Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Rosa Parks is truly one of this Nation's greatest heroes. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice have shaped our Nation's history and are remembered with respect and with reverence by us all. Forty three years ago--December 1995--in Montgomery, Alabama the modern civil rights movement began. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. My home state of Michigan proudly claims Rosa Parks as one of our own. Rosa Parks and her husband made the journey to Michigan in 1957. Unceasing threats on their lives and persistent harassment by phone prompted the move to Detroit where Rosa Park's brother resided. Rosa Park's arrest for violating the city's segregation laws was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott. Her stand on that December day in 1955 was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime of struggle for equality and justice. For instance, twelve years earlier, in 1943, Rosa Parks had been arrested for violating another one of the city's bus related segregation laws, which required African Americans to pay their fares at the front of the bus then get off of the bus and re- board from the bus at the rear. The driver of that bus was the same driver with whom Rosa Parks would have her confrontation 12 years later. The rest is history--the boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting tribute to Rosa Parks--the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. We have come a long way towards achieving Dr. King's dream of justice and equality for all. But we still have much work to do. Let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle on Civil Rights, and to human rights in Rosa Parks name. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief biography of the life and times and movement which was sparked by Rosa Parks, the mother of the civil rights movement, and excerpted from USL Biographies, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the School Dropout Prevention and State Responsibilities Act which is aimed at lowering the student dropout rate in our nation's schools. We cannot have high expectations that our young people will be prepared for the challenges that lay ahead if they have not attained at least a high school diploma. The fact is that over half a million high school students drop out each year, joining almost 4 million young Americans who lack a high school diploma and are not in the process of getting one. Mr. President, it is a bipartisan National Education Goal to increase high school completion rates to 90 percent and eliminate gaps in the rates of graduation among different groups, according to the goals established by the Governors and the President in 1989. However, there has been no progress in lowering national dropout rates. As a matter of fact, there is currently no targeted national funding to help schools most in need of restructuring to lower their dropout rates. To help schools in their efforts to reduce dropout rates, this amendment would authorize $150 million annually over five years to create a coordinated national dropout prevention program. Under this proposal, States would receive funding according to the Title I formula, and would then award competitive grants to schools or local education districts with the highest dropout rates. The goal is to enable such schools to implement proven and widely replicated models of comprehensive dropout prevention reforms such as, for example, the Lansing School District in Michigan, which has established a mentoring program with community leaders and the ``New Beginnings'' program for students who have been expelled to keep them in school; and the Detroit Public Schools' successful 9th grade restructuring program which is advancing up to the higher school grades. In addition, this amendment will create a national system of data collection and sharing, so that we have a complete understanding of the extent of the dropout problem. If local school districts are to curb middle and highschool dropout rates, they must have uniform data and statistics. This amendment, which creates a national clearinghouse and a dropout ``czar'' within the Department of Education, will give middle and high schools the tools they need to keep our youngsters in school. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the legislation that passed 74-26 by the Senate during debate last year on the education IRA proposal, and was, regrettably, dropped in conference. This is a very important proposal to help keep young Americans in school and it is my hope that my colleagues in the Senate will again adopt this amendment. Amendment No. 36 To Amendment No. 35 (Purpose: To honor the Federal commitment to fund part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, under the Wellstone and Kennedy amendments, would Michigan be able to continue their current Ed-Flex authority?

