[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 70 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5023-S5066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
Senate concurrent resolution, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 27) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for

[[Page S5024]]

     the United States Government for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     2000, and 2001.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.

       Pending:
       Kerry amendment No. 309, to allocate funds for early 
     childhood development programs for children ages zero to six.
       Dorgan amendment No. 310, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Congress should continue efforts to reduce 
     the on-budget deficit without counting Social Security 
     surpluses.
       Wellstone modified amendment No. 313, to provide for 
     increases in funding for Headstart and Earlystart, child 
     nutrition programs, and school construction, which will be 
     paid for by reducing tax benefits to the top 2 percent of 
     income earners in the United States as well as by reducing 
     tax benefits that are characterized as corporate welfare or 
     tax loopholes.
       Wellstone amendment No. 314, to provide that Pell Grants 
     for needy students should be increased.
       Abraham amendment No. 316, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that, to the extent that future revenues exceed the 
     revenue aggregates, those additional revenues should be 
     reserved for deficit reduction and tax cuts only.
       Gramm amendment No. 319, to ensure that the discretionary 
     limits provided in the budget resolution shall apply in all 
     years.
       McCain-Hollings amendment No. 326, to express the sense of 
     the Senate that the Congress shall take such steps as 
     necessary to reconcile the difference between actual revenues 
     raised and estimates made and shall reduce spending 
     accordingly if Spectrum Auctions raise less revenue than 
     projected.
       McCain-Mack amendment No. 327, to express the sense of the 
     Senate with respect to certain highway demonstration 
     projects.
       Lautenberg (for Moseley-Braun) amendment No. 333, to 
     express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of budget 
     savings.
       Lautenberg (for Moseley-Braun) amendment No. 334, to 
     express the sense of the Senate regarding the value of the 
     Social Security system for future retirees.
       Specter amendment No. 338, to provide for a reduction in 
     mandatory spending and an increase in discretionary spending 
     relating to children's health.
       Specter amendment No. 339, to provide for a reduction in 
     mandatory spending and an increase in discretionary spending 
     relating to children's health.
       Specter amendment No. 340, to restore funding within the 
     discretionary health function to maintain progress in medical 
     research, offset by reductions in Federal agency 
     administrative costs.
       Domenici (for Grams) amendment No. 346, to require that the 
     $225 billion CBO revenue receipt windfall be used for deficit 
     reduction and tax relief, and that non-defense discretionary 
     spending be kept at a freeze baseline level.
       Domenici (for Coverdell) amendment No. 347, to provide for 
     parental involvement in prevention of drug use by children.
       Domenici (for Snowe-Coverdell) amendment No. 349, to 
     express the sense of the Senate relative to higher education 
     tax relief and higher education expenses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, would the Senator from Arizona yield 
for one moment? There are 11 first-degree amendments, 1 motion to waive 
a point of order, and possible second-degree amendments and final 
passage votes that could occur today. If everybody asks for a vote, 
that means we could have 15 votes, Senator McCain. At an average of 15 
minutes a vote, even though we said 10, it would be at least 4 hours of 
voting.
  I think we can do better. I think at least half of these amendments 
can be voice-voted, cutting the 4 hours to 2. We will try our best to 
see if the proponents will accept voice votes. I hope we can encourage 
Senators not to demand a vote.
  I thank Senator McCain, who I am just told will take a voice vote on 
amendment No. 327. During this first vote, staff will try to determine 
which ones can be voice-voted.
  I yield the floor to Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 326

  Mr. McCAIN. I call up amendment No. 326, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 326.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997)
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 10 
seconds.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, on this amendment, I am heartily 
supporting this, especially because not supporting the amendment would 
be irrational, knowing that the blueprint is in front of us that 
spectrum does not have the value that is put into this bill. So, if we 
have a track record that proves that it does not, it is outrageous that 
we would accept the figures in this budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is important, as the Senator from 
Montana said, that we be on record on this issue because there are 
three pertinent facts that we cannot forget here. Over $26 billion is 
assumed to be raised from the spectrum auction in the budget. Both the 
ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, and myself 
seriously question whether raising that much money is possible.
  Unlike fees or taxes, as we all know, spectrum auctions are a 
function of the free market, and its value is determined solely by 
supply and demand. Due to the volatility of this market, as we have 
seen recently, it is virtually impossible to accurately know what 
spectrum is worth and, since it is planned to be auctioned 5 years from 
now, what it will be worth. Even the expert agencies, CBO and FCC, have 
not been able to accurately gauge spectrum value.
  I understand the task of the budgeteers here on this issue, but it is 
very, very questionable, these figures.
  This amendment has been offered by both myself and my good friend, 
the ranking member and former chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Hollings. Simply, this amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that 
if the estimates regarding spectrum auctions contained in this 
resolution prove not be accurate that spending will be adjusted 
accordingly.
  The budget agreement before the Senate relies heavily on spectrum 
revenues, particularly spectrum auctions, to reduce the deficit and 
achieve balance by the year 2002. If this resolution passes as 
currently drafted, the Commerce Committee will be asked to raise 
between $26 to $28 billion. With the exception of some ancillary fees, 
the bulk of what the Commerce Committee will be asked to raise is 
assumed to come from spectrum.
  Of the total $26.3 billion in estimated spectrum revenues, about 95 
percent, or $24.3 billion, would be derived specifically from spectrum 
auctions.
  The problem is this: experience demonstrates that it's very difficult 
to reliably estimate what a given block of spectrum is likely to bring 
at auction. And therefore, as the chairman of the Commerce Committee, I 
am very concerned that the assumptions contained in the budget 
resolution will not actually raise the money needed.
  In a letter to me last February 26, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, a 
staunch proponent of spectrum auctions, said this about predicting 
spectrum auction values:

       Determining the value of spectrum in advance of an auction 
     is very difficult, and not something the Commission 
     ordinarily does.
       One of the benefits of the auction is that the value of 
     spectrum is not determined by government, but by a 
     marketplace in which businesses have actual plans to develop 
     and use spectrum. The value of any block of spectrum in the 
     market thus depends on a number of factors, [including] the 
     location of the spectrum, its technical characteristics, the 
     amount of spectrum to be assigned with each license, the 
     availability of technology suitable for a given band, the 
     amount of spectrum already available for provision of similar 
     services, the number of incumbents presently occupying the 
     spectrum, and whether incumbents will remain licensed in that 
     spectrum or will be relocated to other spectrum.
  Not surprisingly, therefore, auction estimates have been inaccurate 
on both the high side, as well as the low side, ever since the FCC was 
given spectrum auction authority in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1993.
  For example, the very first estimates of the revenue spectrum 
auctions would generate were very low. At that time Congress predicted 
that spectrum auctions would generate approximately $10 billion over 5 
years. The actual amount generated was over $22 billion in 3 years.
  Similarly, the auction of digital broadcast satellite spectrum was 
estimated to raise less than $40 million. That auction raised $683 
million.
  Other spectrum auction estimates, however, have been very high. The 
recent auction of wireless communications spectrum, which we estimated 
in

[[Page S5025]]

August of 1996 would generate $3 billion, raised only $14 million.
  All these estimates were based on information provided by a cross-
section of experts, including telecom providers, the financial 
community, and the FCC and NTIA--the expert agencies in this area. I 
don't fault their expertise, nor am I suggesting that spectrum isn't a 
valuable commodity and shouldn't be auctioned. To the contrary, it is 
an extremely valuable natural resource, owned by the public, and 
allocation should occur by auction.
  What I am saying, however, is that just because auctions assign 
spectrum efficiently to its most valued use does not mean that they can 
be guaranteed to produce a certain dollar figure. They are not, and 
were never intended to be, the functional equivalent of cash machines. 
They function as a component of the free market and therefore are 
subject to great highs and lows.
  As Chairman Hundt recognizes, it is impossible, even for experts, to 
reliably predict the value that a given block of spectrum is likely to 
bring at auction. Despite this fact, however, this budget places 
substantial reliance on these inherently unreliable predictions of 
spectrum auction revenues to balance the budget.
  Here are my specific concerns with the spectrum auction budget 
assumptions:
  First, revenues from auctioning 100 MHz of spectrum formerly used by 
broadcasters for electronic news gathering are estimated to total $9.7 
billion between 1998 and 2002. This estimate is based on the spectrum 
being roughly comparable in potential usefulness to the lucrative PCS 
spectrum. Now, however, FCC and NTIA say that this spectrum is not 
comparable to PCS spectrum because it's already occupied and not 
suitable for a wide range of potential uses. Thus, a critical element 
in estimating the spectrum's $9.7 billion value is not accurate.

  Second, another $6 billion is estimated to come from the auction of 
spectrum left over from the reallocation ordered in 1993, plus the 
auction of new spectrum at now-available higher frequencies. The 
problems here are that the leftover 1993 spectrum, standing alone, 
isn't expected to generate all that much, and nobody yet knows 
precisely what the new high-frequency spectrum is usable for. Thus, 
what anybody might realistically be expected to bid for it is, at best, 
a guess. Technology may prove us wrong. But no companies, based on 
current technology--are clambering for this spectrum.
  Third, $5.4 billion more is estimated to come from the auction of 
analog broadcast channels in the year 2002--even though most of these 
channels won't even be available for use until 2006. That's tantamount 
to speculating in spectrum futures.
  Moreover, given the broadcasters' vehement objections to being 
required to give the channels back by 2006 or any other date, we simply 
cannot be sure when--if ever--these channels will actually be freed up. 
As Chairman Hundt correctly noted in his February 26 letter,

       When incumbent licensees are present, these licensees often 
     have incentives to oppose the use of auctions to assign 
     licenses in that band.

  Thus, the value to bidders of essentially nonexistent channels has 
got to be seriously questioned.
  Fourth, even the projections surrounding the comparatively modest 
$700 million estimated to come from auctioning so-called 888 telephone 
numbers are flawed. The $700 million estimate was made before these 
numbers began being handed out for free some time ago. Based on the 
quantity of numbers left to auction now, however, the probable revenue 
would be perhaps half the original $700 million estimate.
  Fifth, the impact of these potentially flawed estimates is made worse 
by the large proportion of spectrum auction revenues that this budget 
scores in 2001 and 2002. Altogether 70 percent of the total spectrum 
auction revenues are called for to be generated during these 2 years. 
However, it is during these outyears that the most spectrum can be 
expected to be on the market, and the more spectrum you put on the 
market, the less you are likely to get for it--simple supply and 
demand.

  Finally, there's also a potential problem with the $2 billion lump 
sum tied to broadcasters' use of their digital TV channels for non-HDTV 
uses. This $2 billion represents about a 7-percent hit on the $30 
billion television broadcast industry. I am not one to protect the 
broadcast industry, but I am concerned about this fee. In the past, 
Senator Dole and I had advocated auctioning the digital spectrum before 
it was given to the broadcasters. That auction alone is estimated to 
have raised between $20 to $70 billion. However, we were unsuccessful 
and that spectrum was given free of charge to the broadcasters.
  Madam President, balancing the budget is critically important to the 
future of our country's economy, and spectrum auction revenues have 
been made critically important to balancing the budget. We must 
therefore be extremely concerned about the considerable uncertainty 
inherent in accurately predicting the amount of money spectrum auctions 
will generate, and we must have an insurance policy against the very 
real likelihood that these estimates will turn out to be too high.
  Madam President, I hope this amendment will pass. Voting for it does 
not mean that Senators oppose the budget resolution itself. However, 
supporting this amendment does recognize that the auction numbers 
assumed in this resolution are subject may not produce the revenue 
noted and that therefore, the Congress may need to act on this matter 
in the future.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise in support of the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. The resolution points out the unreliability of the 
budget resolution's assumptions about future spectrum auctions. At 
issue here is the credibility of the entire budget itself. The budget 
assumes $26.3 billion from spectrum auctions by the year 2002. Such 
assumptions are not supported by the record. The only explanation is 
that the Budget Committee and the administration have crafted these 
assumptions out of thin air.
  We are told by CBO that our budget problems can be solved by 
auctioning the spectrum. People around here continue to think spectrum 
is a canned good sitting on a shelf at the FCC. These budget numbers 
are absolutely irresponsible and CBO knows there is no justification 
for these estimations. Just look at the most recent auction that was 
held last month. Last fall, the budget negotiators fell short in their 
offsets and decided to auction a specific 30 MHz of spectrum. CBO told 
us the auction would yield $2.9 billion. The auction only yielded $13.1 
million. Is this how you balance a budget?
  I must remind the budget negotiators that the law requires the FCC to 
assign licenses to use the spectrum by auction and that the assignments 
shall not be based on revenue considerations. Every time the Congress 
mandates an auction as a budget offset we are violating our own law. 
And every time we mandate a specific frequency to be auctioned, we are 
micromanaging in an area we have no expertise in. The spectrum simply 
is not a canned good sitting on a shelf. Management of the public's 
spectrum should not be determined on budget numbers.
  Just look at the status of the market for start-up wireless 
companies. Wall Street is saying there is a glut in the marketplace. 
There is no financing available for the recent ``C'' block licensees. 
How can CBO possibly justify $26.3 billion when you look at the April 
auction in combination with the problems in the ``C'' block?
  The FCC recently suspended the interest payments for several of the 
``C'' block licensees because they were unable to meet their 
obligations to the Treasury. How can CBO justify $26.3 billion when 
``C'' block licensees are going into bankruptcy and being bailed out by 
the FCC. The Treasury is not receiving any moneys from these auctions. 
Even the licensees, such as Nextwave, that violated the law are not 
being required to make payments. This is a complete disregard for the 
law. This is nothing more than an effort to prop up this charade that 
auctions are good.

  Look at the case of Nextwave. This company bid several billions of 
dollars for licenses nationwide. When it came time to file complete 
documentation of their financial backing, the FCC found that this 
company was in violation of the foreign ownership limits of the 
Communications Act. To its credit, the

[[Page S5026]]

FCC issued an order requiring Nextwave to divest itself of certain 
foreign financial commitments and come into compliance with the law. 
Now, several months later, Wall Street is still showing no confidence 
in these wireless ventures, so Nextwave has been unable to raise any 
capital.
  So, what does the FCC do? The FCC could not afford another 
embarrassment on the heels of the April fiasco. So the FCC simply waves 
its previous order and says, don't worry Nextwave, you are in violation 
of the law but there are more important issues involved here--we must 
continue the charade that the auctions are working. How can an agency 
of this Government be so cavalier in its execution of the law is beyond 
me. Clearly, it pays to be perceived as being too big a player that the 
FCC cannot let the company go under.
  Tell that to Rocky Mountain Solutions and Carolina PCS. Where was the 
FCC's consistency in applying the law here? Rocky Mountain Solutions 
and Carolina PCS had difficulty in raising capital just as the other 
licensees. Were they in violation of the foreign ownership limits of 
the law. The answer is ``no.'' Were they a small company and not 
perceived as a big player? The answer is ``yes.'' Where's the 
consistency? The FCC held to a strict interpretation of their own 
auction rules--there was no statutory violation--in denying Rocky 
Mountain Solutions and Carolina PCS request for more time. When a large 
company violates the law, there is always a creative interpretation of 
the law in order to keep up the charade.
  How can we have any confidence in the results of these auctions? News 
reports also indicate that the Department of Justice is investigating 
collusion and illegal bidding practices in some of the auctions. 
Obviously, some of the potential bidders think the auctions can be 
fixed as easily as the budget assumptions.
  The Treasury is not going to get the money CBO had projected. The 
budget cannot be balanced in this way. Why does the Budget Committee 
and CBO continue to keep their heads stuck in the sand. How can CBO 
justify not $26.3 billion in light of these recent events? The auctions 
are not the solution the rhetoric holds them out to be. Clearly the 
Budget Committee and CBO must have budget blinders on. Their denial of 
these recent events is further evidence that there is no integrity to 
these numbers.

  Just look at a breakdown of the budget assumptions and the problems 
with each item.
  Auction of the returned analog spectrum: The budget proposal requires 
an auction of 78 MHz of analog spectrum in 2002 with a mandatory return 
of the analog spectrum in 2006. CBO scores the analog auction at $5.4 
billion. There are many practical problems involved here. First, will 
there really be an interest in this auction when the winning bidders 
will not have access to the spectrum for at least 4 years? What about 
possible delays that may occur from zoning ordinances and tower 
construction problems? In addition, there remains the question of 
whether there will be widespread demand for digital TV.
  Auction of 36 MHz of spectrum from CH.60-69: This spectrum was 
originally set aside for the transition to HDTV. No one knows if the 
FCC plan will actually work. All we have if a computer model from the 
FCC. All indications are that the FCC'S table of allocations will be 
challenged at the FCC and possibly in the courts. The budget deal will 
enshrine the FCC'S plan before we know its implications and possibly 
foreclose revisions to the FCC'S plan. Such a result would be 
unacceptably shortsighted. It is highly unlikely this proposal will 
result in a free and clear nationwide block of spectrum by 2002.
  Spectrum penalty: The Budget Committee Assumes $2 billion from a 
penalty fee that would be levied against those entities who received 
``free'' spectrum for advanced, advertiser-based television services, 
but failed to utilize it fully. This is the most incredulous proposal 
of all. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized the FCC to assess 
fees on a broadcaster's flexible use of the spectrum--if the 
broadcaster elects to offer additional services in addition to its free 
over-the-air programming. CBO staff has no basis to score this 
provision. There is no evidence in the record to assume the 
broadcasters will be capable of offering a subscription-based service 
by 2002.
  Auction of additional 120 MHz: CBO assumes $9.7 billion but where's 
the spectrum coming from? How can they justify it when the recent 
auction raised only $13 million when CBO had scored it at $2.9 billion?
  Auction 800 and 888 numbers: Here's a small business tax if you ever 
saw one. The administration's proposal is simply unrealistic. Large 
companies will simply outbid all the small players and warehouse 
popular numbers. Furthermore, the FCC does not have sole jurisdiction 
of toll free numbers. The United States participates with Canada in the 
North American numbering plan.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there are going to be high priority 
projects in the transportation bill that passes the Congress this year.
  As long as there has been a U.S. House of Representatives, there have 
always been demonstration projects. The House is showing no signs of 
giving them up this year.
  There is no chance that the House will pass a transportation bill 
without earmarks for individual Members' projects.
  Given that knowledge, do we, as the Members of the Senate, really 
want to unilaterally disarm? If there are going to be demonstration 
projects, are we merely going to defer to the House?
  Rather than slipping projects into the final bill during the 
conference, wouldn't it be better to have an open discussion of the 
relative merits of these projects in committee than on the floor?
  At least give the House credit for having a process. The House 
committee of jurisdiction required that a 14-point check list be filled 
out for each demonstration project this year. Only a very few projects 
from that list will be selected for funding.
  If the original ISTEA legislation is an indication, well under 10 
percent of the final dollar amount will be earmarked for demonstration 
projects. The original ISTEA bill provided $6.5 billion for 
demonstration projects out of a total authorization of $155 billion.
  I dispute the Senator's notion that all demonstration projects are 
merely glorified pork. In my home State of Nevada, one of the fastest 
growing areas in the Nation, we have used earmarks to keep up with the 
explosion in transportation needs.
  The I-15/U.S. 95 Spaghetti Bowl Interchange in Las Vegas, one of the 
busiest interchanges in one of the fastest growing cities in the United 
States was built with earmarked funding far more quickly than if it 
needed to go through a traditional funding process.
  Nevada's capital, Carson City, remains one of a handful of State 
capitals in the United States that is not linked to the Interstate 
System. An earmark in the original ISTEA funded the first leg of this 
critical link.
  Mr. McCain. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have a minute to respond. I don't 
think I will use that. But I want to ask Senator McCain, in the 
interest of helping us with the management here, could we now set this 
amendment aside and do his amendment we are going to accept?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, sir.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask consent the pending McCain 
amendment be temporary set aside so Senator McCain can offer his second 
amendment, which will be determined by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 327

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask to call up amendment No. 327.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 327.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment is very simple. It just 
says we will not have highway demonstration projects. The Senate is on 
record. I wanted to get the Senate on record again, and I will before 
we take up ISTEA. We have seen this very unseemly situation over in the 
other

[[Page S5027]]

body, where tens of billions of dollars are special projects called 
highway demonstration projects, which are really only gauged by the 
influence of the Members of Congress as opposed to merit. I am very 
pleased that this body is opposed to highway demonstration projects, 
and I want the Senate on record as reflecting that deal.
  The amendment I offer today is cosponsored by Senator Mack. My 
resolution states that Congress should not divert limited highway trust 
fund resources away from State transportation priorities by authorizing 
new highway projects and Congress should not authorize any new 
demonstration projects or other similarly-titled projects.
  Its a simple proposal, embodying a principle endorsed by three-
quarters of the Senate less than 2 years ago. The principle is 
elementary, fair, and sound. The principle is--No new highway 
demonstration projects.
  Why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because the largest 
domestic public works program, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
and Efficiency Act [ISTEA], must be reauthorized this year. As my 
colleagues know, the lion's share of Federal highway and transit 
funding comes under the ISTEA umbrella. Through a Byzantine set of 
formula calculations, Federal gas taxes are collected by our States, 
sent into Federal coffers, and then are redistributed to the States.
  Some of us question the necessity of requiring State-collected gas 
taxes to be sent to Washington. I am one of those individuals. But that 
is an issue for another debate. Today, I want to focus on a clear abuse 
in the current highway funding distribution process.
  ISTEA funds are governed by a statutory distribution formula with a 
few limited exceptions. One major exception is funding for highway 
demonstration projects. It is this exception my amendment seeks to 
eliminate. This exception is neither necessary nor fair.
  What has been said about highway demonstration projects? Let me 
highlight a few comments.
  Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater, had this to say during 
his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation in February:

       The administration has taken a firm position in opposition 
     to demonstration projects * * * [they] take resources from 
     the [highway] trust fund.

  He further remarked that ending highway demonstration projects would 
``result in greater investment of resources * * * for general 
distribution based on formula.''
  Let me reiterate. The highway allocation process is policy driven. 
But as the Secretary said, highway demonstration projects are not. The 
Congressional Research Service [CRS] states:

       The demonstration project approach is often constituent-
     driven and focuses on increasing Federal outlays allocated to 
     a particular State or district * * * When earmarking occurs, 
     allocation stems less from concerns over marginal social and 
     economic benefits, and more from marginal political benefit.

  The Heritage Foundation is strongly against highway demonstration 
projects. In its ``Balancing America's Budget, Ending the Era of Big 
Government,'' the Heritage Foundation says:

       Projects earmarked by Congress are classic examples of 
     political favoritism obtained by powerful Senators and 
     Representatives for public works spending in their states and 
     districts. Federal ``demonstration projects'' are even more 
     questionable . . . purely local projects funded by the 
     federal government cannot be justified as being in the 
     national interest.

  These are not new sentiments--they have been voiced for years. In 
fact 2 years ago, the President's budget submission called for the 
cancellation of some demonstration projects stating:

       Such projects have been earmarked in congressional 
     authorization and appropriations laws. These projects limit 
     the ability of the States to make choices on how to best use 
     limited dollars to respond to their highest priorities.

  Pork-barrel highway demonstration projects were discussed in Vice 
President Gore's Reinventing Government report. It states:

       GAO also discovered that 10 projects--worth $31 million in 
     demonstration funds--were for local roads not even entitled 
     to receive Federal highway funding. In other words, many 
     highway demonstration projects are little more than Federal 
     pork. Looking specifically at the $1.3 billion authorized to 
     fund 152 projects under the 1987 Surface Transportation and 
     Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act, GAO found that ``most 
     of the projects . . . did not respond to States' and regions' 
     most Federal aid needs.

  One might have hoped that Federal budget constraints would curb 
highway pork barreling. But it has not.
  In 1982, 10 demonstration projects totaling $362 million were listed 
for special line-item funding in the Surface Transportation Assistance 
Act of 1982. The 1982 Federal Budget deficit was $127 billion, and it 
jumped to $221 billion by 1986.
  In 1987, 152 demonstration projects totaling $1.4 billion were named 
in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
1987. The 1987 Federal budget deficit was $149 billion, but it jumped 
to $269 billion in 1991.
  Then in 1991, the mother lode of all demo project bills was signed 
into law: 538 location-specific projects totaling $6.23 billion were 
included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991.
  If the budget deficit has not curbed demonstration projects, maybe 
fairness will.
  It is 1997 and time once again to authorize funding for our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. Funding for highway, bridge, and transit 
needs remain great. Congress should give States the maximum amount of 
flexibility available to spend their highway dollars in whatever manner 
best meets their critical transportation needs. The States do not need 
Congress to micro-manage the transportation planning process. And the 
traveling public certainly is not well served when Washington forces 
limited funding to be spent on unnecessary road projects.
  Two years ago, the Senate adopted my amendment to prohibit the 
funding for future demonstration projects. That amendment was 
cosponsored by Senators Feingold and Smith. It passed by a vote of 75 
to 21.
  We need to reaffirm Senate opposition to new demonstration projects. 
There are reports that more than 400 Members in the other Chamber 
submitted requests to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for highway, bridge, or transit projects. I am informed 
these requests include more than 1,000 projects. These requests could 
total hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars 
that would be siphoned away from formula-driven allocations, and poured 
into individually designated State or local projects.
  Past highway demonstration projects took almost $8 billion away from 
formula-driven allocations to the States. While we can't recapture this 
$8 billion, we can end the practice. My amendment states that 
``Congress should not divert limited highway trust fund resources away 
from State transportation priorities by authorizing new highway 
projects and Congress should not authorize any new demonstration 
projects or other similarly titled projects.''
  Mr. President, most Senators want to raise the amount of highway 
funding for our States and to assure an equitable distribution of that 
funding. One way to provide more money is to end the practice of 
designating highway demonstration projects or innovative projects, or 
any other creative description of pork-barrel projects.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
provides the Senate shall not authorize any new highway demonstration 
projects during the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act.
  We have no objection to the amendment. We are willing to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, we tried to expedite things and it

[[Page S5028]]

turned out we did not. What I would like to do now is ask unanimous 
consent that we return to the first McCain amendment on which the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and that immediately thereafter we return 
to the second McCain amendment. We will have further discussion on that 
during the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 326

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 326, 
offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--15

     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Durbin
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dorgan
       
  The amendment (No. 326) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 327

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe we are going to be able to 
avoid a rollcall vote on the second McCain amendment, No. 327, if 
Senator Reid is permitted to speak for one moment indicating his 
opposition. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case, after which 
time we will return to the amendment, and there will not be a rollcall 
vote on it.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. There will be demonstration projects in the transportation 
bill that passes Congress this year. As long as there has been a House 
of Representatives and we have had highways, there have been 
demonstration projects. The House is showing no signs of giving them up 
this year. There is no chance --no chance--that the House will pass a 
transportation bill without earmarks for individual Member projects.
  Given that knowledge, do we, as Members of the Senate, really want to 
unilaterally disarm? There are going to be demonstration projects, 
which there will be. Are we merely going to defer to the House? 
Wouldn't it be better, rather than slipping projects into the final 
bill going to conference, that we have an open discussion of the merits 
here on the floor?
  At least the House--we should give them credit for having a process. 
The House committee of jurisdiction required that a 14-point checklist 
be filled out for each demonstration project this year. If you do not 
meet all 14, you do not get your project.
  Only a few projects from the list will be selected for this funding. 
In the original ISTEA legislation, under 10 percent of the projects had 
earmarks. So $6.5 billion for demonstration projects out of the total 
authorization of about $160 billion.
  I dispute the notion of the Senator from Arizona that all 
demonstration projects are glorified pork. That is not true in rapidly 
growing areas. It is very important to the State of Nevada. We should 
oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that we should not have any special projects. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
327.
  The amendment (No. 327) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If Senators will just bear with me. There is a lot of 
agreement now on amendments. So I am going to get rid of some of them 
before we take the next vote, thus eliminating a lot of votes we might 
have had to have.


