COURSE, YOU'RE SIMPLY GOING TO IGNORE THE BUDGET LATER ON, AND
           I HOPE THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SO WE OUGHT TO BE TALKING IN THE
           AREAS THAT WILL BE UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE
           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR?
           WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO
           LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS AND WHAT ROLE SHOULD BE PLAYED
           THERE?
           AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE WE OUGHT TO
           BEGIN. HAVING MADE THAT DECISION, OF COURSE, WHICH WON'T BE
           UNANIMOUS BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD DEAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL

           DIFFERENCE AS TO WHERE WE OUGHT TO GO. THERE ARE THOSE WHO
           BELIEVE THAT THE MORE MONEY THAT YOU CAN SPEND IN BEHALF OF THE
           PEOPLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE BETTER OFF YOU ARE. THERE
           ARE THOSE OF US WHO DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. THERE ARE THOSE OF
           US WHO BELIEVE THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
           LIMITED, THAT WE OUGHT TO DO THE THINGS THAT ENCOURAGE PEOPLE
           TO DO THINGS, GET THEM ABLE TO DO THINGS FOR THEMSELVES, THAT
           WE OUGHT TO MOVE MORE AND MORE DECISION-MAKING AND MORE AND
           MORE GOVERNMENT CLOSER TO PEOPLE IN LOCAL AND STATE
           GOVERNMENTS. I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THAT. WE OUGHT TO BE DOING

           SOMETHING THEN SPECIFICALLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. THE
           PRESIDENT'S BEEN TALKING FOR SEVERAL YEARS, SAVE SOCIAL
           SECURITY. THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PROGRAM AT ALL TO DO THAT. JUST
           SIMPLY SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, WHICH ISN'T THE PROPER APPROACH.
           INDEED WE HAVE SOME IDEAS ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE AS WHAT WE
           OUGHT TO DO. CLEARLY THERE'S THREE OPTIONS AS TO WHAT YOU DO TO
           MAKE SURE THAT YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW PAYING IN IN THEIR VERY
           FIRST PAYCHECK, 12.5% INTO THAT, WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE BENEFITS
           WHEN THE TIME COMES TO DO THAT. ONE OF THEM IS TO RAISE TAXES.

           VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE FOR THAT. ANOTHER, OF COURSE, IS TO REDUCE
           BENEFITS. VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE FOR THAT. THE THD OPTION IS TO
           TAKE THAT ACCOUNT, MAKE IT A PERSONAL ACCOUNT FOR THE PERSON
           WHO'S PAID IN THE MONEY, ALLOW ON THEIR BEHALF FOR THIS MONEY
           TO BE INVESTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, IN EQUITIES OR IN BONDS
           OR STOCKS SO THAT THE RETURN ON THAT TRUST FUND WILL BE MUCH
           HIGHER THAN IT IS NOW AND THE BENEFITS WILL BE THERE. WE TALK
           ABOUT PAYING DOWN THE DEBT. GREAT IDEA. WE'VE DONE VERY LITTLE

           OF THAT OVER TIME. $5 TRILLION DEBT THAT WE HAVE. THAT THIS JED
           GENERATIONS AND PRECEDING -- THAT THIS GENERATION AND PRECEDING
           GENERATION VS. SPENT AND WE'RE GOING TO BE LEAVING IT UP TO
           OTHERS TO PAY FOR THAT. THAT'S WRONG. WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO PAY
           DOWN THE DEBT. WE'VE DONE SOME WITH RESPECT TO TAKING SOCIAL
           SECURITY MONEY PUTTING IT OVER THERE IN PLACE OF PUBLLY HELD
           DEBT, WHICH IS A POSITIVE THING TO DO. THE COSTS ARE LESS AND
           SO ON. BUT TO REALLY TO PAY IT DOWN, WE OUGHT TO BE TAKING SOME
           OF THE SURPLUS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND PUTTING IT OVER
           THERE. FRANKLY, WE WON'T DO THAT UNLESS WE HAVE A PLAN TO DO IT

           IT, SOMETHING LIKE A MORTGAGE IN WHICH WE SAY OVER 15 YEARS OR
           WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO PAY OFF THAT DEBT, AND IT TAKES SO MUCH
           EVERY YEAR TO DO THAT, AND WE'RE DEDICATED TO DOING THAT AS
           PART OF THE BUDGET. BUT THAT'S NOT THE APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN
           TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATION. GREAT CONCERN ABOUT TAX REDUCTION.
           I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT WE OUGHT TO TAKE CARE OF ADEQUATE
           SPENDING. WE OUGHT TO TAKE CARE OF PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY.
           WE OUGHT TO TAKE CARE OF PAYING DOWN THE DEBT. BUT THEN WHAT'S
           WRONG WITH TAX REDUCTIONS?
           THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM. JUST BECAUSE THERE IS MORE

