of professionals entering teaching after years of work in a nonacademic job. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks, a copy of an article entitled, ``Disillusioned Find Renewal in Classroom,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GRAHAM. In light of that, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a statement to make on legislation which I will introduce this evening. But prior to that, I express my gratitude for the eloquence of the remarks the Senator from Utah has just delivered on behalf of our friend, John Chafee1. Many of us have attempted to reach into our souls and express the depth of our affection for this special man. The Senator from Utah has succeeded in that effort. I commend him and thank him for sharing those emotions. Mr. President, I have a second item before I turn to my remarks for purposes of an introduction.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have exercised the prerogative, which is each Senator's, to place a hold, which means legislation cannot be brought up without at least referring to and discussing it with the Senator who has placed the hold. In this case, I did so on the legislation which is commonly referred to as the tax extender bill. This is legislation which extends the life of a number of current tax provisions. As a member of the Finance Committee, I support this legislation and I will vote for this legislation. I am going to announce publicly that I am withdrawing the hold I had on that legislation. I will give a brief explanation. First, I am doing so because I think, in the spirit of comity and the effort to get important work accomplished during what I hope will be the relatively few days remaining in this first session of the 106th Congress, it is appropriate to allow the Senate to take up this legislation without further delay insofar as it is the product of my action. Second, an explanation of why I imposed the hold in the first instance: I supported this legislation. I supported it in large part because it meets what I think is a fundamental test--it is paid for. This legislation contains increases in certain taxes sufficient to cover the cost of the tax relief which will be made available through the extenders. Not to do that would have had the effect of dipping into the surplus. Now that means dipping into the Social Security surplus, since we have already spent the non-Social Security surplus. This bill meets the test of being fiscally prudent. However, I alert the Senate that there was another bill, which in many ways was a companion of the tax extender legislation, voted out of the Finance Committee almost simultaneously with the tax extender legislation. That is legislation which will provide for increases in the reimbursement level to providers of various health care services under the Medicare program. Again, I support the concept that there is a justifiable case for increasing those reimbursements. We have done so, in this legislation that the Senate will possibly soon be considering, in the amount of approximately $1 billion in fiscal year 2000, $5 billion in fiscal year 2001, and an additional $9 billion over the next 8 years, for a total of $15 billion. My criticism of that legislation is, unlike the tax extender bill, it is not paid for. Therefore, we will be asked to vote for $15 billion of additional spending, which will have to come directly out of the Social Security surplus. It had been my intention, by holding the tax extender bill, to propose an amendment to the tax extender bill which would have been the additional reimbursement for Medicare providers but with an appropriate offset so that there would be $15 billion either of reduced spending elsewhere or additional taxes to pay for the additional reimbursement for Medicare providers. It had been my thought that by merging these two bills together and using this as an opportunity to provide the offsets for the Medicare reimbursement increases, we would be able to send to the House of Representatives legislation which it might both consider and favorably vote upon. It now appears that, in fact, we are not going to take up the increased reimbursement to Medicare providers, at least not take it up as separate legislation. Rather, it will be either delayed to some future date or taken up as part of the likely end-of-session major financial compromise. It appears as if there is no purpose to be gained by holding the tax extender bill for purposes of offering an amendment to a bill which is not going to be taken up anyway. For those somewhat convoluted reasons, but reasons which I hope will be satisfactory to the Members of the body, my colleagues, I am announcing that I am lifting the hold on the tax extender bill. It is my hope that we will soon pass it and that it will serve as a model for other legislation when we decide that it is important enough to extend a tax benefit to a certain class of taxpayers, or important enough to increase spending in the form of additional appropriations to certain citizens of this country, that we will have the fortitude to make the judgment as to how we are going to pay for either those reductions in revenue from one source or increase in appropriations to another. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 1827 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')