                     Amendment No. 347, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I send to the desk Senator Coverdell's 
amendment No. 347, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 347), as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN 
                   PREVENTION OF DRUG USE BY CHILDREN.

       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the provisions of this resolution assume that, from resources 
     available in this budget resolution, a portion should be set 
     aside for a national grassroots volunteer effort to encourage 
     parental education and involvement in youth drug prevention 
     and to create a drug-intolerant culture for our children.

  Mr. DOMENICI. It has been cleared on the other side. We accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back their time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 347), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 333

  Mr. DOMENICI. We have also worked out Senator Moseley-Braun's 
amendment No. 333.
  This amendment is a sense of the Senate that entitlement savings in 
the budget resolution should be used to protect the long-term future of 
Social Security and Medicare and maintain Federal discipline.
  This is also a sense of the Senate. We urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
333.
  The amendment (No. 333) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 334

  Mr. DOMENICI. I call up Moseley-Braun amendment No. 334.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Ms. 
     Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 334.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this amendment is also a sense of the 
Senate that no change in Social Security should be made to reduce the 
value of the Social Security system for future generations. It is a 
sense of the Senate. I urge its adoption.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I rise to make brief statements 
concerning two of my amendments to the congressional budget resolution 
that the Members on both sides of the aisle have agreed to support.
  These two amendments are of vital importance. They concern the value 
of

[[Page S5029]]

the Social Security program and the use of budget savings in the 
mandatory spending areas. These are vitally important amendments 
because they relate to that important issue of retirement security that 
should be a part of any discussions about the Federal budget.
  The first amendment, which is amendment No. 333, expresses a sense of 
the Senate that the budget savings in the mandatory spending areas 
contained in this budget resolution should be used:

       to protect and enhance the retirement security of the 
     American people by ensuring the long-term future of the 
     social security system;
       to protect and enhance the health care security of senior 
     citizens by ensuring the long-term future of the Medicare 
     program and,
       to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline to ensure 
     that the level of private investment necessary for long-term 
     economic growth and prosperity is available.

  Mr. President, this amendment is important because:

       twenty-two percent of every dollar spent by the federal 
     government goes to the social security program,
       another eleven percent of every dollar spent by the federal 
     government goes to the Medicare program,
       currently, spending on the elderly accounts for a third of 
     the federal budget, and
       while the federal budget deficit has dropped for the fourth 
     straight year to $67 billion in 1997, measures need to be 
     taken to ensure that this trend continues.

  I am pleased that my colleagues have accepted this amendment and once 
again, reaffirmed our commitment to protecting Americans' retirement 
security and also reducing the deficit.
  My second amendment, which is amendment No. 334, is one about which I 
know many Members of this body are also concerned. It has to do with 
the value of the Social Security program. I have begun to hold forums 
in my State as a means of starting the dialog with my constituents 
about the future of Social Security. I know that other Members have 
held similar forums in their States as well.
  The amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that the 
budget resolution does not assume any legislative changes that would 
reduce the value of the Social Security program for future generations 
of retired citizens. This is an important amendment because we have an 
obligation to ensure that this program which has allowed a generation 
of Americans to retire with dignity must be preserved.
  Madam President, a few facts will highlight the importance of the 
Social Security program to Americans.
  First, 13 percent of the population is over age 65 and that 
percentage will increase to over 20 percent of the population by 2030;
  Social Security provides over 80 percent of retirement income for 60 
percent of seniors;
  More than half of all senior citizens do not receive any private 
pension income;
  Poverty rates among the elderly are at the lowest levels since we 
began collecting the data due in a large part to Social Security; and
  Finally, the average Americans retiring in 2015 will have paid 
$250,000 in payroll taxes during their working career.
  There is no question that current retirees rely heavily upon Social 
Security and future retirees expect the value of the program not to be 
diminished when they need it. Therefore, I am again happy that my 
colleagues support this amendment. I think we can all agree that we 
must protect the value of the Social Security program for future 
generations of Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 334) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe Senator Gramm of Texas is 
going to make a point of order.


                     Motion To Waive The Budget Act

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, under section 601(b) of the Congressional 
Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the pending budget 
resolution, as it violates the discretionary spending caps for fiscal 
year 1998 as previously set in the 1993 budget resolution and 
reconciliation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator has 2 
minutes to speak on his point of order.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I think this is a defining moment for the 
Congress. I think it is a defining moment for those who believe in less 
Government and more freedom. I think it is a defining moment for people 
who are concerned about spending.
  In 1993, on the floor of the Senate, on a straight party-line vote, 
with a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress, and a Democrat 
President, we set out spending totals, including a cap on spending for 
fiscal year 1998.
  Today, in this budget, we are going to bust that spending total by 
$8.795 billion. As far as I am aware, this will be the first time ever 
that a Democrat Congress has set a spending cap that a Republican 
Congress has come along and waived and violated, in this case by almost 
$9 billion.
  I think that nothing could say more clearly what the problem is with 
this budget than the fact that we, as the first act in this budget, 
will be busting a spending cap and setting it aside, violating the 
rules of the budget in order to bring to the floor a new budget that 
spends more than the budget it seeks to replace.
  I think it tells you something about our commitment to enforcing 
these numbers that our first act in adopting this budget is going to be 
to break the very caps that we claim will enforce the new budget.
  So I simply want to ask my colleagues to remember, in 1993, when we 
had another budget on the floor, when it was adopted, we set out a 
procedure to enforce that budget by setting a cap on spending. Today, 
we are going to vote, on this vote, whether we are going to waive that 
spending cap or whether we are going to live up to it.
  I hope my colleagues will vote against the motion to waive this 
budget point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it in order 
for me now to move to waive the point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may make the motion to waive.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 601(b) of the 
Budget Act, and pursuant to section 24(b) of House Concurrent 
Resolution 218, fiscal year 1995 budget resolution, I move to waive 
section 24(a) of House Concurrent Resolution 218 for the consideration 
of this concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1998 as reported, 
any amendment to the House companion, and any conference report 
thereon.
  Madam President, do I have 2 minutes to argue my case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr DOMENICI. When the 2 minutes is up, we vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that the yeas 
and nays have not yet been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The first thing you have to understand is that if this 
point of order is not waived the budget resolution that we propose for 
the next 5 years falls. It is gone. For those who would like it to 
disappear and we would have no budget resolution, we can start over, 
then vote for Senator Gramm.
  Actually, the problem we are confronted with is not one of 
overspending. It is one of technical estimating, nothing more. Two-
thirds of this overage is because we underestimated the outlays--CBO 
did--the outlays of the expenditures on the Defense Department. 
Actually, there is no question that we have been operating under a very 
tight lid, and I do not believe we should be held responsible for a 
technical error made in the estimating of the costs of the Defense 
Department.
  I believe we should waive this. As one who has been working on 
budgets, I put it this way. I do not waive the budget

[[Page S5030]]

easily but the better thing to do is to get this 5-year budget rather 
than to kill it over a point of order that, to me, makes little or no 
sense in the context of the next 5 years.
  Whatever time I have remaining I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] to 
waive section 24(a) of the Budget Act.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Conrad
     Craig
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dorgan
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Three-fifths of the Senators 
duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is 
agreed to.
  The point of order falls.
  The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 316

  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to proceed to Senator Abraham's amendment 
next, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Madam President. I will be very brief. This 
amendment is great straightforward. It is a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment that says that if during the next 5 years the money sent to 
Washington by our taxpayers back home exceed the projections which we 
have made in this budget resolution--and I believe they might--that 
those excess additional revenues may only be spent for tax cuts or to 
reduce the deficit and cannot be used for more Federal spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we are opposed to this amendment. It 
says that if the current balance results in better than expected 
economic growth that we ought to go back to the lopsided approach 
advocated by the majority. I, frankly, think it is illogical. Tax cuts 
and deficit reductions are not the only policies that can benefit the 
Nation. And unexpected tax revenue may well be put to good use funding 
essential Government programs. I don't think that we ought to get 
locked in at this juncture to insist that any excess revenues would go 
to tax cuts or deficit reduction. I think we ought to make our judgment 
at the time that these things occur.


            Economic Growth Dividend Protection Act of 1997

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, let me begin by praising Senator 
Domenici and the other negotiators for their hard work and diligence. 
They have worked for almost 4 months to put this resolution together 
and end the 18-month stalemate between the President and Congress over 
spending and taxes. Given these circumstances, I believe this agreement 
is a step in the right direction and I look forward to seeing many of 
its provisions enacted into law. On the other hand, while I intend 
support this budget resolution as a whole, I want to express 
reservations regarding some of its specifics.
  First, I consider this resolution to be just a down-payment--not a 
solution--to the entitlement reforms that will be necessary to ensure 
the Federal Government's solvency going into the next century. As we 
all know, the baby boom generation will soon begin to retire, which 
will place enormous pressure on our Federal entitlement programs. 
According to the CBO, ``. . . outlays for government programs that aid 
the elderly (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will burgeon as 
the number of people eligible to receive benefits from these programs 
shoots up.''
  Medicare is the first program to experience this problem and this 
resolution allows for important reforms to extend its solvency. That 
said, I believe these reforms neither go far enough nor call for the 
kinds of fundamental changes that will help Medicare stay solvent past 
the 10 years targeted by this resolution. I encourage the Finance 
Committee to embrace reforms like MSA's, Medicare Choice, HMO's, and 
PPO's as options that will increase patient options even as they hold 
down costs.
  I am also concerned that Congress' historical bias toward ever-
increasing spending is once again on display. While Senator Domenici 
and others have worked hard to reject the myriad of new spending 
proposals requested by the administration, the bottom line is 5-year 
spending under this resolution will increase by 17 percent between 
today and 2002. That increase is faster than the rate of inflation, and 
well above the growth rates encompassed in the past two budget 
resolutions.
  By creating new Federal entitlements, this resolution opens the door 
for huge, unexpected spending increases down the road. I applaud 
efforts to improve the health of this Nation's children, but I believe 
the provision to make such funding mandatory is conterproductive to our 
efforts to restrain the growth of government spending. For that reason, 
I support efforts to make this funding discretionary.
  Finally, I am concerned that the tax cuts called for in this 
resolution are so modest, especially in comparison to the spending 
increases included. In particular, I am concerned that, where, 
according to a USA Today poll from this March, 70 percent of the 
American people believe that they need a tax cut, under this 
resolution, Federal spending will grow 17 percent over 5 years while 
the net tax cuts are less than 1 percent of the total tax burden. 
Balancing the budget is one of my top priorities, but reducing the 
burden of government on Americans is my ultimate goal.
  Why do Americans need a tax cut? According to the President's own 
economists, the tax burden on Americans is the highest ever--31.7 
percent. According to the National Taxpayer Union, the average American 
family now pays almost 40 percent of their income in State, local, and 
Federal taxes. For all the talk about the ``end of big government,'' 
the tax burden today is the highest ever. And while we address that 
burden in a small, incremental way with this budget resolution, we are 
also creating the possibility for ever-more spending later on.
  I believe we need to tilt the playing field away from more spending 
and toward more tax reduction. Toward that end, I have offered 
amendment number 316 along with Senators Brownback, Coverdell, Kyl, 
Ashcroft, Sessions, Allard, Hutchinson, and Faircloth in order to focus 
the attention of the Senate on the plight of American taxpayers. I am 
also introducing legislation today which would codify this rule change 
into law.
  Madam President, as we all know, on May 2d the Congressional Budget 
Office provided budget negotiators with a gift of sorts. In a letter to 
Senator Domenici, the CBO report that for this year, the deficit would 
be $45 billion less than previously reported. Instead of $112 billion, 
the deficit this year would be closer to $67 billion.
  Moreover, the CBO suggested that this $45 billion windfall would 
extend over the next 5 years, so that the total devicit over that time 
would be reduced by $225 billion.
  From my perspective, Madam President, this windfall can be viewed as 
a mixed-blessing. On the one hand, the continued strong performance of 
the

[[Page S5031]]

economy means more jobs and opportunity for Americans--as well as 
additional revenues to the Government.
  On the other, coming as it did at literally the last possible moment 
in the budget negotiations, the windfall resulted in opening up 
opportunties for the administration to demand even higher levels of 
spending in 1998 and beyond. It is my understanding that all sorts of 
spending issues that had previously been closed were reopened following 
the CBO's surprise announcement.
  One area that remained closed, however, was the issue of tax cuts. 
While the last 2 weeks have been filled with one announcement after 
another about increases in this program, and new funding for that 
program, the net tax cut number has remained stubbornly fixed at $85 
billion.
  I am going to support this resolution because I believe its net 
effect will be to reduce both the size and scope of the Federal 
Government. I am also going to support this resolution because, 
according to all accounts, the tax cuts incorporated in the plan will 
include significant incentives for economic growth and job creation--
incentives like reducing the rate on which we tax capital gains and 
increasing the allowable contributions to IRA's.
  These incentives will, I believe, result in higher economic growth 
over the next 5 years and increase--not decrease--revenues to the 
Federal Treasury.
  Which brings me to my amendment.
  What I am proposing is that, to the extent that tax revenues under 
this budget agreement--tax cuts and all--exceed the projections by the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, that extra revenue should be reserved for 
tax cuts and/or deficit reduction--not additional Government spending.
  This is not an idle proposition--history shows that pro-growth tax 
cuts like cutting the capital gains tax rate result in large bonuses 
for the Treasury. Between 1978 and 1985, while the top marginal rate on 
capital gains was cut almost in half--from 35 to 20 percent--total 
annual Federal receipts from the tax almost tripled. They rose from 
$9.1 billion annually to $26.5 billion annually.
  Conversely, when Congress raised the rate in 1986, revenues actually 
fell well below what was anticipated. Capital gains revenues actually 
fell following the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Economists across the board 
predict that cutting the capital gains rate will result in a revenue 
windfall for the Treasury. These windfalls should be given back to the 
taxpayers.
  In pursuit of that goal, I am offering today, a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment which in support of future tax cuts. It says, ``To the extent 
that actual revenues exceed the revenues projected under this 
resolution, that revenue windfall should be reserved exclusively for 
additional tax cuts and deficit reduction.''
  Madam President, 2 years ago, a Readers Digest poll asked Americans: 
``What is the highest percentage of income that is fair for a family of 
four making $200,000 to pay in all taxes?'' The median response, 
regardless of whether the respondent was rich or poor, black or white, 
was 25 percent.
  A similar Grassroots Research poll last March discovered that a 
majority of Americans would favor a constitutional amendment that would 
prohibit Federal, State, and local taxes from taking ``a combined total 
of more than 25 percent of anyone's income in taxes.''
  Yet, the Tax Foundation tells us that a dual-income family today pays 
an average 38.4 percent of their income in taxes to State, local, and 
Federal Governments.
  This budget starts us down the long road toward reducing the tax 
burden on American families--but it is just the beginning. I intend to 
continue that fight. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I just seek unanimous consent to add 
Senators Faircloth, Allard, and Hutchison of Texas as additional 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't believe I have any time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan yield back the 
remainder of his time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the remainder of my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Michigan. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 316) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
New Mexico is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 313

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe we are ready to go to 
Senator Wellstone's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Madam President. May I have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the budget----
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senate is not in order. We have to hear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators desiring 
to converse will retire to their cloakrooms. Senators will take their 
seats. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President and Senators, the budget is all about 
priorities. This amendment speaks to priorities. This amendment says 
that we invest in crumbling schools all across our country $5 billion, 
that we should do that now. This amendment says that, while we have 
made progress with Head Start in this budget agreement, still only half 
the children, if you consider early Head Start, are covered and we 
should cover more of these children. This amendment says that last year 
we made cuts in the school breakfast program, we made cuts in the child 
nutrition programs for Family Head Start Centers, and therefore we 
ought to restore that nutritional funding for poor children in America.
  Madam President, altogether this amendment says we make investments 
in these areas to the tune of about $20 billion over the next half 
decade, and the offset is to make sure that the cuts in taxes are 
targeted to middle income and small business, not the top 2 percent of 
the economic profile in the country, and that we look at all of these 
loopholes and deductions in corporate welfare.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  It is the Chair's understanding that the Senator is calling up 
amendment No. 313?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S5032]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this amendment would reduce tax relief 
contained in the resolution by $16 billion in order to increase 
spending in programs that the Senator would like to see increased. It 
happens, in the programs that he would like to see increased, such as 
Head Start, this budget resolution has an increase of $2.7 billion. It 
makes it a priority program, so it will most probably be funded at that 
extraordinarily high level. That was agreed upon. But sometimes, no 
matter how much you do, it is not enough. In this case, the President 
brags about the fact that Head Start is going up and going up 
appreciably, $2.7 billion, yet the Senator would reduce our tax cut for 
the American people in order to add yet more to that program.
  I do not believe that is what we ought to do. I yield back any time I 
have. Does the Senator from any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time 
has expired.


                 Amendment No. 357 to Amendment No. 313

 (Purpose: To provide children who have been victims of violent crime 
the ability to transfer to another school by allowing States and local 
educational agencies to use Federal education funds in the jurisdiction 
 of the Labor Committee to assist such victims in attending any other 
     school of their choice, whether public, private, or sectarian)

  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of Senator Coverdell, I submit a second-
degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 357 to amendment 
     No. 313.
       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by 2,539,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by 2,539,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 26, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 26, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 26, line 22, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 27, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 27, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 27, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 27, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 38, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 38, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 40, line 17, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 41, line 8, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 21, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 22, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 2, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 3, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by 0.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield my time to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, the issue embraced by this amendment 
is simple but important. In too many schools across our Nation the 
focus for our children is not on education but survival. Just 2 days 
ago, as I read from the Washington papers, four teenagers were arrested 
and charged with gang raping a 14-year-old girl last month by luring 
her from a cafeteria at a public high school in Queens to an unused 
classroom to carry out the attack, the authorities said yesterday. This 
amendment would allow local school districts, agencies, the right to 
use a voucher system to allow a victim of a crime to escape this kind 
of environment.
  Madam President, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my colleagues on the other side do 
not want to have an up-or-down vote on whether or not they are willing 
to invest in child nutrition programs and whether or not they are 
willing to invest in rotting schools. Instead of this increased 
investment, they want to now vote on the proposition that we have funds 
that go in an unlimited, unconditional way through a private voucher 
plan. That is what this vote is all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we are talking now about a whole 
different program outside the budget resolution. Vouchers --vouchers do 
not deserve to be debated in this context. We ought to absolutely 
oppose it. I hope we will find some of our friends on the Republican 
side who will also oppose the notion of transferring these funds into 
school vouchers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Senators yield back all their time? All 
time is yielded.
  The question is on agreeing to the second-degree amendment. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 357) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S5033]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 313

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the Wellstone No. 313, 
as amended.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 313), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Grams has an 
amendment. He is going to call it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 346

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 346.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 346.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief, but I will try 
to talk loudly.
  This is a simple and straightforward amendment, and it will address 
just two of the weaknesses of the budget agreement; namely, big 
spending for the Government and small tax relief for working Americans.
  All it does is to require that we use half of the $225 billion of the 
CBO revenue windfall for tax relief and half for deficit reduction and 
keep nondefense discretionary spending at the cap freeze baseline 
level.
  If the $225 billion in extra money is, indeed, real, it did not fall 
mysteriously from the sky. It is money that belongs, first and 
foremost, to the American taxpayers, and it should be put to proper 
use. Keeping nondefense spending at freeze baseline levels would reduce 
total spending by only 1.5 percent over the next 5 years. If American 
workers are working harder and producing more, they should be able to 
keep it, not send it to Washington.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank you 
very much, Mr. President.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, it is with 
regret that I have to oppose this amendment. Essentially, this would 
totally break the budget agreement. We would be back at ground zero. 
This would propose to take another $134 billion in cuts out of the 
domestic programs beyond that which we did in this budget, another $134 
billion cut off the discretionary programs that are only growing at 
half a percent.
  I also must tell you the so-called windfall was used in the following 
manner: Only $30 billion of it was used for spending over the 5 years, 
and that went for defense, transportation, and dropping the per capita 
cap on Medicare.
  I believe that we had to do that. I believe it was in everybody's 
interest that we do that. That is where it went, and that is what we 
did. So if time has expired, I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to lay on the 
table the amendment No. 346.
  Mr. MACK. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 346) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, might I say to the Senate, in terms of the budget 
resolution, unless something untoward occurs, we have no more than 
three votes remaining. So we ought to be finished in reasonably short 
order, although I want to remind everyone that in the morning 
announcement the leader said we might have votes in the remainder of 
the day on judges and a treaty. So before you assume there will be no 
additional votes, you better check with the hot line or with the 
leadership office.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The next amendment is Wellstone amendment No. 314.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 314

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I call up amendment No. 314.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Moynihan, proposes amendment 
     numbered 314.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I proposed the amendment with Senator Reed, and also 
as cosponsors are Senator Bingaman and Senator Moynihan.
  This amendment, I say to my colleagues, expands the Pell grant 
program. It takes it up to $3,500. It is authorized up to $4,500 right 
now. It is a commitment of about $6 billion over 5 years. This will 
help thousands of families.
  This will make a huge difference, especially to families with incomes 
of about $25,000 to $30,000 who, more or less, fall between the cracks 
on some of the other assistance that we are giving. So it is very 
targeted. It is very effective. The money comes from loopholes and 
deductions.
  We could be talking about tens of billions, if not hundreds of 
billions of dollars, in that. Just invest a little more in the Pell 
grant program. This is extremely important to working families in our 
country.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  I ask the Senator, do you yield back your time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Reed was going to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 seconds remaining under his 
time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought we had 2 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator that there was 1 
minute for each side.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it was my mistake, I say to my 
colleagues.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed have 30 seconds to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.

[[Page S5034]]

  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I will make two very brief points.
  First, in 1972, we passed the Pell grant. If we simply indexed that 
grant for inflation, the maximum Pell grant today would be $4,300. We 
are asking for an increase from $3,000 in this budget to $3,500. 
Second, back in 1980, the maximum Pell grant covered 72 percent of the 
cost of a 4-year public college. Now it covers roughly 20 percent. We 
need more. That is what the Wellstone-Reed amendment asks us to do.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Moseley-Braun be 
added as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment should be defeated. The 
budget resolution before the Senate increases Pell grants from $2,700 
to $3,000. Even the President of the United States says that is 
adequate. This will be a very healthy increase. We have already done 
that. I do not believe we ought to add further moneys to the Pell 
grants and take it away from the taxpayers of this country. It is that 
simple. There is adequate funding already in this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 358 to Amendment No. 314

(Purpose: To ensure that the provisions of this resolution assume that 
any higher education tax relief are consistent with the objectives set 
 forth in this resolution and shall include provisions that encourage 
  parents and students to save for higher education expenses and that 
 provide relief from the debt burden associated with borrowing to pay 
                     for a postsecondary education)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk on behalf of Senator Snowe and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Ms. Snowe, 
     for herself and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     358.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 21, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 22, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 2, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 3, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 5, increase the amount by 0.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by 0.

  Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator Domenici.
  I understand the intent of the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Minnesota in terms of expanding the Pell Grant Program, and I am 
pleased the budget agreement includes increasing the maximum grant by 
$300.
  Unfortunately, the Senator's amendment is in violation of the budget 
agreement, so I am offering an amendment that says we shall include two 
types of tax cut proposals in the $35 billion postsecondary educational 
tax cut package in this budget agreement. One proposal would provide 
incentives for parents and students to save for a postsecondary 
education. The other proposal would be to try to offset the debt that 
is incurred by students as a result of borrowing to attend college.
  My amendment is consistent with the objectives that were put forward 
in the budget agreement, as agreed to by President Clinton and the 
negotiators, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, as we all know, the budget resolution provides for $85 
billion in net tax relief over the coming 5 years. In a May 15, 1997, 
letter to President Clinton, the Speaker of the House and the Senate 
majority leader agreed that the tax package ``must include tax relief 
of roughly $35 billion over 5 years for postsecondary education, 
including a deduction and a tax credit.'' The letter further stipulated 
that this package of postsecondary education tax cuts ``should be 
consistent with the objectives put forward in the HOPE scholarship and 
tuition tax proposals contained in the administration's fiscal year 
1998 budget.''
  Now, even before that letter was crafted, there had been concerns 
about the inclusion of any type of education tax cuts in the balanced 
budget plan. For some, the inclusion of such targeted tax cuts would 
undermine the overall effort to provide broad-based tax relief for as 
many Americans as possible. For others, the postsecondary tax cut 
proposals put forward by President Clinton were viewed as potentially 
counter-productive because they might actually encourage tuition 
increases or grade inflation.
  Regardless of how one feels about educational tax cuts in general--or 
President Clinton's postsecondary education tax cut proposals 
specifically--I think we can all agree that the objective of the $35 
billion education tax cut package in this resolution, and President 
Clinton's fiscal year 1998 educational tax cut proposals, are clear: 
Postsecondary educational tax cuts must promote access to a higher 
education while addressing the needs of parents and students.
  And the amendment I am offering today would encourage that we do 
both. It is an amendment stating that our $35 billion postsecondary tax 
cut package shall provide tax incentives that encourage students and 
parents to save for a postsecondary education, and provide relief from 
the debt burden associated with borrowing to pay for a postsecondary 
education. These two proposals--and my amendment--are not only 
consistent with the objectives laid out by President Clinton in his own 
budget proposal, but also with the objectives outlined in the May 15 
letter from the Speaker of the House and our majority leader.
  Mr. President, a strong commitment to education is included in this 
budget agreement because of a recognition that education is the great 
equalizer in our society that can give every citizen of our Nation--
regardless of race, income, or geographic background--the same 
opportunity to succeed in the global economy of the 21st century. It's 
the same reason I decided to make education a priority during the 1995 
and 1996 balanced budget debate, and fought to preserve funding for the 
Student Loan Program--a program that ensures access to higher education 
for lower-income students. A bipartisan majority of the Senate shared 
that commitment, and we now have the opportunity to further strengthen 
access to higher education through the crafting of sound tax proposals 
within this balanced budget package.
  As we seek to identify proposals that would improve access to a 
higher education, it is critical that we first recognize the primary 
barrier that stands between a student and a post-secondary education: 
rising costs. According to the Institute of Higher Education Policy, 
students at the undergraduate level have seen tuition increases outpace 
inflation for more than a decade. As a result of these increasing 
costs, an estimated 7.6 million students will require and receive aid 
in 1997--and this number is expected to increase to 8.1

[[Page S5035]]

million in 1998. Similarly, due to the significant costs of graduate 
and professional school training, borrowing by these students is 
increasing even faster than the record rate of increase in total 
student loan borrowing overall.

  How much money is borrowed by students to meet these rising costs? 
According to a 1996 analysis by USA Group Loan Services, the typical 
student loan borrower--including undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral 
students--now accumulates more than $10,000 in educational debt. By the 
same token, the interest paid on this borrowing is enormous. In Maine 
alone, students pay $25 million in interest on their student loan debts 
every year. Clearly, these rising costs and accumulating debts place 
the future of our children and our Nation at stake. Many students may 
wonder if they will ever be able to pay off the debt burden they will 
absorb if they go to college--and others will simply drop the idea of 
pursuing a higher education altogether in light of these numbers.
  Mr. President, Congress must remain committed to ensuring that every 
individual has the opportunity to pursue a higher education while 
adopting policies that ensure students are not dissuaded from attending 
a post-secondary institution for financial reasons. While no tax cut 
can completely remove financial barriers to a higher education, we can 
certainly endorse sound policies as part of this resolution that adhere 
to the agreement reached with the White House and move us in the right 
direction. I believe that providing incentives for parents and students 
to save for a higher education, and providing tax relief for the debt 
accumulated by those who need to borrow, is among the policies we 
should adopt to move us in that direction.
  While the amendment I am offering today does not endorse any specific 
bill or plan, I would like to note that I offered legislation on May 1 
that would accomplish both of these goals. S. 680, the ``Go to 
College!'' Tax Incentives Act, would promote savings by young Americans 
and their parents to prepare for the rising cost of a higher education, 
and ensure that students are not discouraged from applying for students 
loans simply because of the debt burden they would incur in seeking a 
higher education.
  First, the legislation provides an incentive for parents and children 
to put aside as much as $1,000 per child annually in an education 
savings account that would be allowed to grow tax free. Planning for 
the future is critical when one considers the rising cost of tuition, 
and my incentive to save would make such planning less difficult. 
Second, the legislation provides a tax credit of $1,500 for the 
interest paid on student loans, thereby encouraging students to borrow 
as necessary to go to college--not balk at the cost of a higher 
education and the related debt they need to incur.
  Many Members of this body have supported restoring the deduction for 
interest paid on student loans--as evidenced in both of the Republican 
and Democratic leader bills, S. 1 and S. 12 respectively. While I, too, 
have long supported the restoration of this deduction, the credit I am 
proposing in S. 680 would be even more beneficial. Simply put, a tax 
deduction lowers a student's gross income on the Federal income tax 
form--but a tax credit actually reduces the tax liability of a student. 
Although this provision would not benefit students immediately, they 
would be assured of substantial tax relief once they begin to pay off 
the student loan debt they accumulated when they chose ``go to 
college'' in the first place.
  Again, the amendment I am offering today does not call for the 
adoption of the ``Go to College!'' Tax Incentives Act--rather, I 
mention my bill only to show that there are proposals on the table that 
would achieve the objectives sought by President Clinton, and that can 
be further reviewed during budget reconciliation. Ultimately, any 
number of these proposals could effectively meet the objectives set 
forth by President Clinton and the majority leader, and I am hopeful 
that we will adopt the best such approaches during the reconciliation 
process. Therefore, although the amendment I am offering today does not 
endorse a specific bill, it ensures that we at least adopt two types of 
proposals that will move us in the right direction.
  Mr. President, we must ensure that our nation's students do not turn 
away from pursuing a higher education due to rising costs and 
increasing debt burdens. This amendment would ensure that we address 
these issues during the ongoing reconciliation process, while remaining 
consistent with the objectives laid out in this balanced budget 
agreement, and I urge its adoption. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we will agree to a voice vote on this 
amendment.
  With all due respect to my colleague, whom I greatly respect, No. 1, 
this second-degree amendment strikes out all the investment, so as 
opposed to plugging some of the loopholes in corporate welfare we make 
no investment in the expansion of Pell grants. That is what this vote 
is about.
  No. 2, you can talk about savings. Families with incomes under 
$20,000 a year--since 1979, 8 percent of them, women and men from those 
families, have been able to graduate from college. Do you not think we 
ought to make sure they get assistance?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, no one objects to Pell grants. This should 
be a vote about expanding the Pell grants so we can change the reality 
that faces working families in this country.
  In 1975, 80 percent of Federal financial assistance was in the form 
of grants and 20 percent in loans. Today, those numbers are reversed. I 
believe we should expand the Pell grants along the lines of the 
Wellstone-Reed amendment.
  I hope we can do that sometime.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question now is on 
agreeing to the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Maine.
  The amendment (No. 358) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 314

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The question now occurs on the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 314), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Specter has an amendment, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 340

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call for a vote on amendment No. 340.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 340.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a very important amendment 
because it will determine whether we will have an increase in NIH 
grants and, in fact, whether we will have NIH grants at their current 
level.
  Night before last, by a vote of 98 to 0, this body passed a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution which increased NIH grants by $2 billion. But the 
fact is that the 550 account on health is cut by $100 million. This 
amendment asks the Senate to put its money where its mouth is. If the 
sense of the Senate which passed two nights ago is to have any sense, 
this amendment has to be agreed to.
  I understand that the leadership is opposed to this amendment. I 
understand that there is an argument that nothing we do here on this 
budget resolution amounts to anything; that it is all up to the 
appropriators. In a sense, that is correct. But I believe the 
appropriators will be influenced by a positive vote here, especially 
when the leadership is going to try to defeat this amendment.
  If this amendment is defeated, I can explain to the constituency 
groups who come to me as chairman of the subcommittee that there was no 
money. But if this sense-of-the-Senate resolution for $2 billion is to 
be understood, this amendment has to pass.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield time in opposition to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.

[[Page S5036]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask Senators to do something 
irregular--that is, pick up the bill and look at what this amendment 
does to the Appropriations Committee. On page 23, you will see on line 
9 an increase of $137.8 billion for health. If you look at page 35 
where this amendment touches, it has ``new budget authority for 
allowances''--no new budget, no outlays.
  What it means is we would have to go into every other account and 
pull out money to put it in this one account, an account that is 
already increased under this budget by $137.8 billion.
  The Senator came to me and asked me if I would be bound by this. I 
checked with Senator Byrd. We cannot be bound by this. Some of those 
accounts--by the way, this is an absolute across-the-board cut--cannot 
take that.
  For those of you in agriculture, agriculture has already been cut. 
Space and technology has already been cut. We have to go in and cut 
those further in order to put this money into an account that has 
already a $137.8 billion increase under this budget.
  I urge you to vote against it, because we do not want to have to go 
against the sense of the Senate. But we would have to under this 
because we cannot comply with this.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Alaska to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Collins
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Levin
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 340) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
Senate, everybody is asking where we are on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order? The Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to Senators I have about five 
cleanup matters and one amendment we are going to accept, and then we 
go right to final passage. That should not be longer than 3 or 4 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 359

                (Purpose: To make technical corrections)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a managers' technical corrections 
amendment to the desk. It has been approved by both sides. It is 
nothing but numbers, number changes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 359.
       On page 4, increase the amount on line 4 by $1,800,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 5 by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 7 by $200,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 8 by $300,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 13 by $200,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 14 by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 15 by $200,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 16 by $400,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 20 by -$200,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 21 by -$100,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 22 by -$200,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 23 by -$400,000,000.
       On page 5, increase the amount on line 2 by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 5, increase the amount on line 3 by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 5, increase the amount on line 4 by $6,100,000,000.
       On page 5, increase the amount on line 5 by $7,700,000,000.
       On page 18, increase the amount on line 8 by 
     $1,800,000,000.
       On page 23, increase the amount on line 15 by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, increase the amount on line 22 by $100,000,000.
       On page 24, increase the amount on line 12 by $100,000,000.
       On page 29, decrease the amount on line 18 by $200,000,000.
       On page 29, decrease the amount on line 19 by $200,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 2 by $300,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 3 by $300,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 10 by $300,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 11 by $300,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 18 by $300,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 19 by $300,000,000.
       On page 39, line 1, strike beginning with the word 
     ``provide'' through line 4, the word ``outlays'', and insert 
     ``reduce the deficit''.
       On page 39, decrease the amount on line 22 by $35,000,000.
       On page 39, decrease the amount on line 23 by $75,000,000.

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 359) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 309

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up amendment 309. This amendment 
creates a reserve fund with no money in it for childhood education. I 
urge we adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Kerry, 
     for himself, proposes an amendment numbered 309.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997)
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 309) was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 319 Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand, Senator Gramm, you withdraw amendment 
319?
  Mr. GRAMM. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 319) was withdrawn.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with Senator Domenici regarding the investment in transportation that 
is included in this budget agreement.
  Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, I am a strong believer 
in increasing investment in transportation, whether for roads, bridges, 
rail systems, aviation, or mass transit. All modes of transportation 
are important, and all need to be supported.
  We have been working hard in the negotiations to increase total 
investment in transportation, and we have had some success. We have 
increased total transportation outlays over the President's request by 
more than $8 billion over the next 5 years. That is not as much as I 
would like, but it is a start.
  I would like to clarify one element of the budget agreement as it 
relates to

[[Page S5037]]

spending the estimated revenues of the highway trust fund over the next 
5 years. That is a goal with which I agree. In an ideal world, I would 
support even higher spending levels from the highway trust fund.
  However, it is important to clarify that, while this agreement 
includes an assumption that we will spend from the highway trust fund 
the amounts equivalent to receipts currently estimated to come into the 
trust fund, the possibility that receipts will grow beyond the levels 
currently estimated could endanger our ability to comply with other 
equally important assumptions in this agreement including increased 
spending for mass transit and Amtrak.
  In the end, the Appropriations Committee will have to set ceilings 
for individual subcommittees and funding levels for specific 
transportation programs, and I want to clarify that increases in 
highway trust fund spending will not negatively impact other modes of 
transportation, especially mass transit and Amtrak.
  I therefore would ask my good friend, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, do you agree that nothing in this agreement, nor in the 
budget resolution, requires the Senate to spend all gas tax revenues 
without regard for the potentially negative impact on other modes of 
transportation?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Lautenberg is correct.
  The budget resolution contains an assumption that the Appropriations 
Committee will provide adequate funding to spend all gas tax revenues 
into the highway trust fund. In addition, the budget resolution also 
contains an assumption which provides increased funding for mass 
transit and Amtrak, in addition to the increase in highway trust fund 
spending. Therefore, I am optimistic that this agreement provides 
enough funding to accomplish our mutual goals of spending all trust 
fund revenues while maintaining our commitments to other modes of 
transportation, including increased funding for mass transit and 
Amtrak.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a 
short colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. 
Mr. Domenici, I understand that the budget resolution assumes 
reinstatement of the aviation excise taxes, which fund important 
aviation safety and security programs, and include the 10 percent tax 
on the price of domestic airline tickets.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. As you know, the National Civil Aviation Review 
Commission has undertaken a review of the appropriate funding structure 
for the national aviation system, and is scheduled to report its 
legislative recommendations at the end of this summer. The commission 
may develop an acceptable alternative to the traditional aviation 
excise tax system. Am I correct in assuming that the budget resolution 
does not preclude substituting an alternative funding mechanism for the 
current aviation excise taxes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is my understanding, as well. The budget 
resolution assumes reinstatement of the aviation excise taxes. This 
assumption should not be read to preclude replacement of the taxes with 
an alternative means of funding the national aviation system, as long 
as that alternative is consistent with the budget resolution.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, when it comes to our budget deliberations, 
the temptation of politics has often made our search for a balanced 
budget a difficult one. For a long time, I think all Members of this 
body would agree that too much time was spent aggressively defending 
narrow or partisan interests. Personal political interests were 
sometimes placed above pressing national interests. And common, 
bipartisan objectives were too seldom charted or pursued. The result 
for our Nation is now as widely known as it was troublesome: Spending 
kept expanding. Deficits kept rising. And confidence in Government kept 
diminishing.
  But here today, Mr. President, with a balanced budget plan before us 
for the first time in 28 years, it's encouraging to think that we may 
be reaching a new beginning. Much of the credit for bringing us to this 
point belongs to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Pete Domenici. 
The chairman has demonstrated his unwavering commitment to a balanced 
budget during his years of service on the Budget Committee, and, 
ultimately, it was his leadership that brought both sides to the table 
and made this day possible. For his ongoing efforts, I believe that the 
chairman is deserving of our thanks--and the thanks of generations of 
Americans to come.
  Let me also thank our majority leader, Trent Lott, for his effort and 
commitment to making this agreement possible, and the President of the 
United States for his willingness to negotiate and compromise. I know 
that it is the hope and expectation of most Americans that President 
Clinton will continue to stay focused on the balanced budget goal and 
see this plan through to fruition.
  And, finally, we should also recognize the other leaders of the House 
and the Senate who were engaged in this process. They, too, pursued 
this resolution with determination and vigor--and forged consensus on 
some very divisive issues. We would not be here today without their 
leadership.
  But Mr. President, we have also reached this encouraging point in our 
budget deliberations because--at last--there is a widespread 
recognition that deficits threaten this Nation in unacceptable ways--
and that decisive action is needed now to ward off economic crisis. The 
numbers speak for themselves. According to estimates from the 
President's own Office of Management and Budget, if we do nothing, the 
deficit will double in 15 years, then double again every 5 years 
thereafter. Left unchecked, according to OMB, the deficit would reach 
$2 trillion by 2025.
  We also know that such a scenario would prove intolerably costly to 
this Nation. OMB forecasts that if we fail to reign in the deficit now, 
future generations will suffer an 82-percent tax rate and a 50-percent 
reduction in benefits in order to pay the bills we are leaving them 
today. And the Congressional Budget Office has issued a similarly grave 
warning, arguing a year ago that: ``* * * current U.S. budget policies 
cannot be sustained without risking substantial economic damage.''
  Eighty-two-percent tax rates. Fifty-percent reductions in benefits. 
Substantial economic damage. This is not some futuristic nightmare, Mr. 
President. This is the economy that lies ahead for America unless we 
act now, unless we lay the groundwork for long-term deficit elimination 
by adopting this resolution.
  Mr. President, this agreement provides us with an historic 
opportunity to place our country back on the right fiscal path. But it 
also provides the American people some assurance that our political 
process can work. After more than 2 years of competing proposals, 
acrimonious debates, and fruitless negotiations, many Americans have 
become understandably cynical of our ability and even willingness to 
ever agree on a plan to balance the budget. But this agreement should 
give us some hope. It proves that we can compromise on specifics 
without compromising on principle--that when an agreement indisputably 
benefits the American people, we can set aside partisanship and get the 
job done.
  Of course, while the resolution before us today is an encouraging one 
and should be celebrated, we should also recognize what it is not. This 
is only a first step, Mr. President, and no Member of this body can say 
with certainty that this resolution signals a conclusive end to the 
failed budget politics of old. Indeed, I believe that only a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution can ensure that fiscal prudence 
and responsibility will be exercised indefinitely into the future.
  And let me be clear about another matter. The budget resolution 
before us is not perfect. Are there flaws in it? Yes, Mr. President, I 
think there are. In fact, I suspect that every Member of this body 
could find aspects that trouble them in this resolution--aspects that 
they may have written in a slightly or even greatly different manner.
  For instance, some may criticize this resolution because it expands 
new entitlements or does too little to reform existing entitlements 
before the baby boom generation begins to retire. In fact, it is with 
the latter concern in mind that I am particularly troubled by the 
assumption of home health care being shifted from part A to part B of 
Medicare. I fear that this shift may actually imperil this vital 
program even as it masks the true problems of the

[[Page S5038]]

Medicare trust fund, which must be addressed if we are to preserve and 
protect the Medicare Program for senior citizens in the future. Still 
others may criticize this plan as being insufficient in terms of 
deficit reduction because it would cut the deficit by only 1 percent of 
today's GDP over the next 5 years, or because it provides what they 
consider to be too much of an increase in discretionary spending. To 
put these types of concerns in the words of one analyst from the CATO 
Institute: ``On balance, this is a bad deal. Republicans should just 
say no.''
  Conversely, there are those who may see the cuts quite differently 
and argue that this agreement goes too far in cutting certain programs 
and does too little to fund new initiatives. Still others do not 
support the tax relief included in this resolution, or argue that the 
package of tax cuts being discussed would disproportionately benefit 
higher income individuals or families.
  But Mr. President, after 28 years of deficit spending, we can 
no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can no longer 
let politics drive our budget decisions because for 2 years--2 years, 
Mr. President--Republicans and Democrats have squared-off over a 
variety of issues, while offering competing plans. And the result has 
been wholly unimpressive. There has been no agreement. No plan for a 
balanced budget. And I think it's worth noting that the only reason 
that we have this resolution before us today is that competing budget 
plans were unsuccessful. It is compromise that offers us this chance to 
reach agreement and lay the groundwork for long-term balance. But if 
each Member of this body rejects such compromise and demands instead 
that the plan do exactly what he or she would want in the ideal world, 
then only one thing is for sure: This plan will be derailed--and our 
historic opportunity will be lost.

  And lest we focus only on those parts of the budget that are less 
than perfect, let's not overlook the incredibly positive aspects of 
this plan. For instance, not only will this plan balance the budget in 
the year 2002, if its policies are continued, OMB tells us that it will 
lead to a surplus of $34 billion in the year 2007. And while many have 
cited the fact that the total deficit reduction in this plan will be 
only $204 billion over the next 5 years, they fail to mention that 
there will be more than $700 billion in additional savings during the 5 
years thereafter. Consider for a moment the two dramatically different 
futures that potentially lie ahead for this Nation: If we reject this 
plan and continue with the status quo, we will add another $1.1 
trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. On the other 
hand, if we use the 2002 to 2007 surpluses to buy-down the debt, this 
plan will ensure that more than $800 billion would be available for 
useful investments, and not eaten up by the national debt.
  Perhaps most importantly, by putting us on a course to balance the 
budget in 5 short years, this plan will also allow us to address the 
significant long-term threats described by OMB and CBO because we will 
have laid the groundwork for even larger reforms in the coming years. 
And it will also hold future Congresses accountable to maintain this 
same level of fiscal responsibility.
  And let's not forget the important impact that a balanced budget will 
have on economic growth. I know that there are those who say that our 
economy is doing well. They point to the growth rate for the last 
economic quarter and the fact that we now have had continuous growth 
for 6 straight years, and they say things could not be rosier. And it's 
at least partly true, Mr. President. We are now approaching the post-
World War II record for the longest period of growth without a 
recession. But no one is projecting that the economy will maintain this 
pace, and the average annual rate of growth during the current 6-year 
streak has been an unimpressive 2.5 percent--the lowest level of growth 
during a recovery in this century.
  But, tragically, even this lethargic annual rate of growth is not 
predicted to last--and cannot last--unless we tackle the deficit now. 
Look out to future years and we see that the economy is anticipated to 
grow at even more anemic rates; 2.0 percent in 1998; 2.1 in 2000. The 
numbers are not impressive. However, with the enactment of a balanced 
budget plan, CBO tells us that potential growth will be enhanced 
because resources now devoted to consumption can instead be used for 
investment. So, Mr. President, this resolution presents us with our 
most direct and tangible means of stimulating economic growth in the 
short-term, even as we seek to extend our current economic expansion 
for another 5 years.

  And, finally, to those concerned with various details of the plan, 
let's remember this: Within the framework of this resolution, there are 
specific levels of savings in various programs, specific levels of tax 
cuts and the resolution even includes some of the policies that should 
be used to achieve these targets. But, appropriately, this resolution 
does not spell out all of the details, and it leaves opportunities for 
the authorizing and appropriating Committees to fulfill the parameters 
and benchmarks that have been set. So let's remember that the goal of 
this resolution--a balanced budget in 2002--is in ink, but some of the 
details are still in pencil. And that's OK. The administration will 
continue to have the opportunity to encourage specific spending 
priorities, and Members of this body will also have their opportunity 
to influence and mold these decisions.
  Now, Mr. President, let me address one final question. Whenever there 
is a political initiative as significant as the one before us, pundits 
begin to ask: ``Who is the political winner in this agreement? Is it 
Republicans? Or is it Democrats?'' Well, let me suggest an answer: The 
winner in this resolution is our Nation and its people. Deficits have 
damaged this Nation and its citizens for 28 years and set us on an 
inevitable economic crash course. But today, with this resolution, we 
have an opportunity to avert this crash by ending these deficits in the 
short-term, which lays the groundwork for eliminating them completely 
in the long-term. What lies before us is a framework for achieving a 
balanced budget by 2002 and holding off the pending disaster that 
inaction invites.
  So I think our goal could not be more clear: We cannot let this 
opportunity slip through our hands. We must begin anew--never again 
permitting our Nation to be recklessly endangered by deficits and 
deficit spending. We must move forward with a recognition that our 
budget belongs to the people--and, as such, it must always be handled 
carefully and responsibly. These are our challenges--and, together, we 
can and must meet them.
  Mr. President, ``a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first 
step.'' I am reminded of this Chinese proverb today because this 
resolution represents such a monumental first step in our journey to a 
balanced budget. To be sure, our journey is not complete. And it will 
not be complete unless Members of this body, the House of 
Representatives, and the President maintain a strong commitment in the 
coming years to follow through and make this balanced budget goal a 
reality. We cannot falter in these coming challenges. But, in the 
meantime, we should celebrate today for all that it represents. Mr. 
President, this resolution places our Nation on the right path and, 
against a future of uncontrolled deficits and all that the dangers and 
problems that these deficits entail, this resolution gives us hope for 
a new beginning of fiscal sanity, economic growth, and prosperity.
  So I think our choice should be clear. We need to take this path--and 
we need to adopt this resolution. The benefit of doing so, Mr. 
President, is too great. The cost of failing to do so, conversely, is 
simply too severe.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, like many I recognize that this budget 
agreement is a good faith effort. It shows a recognition by Republicans 
that their past plans were extreme and unpopular. Indeed, the agreement 
acknowledges, to a degree, that Americans want us to invest in 
priorities.
  However, for all its positive steps, I do not believe it is the right 
budget outline for our future. I support a balanced budget plan, but I 
cannot support a resolution which sets in motion a questionable package 
of unfair tax cuts and other misguided priorities.
  The agreement contains a number of laudable elements. The welfare 
act's excesses are curbed. It takes a small first step toward health 
care coverage for children, and important education tax credits are 
provided. And it does purport to continue the march toward a balanced 
budget.

[[Page S5039]]

  Indeed, we would not be able to consider this agreement without the 
1993 budget agreement. With only Democratic votes, that package has cut 
the deficit for 4 years in a row and brought the deficit to its lowest 
point as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] since 1974. 
Ironically, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle predicted the 
1993 budget would cause economic collapse and ruin. Yet, today, the 
economic growth generated, in part, by the 1993 budget has brought us 
to the point where it is conceivable to reach budget balance. Today's 
national economy is a marvel of low inflation, low unemployment, and 
strong revenues, which is good news for many although it has yet to 
reach some in my State of Rhode Island.
  Again, there are sound elements of this plan, but I would caution 
that a budget resolution is short on specifics, long on figures, and 
tends to obscure the magnitude of what is under consideration. While 
the budget resolution is nonbinding, it imposes an austere procedural 
and fiscal discipline on what the Senate can and cannot do. Certainly 
the defeat of the Hatch-Kennedy amendment showed that this budget 
resolution can, and could continue to be, used to thwart efforts to 
meet even the health care needs of America's children.
  Mr. President, for all its effort, I believe this agreement falls 
short in a number of key areas.
  First, the deal's economic assumptions are optimistic, and are based 
on a $225 billion midnight revenue windfall estimate from the 
Congressional Budget Office. Sadly, the accuracy of these estimates is 
not guaranteed. Since 1980, CBO's revenue estimates have been wrong 11 
times, and, on several occasions, these estimates have been off by more 
than $50 billion. I would also add that try as the Senate might, the 
business cycle cannot be legislated out of existence. My sincerest hope 
is that the current economic growth continues, however, history shows 
that what goes up usually comes down. If we experience a downturn, this 
agreement could need massive retuning, which would probably not include 
the elimination of tax breaks for the well-to-do, but would mean pain 
for society's most vulnerable.
  Second, and, most important, I believe the agreement's nontargeted 
tax breaks are the wrong direction for an agreement which claims to 
balance the budget. When we are engaged in the task of trying to 
balance the budget, we should not make the job more difficult by 
enacting questionable tax breaks for those individuals who are already 
benefiting handsomely from the current economic growth.
  This agreement calls for tax cuts totaling $250 billion over 10 
years. When it comes to taxes, what starts small, explodes later. 
Indeed, 44 percent of the cost of the agreement's tax breaks are packed 
into the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Indeed, the cost of these tax cuts 
grows 32 percent in the final 2 years of the deal. What does this 
portend for the second 10 years of the agreement? According to the 
nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the revenue loss 
could reach up to $650 billion from 2008 to 2017. I would hasten to 
remind my colleagues that this is the time when the baby boom retirees 
will begin to place enormous pressure on already strained entitlement 
programs.
  In contrast, targeted, middle-class tax breaks, like the Hope 
Scholarship, are supportable because they help working families afford 
college and prepare their children for the competitive international 
economy. Unfortunately, the agreement lacks even the attractiveness of 
closing corporate welfare loopholes that subsidize the shipment of jobs 
overseas and other questionable business activities to pay for tax 
breaks.
  Mr. President, the specifics of the tax bill this agreement calls for 
are questionable to say the least. As the resolution's year-by-year 
revenue loss tables show, there is plenty of budgetary room for time 
bombs and gimmicks. Indeed, after the revenue loss from the tax breaks 
doubles between 1999 and 2000, it falls in 2001 and 2002, but it keeps 
rising and explodes after 2007. As others have pointed out, the pattern 
is not accidental. Instead, it is designed to permit a number of 
questionable tax gimmicks to give the appearance of fairness and fiscal 
propriety. One such revenue trick is to phase in the capital gains 
indexation which conveniently hides the first 5 year revenue loss and 
assumes more revenue early on in the second 5 years as investors rush 
to cash in on capital gains indexing. According to experts, capital 
gains indexing will cost three times as much in the second 5 years as 
in the first 5 years of the budget deal.