Mr. LEVIN. In January, 1998, Michigan moved to lower the poverty threshold statewide from the 50 percent poverty level in title I to 35 percent. Would either the Wellstone or Kennedy amendment prohibit Michigan from continuing to allow these waivers under Ed-Flex that is improving reform in the affected schools?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week the Defense Department and the Congress lost the services of an outstanding public servant when Sandi Stuart stepped down as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. For the last six years, beginning in 1993, Sandi Stuart has served as the senior legislative advisor to three Secretaries of Defense--our former colleague the late Les Aspin; Dr. Bill Perry; and the current Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. During this time she has earned a well-deserved reputation as a skilled legislative strategist and an effective spokesperson for the Secretary of Defense and for the interests of the men and women in uniform and their families. At the same time, because of her extensive experience over almost 15 years in senior staff positions in the House of Representatives, Sandi had tremendous credibility on Capitol Hill as someone who understood how Congress worked. She knew that to be successful working with Congress--particularly in the area of national security policy-- requires an ability to work closely with members and staff on both sides of the aisle. She did that very well, and leaves the Defense Department with the respect and gratitude of Democratic and Republican members and staff alike. Mr. President, I have worked closely with Sandi Stuart for the past six years on a broad range of national security policy issues. She has done an outstanding job of meeting the needs of the Armed Services Committee, and I have come to rely heavily on her advice and counsel. Mr. President, Sandi Stuart has also become a good friend, and we will miss her. I want to take this opportunity to thank her for her service to the country, and to wish her continued success in the private sector as she leaves the Department of Defense.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Small Business Committee and cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased the Senate is acting expeditiously on S. 314, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. Making affordable government guaranteed loans available to small businesses to correct the computer problem associated with the Year 2000, or Y2K, is a critical part of that the federal government can do to ensure that all businesses can become Y2K compliant by the turn of the century. As everyone knows by now, experts are concerned that on January 1, 2000, many computers will recognize a double zero not as the year 2000 but as the year 1900. This technical glitch could cause the computers to stop running altogether or start generating erroneous data. It is a serious problem that should be taken seriously by businesses, large and small. Unfortunately, surveys show that many small businesses are not taking the action they should be taking to fix the problem and as a result could face costly consequences on January 1, 2000. According to recent research, nearly 25 percent of all businesses, of which 80 percent are small companies, have not begun to prepare for the serious system issues that are predicted to occur on January 1, 2000. One of the reasons for this lack of preparedness by small businesses could be the lack of access to funds to pay for the needed repairs. That is why the Senate Small Business Committee reported by a unanimous vote this legislation to establish a special loan program for small businesses to pay for Y2K repairs. Our hope is to move this legislation expeditiously through the 106th Congress so that the special loan program established by this bill will be available in time to do Y2K repairs. The full extent of the year 2000 problem is unknown, but we can reduce the possibility of problems by taking action now. System failures can be costly and that's why it's better to avoid them rather than fix them after failure. As we count down the remaining months of this century, let's give small businesses who have been the backbone of our great economic prosperity access to the funds they need to correct the Y2K computer bug. For many of our small businesses, S. 314 could help keep them from suffering severe financial distress or failure. S. 314 requires the Small Business Administration to establish a limited-term government guaranteed loan program to guarantee loans made by private lenders to small businesses to correct their own Y2K problems or provide relief from economic injuries sustained as a result of its own or another entity's Y2K computer problems. It offers these loans at more favorable terms than other government guaranteed loans available to small businesses and it allows small businesses to defer interest for the first year. The bill report language also includes a provision I suggested allowing the favorable terms of this lending program to be applied to loans already granted to small businesses that were used primarily for Y2K repairs but under less favorable terms than offered under this program. Since this loan program already passed the Senate last year as a component of a larger bill, some small businesses may have already made the decision to take out small business loans to pay for Y2K repairs based on the reasonable expectation that this program would be enacted into law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I have a unanimous consent request. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Florida for the determination which he has always shown to pay our bills, not to create additional burdens, debt burdens on our children and grandchildren, to protect the Social Security surplus, and to do what is right in terms of fiscal responsibility. His amendment is an important amendment. It would make this bill much sounder in terms of paying for the benefits that we have in this bill. I commend him for that vision and for his determination. I hope that his amendment is not tabled. But I just want to commend him for putting, in very specific amendment form, a way in which we can pay for these benefits now instead of just expressing the hope that they will be paid for later. If we follow that course, of course, the points of order which were referred to before would not be in order, which would be just fine with me. It also would guarantee that the benefits which we now say we want to provide to the men and women in service--in fact, are not guaranteed, but make it more likely to guarantee that those benefits would, in fact, flow down the road. And it is because of that additional assurance which would be given the men and women through the passage of that amendment that I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Florida. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senator Harkin, a modification to the amendment which he previously sent to the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. He does not need a rollcall.

Mr. LEVIN. And finally, Mr. President, is it accurate that all of these budget points of order, if made, could only be waived by a so- called supermajority of the Senate; that is, by a vote of 60 Senators?

Mr. LEVIN. And is it correct, Mr. President, that the amendment we adopted earlier today to extend the window of availability of GI bill benefits for the National Guard and Reserve was subject to a budget point of order because it would increase direct spending without providing offsets?

Mr. LEVIN. And is it correct, Mr. President, that the amendment that we adopted earlier today to allow members of the Reserve components to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan was subject to a budget point of order because it would decrease income tax revenues in fiscal year 2000?

Mr. LEVIN. And is it correct that the amendment that we adopted yesterday repealing the reduction in military retired pay for civilian employees of the Federal Government was subject to a budget point of order because it increases the deficit and violates the pay-as-you-go rule by increasing spending without an offset?

Mr. LEVIN. Is it correct, Mr. President, that S. 4 is subject to a budget point of order because it increases the deficit in the first 5 years of the current budget resolution and in the 5 years that follow, and therefore violates the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO rule, by increasing direct spending and reducing revenues without offsets?