           MONEY COMING IN AS A RESULT OF A STRONGER ECONOMY DOESN'T MEAN
           WE HAVE A NECESSARILY OBLIGATION TO SPEND IT, WHICH IT SOUNDS
           OFTEN FROM THE OTHER SIDE AS TO THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO.
           MUCH OF THE TAX REDUCTION IS NOT SIMPLY A REDUCTION IN TAXES.
           IT'S A FAIRNESS ISSUE. FOR INSTANCE, THE MARRIAGE TAX. WHY IS
           IT THAT TWO PEOPLE WHO MAKE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY AS TWO
           SINGLE PERSONS GET MARRIED AND THEY HAVE TO PAY MORE TAXES ON
           THE SAME AMOUNT OF EARNINGS?
           VERY UNFAIR. SO PART OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT IN TAX REDUCTION IS
           A MATTER OF FAIRNESS. PART OF IT IS ALSO INCENTIVES TO DO OTHER

           THINGS. SO WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT A REPUBLICAN BUDGET THAT
           WILL BE COMING BEFORE THIS CONGRESS IN WHICH WE SAFEGUARD
           SOCIAL SECURITY, SHIELD MEDICARE, PAY DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT,
           AT THE SAME TIME WORK ON THE FAIRNESS ISSUES. WE'LL BE
           PROTECTING THAT SURPLUS BY NOT SPENDING IT, WHICH IS A UNIQUE
           THING, ONLY HAPPENING IN THE LAST SEVERAL ARS, STRENGTHENING
           MEDICARE BY INCREASING AS WE DID LAST YEAR AND AGAIN THIS YEAR
           SOME OF THE REDUCTIONS THAT REMAIN IN THE BALANCED BUDGET
           AMENDMENT, REDUCE THE NATIONAL DEBT, HOPEFULLY BY USING

           OPERATIONAL FUNDS TO DO THAT AS WELL AS SOCIAL SECURITY
           DOLLARS, PROVIDE TAX FAIRNESS FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES. WE NEED TO
           DO THAT. WE NEED TO BALANCE THE BUDGET AGAIN, AS WE HAVE FOR
           ABOUT THE THIRD TIME IN 40 YEARS -- BALANCE THE BUDGET. SO
           THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING. THIS BUDGET OVER TIME REDUCES THE
           DEBT BY $177 BILLION, WIPES IT OUT OVER 13 YEARS IF WE WOULD
           STAY WITH THIS BUDGET. AND THAT'S THE KIND OF COMMITMENT THAT
           WE OUGHT TO MAKE. THE DEBT REDUCTION WE JUST TALK ABOUT TAX
           REDUCTION, BUT THINK A MINUTE ABOUT WHAT IT IS. IT PROVIDES

           THIS BUDGET -- THIS BUDGET WOULD PROVIDE ABOUT $150 BILLION IN
           FIVE YEARS, TAX RELIEF TO AMERICAN FAMILIES, OVER $13 BILLION
           NEXT YEAR ALONE. IN THE FORM OF MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF, WHICH
           AGAIN IS A FAIRNESS TAX, IN THE FORM OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
           IS REDUCING TAXES A BAD THING IF WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE
           EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE?
           I DON'T BELIEVE SO. INCREASE THE HEALTH CARE DEDUCTIBILITY.
           WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO IS TO PROVIDE MORE COVERAGE FOR PEOPLE
           WITHOUT MAKING A TOTAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OUT OF IT BY GIVING

           SOME KIND OF TAX RELIEF TO DO THAT. SO I THINK THIS IS GOING TO
           BE A VERY IMPORTANT DEBATE, A VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. AND I
           UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE DIFFERENCES OF VIEW. THAT'S WHAT
           THIS BODY IS ALL ABOUT. IT'S TO TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT
           PHILOSOPHIES. AND THERE WILL BE A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY SAYING
           THE MORE SPENDING THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE BETTER
           OFF EVERYONE IS. THAT'S A POINT OF VIEW. I DON'T HAPPEN TO
           SHARE IT. I THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE
           SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. WE OUGHT TO BE
           BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES INSTEAD OF KIND OF PAYMENTS IN THESE

           SORT OF THINGS. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK WE HAVE A GREAT
           OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
           FOR YEARS, AND THAT'S TO REDUCE THE DEBT. THAT'S TO SECURE
           SOCIAL SECURITY. THAT'S TO PROVIDE SOME INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE
           TO BE ABLE TO DO THINGS FOR THEMSELVES. AND WE HAVE THIS
           OPPORTUNITY. WE'LL BE DOING IT THIS WEEK. I THINK WE OUGHT TO
           REALLY, REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY THE DOLLARS THAT ARE
           THERE, NOT ONLY THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES, BUT HOW YOU ENVISION

           THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER TIME. HOW DOES THAT FIT
           INTO THE IDEA OF FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL, AND WHAT IS
           THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THAT CASE?

           THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR.
           PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OREGON.
           

           MR. WYDEN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MR. PRESIDENT, I COME TO
           THE FLOOR TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE VERY ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENTS
           IN THE BUDGET RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. I
           HAVE COME TO THE FLOOR NOW ON MORE THAN 20 SEPARATE OCCASIONS
           OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO TALK PARTICULARLY ABOUT HOW AMERICA
           CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO DENY THIS CRITICAL COVERAGE. AGAIN AND
           AGAIN I HAVE CITED EXAMPLES ON THE FLOOR OF THIS SENATE ABOUT

           HOW OUR COUNTRY CANNOT AFFORD TO DENY SENIORS THE OPPORTUNITY
           TO GET PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE. I'VE TALKED, FOR EXAMPLE,
           ABOUT THE EXCITING ANTICOAGULANT DRUGS. THESE DRUGS ALLOW, FOR
           EXAMPLE, A SENIOR CITIZEN FOR PERHAPS $1,000 OR $1,500 TO
           PREVENT A STROKE WHICH MIGHT END UP COSTING MORE THAN $100,000.
           WHAT'S SO EXCITING ABOUT THESE PRESCRIPTION MEDICINES IS THEY

           DON'T JUST HELP OLDER PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE VERY ILL, BUT THEY'RE
           ABSOLUTELY KEY TO KEEPING OLDER PEOPLE HEALTHY, TO HELP TO
           LOWER BLOOD PRESSURE AND CHOLESTEROL, HELP SENIOR CITIZENS TO
           STAY IN THE COMMUNITY, TO KEEP FROM RACKING UP THOSE MUCH
           LARGER HEALTH CARE EXPENSES UNDER WHAT'S KNOWN AS PART-A OF
           MEDICARE, THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE FUND. AGAIN AND AGAIN WE'VE
           SEEN EXAMPLES OF HOW CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DRUGS CAN PRODUCE --

           REDUCE DEATH AND EXPENDITURES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. HEART
           DISEASE IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR PERSONS 65 AND OLDER.
           BETA BLORK CAN REDUCE LONG-TERM MORTALITY BY 25% AND COSTS
           ABOUT $360 A YEAR, OR $30 A MONTH. ONE IN FIVE OLDER WOMEN HAVE
           OSTEOPOROSIS AND ABOUT 15% HAVE SUFFERED FRACTURES AS A RESULT.
           THIS DISEASE IS A LEADING RISK FACTOR FOR HIP FRACTURES.

           ESTROGEN REPLACEMENT CAN REDUCE THE RISK OF OSTEOPOROSIS AS
           WELL AS CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE. ONE COMMONLYLY USED DRUG COSTS
           $20 A MONTH BUT THIS IS AN INVESTMENT, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT CAN
           HELP AVOID THOSE HIP FRACTURES, HELP AVOID THE EXTRAORDINARY
           MEDICAL EXPENSES. AND I MUST SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, HAVING HAD MY
           OWN MOTHER WHO WILL BE 80 VERY SHORTLY HAVE A HIP FRACTURE
           RECENTLY HAS JUST DRIVEN HOME TO ME HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT

           THESE PRESCRIPTION MEDICINES THAT CAN HELP AVOID THESE KIND OF
           HEALTH PROBLEMS THAT MY MOTHER AND SCORES OF OTHER SENIORS HAVE
           SEEN IS NOW AN INVESTMENT THAT THIS SENATE CANNOT AFFORD TO
           PASS UP. WHAT WAS EXCITING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BUDGET
           RESOLUTION, MR. PRESIDENT, IS THAT FIRST THE UNITED STATES
           SENATE SAID THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, THAT THERE WOULD BE A HARD
           $40 BILLION THAT WOULD BE COMMITTED FOR THIS IMPORTANT PROGRAM.

           FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITOL, THE HOUSE OF
           REPRESENTATIVES HAS TALKED ABOUT $40 BILLION, BUT THEY COULD
           SPEND IT ON JUST ABOUT ANYTHING IN THE HEALTH CARE ARENA, AND
           THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SAID THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE $40
           BILLION AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE IT IS HIGH TIME THAT
           WE SET IN PLACE THIS IMPORTANT COVERAGE. SECOND, WE PROVIDED A
           DATE CERTAIN TO GET THIS JOB DONE. OUR COLLEAGUE FROM
           LOUISIANA, SENATOR BREAUX, HAS BEEN CORRECT TO SAY REPEATEDLY