  Some may argue that if gimmicks are employed and subsequently wreak 
havoc on deficit reduction, Senators will do the right thing and repeal 
these taxes. Mr. President, I am not so sure that you can put the tax 
cut genie back in the bottle. This agreement contains no commitment to 
control a revenue loss explosion. Indeed, all of the President's 
requests for such assurances were rejected by Republicans. The word 
``permanent'' is used to describe the capital gains tax cuts, but not 
the President's education tax incentives. I would also add that it is 
very difficult to repeal taxes both politically and practically. For 
example, phased-in capital gains indexing and other revenue games are 
hard to repeal or modify because taxpayers will have accepted the 
Government's tax cut offer on which the Senate would be hard pressed to 
renege.
  But, I am not simply concerned with revenue loss and tax cut 
chicanery. I believe that many of the tax cuts called for in this 
agreement are of dubious merit and value. The best example of this fact 
is an across the board capital gains tax cut. Such a proposal is not 
investment oriented. There will be no holding period or connection to 
investments in small businesses. As Paul Volker, former head of the 
Federal Reserve said before the Senate Finance Committee:

       ``. . . a near-term reduction in the capital gains tax rate 
     from present levels does not strike me as a pressing matter, 
     especially given the current performance of the economy and 
     the medium and longer-term budgetary prospects . . . [A] very 
     large across the board reduction of capital gains taxes poses 
     serious problems of equity and complexity, of revenue loss 
     and of distortion of decision making.
       If public policy is to make a serious effort to raise the 
     level of savings and investment, and do so equitably, the 
     priorities seem to me clear. We should move as fast as we can 
     toward a surplus in the Federal budget.''

  There are those who would argue that a capital gains cut would help 
millions of Americans. However, the typical beneficiary of a capital 
gains cut is not a middle-income family. Indeed, households with 
incomes over $100,000 receive about three-quarters of all capital gains 
income, and as the Joint Tax Committee reported--JCS-4-97:

       ``. . . [W]hile many taxpayers may benefit from an 
     exclusion or indexing for capital gains, the bulk of the 
     dollar value of any tax reduction will go to those taxpayers 
     who realize the bulk of the dollar value of gains.''

  In other words a capital gains tax cut benefits the wealthy who 
actually have capital gains.
  There are other questionable tax cuts in this plan, such as the 
estate tax cut which would only benefit the top 1.2 percent of estates 
and the backloaded IRA proposal which aims to increase savings for 
retirement, but causes a revenue loss explosion when the pressure on 
entitlements is most acute due to the baby boomers. Again, the 
President had tax proposals which were better and helped family 
business owners without significantly adding to the deficit.
  Third, while the agreement correctly focuses on education through a 
$35 billion targeted tax incentives for college costs, a commitment to 
increase the Pell grant for fiscal year 1998, a commitment to 
technology in the classroom, and a minimal commitment to improving 
literacy, the need may exceed what this plan allows due to its 10 
percent reduction in domestic investment in real terms. Groups like the 
Committee for Education Funding are greatly concerned about the 
restrictive discretionary spending caps in the agreement which could 
severely thwart efforts to invest in our education needs. The agreement 
contains no school construction funds and little room in budget caps 
for such an initiative. There is no room for further Pell grant 
increases, as the defeat of my amendment to increase Pell grant funding 
demonstrates. There are scarce resources for the estimated $4.8 billion 
price tag to reform schools as suggested by the National Commission on 
Teaching and America's Future. Moreover, there is no commitment to fund

[[Page S5040]]

Goals 2000, School to Work, national service, or the burgeoning need 
for research into early childhood development
  Fourth, the agreement makes very modest room for health care needs, 
and, as I have stated there was no room in this agreement for a more 
robust children's health care program paid for with a tax on tobacco. I 
am also concerned that there are limited resources available for the 
National Institutes of Health's fight against cancer and HIV.
  Fifth, I am concerned that the $115 billion in Medicare cuts called 
for in the agreement may exceed what is absolutely needed to preserve 
Medicare. Indeed, the level of cuts in the years 2001 and 2002 total 
$69 billion. I am also disturbed that no solid estimates are available 
for the premium increases that many seniors face. The agreement also 
ignores the long-term-solvency issues of the Medicare program and may 
leave some with the mistaken impression that Medicare is guaranteed to 
be there for them. There are even those in the other body who would 
like to add the dubious concept of medical savings accounts to this 
plan.
  Sixth, the agreement ignores our investment deficit, and even its new 
initiatives lose ground due to inflation and in relation to the growing 
tax cuts. Specifically, infrastructure investment is frozen at a time 
when the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates we need $50 
billion each year just to properly maintain our transportation system. 
Last week, a Rhode Island television station ran a series on the poor 
road conditions of my State, but sadly this agreement provides only 
minimal assistance to fix Rhode Island's roads. In the area of housing, 
the agreement notably extends essential section 8 contracts for senior 
housing, but leaves little for other affordable housing programs. Last, 
my colleagues should ask themselves whether the budget caps employed to 
offset the cost of unsound tax cuts will crowd out important programs 
and hamstring the Senate's ability to respond to the needs of all 
Americans in an increasingly competitive world?
  The agreement does not continue the path of deficit reduction begun 
by the 1993 budget agreement. Indeed, the deficit actually increases in 
each of the next 3 years from $67 billion this year to $90 billion in 
1998 to $90 billion in 1999 to $83 billion in 2000. Then miraculously, 
the deficit falls as the Congress starts to cut $69 billion from 
Medicare, $49.7 billion from domestic investments, $46 billion from 
defense, and $10 billion from Medicaid. All these reductions fall in 
just 2 years, leaving little margin for unsound budget estimates or 
exploding tax cuts.
  Mr. President, on balance there is much in this agreement that should 
be applauded, and the bipartisanship it displays is laudable. It 
acknowledges that the Contract With America embodied the wrong policies 
and priorities for our future. It provides for some investments in 
health care and education. It restores some benefits for legal 
immigrants hurt by last year's welfare act, and it builds on the 
success of the 1993 deficit reduction package.
  However, the fundamental question is, Does this agreement meet the 
challenges of the future? Will it allow us to truly reform education? 
Will it help more working families afford college? Will it rebuild our 
roads, bridges, and rails? Will it provide opportunities for those 
making the transition from welfare to work? Most important, is this 
agreement fair or does it ask too much of those who can least afford 
it?
  Mr. President, this budget resolution is not the plan for our future. 
It is too generous where fiscal discipline is required and too tight-
fisted where investment is direly needed. And, sadly, it fails to meet 
the test of fairness and honesty we owe hard working American families.
  Mr. President, as the specific legislation to implement this 
agreement is developed, I am hopeful that its excesses can be curbed, 
and I would urge my colleagues to accept amendments which would make 
this plan worthy of greater support.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the revenue provisions in the budget 
resolution which is before the Senate reflects the bipartisan budget 
agreement entered into by the President and the congressional 
leadership. I quote from the Budget Committee's report accompanying 
this resolution:

       The Bipartisan Agreement assumes the net tax cut shall be 
     $85 billion over the next five years and not more than $250 
     billion over the next ten years, to provide tax relief to 
     American families. Under the Agreement, revenues would 
     continue to grow, from $1554.9 billion in 1997 to $1890.4 
     billion in 2002, an increase of $335.5 billion over the five 
     year period.
       As always, the Ways and Means Committee in the House and 
     the Finance Committee in the Senate will determine the 
     specific amounts and structure of the tax relief package. The 
     tax-writing committees will be required to balance the 
     interests and desires of many parties (while protecting the 
     interests of taxpayers generally) in crafting the tax cut 
     within the context of the goals adopted by the Bipartisan 
     Budget Agreement.

  I also want to read those guidelines from the letter sent to the 
President on May 15, 1997, from the Speaker of the House and the Senate 
majority leader:

       It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion 
     through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007. We 
     believe these levels provide enough room for important 
     reforms, including broad-based permanent capital gains tax 
     reductions, significant death tax relief, $500 per child tax 
     credit, and expansion of IRAs.
       In the course of drafting the legislation to implement the 
     balanced budget plan, there are some additional areas that we 
     want to be sure the committees of jurisdiction consider. 
     Specifically, it was agreed that the package must include tax 
     relief of roughly $35 billion over five years for post-
     secondary education, including a deduction and a tax credit.

  Would the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee agree 
that this agreement and this budget resolution leave great flexibility 
for the Congress to shape the tax reconciliation bill?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do agree with the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator agree that within the parameters of an 
$85 billion net tax cut through the year 2002 and no more than $250 
million over the next 10 years, including $35 billion in tax relief 
over 5 years for post-secondary education, including a deduction and a 
tax credit, there is significant flexibility in the size and the 
targeting of a permanent capital gains tax reduction and in the size 
and the specifics of death tax relief included in the package?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Again, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator agree that the term ``broad-based'' as 
applied to permanent capital gains reductions as in the agreement 
letter, and in the committee report is subject to a reasonable debate 
as to its interpretation?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree with the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. And does the Senator agree that the term ``significant'' 
as it is applied to estate tax relief in that same letter and in the 
report is subject to reasonable interpretation as to the size and 
specific provisions of any change in the estate tax?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do agree.
  Mr. LEVIN. As I read the table summarizing the agreement, entitled 
``Long Range Summary, 1997-2007,'' on page 77 of the committee print, 
there is an agreement regarding net tax figures for the years 1997 
through 2002. The word ``agreement'' appears above the columns for 
those years. The word ``projections'' appears above the columns for the 
years 2003 through 2007. Am I correct then that the net tax cut figures 
for the years 2003 through 2007 are not agreements on specific numbers, 
but the numbers in those years are simply OMB projections?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Michigan is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 
Committee. I ask these questions to reflect my concern that any tax 
bill produced pursuant to the budget agreement and this budget 
resolution not set in motion tax policies which will create large 
deficits in the next decade. Also, I strongly believe we must carefully 
study the effect of any tax provisions which we include in the revenue 
reconciliation legislation to assure that it is fair, and not weighted 
to benefit principally those who need it least.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with reluctance, I oppose this budget 
resolution. It has many worthwhile features, and I am hopeful that as 
the process continues, it can be significantly improved. In its current 
version, it has too many obvious defects.
  It contains excessive tax cuts that are likely to balloon in the 
future and lead to massive new deficits that make

[[Page S5041]]

the pledge of a genuinely balanced budget a hollow promise. It fails to 
ask the rich to make a fair contribution to reducing the deficit, and 
rewards them with massive tax breaks instead. It threatens the system 
that delivers health care to the elderly. It contains excessive 
reductions in the needed level of public investment. And it does not do 
enough to provide health insurance coverage to the 10 million children 
without such coverage today.
  The last time a budget promised balance and large, ballooning tax 
cuts at the same time was the Reagan budget of 1981. And the tax cuts 
in this budget do balloon in the future. As a May 21 study by the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows, the tax cuts in the 
budget are growing at a rate of 32 percent in the final 2 years of the 
first 10-year period. That study also indicated that the tax cuts are 
likely to cost about $650 billion, nearly two-thirds of a trillion 
dollars in the second 10-year period, from 2008 through 2017.
  The budget also asks too little sacrifice from corporate tax 
subsidies.
  Our recent budget history should teach us that we only have so much 
money for tax cuts. We should target those scarce tax cut dollars to 
working families and the middle class. But too many of the tax cuts 
that the Republican majority brags about in this budget would benefit 
the very wealthiest individuals and corporations.
  As part of the bipartisan budget agreement, Speaker Gingrich and 
Senator Lott wrote to the President, ``We believe these levels provide 
enough room for * * * broad-based permanent capital gains reductions, 
significant death tax relief, * * * and expansion of IRAs.'' President 
Clinton will be hard-pressed to preserve his important tax cuts for 
education if the Republican majority in Congress holds to its present 
course.
  The capital gains tax cuts in S. 2, the Republican leadership tax 
bill, would cost $33 billion in the first 5 years and fully $96 billion 
in the second 5 years. More than 85 percent of its benefits would go to 
those with incomes greater than $100,000 a year, according to an 
analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Fully two-thirds of the benefits 
from lowering the capital gains tax rate would go to the top 1 percent 
of taxpayers--those with incomes above $241,000. This wealthy elite 
would get an average tax cut of about $6,800 from the capital gains tax 
cut, while families in the middle fifth of the population would get an 
average tax cut of $4.
  The estate tax cuts in S. 2, the Republican leadership tax bill, 
would cost $18 billion in the first 5 years and $48 billion in the 
second 5 years. All of the benefits of these tax cuts would go to the 1 
percent of estates larger than $600,000 in value.
  A 1989 Joint Tax Committee analysis of an IRA provision similar to 
that in the Republican leadership tax bill found that 95 percent of the 
benefits went to the top fifth of taxpayers.
  Reasonable restrictions on the tax cuts for capital gains and estate 
tax relief place much less of a burden on the deficit. The Democratic 
leader, for example, has introduced targeted capital gains tax cuts 
that cost $4.5 billion, and estate tax cuts that cost $3 billion over 
the next 5 years.
  In addition, this budget takes only modest steps to control the 
massive subsidies that the tax laws now bestow on the wealthy. It has 
been estimated that over four-fifths of tax subsidies go to the richest 
fifth of the population. At a time when billions of dollars of budget 
cuts are being proposed in health benefits for the elderly, it makes no 
sense to provide tax breaks to billionaires who renounce their 
citizenship.
  The tax expenditures listed in a December 1996 Senate Budget 
Committee report add up to more than $2.7 trillion over the next 5 
years. That's more than 30 percent of the cost of running the entire 
Federal Government over the same time period. These tax entitlements 
represent a larger share of the Federal budget than Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, or any spending program.
  Together with Senator John McCain and other Senators, I have joined 
in a bipartisan effort to reduce corporate subsidies using a base-
closing type Federal commission. Cutting corporate subsidies would 
introduce a needed element of fairness in the budget. When so many 
individuals and families are being asked to bear a heavy burden of 
budget cuts, there should be no free rides for special interest groups 
and their cozy subsidies.
  Medicare cuts, at $115 billion, make up nearly two-fifths of the 
total spending cuts in this budget. These Medicare cuts grow to $155 
billion over 6 years, and $215 billion over 7 years. Even though this 
budget does not ask as much of beneficiaries as did the Republican 
budgets of the last 2 years, cuts of this size raise serious questions 
about the continued willingness of Medicare providers to participate in 
the system.
  Defense did not sacrifice to make its contribution. The levels in the 
budget are essentially the higher of either the President's or the 
Republicans' proposals. The Republicans' levels were higher in the 
short run, and the President's levels were higher in the long run.
  Domestic appropriations contribute $61 billion over 5 years and are 
assumed to contribute $273 billion over 10 years to keep the budget in 
balance. Coming after the 1990 budget, which essentially froze total 
appropriations, these cuts seriously reduce the pool of money from 
which education, research, and other needed investments are made to 
ensure the future growth of the economy.
  The budget does make a worthwhile start for children's health, by 
allotting $16 billion--$3.2 billion a year on average--over the next 5 
years. But the budget also takes $14 billion out of Medicaid at the 
same time, leaving doubts about how much net funding will actually 
reach children in need.
  We should be realistic about what $3.2 billion a year can and cannot 
do. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal cost of 
providing Medicaid coverage to one child in 1997 will be $860. At $860 
per child, $3.2 billion dollars a year will cover about 3.7 million 
children. This level is only one-third of the number of uninsured, just 
enough to cover those children below poverty with a little left over. 
If we stop at the $16 billion in the budget agreement, we will be 
leaving out almost 7 million children in working families who earn too 
much for Medicaid but not enough to buy the health insurance their 
children need.
  The $20 billion over the next five years in the Hatch-Kennedy CHILD 
amendment was designed to help these families, and I regret that it was 
narrowly defeated. Senator Hatch and I continue to believe that is 
should be included in the budget, and we intend to offer it as part of 
the reconciliation bill later this year.
  The debates ahead will offer realistic opportunities to improve the 
budget package in all of these areas and eliminate its worst 
provisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact a 
balanced budget that truly reflects the Nation's needs and priorities.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 27, the Concurrent Budget Resolution for fiscal 
year 1998. This resolution charts the course to achieve the goal that 
the people of America and Idaho want and deserve--a balanced budget. 
With the spending targets set forth in this resolution Congress will 
balance the federal budget for the first time in nearly 30 years.
  This accomplishment has a very personal perspective for me because 
the last we had a balanced budget, in 1969, I was a junior in high 
school. Now, almost 30 years later, as we are on the verge of balancing 
the budget again, I have two children in high school who have never 
seen a balanced budget. An entire generation of Americans has lived 
their entire lives under the burden of a national debt that is now 
almost $20,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Our 
children deserve a better future than having to pay the interest on a 
$5 trillion debt. This budget resolution offers them hope for a better 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I am proud to support this monumental budget 
resolution not only because it achieves a balanced budget and 
eliminates the national debt, but because it accomplishes these goals 
while providing significant tax relief to working American families. 
This resolution confirms that the money in the Federal budget belongs 
to the taxpayers of this country, not the government, and it s about 
time we start leaving more of it where it belongs, in the taxpayers 
pocket.
  This resolution provides families with a $500 per child tax credit, 
cuts

[[Page S5042]]

the estate tax, provides a capital gains tax reduction and allows tax 
relief for education costs. And the resolution provides for these tax 
cuts while reducing Federal spending more than one trillion dollars 
over the next decade.
  This resolution doesn't forget our commitment to the elderly. We 
accomplish these tax cuts and spending reductions without making any 
legislative changes to Social Security, and we shouldn't, Social 
Security is not the problem. This budget also insures the solvency of 
Medicare by simply slowing the rate of growth while still allowing 
spending to increase 28 percent, more than twice the rate of inflation. 
This is an increase from $209 billion this year up to $280 billion in 
2002. Without this reform the Medicare Trustee s report estimated that 
the Medicare Part A trust fund would be bankrupt by 2001.
  Mr. President, the budget resolution before us is a strong plan for 
reversing the decades old Washington habit of spend, spend, and spend 
some more. It won't be easy to stop this out of control deficit train 
and turn it around, but Republicans are determined to get the job done, 
and we will.
  I am proud to vote for this resolution and with it a brighter 
tomorrow for our children. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 27.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the important 
resolution before us today, the concurrent budget resolution. This is 
truly a remarkable occasion. We are considering the outlines of a plan 
that will balance the budget over the next 5 years.
  This bipartisan proposal achieves a number of important 
accomplishments. The most significant of course is balancing the budget 
by 2002. I believe that the Budget Committee Chairman Domenici and 
ranking member Lautenberg have done an outstanding job in their work to 
bring this agreement to the floor of the Senate.
  Without a constitutional amendment, this agreement will balance a 
budget that has been the focal point of national debate and a goal 
supported by most every candidate for President and Senator for at 
least as long as I have been in office.
  Four years ago we proposed cutting the budget deficit in half. After 
many difficult and contentious votes, Senate Democrats along with a tie 
breaking vote from Vice-President Gore helped enact a program that set 
us on a course of real deficit reduction. Many criticized that effort 
and predicted economic disaster. But now after 4 years of economic 
growth and reduced deficits we are in a position to finish the job. 
After 4 years, our deficit has been reduced from $290 billion down to 
$67 billion.
  This proposal outlines a plan to extend the solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund for at least a decade. It will expand beneficiaries' choice 
of private health plans by allowing preferred provider plans and 
provider sponsored plans to compete in the managed care programs in 
Medicare. Additional preventive health benefits are provided and 
beneficiary copayments for outpatient services are limited. Part B 
premiums are maintained at 25 percent of program costs and any 
increases necessary for home health care benefits are phased in over 7 
years. Low income seniors are protected from any potential home health 
premium increases.
  In order to ensure that important areas of service are adequately 
protected this agreement identifies priorities such as education 
reform, Pell grants, child literacy, and Head Start.
  Two very important initiatives are anticipated in this agreement. The 
first provides $16 billion to expand health coverage to up to 5 million 
children who do not now have health insurance. The second revises last 
year's welfare reform to restore necessary benefits to disabled 
immigrants. I believe that the President's initiatives on these issues 
are commendable.
  Although important progress is made in this agreement, I want to make 
clear that I have a number of concerns.
  I have worked on and voted on budget agreements before and I 
recognize some of the pitfalls. My first concern is the question of tax 
cuts. If the first priority of this agreement is to balance the budget, 
I do not believe that we should make that job any harder. This 
agreement calls for a net tax cut of $85 billion over 5 years. Why 
can't we eliminate these cuts and balance the budget sooner? Why can't 
we apply those funds to establish a budget surplus and apply it to debt 
reduction?. Or at least, why can't we wait to determine if this 
agreement and its underlying assumptions prove successful? What happens 
to our deficit reduction and balanced budget efforts in the event of an 
economic downturn? There is no assurance that this agreement will be as 
successful as the one 4 years ago.
  I recognize that tax incentives have historically been employed to 
stimulate a sluggish economy. Although some may argue our economic 
growth could be even higher, last quarter's 5.6 percent growth is the 
highest in 10 years. The stock market is at record highs, a core 
inflation rate of 2.5 percent in the last year is the best in 30 years, 
the monthly unemployment rate of 4.9 percent is at a 25 year low. I am 
not convinced that this is time to use tax cuts to stimulate the 
economy. I believe that deficits should be reduced in good economic 
times. If tax cuts are to be used in good economic times what tools 
will we have in a less favorable economy?
  The tax cuts anticipated in this resolution are calculated to cost a 
net $85 billion over 5 years. I am concerned, however, that beyond the 
scope of the 5 year resolution the cost of these tax cuts will go even 
higher. Indeed the agreement expects that the 10 year cost will rise to 
$250 billion.
  Even though this agreement provides for a balanced budget in 2002, 
entitlement spending is expected to soar beyond the turn of the 
century. Yes, we improve the solvency of Medicare in this budget and 
put it on a firm footing for 10 years, but beyond that time frame 
Medicare costs will rise. This agreement continues to use the surplus 
provided by the Social Security system to reach a balance. Beyond the 
turn of the century the surpluses will provide retirements benefits for 
baby boomers. I am concerned that again we are putting off finding a 
solution to these problems when relatively small steps taken now can 
avoid much larger steps that will undoubtedly need to be taken later.
  During the consideration of the resolution I supported efforts to 
provide additional support for children without health insurance, 
additional support for early childhood development, and additional 
support to rebuild crumbling schools. Although we were unsuccessful on 
these amendments, this will not be the end of the work. Those battles 
will continue throughout the reconciliation and appropriations process 
and I am hopeful that we will have some success.
  Let me say further that I recognize that just because this agreement 
does not solve each and every problem is no reason to oppose it. The 
perfect then becomes the enemy of the good. Important progress is made 
here and although not perfect I intend to vote for the good.