Mr. LEVIN. Is it correct, Mr. President, that S. 4 is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act because the bill reduces revenues by decreasing income tax revenues in fiscal year 2000?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, hopefully, we will soon be voting on final passage of S. 4, the military pay and benefits bill. This bill would significantly improve the pay and benefits available to our troops and help address the military recruitment and retention problems identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The bill includes an across-the-board increase in military salaries, targeted pay raises to reward performance, enhanced military retirement benefits for service members who entered after 1986, enhanced education benefits for service members under the GI bill, and numerous other benefits. These changes should help provide fairer compensation to our men and women in uniform, and I think we would all like to see them enacted into law. As I pointed out previously, this is an extremely expensive bill, and it has not been paid for. This bill has not been paid for. When the bill came to the floor, it included provisions that would cost roughly $35 billion more than current law over the 6-year course of the future year defense plan, the so-called FYDP. These costs include close to $24 billion in pay and benefits enhancements that were funded in the administration budget but almost $12 billion more in enhancements that were added by the Armed Services Committee. Since the bill has been in the Chamber, it has become even more expensive, with the addition of many amendments increasing the benefits for our men and women in uniform. These include provisions eliminating the prohibition on dual compensation, authorizing participation in the Thrift Savings Plan by members of the National Guard and Reserves, extending enhanced GI bill benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves, expanding the use of GI bill benefits to cover preparation for college and graduate school entrance exams, and expanding the number of soldiers eligible for the $180 per month special subsistence allowance. Moreover, we have adopted an amendment offered by the Senators from Maryland and Virginia expressing the sense of the Congress that we should extend the pay increases provided in this bill for members of the armed services to the Federal civilian employees as well. If we were to act in accordance with just that one provision, we would add an additional $3 billion in defense spending and an additional $7 billion in nondefense spending, for a total of almost $10 billion of Governmentwide spending over the next 6 years. Now, these are worthwhile provisions which would provide real benefits to the men and women who so loyally serve our country every day, but they have real costs attached to them, some in the hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Yet we have not said how we intend to pay for them. Do we intend to revise the budget agreement to pay for the bill before us? If the defense budget is not substantially increased, for instance, we would then be faced with making deep cuts in the readiness and modernization accounts to pay for the changes proposed in this bill. Such cuts are coming at a time when our senior military leadership has already expressed concerns that our readiness could have a serious impact on our national security. For this reason, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that they would support the increased benefits contained in this bill only if the additional money does not come out of other defense programs. For this reason, the Secretary of Defense wrote the Armed Services Committee last week to express strong concerns about the cost of this bill and how it would be paid for. Secretary Cohen wrote: S. 4 proposes even larger pay raises, higher cost-of-living adjustments, and other items which are not in the budget I submitted . . . I am concerned that until there is a budget resolution that sets the defense budget level, this bill constitutes an unfunded requirement on the Department. Absent an increase in the topline for Defense, [he wrote] these items will only displace other key elements of our program. It could be counterproductive and completely contrary to our mutual desire not to undercut our modernization effort and other readiness priorities. For these reasons, it is imperative to proceed within the regular authorization process and after we have agreement on a budget topline. Secretary Cohen's letter went on to say the following: I appreciate the Committee's intent to address the legitimate needs of servicemembers regarding pay and retirement. However, I am concerned that S. 4 could have the opposite effect by raising hopes that cannot be fulfilled until the final budget number is set. Resolving these questions within the normal authorization and budget processes is by far the most desirable approach. Similarly, when Secretary Cohen and General Shelton testified before the Armed Services Committee on February 3, the Secretary stated that any further increases to military pay and benefits should be considered in conjunction with the defense authorization bill. This is what the Secretary said: [W]e do have to propose this as a package, because if we raise expectations unrealistically and we cannot fulfill them, we have done a disservice to our troops. Secondly, if we are going to take it out of the readiness accounts and procurement, we have also done a disservice. So the package that we have put together we think makes sense and we hope that any variation will be paid for, period. Now, the package that they put together is in this bill and is paid for. But the bill goes way beyond the package that is paid for and way beyond the package which the Defense Department and the administration sent to the Congress. The bottom line is that every Member of this body would like to support the improved pay and benefits in this bill. At least I believe so. But at some point we are going to have to consider the question of how to pay for these improvements. When this bill was brought to the floor, I noted that a number of points of order could be brought against it under the Budget Act, based on many provisions of the bill which would either exceed mandatory spending allocations or reduce revenues or increase the deficit. Since that time, we have added even more provisions which would violate the Budget Act, providing the basis for even more points of order. At this time I would like to make some parliamentary inquiries of the Presiding Officer. My first parliamentary inquiry is as follows: Is it correct that the bill that we are debating now, S. 4, is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act because the bill exceeds the Armed Services Committee's allocation for direct spending?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. What would my colleague propose, three 2-minute opportunities?

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia would agree if we could inquire of the two Senators whether we might divide the remaining 6 minutes between them?

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will withhold for a moment so we could ask the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Maryland how much time they might want on their amendments. Since there are only 5 or 6 minutes left, perhaps we could apportion it fairly.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me share the optimism of my friend from Virginia that we will be able to complete the work on this bill by early afternoon. I see no reason why we should not be able to do that. I hope, in fact, that we can. We have a little time this morning before we start voting, which we were going to divide between the proponents of the amendments, if they would like some of these few minutes remaining. I know the manager will join me.