           THAT THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS NOW HELD 14 HEARINGS ON
           THIS ISSUE. CLEARLY THERE IS GREAT INTEREST IN THAT COMMITTEE
           IN MOVING FORWARD. BUT WHAT THE BUDGET RESOLUTION SAYS ON THIS
           POINT IS THAT IF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE DOES NOT COME
           FORWARD WITH A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER
           1 OF THIS YEAR, ANY MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE CAN COME
           TO THE FLOOR OF THIS BODY AND BRING THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE

           SENATE. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE WHO SERVES WITH ME ON THE
           SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGING, HE COULD COME TO THE FLOOR IF HE HAD
           A PLAN TO DEAL WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. SENATOR SNOWE AND I
           HAVE TEAMED UP ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS BASIS, AND WE'RE
           PARTICULARLY GRATEFUL FOR THE HELP OF SENATOR SMITH, SENATOR
           GORDON SMITH, LAST WEEK IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. WE COULD COME
           FORWARD. ANY GROUP OF SENATORS COULD COME FORWARD ON OR IF THE
           SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE DID NOT REPORT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG

           MEASURE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1 OF NEXT YEAR. AND I -- OF THIS
           YEAR, EXCUSE ME. AND I THINK IT'S CRITICAL TO NOTE THAT MANY
           SENATORS IN THE LEADERSHIP OF BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES WERE
           INVOLVED IN THIS EFFORT, MR. PRESIDENT. SENATOR DASCHLE HAS
           TALKED TO ME ALMOST DAILY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SENATE OF
           DEALING WITH IS ISSUE AND DEALING WITH IT THIS YEAR. HE HAS
           WORKED VERY HARD TO TRY TO RECONCILE THE VARIOUS APPROACHES
           THAT SENATORS HAVE ON THIS ISSUE, BUT HE HAS BEEN STEADFAST IN

           SAYING HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THE SENATE NOT JUST PUT THIS
           OFF UNTIL AFTER ANOTHER ELECTION. THERE MAY BE SOME COLLEAGUES,
           SOME WHO ARE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE AND SOME WHO ARE ON THE
           DEMOCRATIC SIDE WHO ARE GOING TO SAY, WELL, LET'S JUST TALK
           ABOUT THIS IN THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. WELL, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO
           DENY THIS COVERAGE TO THE NATION'S SENIOR CITIZENS. AND SO
           SENATOR DASCHLE HAS BEEN RESOLUTE IN SAYING THAT WE OUGHT TO GO
           FORWARD AND DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE, AND WE OUGHT TO DEAL WITH DID
           IN THIS SESSION OF CONGRESS. I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND SEVERAL OF
           MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER
           

           SIDE OF THE AISLE: SENATOR DOMENICI, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE BUDGET
           COMMITTEE. WHEN THIS ISSUE GOT TO A FLASH POINT, IT WOULD HAVE
           BEEN VERY DIFFICULT EVEN TO GO FORWARD, SENATOR DOMENICI WORKED
           WITH SEVERAL OF US, PARTICULARLY SENATOR SNOWE AND SENATOR
           SMITH, IN ORDERTO BRING THE COMMITTEE TOGETHER ON THIS POINT.
           WE DID HAVE SOME BIPARTISAN SUPPORT LAST WEEK IN THE BUDGET
           COMMITTEE FOR TAKING TANGIBLE ACTION ON THIS ISSUE. BUT WHAT IS

           REALLY IMPORTANT, MR. PRESIDENT, IS THAT EVERY SENATOR
           UNDERSTAND THAT I AND OTHERS ARE GOING TO STAY AT THIS ISSUE
           AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN SO THAT THE SENATE DOES NOT LOSE THIS
           HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY. TOO OFTEN, WHETHER IT WAS DATING BACK TO
           THE CATASTROPHIC HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION OR THE FAILED EFFORTS
           OF 1993 AND 1994 TO PASS COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM, WE

           HAVE MUFFED. THE CONGRESS HAS MUFFED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IN
           PLACE THE HISTORIC BREAKTHROUGH IN TERMS OF HEALTH CARE IN OUR
           COUNTRY. AND I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER SUCH OPPORTUNITY AS A
           RESULT OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE LAST
           WEEK. ONLY ABOUT ONE IN FOUR OF OUR SENIOR CITIZENS HAVE
           PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE. MANY OF THEM TAKE UP TO 20
           MEDICINES A YEAR, SOMETHING LI 20OF THE NATION'S SENIOR

           CITIZENS SPEND OVER $1,000 OUT OF POCKET NOW ON THEIR
           PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE. AND AS A RESULT OF THESE AND OTHER
           FACTORS, MR. PRESIDENT, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SPECIALIST IN THE
           HEALTH CARE FIELD, NOT A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN, WHO WOULD
           CREATE A
{END: 2000/04/03 TIME: 13-00 , Mon.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}