                              growth wins

  Mr. ROTH. Mr President, it is no coincidence that the first balanced 
budget agreement in a generation has come about at a time when the 
economy is red hot and when joblessness has dropped below 4.9 percent. 
The expanding economy has been shrinking the deficit as well as the 
gulf between both sides of the budget debate.
  Any lingering distance between Congress and the administration was 
swept away on the eve of the budget agreement when the Congressional 
Budget Office predicted that a tidal wave of new money would flood the 
treasury in the next 5 years.
  These new CBO estimates project that even without a budget agreement, 
increased revenues and decreased outlays would shrink the deficit an 
additional $225 billion.
  Perhaps even more important than the first balanced budget in a 
generation, this tidal wave of new money has washed away the ground 
underneath opponents of growth. Nothing signified the victory of growth 
over zero-sum, class-warfare politics more clearly than the words of 
President Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich when he told 
the New York Times a few weeks ago, ``The fact is, a lot of the deficit 
solved itself. It was the one solution that no one thought of.''
  Actually, it was the guiding philosophy of the Kemp-Roth tax cut. If 
I may quote Jack Kemp, ``Even with spending

[[Page S5043]]

restraint, we cannot balance the budget consistently without economic 
growth.''
  Mr President, on this point the record is quite clear. Following the 
tax cuts in the early eighties the economy did soar. But so did the 
deficit. The problem was, while revenues to the Federal Government 
doubled during the decade, spending more than doubled.
  In short, growth did its job--we just asked too much of it. The 
amount of wealth produced by our country was astounding and continues 
to be astounding. However, it is not limitless. So neither can our 
spending be limitless.
  We can protect the elderly and offer a helping hand to the poor, but 
only with solid growth in the economy. Without growth, the poor and 
elderly are pitted against each other in competition for meager 
resources, while the rich are vilified for their success. Left 
unchecked, these battles corrode the American dream.
  Mr President, I believe this budget represents a new coalition, bound 
by the common objective of higher growth. Because growth is the key to 
funding worthwhile social programs without unfairly burdening middle-
class families. It is the key to providing a strong defense and a clean 
environment. It is the key to rebuilding the American dream.
  Growth has won the debate because it has proven itself. Even the more 
ardent opponents of growth oriented policies must realize that to raise 
$225 billion from taxpayers would require a typical middle-class family 
to pony up an additional $450 per year
  Some will argue that the huge Clinton tax increase of 1993 is 
responsible for the low deficit, high growth, low unemployment economy 
we now enjoy. But that ignores the fact that this economic expansion 
began during the Bush administration. Others say it is the information 
age, along with deregulation and corporate restructuring that 
strengthened our economy.
  Regardless of who is right, and I do have some thoughts on the 
subject, I relish such a debate about the connection between taxes and 
growth. What is no longer debatable is that growth is the key to higher 
income for all Americans as well as higher revenues for the Federal 
Government.
  Look how far we have come in just 5 years. When President Clinton 
took office, he offered a $19 billion dollar stimulus package 
predicated on the notation that private enterprise could not produce 
the jobs our country needed. We no longer harbor fears about the 
ability of America to produce for her citizens.
  Some make the point that this budget will only be balanced for 5 
years. And this is true. It is also true that we face additional 
challenges beyond 2002 in both Social Security and Medicare, especially 
when the baby boom begins to retire. But the seeds of a solution to 
these long-term problems can also be found in this budget. Explicitly 
it restrains spending. Implicitly, it acknowledges that growth is the 
key to finding revenue for popular programs.
  Both sides of the American political conversation are now committed 
to playing within the bounds of fiscal restraint, while searching for 
ways to promote growth. This formula has served us well in the past and 
it will serve us well in the future.
  The old bromide is true. A rising tide does lift all boats. And the 
same tidal wave that has lifted millions of Americans to unprecedented 
new heights of prosperity in the past 6 years has also finally sunk 
that leaky old boat, class warfare.
  There are only two roads we can travel. One is to downsize the 
American dream and learn to live in a slow growth world; the other is 
to grow the economy up to level that makes the American dream possible. 
With this budget agreement, Congress and the President have decided its 
better to grow up.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the budget 
resolution. I support this resolution for two reasons. First, it 
continues the progress we have made since 1993 in moving toward a 
balanced budget. Second, it protects priorities which are vital to our 
Nation's future.
  It is not a perfect plan. There are parts of it that give me serious 
pause. I am especially concerned by the deep cuts in Medicare. I know 
that this budget resolution only provides a blueprint for other 
committees to follow. So, I reserve the right to vote against the final 
Medicare package if the cuts threaten health care for our senior 
citizens.
  With this resolution, we are finally taking the historic step of 
balancing the Federal budget for the first time since 1969. In 1993, I 
was proud to support President Clinton's economic plan. Since that plan 
was enacted, our deficit has been reduced from $290 billion to less 
than $70 billion.
  The 1993 vote was strong medicine. But it was the right medicine for 
our economy. Today, we have an opportunity to finish the job we began 
in 1993. We can adopt this resolution which will bring us to a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
  But, unlike previous attempts to balance the budget, this resolution 
protects crucial investments in our future. Balancing the budget must 
be based on principles. First and foremost, it must meet families' day-
to-day needs.
  I believe this resolution succeeds in putting families and children 
first. It makes major investments in education--from adding 1 million 
children to the Head Start Program to making it possible for millions 
of students to receive a college education.
  This resolution expands health care coverage to 5 million uninsured 
children. I want to do more. This resolution still leaves another 5 
million children with no health insurance. I am supporting the Kennedy-
Hatch CHILD bill which would make sure that every child has access to 
immunizations, early detection screening, and basic health care. I view 
the commitment made in this budget resolution to children's health as a 
downpayment on the job. I hope we will finish the job by enacting the 
CHILD bill later this year.
  The bill before us will continue our progress in making our 
neighborhoods safe. It ensures that the programs of the 1994 crime 
bill, which have been so effective in bring down crime rates, will be 
continued.
  I am particularly pleased that the budget resolution protects the 
violent crime reduction trust fund, including the community policing or 
COPS Program. The COPS Program has already put over 1,200 new police 
officers on the streets in my State of Maryland.
  Under this budget agreement, environmental protection will also be 
strengthened. It ensures that another 500 Superfund sites can be 
cleaned up by the end of 2000, and provides funding to help communities 
clean up brownfield areas so that they can be redeveloped.
  Under this balanced budget agreement, we will also be taking 
important steps to move people from welfare to work and to provide tax 
relief for working families. It will enable us to provide help for 
those who practice self help.
  As the Finance Committee begins putting together the tax component 
outlined in this budget agreement, I hope they make tax relief for 
middle income families their priority. I want to enact capital gains 
relief. I think we owe it to those who have invested in their community 
through purchasing and maintaining a home. They should be able to 
realize the full gain on their investment, and not have it taken away 
through capital gains taxes.
  I hope we can do something to provide capital gains relief for other 
types of investments as well. I believe that the longer you hold an 
investment, the less you should pay in capital gains. That rewards 
those who invest in our economy for the long run, without rewarding 
those who are just out to make a fast buck.
  I want us to have estate tax relief, so that a car dealer in 
Frederick can pass on the business to the next generation, or a small 
family farm in western Maryland or the Eastern Shore can stay in the 
family.
  I hope the Finance Committee will put together a tax package that 
puts families first. If the tax package is unfairly tilted toward the 
well-to-do, I will oppose it.
  Although I will support this budget resolution, I must be clear that 
there are parts of it that give me great pause. I am particularly 
troubled by the $115 billion in cuts in the Medicare Program. If we 
were given the opportunity to vote separately on each of the major 
components of this package, I would oppose the Medicare component.

[[Page S5044]]

  In the last Congress, when the majority party was attempting to push 
through $270 billion in cuts to the Medicare Program to provide tax 
cuts for the wealthy, I opposed them. I said at the time that we did 
not have a $270 billion solvency problem in the Medicare Program, 
rather we had a $89 billion solvency problem. I was joined by the 
majority of my Democratic colleagues in that point.
  So to see a resolution which calls for $115 billion in cuts to 
Medicare is of deep concern to me. I acknowledge this is much better 
than plans that were before us over the last 2 years. However, I am 
still concerned about the impact on seniors and on health care 
providers of this magnitude of cuts.
  I realize that the budget resolution does not cut a single dollar 
from the Medicare Program. It only provides a guideline for the 
authorizing committee to follow. We are a long way from making any 
actual changes in Medicare. So I hope that the Finance Committee will 
exercise extreme care in crafting the Medicare piece of the budget 
reconciliation bill. I believe we can ensure the solvency of Medicare 
without creating a financial burden for seniors or providers.
  Let me acknowledge one final area of concern. America owes a special 
debt to our veterans. We have a sacred commitment to honor all of our 
promises to them. I want to ensure that we provide adequately for 
veterans' health care.
  I am pleased that we passed an amendment to express the sense of the 
Senate that we must provide sufficient funding for veterans programs 
and benefits. This amendment includes language to urge that third party 
payments--that is, payments from private insurers--be used only to 
supplement, not supplant veterans health care funding. It makes clear 
that the Senate intends to keep our faith with America's veterans. I 
won't stand for anything less than that.
  Despite these reservations, I will support this resolution. It plots 
our course toward a balanced budget and puts families and children 
first. I believe this budget resolution will make a real difference in 
the lives of working Americans, and I will support it as a framework 
for future action.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 27, the Budget resolution. The budget resolution before us 
has gone through an incredible amount of negotiating to get to this 
point. I commend the Budget Committee chairman and the ranking member 
for working so diligently on this budget.
  As we began our work on the blueprint for our Nation's future, I had 
certain criteria in mind the budget resolution had to meet in order for 
me to support it. Unfortunately, this budget does not meet enough of my 
criteria to justify my support.
  I would like to take this opportunity to explain my position and 
those provisions which I feel leaves this agreement short of the mark.
  I feel that a good budget agreement should balance the budget before 
the year 2002. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a $225 billion 
windfall of unexpected revenues over the next 5 years. We should be 
giving this unexpected revenue back to the American people and use it 
to reduce the deficit.
  It also concerns me that there are no enforcement measures in place 
to ensure that the budget will remain in balance after the year 2002, 
let alone before that.
  Finally, the spending cuts are back loaded in the last 2 years of the 
agreement, and will take place after President Clinton leaves office. 
That isn't right. I believe the American working families expect action 
from us today--not promises for a better tomorrow.
  I voted for amendments that I felt would make the budget more 
enforceable and realistic. Without these meaningful amendments, the 
resolution does not go far enough. The amendments would ensure that the 
debt limit would not be increased, and that these additional unexpected 
Federal revenues and the projected $225 billion revenue windfall would 
go toward tax cuts and deficit reduction.
  If we don't produce a balanced budget, we lose, and generations to 
come will lose right along with us. A balanced budget only gets more 
difficult to achieve the longer we wait.
  If we are genuinely concerned about the welfare of our children, we 
should first look at balancing the budget while it is still realistic 
and possible for us to do so. The longer we wait the more we turn our 
children's dreams and hopes for a brighter future into a terrible 
nightmare. They look to us for leadership. They look to us to pass a 
budget that actually balances, and continues to balance the budget 
every year. I have no intention of letting them down.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the budget resolution which the Senate is 
now considering represents the next step forward in a process begun in 
1993. It reflects a considerable bipartisan accomplishment of the 
congressional leadership and the President. While I don't agree with it 
in every specific, it represents the best opportunity to reach a 
balanced budget by the year 2002, in a way which protects Medicare, 
Medicaid, funding for education and environmental protection.
  In 1992, the deficit in the Federal budget was $290 billion which 
represented 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product. The most recent 
estimate of the deficit for fiscal year 1997 is $67 billion, 
approximately eight-tenths of one percent of the gross domestic 
product.
  Over the 5 years from 1993 to 1998, the deficit has been reduced by 
about 1 trillion dollars from the deficit for those 5 years projected 
at the time. This remarkable progress has come about in large part as a 
result of the deficit reduction package which President Clinton 
presented in 1993, and which this Senate passed, without a single 
Republican vote, by a margin of one vote, the Vice-President's.
  The economy has responded to the steady reduction of the deficit. The 
economy grew for the first quarter of 1997 at a 5.6 percent rate, with 
an inflation rate of 2.7 percent. The unemployment rate is now 4.9 
percent, the lowest in 24 years. This compares to an unemployment rate 
in 1992 of 7.5 percent. More than 12 million new jobs have been created 
since President Clinton took office. Now, this budget agreement, 
reflected in the budget resolution before us, holds the promise of 
bringing us even closer to finishing the job.
  This budget gets many of the nation's priorities right. It protects 
Medicare and Medicaid--while assuring the solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund for another decade--it includes an important new initiative 
for children's health insurance, assures necessary funding for the 
protection of our natural environment, and perhaps most importantly, it 
includes the largest increase in investment in the education of our 
children in over 30 years. The agreement includes the commitment to 
pass $35 billion of postsecondary education tax cuts and funding for 
the President's initiatives in child literacy, school technology, Head 
Start, and an increase in the maximum Pell Grant to $3,000. Overall, 
this represents a 13 percent increase over the five years of the 
budget, and a 36 percent increase in education and training from last 
year's budget resolution.
  Mr. President, the resolution before us also makes room in the budget 
for $250 billion in net tax cuts over the next 10 years, and $85 
billion in net tax cuts over the next 5 years. This could provide an 
opportunity, within the confines of a budget which balances in 2002, to 
provide investment in our Nation's future growth and tax relief to 
middle income families. This will require, however, that the Congress 
show the discipline and the determination to shape the tax legislation 
which this budget resolution will make possible in such a way as to 
meet these objectives.
  Toward that end, providing they are part of a real package that gets 
us to a zero deficit by 2002, I intend to support the education tax 
cuts which the President has proposed, a $500-per-child tax credit 
adequate to provide tax relief to middle income families with children, 
and capital gains relief for homeowners. Also, I believe that, if 
consistent with the deficit reduction goals laid out in the resolution, 
that targeted capital gains relief for long-term investments and an 
incremental approach to estate tax relief should be used.
  We must be careful, as we stand on the threshold of a balanced 
budget, not to set in motion tax policies which will create large 
deficits in the next decade.

[[Page S5045]]

 For that reason, I hope that the tax-writing committees will consider 
tying tax reductions to actually accomplished milestones of deficit 
reduction.
  Second, we must carefully study the effect of any tax provisions 
which we include in the final tax reconciliation legislation to assure 
that it is fair, and not weighted to benefit those who need it least. 
Many of the capital gains and estate tax proposals which we have seen 
proposed over the last several years would clearly have mostly 
benefited the top 10% of income earners.
  The budget resolution before us leaves great flexibility to the tax-
writing committees, and ultimately to the House and Senate to fashion 
an equitable tax bill that provides not only tax relief, but investment 
in our nation's future, particularly through education. Also, and very 
importantly, the resolution provides for the tax provisions to be 
considered separately in a reconciliation bill after the other elements 
of the balanced budget have been enacted. This will provide the Senate 
with the opportunity to reject a tax bill which is inconsistent with 
balancing the budget and keeping it balanced in the years beyond 2002, 
and/or a tax bill which does not focus its relief on middle-income 
families and investment in education. It will also provide the 
President with the opportunity to veto such legislation. While I hope 
that course will prove unnecessary, it does provide greater assurance 
that the budget agreement that we will soon ratify in this budget 
resolution will produce an outcome of which we can be truly proud.
  Mr. President, I want to commend all of those who worked to produce 
this bi-partisan budget resolution. It is with hope that we are finally 
approaching a balanced budget which protects the nation's priorities 
that I will support this resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 27, the 1998 concurrent budget resolution, which 
outlines the bipartisan budget agreement between the President and the 
Congress. While I acknowledge the legislation's shortcomings, I support 
the overall agreement because it is a step in the right direction for 
our country.
  Before I begin, I want to commend Senator Domenici and the other 
negotiators for their tireless and unwavering commitment to reaching 
this agreement. Their leadership serves the American people well.
  Today, this bipartisan balanced budget resolution fulfills a series 
of promises that we made to the American people. We promised to pass a 
balanced budget by 2002--reflecting our commitment to economic growth, 
fiscal responsibility, and the simple principle that our Government 
should live within its means. Today, the plan before us will achieve 
that goal. We promised to strengthen Medicare--reflecting our 
commitment to the health care of senior citizens. Today, the plan 
before us will extend the solvency of Medicare's part A hospital 
insurance trust fund for 10 years and make structural reforms that will 
preserve the program in the future.
  We promised tax relief to help families and promote economic growth--
reflecting our belief that the American people, rather than the Federal 
Government, should make decisions about how to spend, save, or invest 
their hard-earned income. Today, the agreement before us includes $250 
billion in permanent tax cuts over 10 years including a $500-per-child 
tax credit, capital gains relief, death tax reform, expanded individual 
retirement accounts [IRA's], and education tax incentives. For every $1 
in new spending, we cut taxes $3.50.
  We also promised to reduce the size and scope of the Federal 
Government. Today, the agreement before us reduces total Government 
spending $320 billion over 5 years and more than $1 trillion over 10 
years. That's savings of $1,200 over 5 years and $3,800 over 10 years 
for each man, woman, and child in America. In fact, for every new $1 
added to this budget, we reduce spending $15.
  In constructing this budget, we promised to reject gimmicks and rosy 
economic scenarios in our assumptions. Unlike the President's past two 
budgets, the agreement before us does not include mechanisms that 
automatically and arbitrarily impose one-time spending cuts or tax 
increases to eliminate budget shortfalls. It is also based on the 
conservative economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office 
[CBO], which forecasts economic growth even more conservatively than 
most private economists at about 2.1 percent annually over the next 5 
years. We chose these assumptions so we could err on the side of 
caution.
  However, even the most conservative assumptions involve a 
considerable degree of uncertainty. Forecasting the performance of a 
multi-trillion-dollar economy is far from an exact science. I believe 
we have done the best we could with the information we have available. 
But if the agreement does not produce the expected results due to 
unforeseen circumstances, I will not be discouraged as long as we 
maintain our focus on a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility.
  Finally, we promised to reject rhetoric and partisan rancor to work 
together--Republicans and Democrats alike--to achieve results for the 
American people. In this spirit, we have worked to accommodate the 
President's priorities, and he has worked to accommodate ours. Today, 
the agreement before us is the product of countless hours of 
negotiations between a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. 
I hope we can continue working in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. President, I cannot express my support without also outlining my 
concerns in four particular areas. First, this agreement does not 
adequately restrain long-term entitlement spending growth to prepare 
for the Baby Boomers' retirement just over a decade away. In fairness, 
the authors of this agreement do not claim that it does. But as we 
approach this new demographic era, we must be acutely aware of this 
situation.
  Today, 200,000 Americans turn 65 every year. By 2011, 1.5 million 
Americans will turn 65 every year, a trend that will continue for 20 
years. As the elderly population increases, our younger working 
population will shrink. Today, there are 4.9 workers paying for every 
retiree's benefits in programs like Social Security and Medicare. In 
2030, when we will have many more retirees to support, there will only 
be 2.8 workers to support each beneficiary.
  This dramatic demographic shift will bring significant economic, 
political, social, and cultural changes that will transform our 
society. If we continued on our current spending course, entitlements--
our automatic spending programs--and interest on the debt would consume 
all federal revenues in just 15 years--leaving not a single dollar for 
roads, education, national parks, medical research, defense, or other 
basic government functions. I believe this agreement will help ease 
this demographic pressure, but more work lies ahead. We must begin 
sooner rather than later to deal with these problems fairly and 
effectively.

  This week, I joined with Senator Kerrey in offering a Sense of the 
Senate amendment on the need for entitlement reform. Specifically, it 
encouraged Congress and the President to work to enact structural 
reforms in entitlement spending in 1997 and beyond which sufficiently 
restrain the growth of mandatory spending in order to keep the budget 
in balance over the long term, extend the solvency of the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds, and to avoid crowding out funding 
for basic government functions, and that every effort should be made to 
hold mandatory spending to no more than 70 percent of the Federal 
budget. I am pleased that the Senate adopted this amendment 
unanimously. While a Sense of the Senate amendment is not binding, I 
believe it will help lay the foundation for more substantive reforms in 
the future.
  Medicare is my second concern. As the second largest entitlement in 
the budget serving more than 38 million seniors, Medicare will have a 
profound impact on our long-term fiscal health. When we consider that 
the average two-earner couple receives $117,000 more in benefits than 
they paid in taxes and premiums and factor in that Medicare is 
projected to be bankrupt before the baby boomers retire, we see the 
urgent nature of this problem. While I am encouraged by the bipartisan 
attempt to modestly restrain Medicare growth, we must redouble our 
efforts to save and strengthen this vital program through true 
structural reform.

[[Page S5046]]

  In addition to the demographic pressures outlined earlier, Medicare 
also faces the challenge of delivering 21st century health care through 
a bureaucratic 1960's delivery system. Clearly, piecing together fair 
and balanced policy options that achieve the required $115 billion in 
savings should not be our only goal. Working within the framework of 
this budget agreement, Congress should adopt structural reforms that 
tailor the program specifically to seniors' needs.
  These reforms should give beneficiaries more choices among competing 
health plans--similar to the ChoiceCare proposal introduced by Senator 
Gregg and my Provider Sponsored Organizations [PSO] bill--while 
retaining the current fee-for-service option for any senior who wants 
it. With these options, seniors could choose a plan that covers 
prescription drugs, a benefit not available under the current program. 
We also need to educate our young people about the benefits of long-
term-care insurance. By changing the structural dynamics of the system, 
we truly can prepare Medicare for the challenges that await us.
  My third concern involves our investment in research and development. 
Advances in technology have been responsible for one-third to one-half 
of our long-term economic growth through improved capital and labor 
productivity and the creation of new products and services. Despite 
this important relationship, our Federal investment in research and 
development has been falling as a percent of our gross national product 
[GNP] compared to other advanced nations. Unfortunately, this budget 
agreement does not reverse this troubling trend.
  While some research and development investments such as the National 
Institutes of Health [NIH] and the National Science Foundation [NSF] 
are protected, many others are cut. Total Federal research and 
development funding could fall up to 14 percent over the next 5 years. 
As a percentage of GNP, it will have dropped more than 30 percent from 
1994 to 2002. As a research scientist and chairman of the Commerce 
Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, I believe that 
underfunding research and development risks our national security and 
our economic competitiveness. If this trend continues, we will be 
retreating from investments with a proven record of returns that have 
made us healthier, wealthier, more productive, and more secure than 
almost any civilization in world history.
  Finally, my fourth concern is education. Time after time in this 
Chamber, we have stressed the importance of a balanced budget to our 
children. With a balanced budget, they can leave the deficit spending 
of the past behind and look forward to a future of better economic 
opportunities. To take advantage of these opportunities, our children 
will need a quality education. I am pleased that education is a 
priority in this agreement. However, we are not targeting our resources 
where they are needed most--elementary and secondary education.
  In the President's budget, about 85 percent of the new education 
spending and tax initiatives are directed toward higher education. This 
budget agreement is structured in a similar way. These facts are 
troubling when you consider that only 28 percent of fourth graders are 
proficient in reading, only 21 percent of eighth graders are proficient 
in math, and about 30 percent of college freshman must take remedial 
coursework.
  Our higher education institutions are the envy of the world, but 
without a stronger K-12 education system, this academic superstructure 
rests on a foundation of quicksand. I am concerned that our academic 
success will not last if we do not target our resources where there is 
the greatest need and greatest potential. Ultimately, we should 
consider targeting at least 50 percent of new education resources 
toward elementary and secondary education in the future. I urge my 
colleagues to focus more on this problem.

  Mr. President, as I have mentioned, my vote today is not the final 
solution to our budget problems. My vote today is merely a down payment 
on a long-term commitment to my constituents in Tennessee and to all 
Americans--a commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  The issues raised by this agreement will not disappear if this 
resolution passes. In fact, we will debate them again and again this 
year as we implement the agreement in the appropriations and 
reconciliation process. However, we can build on the momentum of this 
agreement to recommit ourselves to the discipline and diligence 
necessary to free our children from debt and unlock the doors of 
economic opportunity for our future. I look forward to meeting this 
challenge.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
blueprint our nation will follow to reach fiscal balance by the year 
2002. I commend the efforts of the President and the Congressional 
leadership to reach this agreement. It is clear that unless we get our 
deficit under control, we will be leaving our children--and our 
children's children--a legacy of debt that will make it impossible for 
them to achieve the American Dream.
  This budget resolution reflects public opinion. This is a bipartisan 
agreement because of clear public opposition to continued deficit 
spending.
  Although the deficit has been reduced in the past few years, our 
Nation's debt still obscures our ability to focus on the issues that 
most impact Americans' daily lives. The deficit under President Carter 
was $73.8 billion when he left office. Under President Reagan it 
ballooned to $221 billion, and reached $290 under President Bush. When 
President Clinton took office, he inherited a $290 billion deficit. The 
national family was in debt $4.4 trillion.
  Under President Clinton's leadership, however, the deficit has been 
reduced to $67 billion, the lowest nominal level since 1981. During the 
Bush administration, private sector growth averaged 1.3 percent 
annually, but under President Clinton, growth has averaged 3.5% per 
year. Furthermore, last year's deficit was 1.4 percent of the size of 
our economy, well below the deficits of other major economies, and the 
smallest level since 1974. This year, it will fall to about 1 percent 
of the economy.
  President Clinton's 1993 economic budget plan gave the signal to the 
world's financial markets that Democrats were committed to fiscal 
responsibility and that we would put our country on a glide path to 
balance. Our Nation is now in our 6th straight year of economic growth. 
Unemployment was 7.5 percent in 1992. Last month it fell to 4.9 
percent, the lowest level in a quarter century.
  During the first quarter of this year, the economy grew at an annual 
rate of 5.6 percent, the best in a decade. And since President Clinton 
took office, more than 12 million new jobs have been created.
  The best news about this resolution is that it continues the trend 
begun in 1993: this budget makes strides toward balance. Balance was a 
precondition of this agreement. While I regret that we did not pass a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, the proof of the pudding 
is in the eating: the President and congressional leaders have reached 
a consensus and agreed that this budget should reach balance in the 
year 2002. And this budget has achieved that.
  Mr. President, an area where the nation has reached a consensus is 
tax cuts. Everybody likes tax cuts. Public opinion is always in favor 
of tax cuts and this budget resolution provides for a net tax cut of 
$85 billion over 5 years.
  The tax cuts include: a child tax cut; about $35 billion in higher 
education tax cuts; a capital gains tax cut; a cut in the estate tax; 
and a variety of other tax proposals included in the President's 
budget, including the welfare-to-work tax credit.
  But this budget resolution only outlines the overall framework of the 
budget. The tax cuts that were agreed upon must be finalized in 
reconciliation in the Finance Committee. But these are the likely ones.
  While I support the concept of these proposals, I would have 
preferred to finish balancing the budget first.
  Mr. President, the budget resolution also reflects the popular 
support for health care and Medicare. And the changes contained in the 
Medicare Program will not hurt seniors.
  The agreement calls for $115 billion in Medicare savings, keeping the 
Medicare trust fund secure for another decade. It expands seniors' 
choices of private health plans by allowing preferred provider 
organizations and provider-sponsored plans to compete in Medicare's 
managed care program.

[[Page S5047]]

  Furthermore, this agreement will make some fixes to the Medicaid 
Program. While the resolution does not contain a per-capita cap, which 
would have hurt Illinois, it calls for $13.6 billion in net Medicaid 
savings. It restores Medicaid coverage for certain legal immigrants. It 
provides food stamps to individuals subject to last year's welfare 
reform bill time limits, who are seeking work but have not been able to 
find a job. And it provides a welfare-to-work initiative.

  The other good news is that this budget also provides for: expansion 
of the funding for Superfund hazardous waste cleanups; help up for to 
five million children, who currently lack health insurance, receive 
health insurance coverage by 2002; and it provides for the largest 
increase in education spending in 30 years.
  This budget resolution does however, contain a few disappointments. 
It does not come to grips with the fundamental challenges our Nation 
faces in the coming years. Instead of confronting these challenges and 
taking steps to meet them, it is the budgetary equivalent of the scene 
from ``Casablanca'' when Claude Rains says ``Round up the usual 
suspects.'' In this case, the ``usual suspects'' are domestic 
discretionary spending and cuts in reimbursements for Medicare and 
Medicaid health providers.
  Like Captain Renault, this agreement is more concerned with the 
appearance of action than with actually achieving something. And unlike 
the situation in ``Casablanca'', where the captain's inaction produced 
a good result, the failure to address our fundamental retirement 
security and investment challenges now, makes the future more difficult 
for all of us.
  Since 1991, discretionary spending has remained relatively flat. 
While the President has resisted deeper cuts this year, this budget 
resolution nonetheless short-changes domestic spending. The agreement 
cuts investments in non-defense discretionary programs by at least $61 
billion below the level needed to maintain the current level of 
services. This agreement represents roughly a 10 percent cut in real 
terms in non-defense discretionary programs. This translates into less 
money for cops on the streets, less money for sewers, and less money 
for our highways--fundamental public investments needed to keep our 
country strong.
  The squeeze is being put on discretionary funding to pay for tax 
cuts. Furthermore, nothing is being done to address entitlement 
spending. This budget resolution does nothing to address the ominous 
long-term issue facing our country: changing demographics and its 
effect on our ability to maintain retirement security for future 
generations.
  I was a member of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax 
Reform. The Commission made it clear that unless we get the deficit 
under control, by the year 2003, mandatory spending--most of which goes 
to Medicare and Social Security--plus interest on the national debt, 
will account for fully 73 percent of the total Federal budget.
  Though the current economic news is generally good, and the economy 
continues to expand, this trend may not continue. The Congressional 
Budget Office's report entitled ``The Economic and Budget Outlook: 
Fiscal Years 1998-2007,'' points out that ``Despite the improved 
outlook through 2007 . . . the budget situation will start to 
deteriorate rapidly only a few years later with the retirement of the 
first baby boomers and the continued growth of per-person health care 
costs.''
  By the year 2012, the Social Security trust fund will begin spending 
more than it takes in. And by the year 2029, the trust fund will have 
exhausted all of its resources. After 2012, when there are no more 
surpluses, Federal deficits will really begin to explode, an explosion 
fueled by the looming retirement of the baby boom generation.
  The fact that for the next 15 years Social Security will be running a 
surplus, works to disguise the extent of the problem, as does the fact 
that the retirement security budget is currently roughly in balance. 
Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, Medicare part B premiums, 
and interest earned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds 
roughly equal the spending by those two programs, at least for the 
moment.
  The long-term prognosis, however is nowhere near as favorable and the 
problem with this budget resolution is that it does nothing to address 
these problems now, while there is still time. Granted, the proposed 
set of Medicare reductions will extend the solvency of the trust fund 
until 2008. There are also some true systematic reforms to the Medicare 
Program that will move many of the program features toward prospective 
payment systems.
  However, this is not nearly enough. This budget resolution does not 
even extend the Medicare Program solvency to the year 2010 when the 
baby-boom generation begins to retire. Think about this: Currently, 13 
percent of the population is over age 65, and that number will double 
by the year 2030. The problem of fixing Medicare for the long run is 
only going to get more difficult. If we wait until the next millennium 
to deal with Medicare, it is going to take a lot more than $115 billion 
over five years to fix the problem. If we want Medicare to exist for 
our children and for many of us, we have to seize this opportunity to 
overhaul the program in a long-lasting way.

  Equally depressing is our complete ignoring of needed Social Security 
reform. There has been a lot of talk over the last few years about tax 
cuts and the need to give Americans some relief from the burden of 
excess taxation. As you may know, 70 percent of Americans pay more in 
payroll taxes than income taxes. The average worker retiring in 2015 
will pay $250,000 in payroll taxes over her working career.
  People pay these taxes into a system that they believe will provide 
them with some measure of retirement security. They expect Medicare to 
be there to cover health care costs and they expect Social Security to 
be around to provide a measure of income support. Eighty percent of 
Americans get more than 50 percent of their retirement income from 
Social Security.
  The Social Security system, just like Medicare, is not prepared for 
our future changes in demographics. Current retirees can expect to get 
back in benefits what they paid in taxes plus interest within eight 
years.
  For the vast majority of past and current retirees, Social Security 
has been a great value. They paid into the system with the promise that 
when it was their turn to retire, Social Security would be there. Well, 
the outlook is not as good for future generations of retirees. Already, 
the probability of getting back what they will pay into the system is 
diminishing. In the year 2015, it will take the average worker 13 years 
to recover what he pays in payroll taxes.
  This already eroding value of Social Security is compounded by the 
facts that we are planning to reduce the consumer price index which 
will lengthen the time it takes to recoup taxes and even more 
problematic, the trust fund is expected to become insolvent in 2029.
  A lot of work has been left undone by this budget resolution. This 
resolution does not even begin to make the reforms necessary to ensure 
that the next generations of Americans can retire with the same dignity 
as their grandparents and parents. Cutting $115 billion from Medicare 
is simply a quick fix to get past the initial 2001 exhaustion date. 
Future seniors should not have to worry about whether Medicare will pay 
their doctor's bill or whether their Social Security check will arrive 
on time.
  Mr. President, I was particularly disappointed that this proposal did 
not invest in education infrastructure. It is a sad fact of life that 
in thousands upon thousands of classrooms all across the country, our 
schools are not physically up to the task of educating all Americans 
for the 21st century. Too many of our schools are literally falling 
down around our children.
  Too many of our schools are overcrowded to the point where students 
cannot learn effectively. Too many of our schools do not have the 
physical infrastructure necessary to support the integration of 
computers into classrooms.
  According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, which at my request 
conducted an intensive, 2-year study of the condition of America's 
schools, 14 million children attend schools in such poor condition they 
need major renovations or outright replacement; 7 million children 
attend schools with life-

[[Page S5048]]

threatening safety code violations; and it will cost $112 billion just 
to bring schools up to what the GAO calls good, overall condition--in 
other words--up to code. This budget resolution does nothing to address 
these concerns.
  Mr. President, education does not just provide benefits to 
individuals. Education benefits the public. Every single American 
benefits from improvements to our elementary and secondary education 
system.
  It is unfortunate, then, that we continue to pay for our education 
system as though its benefits were individual and local in nature. In 
order to remain the world's economic leader, we must reform our 
education funding system that was designed to meet the needs of 
yesterday's economy.
  Our reliance on local property taxes to pay for elementary and 
secondary education causes wide disparities in the abilities of school 
districts to adequately fund education. Under our current system, 
wealthy communities with low tax rates can often generate sufficient 
revenues to build the finest facilities, while poor communities with 
very high tax rates often cannot raise enough to support even mediocre 
schools. While many poor districts try their hardest, and have the 
highest tax rates, the system works against them.
  According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, poor and middle-
class school districts in 35 States make a greater local tax effort 
than wealthy districts. In my home State of Illinois, the poorest 
districts tax themselves at an average rate of 43 percent higher than 
the wealthiest districts. This phenomenon is our school finance 
system's greatest irony: the lowest-income areas often have the highest 
property tax rates and the schools with the fewest resources.
  The GAO found that although most states make some attempt to 
supplement local funding in poor districts, wealthy school districts in 
37 states have more total funding per pupil than poor districts. These 
disparities exist even after adjusting for differences in geographic 
and student need-related educational costs. In Illinois, the wealthiest 
20 percent of districts have almost two-thirds as much to spend per 
pupil than the other 80 percent.
  Because we rely on the local property tax to fund education, the 
opportunities available to our children are subject to the vagaries and 
disparities of local property wealth. Children in wealthy communities 
are able to attend the best schools and have the most opportunities, 
while children in poor and middle-class communities often have access 
to second-rate facilities and lesser opportunities. This budget 
resolution does nothing to reverse these trends.
  In conclusion, I believe that our Nation's budget, reduced to its 
essentials, is very much like the budget of any family. It should 
balance revenues and spending, it should address the needs and 
priorities of the various family members, it should be fair in the 
apportionment of spending and sacrifice, and it should lay a foundation 
for the future well-being of its members.
  It should address the looming needs of the American family, 
especially in regards to health care and retirement security, as well 
as reinvestment in the infrastructure which is in progressively worse 
shape.
  The agreement reached can be thought of as a decision to pay off 
some, but not all, of the old bills, to give more support to a variety 
of family activities, and to give up a part time job. Because the 
economy is so robust, those decisions represent the cashing in of a 
prosperity dividend.
  Mr. President, Congress must not only look at the 5 and 10 year 
effect of the policies we enact. We need to look at how the policies we 
change today affect the future. It is true that long-term economic 
estimates are notoriously unreliable, but having said that, long-term 
budget problems are in no small part related to long-term demographic 
trends. And long-term demographic trends are reliable.
  Our actions now will impact future generations, our grandchildren. 
For example, if Social Security were examined under the requirements of 
private pension funds, you would find that it is underfunded by 
hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress should look outside the 
budget horizon, particularly at the long-term budgetary consequences of 
tax cuts. Tax cuts are back-loaded in this resolution.
  Mr. President, in Alice in Wonderland, Alice asked the Cheshire Cat, 
``Which way should I go?'' And the Cheshire Cat responded ``It depends 
on where you want to go.'' Congress must decide which way to go. Mr. 
President, this budget resolution will balance the budget. But more 
work needs to be done to meet our obligations to future generations of 
Americans, to invest in people and to protect their retirement 
security. Every generation of Americans has addressed and resolved 
challenges unique to their time. That is what makes our country great. 
Now is the time to take steps toward ensuring that our generation will 
honestly address its needs so that future generations will have at 
least the same opportunity.
  Our generation should leave no less than we inherited.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to voice my 
concerns about the budget resolution we debate here today. Since the 
announcement of a budget deal earlier this month, I have carefully 
examined the plan, contemplated its effect on our economy and the 
future of our children, and pondered the advice of many. I have also 
observed the floor debate and statements of my colleagues, and have 
heard the views of many of my constituents in New Hampshire. After much 
deliberation, I must oppose this budget.
  While I do not support the resolution, I would like to commend my 
colleagues who have worked so hard to try to craft a good plan. I 
appreciate their efforts and the difficult discussions they have 
endured. Most importantly, I realize that negotiating with the White 
House is no easy task. However, my concerns about the deficit, the 
exploding growth of entitlements, and the huge tax burden on Americans, 
far outweigh the temptation of a politically appealing agreement with 
the President. History has taught us that the most politically 
expedient solution is not always good for Americans.
  What happened to the Republican Congress that came into town in 1995, 
ready to attack the problems in our economy that had been ignored for 
decades? Where is the spirit of dedication that accompanied our success 
and the commitment to our principles that led to our win? Where are 
those voices that denounced Washington's business as usual? I cannot 
answer these questions, but I do know that we should not disappoint the 
voters who trusted us.
  For a minute, allow me to set aside the rhetoric that surrounds this 
debate and look at the facts. Fact 1: Under the plan, the era of big 
government is not over. This budget deal proposes to spend $5 billion 
more than even President Clinton requested for fiscal year 1998. In 
fact, spending for 1998 increases about $70 billion from 1997--a bigger 
increase than any budget passed by Democrat-controlled Congresses in 
recent years. Over 5 years, this plan spends $189 billion more than 
Congress proposed in last year's budget resolution. The so-called 
savings that have been celebrated by proponents are just reductions 
from the inflation-adjusted baseline that rises each year.
  Fact 2: All the pain is in the out-years. Since Congress revisits the 
budget resolution every year, we cannot count on anything past 1998 and 
we have no assurance that the cuts in spending will ever be achieved in 
2001 and 2002. At the very least, we must cease the fairy tale rhetoric 
about savings that will be achieved over the next decade.
  Fact 3: The deficit goes up! While the deficit for this year is 
projected to be $67 billion, under this plan, it is estimated to grow 
to $90 billion for the next 2 years and then drop slightly to $83 
billion in 2000. Not until 2001, does the deficit drop to below today's 
level. If we can reduce the deficit from $53 billion in 2001 to 0 in 
2002, why can't we reduce it by $53 billion this year? Furthermore, the 
deficit reduction is due, in large part, to suspicious economic 
assumptions. Overnight, the Congressional Budget Office discovered a 
$225 billion ``fiscal dividend'' of new tax revenues that may or may 
not be realized in the out-years.
  Fact 4: The tax cuts will not provide noticeable relief. While we 
must vote on the spending increases now, we have but a skeleton of a 
commitment on tax relief for Americans--legislation which won't be 
discussed until next month. Since we have already promised away

[[Page S5049]]

$35 billion for the President's education credit, the tax writing 
committees are left with very little room to accommodate the equally 
important capital gains tax reductions, death tax reform, the $500 per 
child tax credit, expansion of individual retirement accounts [IRA's] 
and other relief provisions. For instance, $100 billion would not even 
cover the full $500 credit. These restrictions will produce scaled-
down, phased-in, and barely noticeable adjustments.
  Fact 5: The proposal contains no real entitlement reform. This budget 
proposes $115 billion in Medicare savings, but does absolutely nothing 
to fundamentally restructure the ailing program. In fact, the biggest 
reform is an accounting change that we condemned as a ``gimmick'' just 
last year--and rightly so. Worse yet, the plan wipes out many of the 
real reforms we enacted in last year's welfare reform legislation by 
restoring welfare payments to legal immigrants and expanding Food Stamp 
work slots.
  Fact 6: The budget deal protects additional money for Presidential 
priorities, but no programs are terminated. While the resolution 
guarantees that spending will go up for programs such as Head Start and 
bilingual education, there is not one word about reforming or 
eliminating arts funding, AmeriCorps, or corporate welfare programs. 
Since total discretionary spending increases in this legislation, I 
hold out little hope that wasteful spending programs will be tackled 
this year.
  A legitimate balanced budget plan should shrink the size of 
Government, reduce the deficit, and reform entitlement programs. The 
budget must be accompanied by a credible tax package that includes 
complete repeal of the estate tax; a 50 percent cut in the capital 
gains tax rate; an immediate $500 per child tax credit available to 
all, regardless of income; and creation of an ``IRA-Plus'' plan. These 
tax cuts should be financed by reducing spending, not increasing other 
taxes.
  Although this plan contains many serious flaws, it is my hope that we 
can renegotiate a plan that meets but one condition: it must be a good 
deal for Americans. In its current form, I cannot, in good conscience, 
support this budget resolution.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 27, the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution.
  Mr. President, this bipartisan budget agreement represents a hard-
fought achievement for our nation. It is neither the perfect plan, nor 
is it the plan that I would write if I were solely responsible for this 
enormous task. What this plan does represent, however, is a compromise 
between two parties, a compromise between Congress and the 
administration, and a delicate balance of important national investment 
and tax priorities. Under the circumstances, no plan could be perfect. 
This plan, nevertheless, is a good plan.
  Mr. President, this plan is the culmination of more than 2 years of 
debate. During the course of this debate we have witnessed several 
critical events: the shutdown of the Federal Government, the death of 
the so-called Contract With America, and the emergence of a group of 
centrists committed to a sensible approach to balancing the Federal 
budget.
  In order to understand this agreement in its proper context, we 
should take a moment to remember that this agreement today would not be 
possible without tough votes cast by Democrats on the Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1993. The success of that deficit reduction 
package is indisputable. When President Clinton took office in January 
1993, the Federal budget deficit stood at $290 billion. Experts are now 
projecting a deficit for this year in the range of $67 billion. We have 
seen, for the first time in a century, declining deficits for 5 years 
in a row, and the deficit as a percentage of the size of the economy is 
at its lowest in decades. Not a single Republican supported the 1993 
deficit reduction bill. Not one. Yet, without this enormous 
achievement, we could not be finishing the job today.
  It is also vitally important that we remember the great battle over 
the shape of Government that has taken place over the past 2 years. At 
the beginning of the 104th Congress, we heard talk of a revolution. We 
were told that we needed to cut Medicare by $270 billion over 7 years. 
We were told that Medicaid should be reduced by $170 billion, and that 
Federal Government would no longer guarantee health care coverage for 
the poorest Americans. And we were told that the earned income tax 
credit--a program that reduces the tax burden on low- to moderate-
income working families--should be cut by $32 billion. Speaker 
Gingrich's revolution also called for massive reductions in 
discretionary spending, leading to cuts in critical education programs, 
veterans' programs, and environmental protection.
  These large-scale reductions would be necessary because Speaker 
Gingrich's plan contained a massive tax cut of $280 billion over 7 
years. The majority of the tax cuts would be of little benefit to 
typical American families. In fact, with the cuts in the EITC, many 
families needing the most help would have paid higher taxes.

  Democrats knew that there was a better way. We said that we could 
balance the budget by 2002, but we had to do it with the right 
priorities. We said that we could balance the budget while enacting a 
modest package of tax cuts that would be targeted to typical American 
families. We said that we could preserve Medicare, invest in education, 
and balance the budget. This budget agreement proves that we were 
right.
  With a better-targeted tax cut package, this agreement allows us to 
balance the budget while making investments in critical priorities. The 
agreement provides $35 billion in tax cuts for education, funding for 
the child tax credit, and still leaves room for relief in estate and 
capital gains taxes.
  The agreement would increase funding for Pell grants by $8.6 billion 
over 5 years. This funding boost would increase the maximum Pell grant 
to $3,000--which is a $300 increase--and it would expand eligibility so 
that more students can be provided assistance.
  The agreement will provide $16 billion over 5 years for innovative 
new programs to provide health care coverage for 5 million children who 
have no health insurance. This achievement stands in stark contrast to 
proposals in the Contract With America that would have removed the 
Federal guarantee of health care coverage under Medicaid.
  The bipartisan agreement allows for the largest expansion of 
education programs since the time that Lyndon Johnson was President. 
Head Start will be expanded by $2.7 billion, allowing for 1 million 
children to be enrolled in this critical program by 2002. This is a 
vast improvement over the Contract With America, which called for the 
elimination of the Department of Education, cuts in student loans, and 
reductions in Head Start.
  The agreement provides for growth in Federal student loan programs, 
increasing student loan volume by $7 billion by the year 2002. In 
contrast, the Contract With America would have added to student debt 
burdens by charging interest while the students were still in school.
  The agreement will reform Medicare to extend the life of the Medicare 
trust fund for 10 years. Rather than receive benefit reductions, 
Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible for new preventive care 
benefits, such as mammography coverage, other cancer screening, and 
diabetes management.
  The agreement will implement President Clinton's proposed budget for 
the National Park Service, producing an increase of $57 million over 
current budget levels.
  The budget plan provides key funding for crop insurance programs, 
allocating $200 million necessary from discretionary funds to reimburse 
crop insurance agents for the cost of administering the program.
  The agreement will fund the President's budget request for tribal 
priority allocations, which pay for law enforcement, child protection, 
education, and road maintenance on our Nation's reservations. This 
provision will boost funding by $200 million for the next fiscal year, 
and by $800 million over 5 years.
  I do want to take a moment, however, to express my concern that the 
tax-writing committees in both the House and the Senate take 
considerable care as they fill in the details of the agreement to 
reduce taxes by a net $85 billion over 5 years and $250 billion over 10 
years. There may be great temptation to structure these tax cuts so 
that their full cost to the Treasury is not felt until the years beyond 
the 10-year path laid out by this agreement. It would be a grave 
mistake, and

[[Page S5050]]

highly irresponsible, to pass into law a tax cut package that could not 
be sustained over the long term. Our goal should be to keep this budget 
in balance for good. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues on these 
committees to keep long-term fiscal considerations in mind.
  Mr. President, I want to thank all those on both sides of the aisle 
that spent countless hours negotiating this agreement. We have not yet 
finished the job, but the passage of this resolution is a crucial step 
down the road to balanced budget.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I reluctantly have to rise in 
opposition to this balanced budget agreement.
  Mr. President, this agreement will balance the budget in 5 years. 
But, we are already $5 trillion in debt. We can't wait 5 years. We 
can't go deeper into debt, just to spend more on domestic programs.
  In the last 40 years, the Government has grown too big--it is time 
for our national debt to get smaller. In fact, this budget could 
actually be balanced by the year 2000 rather than 2002, and still 
provide tax relief for working families, were it not for the first 3 
years of higher spending which the President insisted upon. I want to 
commend my colleagues who negotiated with the President, and I have no 
doubt it was difficult to persuade the President to agree to a budget 
that ever achieves balance. But I simply cannot support the spending 
increases and tax increases in this budget.
  If this budget resolution is enacted, spending will grow--that's 
right, grow--by $267 billion over 5 years, rising from $1.622 trillion 
this year to $1.692 trillion in 1998, $1.753 trillion in 1999, $1.809 
trillion in 2001, and $1.889 trillion in 2002. Under this budget deal, 
deficits will grow next year alone by 35 percent, from $67.2 billion to 
$90.4 billion. In fact, deficits will be above this year's level for 
each of the next 3 years. This budget deal allows spending to balloon 
over the next 3 years, and it does not begin to control spending until 
the year 2001, which of course will be after the end of the President's 
second term.
  In fact this agreement will actually produce the largest increase in 
social spending in the last 15 years.
  While we're spending at records levels, the agreement gives little in 
the way of tax relief. And much of the tax relief that is provided is 
really robbing Peter to pay Paul. The agreement includes a gross tax 
cut of $135 billion, but let's take another look at that so-called tax 
cut. If you look elsewhere in the agreement, you'll see that it 
actually includes $50 billion in new tax increases, including $34 
billion in tax increases from the airport and airway trust fund tax.
  In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will adjust the Consumer 
Price Index downward by 0.25 percent. That's another $6 billion in tax 
increases. In other words we are cutting taxes with one hand, and 
raising them with another, so the Government can keep spending and 
deficits can keep growing.
  Most of the deficit reduction in this bill comes not from tough 
choices and policy changes that control Government spending, but from 
rosey-scenario assumptions made by economists. We are assuming that 
economic growth will be strong enough, and inflation will be low enough 
that all the hard choices will be taken care off for us. In fact, 99 
cents out of every dollar of deficit reduction in this bill is simply 
assumed. As my good friend, Senator Gramm has noted, only 1 cent out of 
every dollar, or $3 billion out of $350 billion, comes from changes in 
public policy.
  Congress and the President should tell the American people the hard 
truth about the Nation's deficit. A balanced budget requires hard 
choices. It cannot be achieved simply by wishing it away.
  Even though I cannot support this budget agreement, I must note that 
this is perhaps the best agreement that could be achieved, considering 
that we have been negotiating with a President who is dedicated to 
increasing the size of the Federal Government.
  In fact, I find it very instructive to compare this budget agreement 
with the budget produced in 1993, when the President and a Democratic 
Congress unveiled their own budget plan. That 1993 budget raised taxes 
by $241 billion, provided absolutely no net tax relief, and never 
achieved balance, but continued deficit spending as far as the eye 
could see. The Clinton budget of 1993 provided spending reductions of 
$193 billion, as against a net total of $241 billion of tax increases. 
The current balanced budget agreement of 1997 provides $320 billion of 
spending reductions, and gives the American people a net total of $85 
billion in tax relief.
  Without the current balanced budget agreement, it is likely that the 
Federal Government would face another Government shutdown. This 
agreement should prevent that from happening.
  Is this a perfect agreement? No, it is not. Unfortunately, no 
agreement which attempts to reconcile a philosophy of tax and spend 
Government growth with one of tax relief and fiscal restraint is likely 
to be perfect. Perhaps it is the best that can be achieved under this 
President.
  Although it is perhaps the best that Congress can get from this 
President, the Nation deserves much better, and for that reason I plan 
to vote against the budget agreement. With that, Mr. President, I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Gen. George S. Patton once said, ``if 
everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.''
  Mr. President, I have no doubt that this budget is going to pass. 
There appears to be a lot of sentiment on both sides of the aisle that 
the deal must be approved even though it is flawed in many respects. 
But, like General Patton, I hope each of us and every American will 
actually evaluate the budget agreement on its merits before deciding 
whether or not to go along. I, for one, have concluded that the deal--
on its merits--should not be supported, and there are several reasons 
why.
  First, consider the deficits that are projected under the budget 
agreement. The deficit this year is expected to total $67 billion. We 
are trying to get a zero deficit--to balance--by the year 2002. But 
under this budget, the deficit goes up, not down. It climbs 34 
percent--to $90 billion next year--and then remains in that range for 2 
more years. Only in the final 2 years of the 5-year plan--in 2001 and 
2002--would the deficit drop dramatically.
  Think about that. We are at a $67 billion deficit now, and we are 
trying to get to balance in 5 years. This budget lets Congress and the 
President go on a spending binge for 3 years, and then requires us to 
eliminate a $90 billion deficit in just 2 years. It cannot be done.
  It is as if you decided to go on a diet and lose 20 pounds by the 
Fourth of July. But instead of losing the weight gradually, you decided 
to put on 10 more pounds and then started the diet in earnest on July 
1. You would fail to achieve your goal. The same is the case regarding 
deficit reduction. If it is going to take 5 years to eliminate a $67 
billion deficit, how can we possibly eliminate a $90 billion deficit in 
just 2 years? The answer is that we will not.
  Second, consider tax relief. Of course, the budget itself does not 
include a family tax credit, capital gains relief, relief from death 
taxes, on an education tax credit. It merely establishes the overall 
size of the tax cut that will be written later. But the amount of tax 
relief we will be able to provide is very small: a net total of $85 
billion over 5 years--about 1 percent of the $8.6 trillion in tax 
revenue that will be collected over that time period. A tax cut of 1 
percent. It is minuscule.
  It is going to be impossible to provide all of the tax cuts that we 
have promised within that small amount.
  Mr. President, the tax relief we promised to working families--to 
help small businesses create jobs and provide better wages--will total 
$188 billion alone. President Clinton's education credit will cost 
another $35 billion. And there are a variety of other tax cuts as well.
  What that means is that a single mother probably cannot count on a 
full $500-per-child tax credit. It probably will be something less, 
phased in over a period of time. And maybe only some parents will 
qualify.
  It means that small businesses, including those started by women and 
minorities,  cannot count on the tax relief that would enable them to 
expand, hire new people, pay better wages, and do the things necessary 
to become more competitive.

  It certainly will not be significant enough to prolong the economic 
expansion, which is already reaching historic

[[Page S5051]]

lengths. That means the economy will probably slow, and people would be 
hurt be recession. We can prevent that by providing the economy with 
the shot in the arm that it needs to keep on growing. But that will 
require a larger, more meaningful tax cut.
  Third, consider whether or not this budget preserves Medicare for our 
seniors today and for those who will count on it in the future. Instead 
of going bankrupt in 2 years, this budget lets Medicare go bankrupt in 
less than 10 years. We need to make sure Medicare is safe and solvent 
for the long haul, particularly when the first wave of the Baby Boom 
generations begins to retire in 2010. This budget does nothing to 
protect Medicare for the next generation.
  It merely delays insolvency, mainly by reducing provider 
reimbursements, which will either diminish the quality of care provided 
to today's generation of older Americans or drive more doctors and 
hospitals out of the Medicare Program altogether, leaving seniors with 
limited health-care choices.
  It shifts the costs of home health care from part A to part B--a 
gimmick that we roundly denounced when the President proposed it 
before.
  Fourth, consider whether or not this budget makes good on the 
President's pledge that ``the era of big government is over.'' It does 
not. In fact, there are 13 new mandatory and entitlement programs in 
this agreement. And their costs will explode early in the next century.
  Fifth, and this may be the most telling of all, to pass this budget 
agreement we will first have to waive the discretionary spending caps 
for fiscal year 1998 that were established by the Democrat Congress and 
the Democrat President in 1993. Outlays will actually exceed the 
statutory cap by about $7 billion. In other words, the Republican 
majority, which was sent to Washington to try to curb spending, will 
allow spending to grow even more than the free-spending Congress of the 
early 1990's.
  Mr. President, this budget will not produce the intended results. It 
merely postpones all of the tough decisions until a new President and a 
new Congress are elected early in the next century. It is, as Yogi 
Beara once said, deja vu all over again--a remake of the 1990 and 1993 
budget deals that simply yielded more spending, bigger government, and 
more taxes.
  I intend to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Budget Resolution before us today is 
nothing more than a blueprint that, if implemented in its entirety 
through subsequent reconciliation and tax legislation, purports to 
balance the federal budget by 2002. Whether or not a balanced budget 
will actually be achieved in five years, Heaven only knows. Having said 
that, this agreement must nevertheless be recognized as the byproduct 
of a reasonable compromise between a Democratic President and a 
Republican Congress. Such bipartisan cooperation has not been witnessed 
in recent years, when two government shutdowns have highlighted the 
paucity of compromise in our federal government.
  Mr. President, I would like to commend the leaders from both parties 
who have worked hard to forge a balanced-budget agreement that will 
likely pass both houses of Congress. However, I also want to remind all 
Senators that most of us did not sign the Bipartisan Budget Agreement 
announced by the President and the Congressional leadership on May 2, 
1997, and we are not thereby bound to its individual components. As 
much as we want to jump on this budgetary bandwagon, we must be careful 
not to subject this Budget Resolution to any less scrutiny than would 
be applied to a strictly partisan budget proposal.
  Mr. President, the Budget Resolution before us today purports to 
achieve a budget surplus of $1 billion in FY 2002. To accomplish this 
task, discretionary spending will be cut by a total of $138 billion 
over five years, Medicare and Medicaid will be cut by $129 billion, and 
other mandatory programs will be reduced by approximately $40 billion. 
In addition, the proposal would amend budget rules to extend the 
statutory caps for discretionary spending and the pay-as-you-go 
requirements for mandatory spending through 2002. While I am concerned 
about the depth of the spending cuts targeted towards discretionary 
spending, which has been declining sharply as a percentage of the 
federal budget since the 1960's, I cannot ignore the substantial 
improvement in discretionary funding that this Budget Resolution 
achieves over its immediate predecessors. Furthermore, this plan places 
spending priorities on many needed investments in transportation 
infrastructure, educational assistance, environmental protection, and 
crime-prevention programs.
  Mr. President, if the Budget Resolution included only the 
aforementioned spending reductions, I would likely be standing on the 
floor today declaring my unequivocal support for its passage. However, 
the Budget Resolution before us also includes certain provisions that 
have nothing to do with balancing the budget. In fact, these 
provisions--namely, the $85 billion in net tax cuts included in Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 27--take us in the opposite direction and make it 
more difficult to balance the budget. In essence, Mr. President, if we 
approve these tax cuts, we are with one hand digging deeper the very 
hole our other hand is trying so hard to fill. Such ambidexterity 
should not be relied upon to balance the budget. We should eschew all 
tax cuts until after we firmly erase the budget deficits that have so 
plagued our nation in recent years. Tax cuts were, after all, the 
primary culprit for the rapid escalation in the federal budget deficit 
in the 1980's. It is all too easy to enact tax cuts and save the pain 
for later. We have done it before, and the lessons learned from that 
exercise should instruct us not to do it again.
  Mr. President, some may guarantee that the Budget Resolution before 
us today will balance the budget in five years and still provide such 
tax relief. If the economy continues to perform at close to its current 
pace, that very well may be true. However, if the economy turns sour in 
the next five years, the tenuous $1 billion surplus projected for FY 
2002 under this Budget Resolution may be worth less than the paper on 
which it is printed here today. We may never see that surplus, or 
anything close to it, if we combine the contradictory goals of tax 
cutting and budget balancing in this resolution. Suppose, for example, 
that we provide these tax cuts today and then find ourselves in the 
year 2000 well above the deficit targets proposed by this resolution. 
Will we be able to repeal these foolhardy tax cuts to bring us closer 
to balance? Will we be able to tell those beneficiaries of these tax 
cuts to give them up? I have served in this body long enough to 
recognize that tax cuts such as the ones included in this Budget 
Resolution are virtually a one-way street; there is no turning back. We 
should steer clear of this diversion and stay focused on the course of 
balancing the budget.

  Mr. President, before I conclude my remarks, I want to remind all 
Senators of the actions that have helped to bring us to this point, 
where balancing the federal budget is well within our reach. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, the FY 1997 budget deficit will be 
approximately $67 billion, or less than one percent of Gross Domestic 
Product (GDP). Just five years ago, many Senators will remember that we 
were facing a budget deficit of $290 billion, or about 4.7 percent of 
GDP. This considerable improvement in the fiscal order of our nation 
did not occur by accident. Rather, it can be traced directly to the 
passage in 1993 of the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act (OBRA-93) 
by the 103rd Congress, with the support of President Clinton. That 
landmark legislation combined responsible spending cuts and revenue 
increases to begin the painful--but necessary--process of eliminating 
the deficit. There can be no doubt of the success of OBRA-93 in 
bringing down the deficits and stimulating economic growth. We are 
currently in our sixth consecutive year of economic growth, 
unemployment has dipped below five percent, and inflation has remained 
in check. The Budget Resolution before us today continues the task of 
balancing the budget from the propitious starting point made possible 
by OBRA-93, and it relies on projections of similar economic conditions 
in the future. Mr. President, it is safe to say that, were it not for 
OBRA-93, the task of balancing the budget by FY 2002 would be 
substantially more difficult, and the Budget Resolution before us today 
would not come close to balance.

[[Page S5052]]

  After discussing what actions have made this Budget Resolution 
possible, however, I believe it is also important to focus on what 
actions were not needed. Specifically, I am referring to the proposed 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which was again 
defeated earlier this year. Without constitutionally tying the hands of 
this and future Congresses, the leaders of the Congress and the 
President have come together to forge a balanced-budget plan. The plan 
is not perfect, by any means, but it must serve as a reminder that, in 
order to balance the budget, it takes only the courage to stand in the 
well of this chamber and cast our vote for a specific plan to eliminate 
the deficit. There is no substitute for courage that can be drawn from 
such an ill-conceived constitutional amendment.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, let me announce my intention to support 
final passage of S. Con. Res. 27.
  I commend the members of the majority and minority leadership, and 
the Budget Committee, who have come together with equanimity to work 
out a bipartisan budget agreement with the White House. Compromise is 
never easy to achieve, but its results may well be worth our efforts. 
After all, let us not forget that the Senate itself was, according to 
``The Federalist Papers,'' the ``result of compromise between the 
opposite pretensions of the large and the small States.'' Similar 
conflicting ``pretensions'' have helped mold the bipartisan budget 
agreement before this body into a reasonable approach to balance the 
budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 27, the bipartisan budget agreement as amended during the 
debate of the past few days. Mr. President, I believe that the Budget 
Resolution represents an important victory for this body and for the 
American people in that we can finally look forward to a balanced 
budget by 2002. Priorities like Medicare, Medicaid, education and the 
environment have been protected. This agreement, the first true 
balanced budget in 28 years, delivers on a personal promise of mine to 
work to strengthen the economy, balance the budget and put families 
first.
  Mr. President, I salute the work of both parties as the primary 
reason this agreement was reached. Each side had to give and take to 
get us to this point. I commend the President and the congressional 
leadership, particularly Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg, for 
their responsible conduct throughout this entire process. We are in 
their debt.
  Mr. President, the budget agreement puts more resources into 
educating America's children--from Head Start to college--than the 
Federal government has done in 30 years. It secures Medicare's solvency 
for a decade, cleans up poisonous waste sites and will help move 
millions of Americans from welfare to work. Just as important, it 
accomplishes all this and gives needed tax relief to hard-working 
families and small businesses through capital gains and estate tax cuts 
and a $500 per child tax credit.
  Mr. President, this agreement only begins our work, it doesn't end 
it. I will go forward with my colleagues fighting for families--to 
strengthen our investment in children by repairing their crumbling 
schools, extending medical coverage to more children, and cutting 
juvenile crime--and to strengthen Social Security and make retirement 
secure for every working American.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senate shortly will be taking a very momentous step. 
We will be acting on a budget resolution designed to eliminate the 
federal budget deficit by 2002. This has been an objective many of us 
have fervently sought for many years. It has been my objective since I 
came to the Senate in 1985.
  The Federal Government has run a deficit continuously for more than 
30 years, but it soared to what were then almost inconceivable heights 
in the 1980s during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. As a result of 
those stratospheric deficits, the national debt has multiplied several 
times, exacting a toll from our economy, increasing interest rates, and 
making debt service one of the largest expenditures in the Federal 
budget.
  I would like nothing more than to vote for a solid budget resolution 
that would achieve balance while allocating resources in a way most 
likely to meet our most pressing national needs. Because of the 
strength of my desire to achieve balance and eliminate the deficit, I 
am tempted to vote for the resolution that the Senate is considering 
today. It does, of course, project balance in 2002.
  Mr. President, I know how difficult it is to achieve a budget 
compromise, which entails bridging the great differences among elected 
officials--the President and his Administration and both Democrats and 
Republicans in the Congress. President Clinton and his senior advisers, 
the Senate and House Republican leadership, and the chairmen and 
ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees have labored 
mightily for many weeks to try to devise the plan on which we will be 
voting today. Given those differences they had to bridge, I think they 
are to be commended for what they accomplished.
  But above all the applause for the deal they struck, and the 
bipartisan congratulatory cheers simply for laying aside the usual 
bickering and sticking with the plan they have prepared, I hear my 
conscience saying it is wrong to ignore my core set of values and what 
I believe should be the priorities for our Nation.
  This budget deal, Mr. President, may be historic. I strongly support 
the fact that it achieves balance in 5 years, and if that balance 
actually is achieved, it surely will be historic. But that is far from 
the only measure that should be applied to a budget. Deficit 
elimination is a vital objective, but it is neither an economic policy 
nor a statement of priorities for our Nation or its Government.
  Said another way, it matters, and matters greatly, how we achieve 
balance, not just that we achieve it.
  Mr. President, despite the fact it achieves balance, and despite the 
fact that one can imagine many budgets that would be worse for our 
Nation--indeed, one need look no further than the draconian budget the 
congressional Republicans tried to force down our throats as recently 
as 2 years ago--this budget does not meet America's needs as I believe 
they can and must be met while achieving budget balance. It fails this 
test in two ways--one of those consists of vital activities it fails to 
include, and the other consists of the detrimental effects of its 
contents.
  The foremost deficiency of this budget is that it has no vision for 
America's children. To partially address this deficiency, I offered an 
amendment to enable the Senate to consider legislation later this year 
to meet the critical early developmental needs of children from birth 
to age 6. I applaud the managers for accepting this amendment. But 
earlier, the Senate rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have 
provided the budgetary room needed to enact a program providing health 
insurance to the millions of children who do not now have it.
  We were presented with a deal that gives lip service to some of our 
critical domestic needs by providing limited room for so-called 
Presidential initiatives. These include $16 billion over 5 years to 
provide health insurance to children who do not now have it; an 
increase in Pell grants; and increased funding for bilingual and 
immigrant education, child literacy initiatives, Head Start, and 
Environmental Protection Agency and National Park Service operations. 
But the allocations for these categories fall far short of the 
additional investments that are needed in these and other critical 
areas.
  The share of our gross domestic product invested in education, 
training, infrastructure, and civilian research and development will 
continue to decline for the next 5 years under this budget blueprint. 
Many Senators--on both sides of the aisle--pointed this out during the 
debate and each one in turn was rebuffed.
  Look at the amendment by my great friend and colleague, the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. The amendment they offered would 
enable an expansion of health coverage to all uninsured American 
children. But their amendment was defeated--shot down for the sake of 
the deal. Look at the amendment by my able friend, the senior Senator 
from Illinois. Senator

[[Page S5053]]

Moseley-Braun attempted to set aside $5 billion for school 
construction. Of the schools in Massachusetts, 92 percent are in 
disrepair, and this money would have been a downpayment on our 
obligation to allow these children and all American children to have at 
a minimum a proper setting in which to learn. But Senator Moseley-
Braun's amendment was rejected. And, why? Because it purportedly would 
have busted the deal.
  The Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, sought to increase 
funding for Head Start, school lunches, and school construction. 
Republicans cynically demolished that amendment by passing a substitute 
amendment calling for a school voucher program.
  At the head of the list of the harmful features of the bill can be 
placed the effects of its tax cuts. I support and believe the Nation 
can benefit greatly from the President's initiatives to provide 
assistance through the Tax Code to American families and individuals to 
help them meet the costs of higher and continuing education. But this 
budget resolution includes tax cuts that are sufficiently large that 
the result inescapably will be to increase the deficit--yes, I said 
increase the deficit--for at least the next 2 years.

  Considerably more potentially destructive, despite a fuzzy commitment 
by the deal cutters that the tax cuts will not be backloaded--that is, 
they will not result in mushrooming revenue loss in the future, the 
revenue losses will significantly increase in the outyears. The net 
revenue loss over 5 years will be $85 billion; the net loss over 10 
years is projected to be $250 billion.
  Mr. President, while President Clinton did win some less-than-
ironclad assurances that the Republican-controlled Finance and Ways and 
Means Committees will include some of his tax cut priorities regarding 
education tax deductions and credits and a child tax credit, the 
Republicans insist on including sweeping, broad-based, across-the-board 
capital gains and estate tax reductions among a host of tax cuts. These 
cuts will have a dramatically skewed distribution, providing the 
greatest portion of their benefits to taxpayers with annual incomes 
placing them among the top 5 percent of the Nation.
  It is instructive to look at two proposals. Reducing capital gains 
taxation from 28 percent to 19.6 percent will yield 85 percent of the 
benefit to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, all with incomes exceeding 
$100,000. Reducing the estate tax by increasing the exemption from 
$600,000 to $1 million will benefit only the wealthiest 1 percent of 
households. Under current law, 98 percent of Americans who die leave 
estates wholly exempt from estate taxes. Such proposals can only be 
viewed as Republican ``welfare-for-the-rich'' at its worst.
  Mr. President, while non-defense discretionary accounts are squeezed 
harder as we approach the magical balance to occur in 2002, and while 
most Americans have worked hard and sacrificed for the past 5 years to 
keep our economy booming and slash the deficit more than $200 billion 
and will be required to tighten their belts further by this resolution, 
the richest Americans and American corporations are absolved from 
contributing to the final push to 2002. The deal virtually ignores 
corporate welfare--both that which exists among discretionary spending 
programs and the far larger amount which exists in the Internal Revenue 
Code.
  At a time when beneficiaries of spending programs--especially lower-
income beneficiaries--have been subjected to significant reductions in 
those benefits they have received, corporate beneficiaries are asked to 
bear virtually none of the cost of achieving budget balance, much less 
paying for the investments in people and infrastructure that are so 
badly needed.
  As my distinguished friend, the eternally junior Senator from South 
Carolina, Senator Hollings, said on the floor on Tuesday evening, there 
is a scarcity of discipline in this budget and even less willingness to 
take less-than-pleasant budget medicine now in order to experience 
economic and budgetary order in later years. Instead, even that limited 
budgetary reckoning the deal entails is largely postponed until the 
final 2 years of the deal. Because of this, the national debt will 
increase significantly in the next several years, resulting in ever-
higher debt service costs which must be borne by the budget until that 
debt is reduced.
  I reiterate that I staunchly support balancing the Federal budget. 
But I do not believe in balancing the budget in just any way. One 
roadmap for achieving balance is not the same as every other roadmap 
for achieving balance. There unquestionably is a difference. Indeed, I 
have worked on and voted for balanced budget plans over the years with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But, I cannot vote for this one. 
It is a Wizard of Oz budget deal--no home, no heart, no brain, and no 
courage.
  If this budget passes and becomes the operative structure for fiscal 
decision making by the Congress, as I expect it may, I will work 
diligently to do everything possible to meet the needs of America's 
children, and other pressing needs, within its constraints, and to 
alter those constraints where it is possible to do so.
  But, with no joy, I will vote no on final passage, greatly 
disappointed and saddened that the Senate has not taken the steps and 
provided the opportunities that are so badly needed to fairly confront 
and meet our Nation's most critical needs while achieving a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is an historic occasion. This budget 
outline is the first plan Congress has produced in 28 years to balance 
the budget.
  I want to thank all of those who worked so hard to get us to this 
point, including the President and Vice President, Erskine Bowles, 
Frank Raines, John Hilley and others at the White House, Senators Frank 
Lautenberg, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, House 
minority leader Dick Gephardt and John Spratt.
  I also want to thank our partners across the aisle: Senate majority 
leader Lott, Senator Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Speaker Gingrich and Congressman John Kasich.
  And all the staff, in both houses, the administration and including 
my own, who have worked so diligently to complete this agreement.
  Finally, I want to thank two former colleagues, Senators Jim Sasser 
and Harris Wofford, who were defeated for re-election in 1994--in no 
small part because they supported the 1993 deficit reduction plan. 
Without that plan we would not be here today. Because of that plan, 
we've been able to cut the budget deficit by 75 percent. In less than 5 
years, we've gone from a $280 billion deficit to a $67 billion deficit.
  The U.S. economy has added more than 12.5 million new jobs, and 3 
million small businesses. Our economy is now growing at a virtually 
unparalleled rate of 3.5 percent a year. Unemployment is at its lowest 
level in 24 years. Young people graduating from college this month are 
entering one of the best job markets in years. That's a remarkable 
record of progress.
  I support this budget resolution because it builds on that progress. 
Make no mistake: This budget plan is not the culmination of the 
Contract With America. It is, in some fundamental ways, a repudiation 
of that contract.
  Where the contract targeted tax relief to those who needed it least, 
this budget agreement targets it to those who need it most. Where the 
contract would have left Medicare to wither on the vine, this agreement 
extends the solvency of the Medicare trust funds for a decade. Where 
the contract represented a declaration of war, this resolution is 
instead a declaration of principles.
  There is a difference between a budget that slashes and burns to get 
to zero, and a budget that is truly balanced. This resolution--if we 
adhere to it--will result in a balanced budget that addresses not only 
our financial deficit, but our investment deficit as well. This budget 
plan sets aside $35 billion in education tax relief, to help working 
families pay for college and job training. This plan will provide 
health insurance for 5 million children--half of the uninsured children 
in America. This plan extends the life of Superfund, so we can clean up 
the environmental mistakes of our past, and it invests in environmental 
safeguards, so we can avoid mistakes in the future. This budget keeps 
Medicare solvent for another decade--without gouging senior citizens 
who depend on the program.
  It is a good deal. But it is not a done deal. We still have a long 
way to go before this declaration of principles is

[[Page S5054]]

translated into an actual budget--13 individual appropriations bills, 
plus a reconciliation bill.
  We know full well, from the last Congress, how difficult these next 
steps can be. It is my hope that we will also remember the painful 
consequences of refusing to take those steps. As long as the 
commitments we have received now in writing are honored, we will 
proceed in good faith toward reconciliation.
  That does not mean, however, that we will be passive observers of 
this process. Any attempt to undermine our agreement and skew the tax 
relief to benefit disproportionately those who need tax relief the 
least will be met with forceful opposition. So will any effort to 
shortchange our agreement on education tax credits and children's 
health insurance.
  The time for negotiations on these priorities is over. There is more 
than enough money, and flexibility, in this budget plan to honor these 
important commitments. There is also enough room in this framework to 
accommodate our proposal to help communities rebuild crumbling schools, 
and replace obsolete schools. According to the Government Accounting 
Office, one-third of all schools--serving 14 million children--require 
extensive repair or replacement. Almost 60 percent of schools have at 
least one major structural problem, from sagging roofs to cracked 
foundations. About half have unhealthy environmental conditions, such 
as poor ventilation or inadequate heating. Half lack the basic 
electrical wiring needed to connect them to the information 
superhighway.
  It is wrong for us to hobble future generations with the debts of 
this generation; that is why we are taking these steps to eliminate the 
deficit. But it is equally wrong to deny future generations the basic 
tools they will need to make a life for themselves and their own 
families. Education is the most important of those tools, and that 
includes safe, adequate schools.
  It is our hope that we can have a truly balanced budget on its way to 
the President's desk before the August recess. Then we need to turn our 
attention to other concerns, including juvenile drug abuse and crime, 
pension reform and, yes, campaign finance reform. Bipartisanship does 
not come easy to this Congress. But this budget outline proves it is 
not impossible.
  It is my hope that we will be able to work together to make sure this 
balanced budget framework is not the only bipartisan victory of this 
Congress, but merely the first. There is much more we need to do.


              Amendments Nos. 310, 338, 339, 349 Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any 
amendments that were pending at the desk and have not been called up be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Amendments Nos. 310, 338, 339, 349 were withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report House Concurrent Resolution 84.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

  A Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) establishing the 
Congressional Budget for fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All after the resolving clause is stricken, 
and the text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 27 will be inserted in 
lieu thereof.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to the concurrent resolution, 
House Concurrent Resolution 84, as amended.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request for a second.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to House 
Concurrent Resolution 84, as amended. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 78, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bumpers
     Coats
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84), as amended, was agreed 
to, as follows:
       Resolved, That the resolution from the House of 
     Representatives (H. Con. Res. 84) entitled ``Concurrent 
     resolution establishing the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 1998 and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002.'', do pass with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 1998 including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 as 
     required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social security.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.
Sec. 104. Reconciliation.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 202. Allowance in the Senate.
Sec. 203. Allowance in the Senate for section 8 housing assistance.
Sec. 204. Environmental reserve.
Sec. 205. Priority Federal land acquisitions and exchanges.
Sec. 206. Allowance in the Senate for arrearages.
Sec. 207. Intercity passenger rail reserve fund for fiscal years 1998-
              2002.
Sec. 208. Mass transit reserve fund for fiscal years 1998-2002.
Sec. 209. Highway reserve fund for fiscal years 1998-2002.
Sec. 210. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                     TITLE III--SENSE OF THE SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of the Senate on long term entitlement reforms, 
              including accuracy in determining changes in the cost of 
              living.
Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate on tactical fighter aircraft programs.
Sec. 303. Sense of the Senate regarding children's health coverage.
Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate on a medicaid per capita cap.
Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate that added savings go to deficit 
              reduction.
Sec. 306. Sense of the Senate on fairness in medicare.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate regarding assistance to Lithuania and 
              Latvia.
Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate regarding a national commission on higher 
              education.
Sec. 309. Sense of the Senate on lockbox.
Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on the earned income credit.
Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate on repayment of the Federal debt.
Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate supporting long-term entitlement reforms.
Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on disaster assistance funding.
Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate on enforcement of bipartisan budget 
              agreement.
Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Institutes of 
              Health.
Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate regarding certain elderly legal aliens.
Sec. 317. Sense of the Senate regarding retroactive taxes.
Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate on social security and balancing the 
              budget
Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate supporting sufficient funding for 
              veterans programs and benefits.
Sec. 320. Sense of Congress on family violence option clarifying 
              amendment.
Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate on tax cuts.
Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate regarding assistance to Amtrak.
Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate regarding the protection of children's 
              health.

[[Page S5055]]

Sec. 324. Deposit of all Federal gasoline taxes into the Highway Trust 
              Fund.
Sec. 325. Sense of the Senate early childhood education.
Sec. 326. Highway Trust Fund not taken into account for deficit 
              purposes.
Sec. 327. Airport and Airway Trust Fund not taken into account for 
              deficit purposes.
Sec. 328. Military Retirement Trust Funds not taken into account for 
              deficit purposes.
Sec. 329. Civil Service Retirement Trust Funds not taken into account 
              for deficit purposes.
Sec. 330. Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund not taken into account 
              for deficit purposes.
Sec. 331. Sense of the Senate concerning Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 332. Sense of the Senate concerning tax incentives for the cost of 
              post-secondary education.
Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate on additional tax cuts.
Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate regarding truth in budgeting and spectrum 
              auctions
Sec. 335. Highway demonstration projects.
Sec. 336. Sense of the Senate regarding the use of budget savings.
Sec. 337. Sense of the Senate regarding the value of the social 
              security system for future retirees.
Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate on economic growth dividend protection.
Sec. 339. Deficit-neutral reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 340. Support for Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
              officers.
Sec. 341. Sense of Congress regarding parental involvement in 
              prevention of drug use by children.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,199,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,241,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,285,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,343,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,600,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $-7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $-11,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $-22,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $-22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $-19,900,000,000.
       (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $113,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $119,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $125,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $130,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $136,800,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,386,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,440,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,488,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,520,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,551,600,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,372,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,424,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,468,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,500,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,515,900,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $-173,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $-182,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $-183,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $-157,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $-108,300,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,593,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,841,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,088,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,307,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,481,200,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $34,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $34,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,400,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,300,000,000.

     SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $402,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $422,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $442,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $461,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $482,800,000,000.
       (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $317,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $330,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $343,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $358,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $372,500,000,000.

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,100,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,200,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,200,000,000.

[[Page S5056]]

       (B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,700,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $253,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $258,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $259,900,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,500,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $20,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $23,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $24,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,700,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $145,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $225,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,800,000,000.

[[Page S5057]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,100,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 104. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Reconciliation of Spending Reductions.--Not later than 
     June 20, 1997, the committees named in this subsection shall 
     submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the Senate. After receiving those recommendations, the 
     Committee on the Budget

[[Page S5058]]

     shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out 
     all such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (1) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry.--The 
     Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     increase outlays by $300,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 
     $1,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs.--The 
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce 
     the deficit $434,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 
     $1,590,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (3) Committee on commerce, science, and transportation.--
     The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     reduce the deficit $14,849,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 
     $26,496,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (4) Committee on energy and natural resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
     outlays $6,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $13,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (5) Committee on finance.--The Senate Committee on Finance 
     shall report to the Senate changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction--
       (A) that provide direct spending (as defined in section 
     250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $40,911,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002 and $100,646,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002; and
       (B) to increase the statutory limit on the public debt to 
     not more than $5,950,000,000,000.
       (6) Committee on governmental affairs.--The Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit 
     $1,769,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $5,467,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) Committee on labor and human resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays 
     $1,057,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $1,792,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (8) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Senate Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $681,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002 and $2,733,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (b) Reconciliation of Revenue Reductions.--Not later than 
     June 27, 1997, the Senate Committee on Finance shall report 
     to the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws 
     within its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by not 
     more than $20,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 
     $85,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002 and $250,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 
     through 2007.
       (c) Treatment of Congressional Pay-As-You-Go.--For purposes 
     of section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th 
     Congress), legislation which reduces revenues pursuant to a 
     reconciliation instruction contained in subsection (b) shall 
     be taken together with all other legislation enacted pursuant 
     to the reconciliation instructions contained in this 
     resolution when determining the deficit effect of such 
     legislation.
       (d) Adjustments.--
       (1) Deficit neutral adjustments.--Upon the reporting of 
     reconciliation legislation pursuant to subsection (a), or 
     upon the submission of a conference report thereon, and if 
     the Committee on Finance reduces the deficit by an amount 
     equal to or greater than the outlay reduction that would be 
     achieved pursuant to subsection (a)(5)(A), the Chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget, with the concurrence and 
     agreement of the ranking minority member, may submit 
     appropriately revised reconciliation instructions to the 
     Committee on Finance to reduce the deficit, allocations, 
     limits, and aggregates if such revisions do not cause an 
     increase in the deficit for fiscal year 1998 and for the 
     period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (2) Flexibility on adjustments.--
       (A) In general.--If the adjustments authorized by paragraph 
     (1) involve a reduction in the revenue aggregates set forth 
     in this resolution, in lieu of revenue reductions, the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make upward 
     adjustments to the discretionary spending limits in this 
     resolution, or any combination thereof.
       (B) Limit.--The adjustments made pursuant to this 
     subsection shall not exceed $2,300,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1998 and $16,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

     SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Discretionary Limits.--In this section and for the 
     purposes of allocations made for the discretionary category 
     pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the term ``discretionary spending limit'' 
     means--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 1998--
       (A) for the defense category $269,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $266,823,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $257,857,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $286,445,000,000 in outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 1999--
       (A) for the defense category $271,500,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $266,518,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $261,499,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $292,803,000,000 in outlays;
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary 
     category $537,193,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $564,265,000,000 in outlays;
       (4) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary 
     category $542,032,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $564,396,000,000 in outlays; and
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary 
     category $551,074,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $560,799,000,000 in outlays;

     as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and 
     emergency appropriations.
       (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider--
       (A) a revision of this resolution or any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 
     and 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such 
     a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in excess 
     of the discretionary spending limit or limits for such fiscal 
     year; or
       (B) any bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on such bill or resolution) for fiscal year 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 that would cause any of the 
     limits in this section (or suballocations of the 
     discretionary limits made pursuant to section 602(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to be exceeded.
       (2) Exception.--
       (A) In general.--This section shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.
       (B) Enforcement of discretionary limits in fy 1998.--Until 
     the enactment of reconciliation legislation pursuant to 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 104 of this resolution--
       (i) subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) shall not apply; and
       (ii) subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall apply only 
     with respect to fiscal year 1998.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new 
     entitlement authority, revenues, and deficits for a fiscal 
     year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

     SEC. 202. ALLOWANCE IN THE SENATE.

       (a) Adjustments.--In the Senate, for fiscal year 1998, 
     1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002, upon the reporting of an 
     appropriations measure (or the submission of a conference 
     report thereon) that includes an appropriation with respect 
     to paragraph (1) or (2), the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget shall increase the appropriate allocations, budgetary 
     aggregates, and discretionary limits by the amount of budget 
     authority in that measure that is the dollar equivalent, in 
     terms of Special Drawing Rights, of--
       (1) an increase in the United States quota as part of the 
     International Monetary Fund Eleventh General Review of Quotas 
     (United States Quota); or
       (2) any increase in the maximum amount available to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 17 of the 
     Bretton Woods Agreement Act, as amended from time to time 
     (New Arrangements to Borrow).
       (b) Committee Suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate may report appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the 
     adjustments made pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 203. ALLOWANCE IN THE SENATE FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Adjustment for Discretionary Spending.--In the Senate, 
     for fiscal year 1998, upon the reporting of an appropriations 
     measure (or upon the submission of a conference report 
     thereon) that includes an appropriation for Section 8 Housing 
     Assistance which fully funds all contract renewal obligations 
     during that fiscal year, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may increase the appropriate allocations in this 
     resolution by an amount that does not exceed $9,200,000,000 
     in budget authority and the amount of outlays flowing from 
     such budget authority.
       (b) Committee Suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate may report appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the 
     adjustments made pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 204. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE.

       (a) Adjustments for Mandatory Spending.--
       (1) Allocations.--In the Senate, upon the reporting of 
     legislation (or upon the submission of a conference report 
     thereon) pursuant to subsection (b), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation 
     pursuant to sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committee on

[[Page S5059]]

     Environment and Public Works by an amount that does not 
     exceed--
       (A) $200,000,000 in budget authority and $200,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998; and
       (B) $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and $1,000,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (2) Prior surplus.--For the purposes of section 202 of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress), legislation 
     reported (or the submission of a conference report thereon) 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be taken together with all 
     other legislation enacted pursuant to section 104 of this 
     resolution.
       (b) Limitations.--The adjustments made pursuant to this 
     section shall only be made for legislation that provides 
     funding to reform the Superfund program to facilitate the 
     cleanup of hazardous waste sites.

     SEC. 205. PRIORITY FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EXCHANGES.

       (a) Adjustment for Discretionary Spending.--In the Senate, 
     for fiscal year 1998, upon the reporting of an appropriations 
     measure (or upon the submission of a conference report 
     thereon) that includes an appropriation for the National Park 
     Service's Land Acquisition and State Assistance account at 
     the fiscal year 1998 request level (as submitted on February 
     6, 1997) and up to an additional $700,000,000 in budget 
     authority for priority Federal land acquisitions and 
     exchanges during that fiscal year, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the appropriate 
     allocations by an amount that does not exceed $700,000,000 in 
     budget authority and the amount of outlays flowing from such 
     budget authority.
       (b) Committee Suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate may report appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the 
     adjustments made pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 206. ALLOWANCE IN THE SENATE FOR ARREARAGES.

       (a) Adjustment for Discretionary Spending.--In the Senate, 
     for fiscal year 1998, 1999, and 2000, upon the reporting of 
     an appropriations measure (or upon the submission of a 
     conference report thereon) that includes an appropriation for 
     arrearages for international organizations, international 
     peacekeeping, and multilateral development banks during that 
     fiscal year, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     increase the appropriate allocations, aggregates, and 
     discretionary spending limits in this resolution by an amount 
     that does not exceed--
       (1) $415,000,000 in budget authority and the amount of 
     outlays flowing from such budget authority for fiscal year 
     1998;
       (2) $1,227,000,000 in budget authority and the amount of 
     outlays flowing from such budget authority for fiscal year 
     1999; and
       (3) $242,000,000 in budget authority and the amount of 
     outlays flowing from such budget authority for fiscal year 
     2000.
       (b) Committee Suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate may report appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the 
     adjustments made pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 207. INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL 
                   YEARS 1998-2002.

       (a) In General.--If legislation is enacted which generates 
     revenue increases or direct spending reductions to finance an 
     intercity passenger rail fund and to the extent that such 
     increases or reductions are not included in this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary levels 
     and limits may be adjusted if such adjustments do not cause 
     an increase in the deficit in this resolution.
       (b) Establishing a Reserve.--
       (1) Revisions.--After the enactment of legislation 
     described in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may submit revisions to the appropriate 
     allocations and aggregates by the amount that provisions in 
     such legislation generates revenue increases or direct 
     spending reductions.
       (2) Revenue increases or direct spending reductions.--Upon 
     the submission of such revisions, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall also submit the amount of 
     revenue increases or direct spending reductions such 
     legislation generates and the maximum amount available each 
     year for adjustments pursuant to subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments for Discretionary Spending.--
       (1) Revisions to allocations and aggregates.--Upon either--
       (A) the reporting of an appropriations measure, or when a 
     conference committee submits a conference report thereon, 
     that appropriates funds for the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation and funds from the intercity passenger rail fund; 
     or
       (B) the reporting of an appropriations measure, or when a 
     conference committee submits a conference report thereon, 
     that appropriates funds from the intercity passenger rail 
     fund (funds having previously been appropriated for the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation for that same fiscal 
     year),

     the Chairman of the Budget Committee shall submit increased 
     budget authority allocations, aggregates, and discretionary 
     limits for the amount appropriated for authorized 
     expenditures from the intercity passenger rail fund and the 
     outlays flowing from such budget authority.
       (2) Revisions to suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations may submit appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--The revisions made pursuant to subsection 
     (b) shall not be made--
       (A) with respect to direct spending reductions, unless the 
     committee that generates the direct spending reductions is 
     within its allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of 
     the Budget Act in this resolution (not including the direct 
     spending reductions envisioned in subsection (b)); and
       (B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues are 
     at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution (not 
     including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection 
     (b)).
       (2) Budget authority.--The budget authority adjustments 
     made pursuant to subsection (c) shall not exceed the amounts 
     specified in subsection (b)(2) for a fiscal year.

     SEC. 208. MASS TRANSIT RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998-
                   2002.

       (a) In General.--If legislation is enacted which generates 
     revenue increases or direct spending reductions to finance 
     mass transit and to the extent that such increases or 
     reductions are not included in this concurrent resolution on 
     the budget, the appropriate budgetary levels and limits may 
     be adjusted if such adjustments do not cause an increase in 
     the deficit in this resolution.
       (b) Establishing a Reserve.--
       (1) Revisions.--After the enactment of legislation 
     described in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may submit revisions to the appropriate 
     allocations and aggregates by the amount that provisions 
     in such legislation generates revenue increases or direct 
     spending reductions.
       (2) Revenue increases or direct spending reductions.--Upon 
     the submission of such revisions, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall also submit the amount of 
     revenue increases or direct spending reductions such 
     legislation generates and the maximum amount available each 
     year for adjustments pursuant to subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments for Discretionary Spending.--
       (1) Revisions to allocations and aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of an appropriations measure, or when a conference 
     committee submits a conference report thereon, that 
     appropriates funds for mass transit, the Chairman of the 
     Budget Committee shall submit increased budget authority 
     allocations, aggregates, and discretionary limits for the 
     amount appropriated for authorized expenditures from the mass 
     transit fund and the outlays flowing from such budget 
     authority.
       (2) Revisions to suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations may submit appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--The revisions made pursuant to subsection 
     (b) shall not be made--
       (A) with respect to direct spending reductions, unless the 
     committee that generates the direct spending reductions is 
     within its allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of 
     the Budget Act in this resolution (not including the direct 
     spending reductions envisioned in subsection (b)); and
       (B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues are 
     at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution (not 
     including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection 
     (b)).
       (2) Budget authority.--The budget authority adjustments 
     made pursuant to subsection (c) shall not exceed the amounts 
     specified in subsection (b)(2) for a fiscal year.

     SEC. 209. HIGHWAY RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998-2002.

       (a) In General.--If legislation generates revenue increases 
     or direct spending reductions to finance highways and to the 
     extent that such increases or reductions are not included in 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget, the appropriate 
     budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted if such 
     adjustments do not cause an increase in the deficit in this 
     resolution.
       (b) Adjustments for Budget Authority.--Upon the reporting 
     of legislation (the offering of an amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon) that reduces direct non-highway 
     spending or increases revenues for a fiscal year or years, 
     the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall submit 
     revised budget authority allocations and aggregates by an 
     amount that equals the amount such legislation reduces direct 
     spending or increases revenues.
       (c) Establishing a Reserve.--
       (1) Revisions.--After the enactment of legislation 
     described in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may submit revisions to the appropriate 
     allocations and aggregates by the amount that provisions in 
     such legislation generates revenue increases or direct non-
     highway spending reductions.
       (2) Revenue increases or direct spending reductions.--Upon 
     the submission of such revisions, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall also submit the amount of 
     revenue increases or direct non-highway spending reductions 
     such legislation generates and the maximum amount available 
     each year for adjustments pursuant to subsection (d).
       (d) Adjustments for Discretionary Spending.--
       (1) Revisions to allocations and aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of an appropriations measure, or when a conference 
     committee submits a conference report thereon, that 
     appropriates funds for highways, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall submit increased outlay 
     allocations, aggregates, and discretionary limits for the 
     amount of outlays flowing from the additional obligational 
     authority provided in such bill.
       (2) Revisions to suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations may submit appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) Limitations.--

[[Page S5060]]

       (1) In general.--The revisions made pursuant to subsection 
     (c) shall not be made--
       (A) with respect to direct non-highway spending reductions, 
     unless the committee that generates the direct spending 
     reductions is within its allocations under section 302(a) and 
     602(a) of the Budget Act in this resolution (not including 
     the direct spending reductions envisioned in subsection (c)); 
     and
       (B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues are 
     at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution (not 
     including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection 
     (c)).
       (2) Outlays.--The outlay adjustments made pursuant to 
     subsection (d) shall not exceed the amounts specified in 
     subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal year.

     SEC. 210. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such 
     rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that 
     they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change those rules (so far as they relate to 
     that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
                     TITLE III--SENSE OF THE SENATE

     SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG TERM ENTITLEMENT 
                   REFORMS, INCLUDING ACCURACY IN DETERMINING 
                   CHANGES IN THE COST OF LIVING.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) Entitlement reforms.--The Senate finds that with 
     respect to long term entitlement reforms--
       (A) entitlement spending continues to grow dramatically as 
     a percent of total Federal spending, rising from fifty-six 
     percent of the budget in 1987 to an estimated seventy-three 
     percent of the budget in 2007;
       (B) this growth in mandatory spending poses a long-term 
     threat to the United States economy because it crowds out 
     spending for investments in education, infrastructure, 
     defense, law enforcement and other programs that enhance 
     economic growth;
       (C) in 1994, the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and 
     Tax Reform concluded that if no changes are made to current 
     entitlement laws, all Federal revenues will be spent on 
     entitlement programs and interest on the debt by the year 
     2012;
       (D) the Congressional Budget Office has also recently 
     issued a report that found that pressure on the budget from 
     demographics and rising health care costs will increase 
     dramatically after 2002; and
       (E) making significant entitlement changes will 
     significantly benefit the economy, and will forestall the 
     need for more drastic tax and spending decisions in future 
     years.
       (2) CPI.--The Senate finds that with respect to accuracy in 
     determining changes in the cost of living--
       (A) the Final Report of the Senate Finance Committee's 
     Advisory Commission to study the CPI has concluded that the 
     Consumer Price Index overstates the cost of living in the 
     United States by 1.1 percentage points;
       (B) the overstatement of the cost of living by the Consumer 
     Price Index has been recognized by economists since at least 
     1961, when a report noting the existence of the overstatement 
     was issued by a National Bureau of Economic Research 
     Committee, chaired by Professor George J. Stigler;
       (C) Congress and the President, through the indexing of 
     Federal tax brackets, social security benefits, and other 
     Federal program benefits, have undertaken to protect 
     taxpayers and beneficiaries of such programs from the erosion 
     of purchasing power due to inflation; and
       (D) the overstatement of the cost of living increases the 
     deficit and undermines the equitable administration of 
     Federal benefits and tax policies.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions in this resolution assume that--
       (1) Congress and the President should continue working to 
     enact structural entitlement reforms in the 1997 budget 
     agreement and in subsequent legislation;
       (2) Congress and the President must find the most accurate 
     measure of the change in the cost of living in the United 
     States, and should work in a bipartisan manner to implement 
     any changes that are necessary to achieve an accurate 
     measure; and
       (3) Congress and the President must work to ensure that the 
     1997 budget agreement not only keeps the unified budget in 
     balance after 2002, but that additional measures should be 
     taken to begin to achieve substantial surpluses which will 
     improve the economy and allow our nation to be ready for the 
     retirement of the baby boom generation in the year 2012.

     SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TACTICAL FIGHTER AIRCRAFT 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Department of Defense has proposed to modernize the 
     United States tactical fighter aircraft force through three 
     tactical fighter procurement programs, including the F/A-18 
     E/F aircraft program of the Navy, the F-22 aircraft program 
     of the Air Force, and the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft 
     program for the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps;
       (2) the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget 
     Office, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and 
     several Members of Congress have publicly stated that, given 
     the current Department of Defense budget for procurement, the 
     Department of Defense's original plan to buy over 4,400 F/A-
     18 E/F aircraft, F-22 aircraft, and Joint Strike Fighter 
     aircraft at a total program cost in excess of 
     $350,000,000,000 was not affordable;
       (3) the F/A-18 E/F, F-22, and the Joint Strike Fighter 
     tactical fighter programs will be competing for a limited 
     amount of procurement funding with numerous other aircraft 
     acquisition programs, including the Comanche helicopter 
     program, the V-22 Osprey aircraft program, and the C-17 
     aircraft program, as well as for the necessary replacement of 
     other aging aircraft such as the KC-135, the C-5A, the F-117, 
     and the EA-6B aircraft; and
       (4) the 1997 Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense 
     Review has recommended reducing the F/A-18 E/F program buy 
     from 1,000 aircraft to 548, and reducing the F-22 program buy 
     from 438 to 339.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that, within 30 
     days, the Department of Defense should transmit to Congress 
     detailed information pertaining to the implementation of this 
     revised acquisition strategy so that the Congress can 
     adequately evaluate the extent to which the revised 
     acquisition strategy is tenable and affordable given the 
     projected spending levels contained in this budget 
     resolution.

     SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
                   COVERAGE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) of the estimated 10 million uninsured children in the 
     United States, over 1.3 million have at least one parent who 
     is self-employed and all other uninsured children are 
     dependents of persons who are employed by another, or 
     unemployed;
       (2) these 1.3 million uninsured kids comprise approximately 
     22 percent of all children with self-employed parents, and 
     they are a significant 13 percent of all uninsured children;
       (3) the remaining uninsured children are in families where 
     neither parent is self-employed and comprise 13 percent of 
     all children in families where neither parent is self-
     employed;
       (4) children in families with a self-employed parent are 
     therefore more likely to be uninsured than children in 
     families where neither parent is self-employed; and
       (5) the current disparity in the tax law reduces the 
     affordability of health insurance for the self-employed and 
     their families, hindering the ability of children to receive 
     essential primary and preventive care services.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that from 
     resources available in this budget resolution, a portion 
     should be set aside for an immediate 100 percent 
     deductibility of health insurance costs for the self-
     employed. Full-deductibility of health expenses for the self-
     employed would make health insurance more attractive and 
     affordable, resulting in more dependents being covered. The 
     government should not encourage parents to forgo private 
     insurance for a government-run program.

     SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON A MEDICAID PER CAPITA CAP.

       It is the sense of the Senate that in order to meet deficit 
     reduction targets in this resolution with respect to 
     medicaid--
       (1) the per capita cap will not be used as a method for 
     meeting spending targets; and
       (2) the per capita cap represents a significant structural 
     change that could jeopardize the quality of care for 
     children, the disabled, and senior citizens.

     SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT ADDED SAVINGS GO TO 
                   DEFICIT REDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) balancing the budget will bring numerous economic 
     benefits for the United States economy and American workers 
     and families, including improved economic growth and lower 
     interest rates;
       (2) the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution crafted pursuant 
     to an agreement reached between the Congress and the 
     Administration purports to achieve balance in the year 2002;
       (3) the deficit estimates contained in this resolution may 
     not conform to the actual deficits in subsequent years, which 
     make it imperative that any additional savings are realized 
     be devoted to deficit reduction;
       (4) the Senate's ``pay-as-you-go'' point of order prohibits 
     crediting savings from updated economic or technical data as 
     an offset for legislation that increases the deficit, and 
     ensures these savings are devoted to deficit reduction; and
       (5) Congress and the Administration must ensure that the 
     deficit levels contained in this budget are met and, if 
     actual deficits prove to be lower than projected, the 
     additional savings are used to balance the budget on or 
     before the year 2002.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) legislation enacted pursuant to this resolution must 
     ensure that the goal of a balanced budget is achieved on or 
     before fiscal year 2002; and
       (2) if the actual deficit is lower than the projected 
     deficit in any upcoming fiscal year, the added savings should 
     be devoted to further deficit reduction.

     SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FAIRNESS IN MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds recently 
     announced that medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund 
     is headed for bankruptcy in 2001, and in 1997, HI will run a 
     deficit of $26,000,000,000 and add $56,000,000,000 annually 
     to the Federal deficit by 2001;
       (2) the Trustees also project that Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance (SMI), will grow

[[Page S5061]]

     twice as fast as the economy and the taxpayers' subsidy to 
     keep the SMI from bankruptcy will grow from $58,000,000,000 
     to $89,000,000,000 annually from 1997 through 2001;
       (3) the Congressional Budget Office reports that when the 
     baby-boom generation begins to receive social security 
     benefits and is eligible for medicare in 2008, the Federal 
     budget will face intense pressure, resulting in mounting 
     deficits and erosion of future economic growth;
       (4) long-term solutions to address the financial and 
     demographic problems of medicare are urgently needed to 
     preserve and protect the medicare trust funds;
       (5) these solutions to address the financial and 
     demographic problems of medicare are urgently needed to 
     preserve and protect the medicare trust funds;
       (6) reform of the medicare program should ensure equity and 
     fairness for all medicare beneficiaries, and offer 
     beneficiaries more choice of private health plans, to promote 
     efficiency and enhance the quality of health care;
       (7) all Americans pay the same payroll tax of 2.9 percent 
     to the medicare trust funds, and they deserve the same 
     choices and services regardless of where they retire;
       (8) however, under the currently adjusted-average-per-
     capita cost (AAPCC), some counties receive 2.5 times more in 
     medicare reimbursements than others;
       (9) this inequity in medicare reimbursement jeopardizes the 
     quality of medicare services of rural beneficiaries and 
     penalizes the most efficient and effective medicare service 
     providers;
       (10) in some states, the result has been the absence of 
     health care choices beyond traditional, fee-for-service 
     medicine for medicare beneficiaries, which in other counties 
     and states plan providers may be significantly over-
     compensated, adding to medicare's fiscal instability; and
       (11) ending the practice of basing payments to risk 
     contract plans on local fee-for-service medical costs will 
     help correct these inequities, mitigate unnecessary cost in 
     the program, and begin the serious, long-term restructuring 
     of medicare.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that the 
     Finance Committee should strongly consider the following 
     elements for medicare reform--
       (1) any medicare reform package should include measures to 
     address the inequity in medicare reimbursement to risk 
     contract plans;
       (2) medicare should use a national update framework rather 
     than local fee-for-service spending increases to determine 
     the annual changes in risk plan payment rates;
       (3) an adequate minimum payment rate should be provided for 
     health plans participating in medicare risk contract 
     programs;
       (4) the geographic variation in medicare payment rates must 
     be reduced over time to raise the lower payment areas closer 
     to the average while taking into account actual differences 
     in input costs that exist from region to regional;
       (5) medicare managers in consultation with plan providers 
     and patient advocates should pursue competitive bidding 
     programs in communities where data indicate risk contract 
     payments are substantially excessive and when plan choices 
     would not diminish by such a bidding process; and
       (6) medicare should phase in the use of risk adjusters 
     which take account of health status so as to address 
     overpayment to some plans.

     SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ASSISTANCE TO 
                   LITHUANIA AND LATVIA.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Lithuania and Latvia reestablished democracy and free 
     market economies when they regained their freedom from the 
     Soviet Union;
       (2) Lithuania and Latvia, which have made significant 
     progress since regaining their freedom, are still struggling 
     to recover from the devastation of 50 years of communist 
     domination;
       (3) the United States, which never recognized the illegal 
     incorporation of Lithuania and Latvia into the Soviet Union, 
     has provided assistance to strengthen democratic institutions 
     and free market reforms in Lithuania and Latvia since 1991;
       (4) the people of the United States enjoy close and 
     friendly relations with the people of Lithuania and Latvia;
       (5) the success of democracy and free market reform in 
     Lithuania and Latvia is important to the security and 
     economic progress of the United States; and
       (6) the United States as well as Lithuania and Latvia would 
     benefit from the continuation of assistance which helps 
     Lithuania and Latvia to implement commercial and trade law 
     reform, sustain private sector development, and establish 
     well-trained judiciaries.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) adequate assistance should be provided to Lithuania and 
     Latvia in fiscal year 1998 to continue the progress they have 
     made; and
       (2) assistance to Lithuania and Latvia should be continued 
     beyond fiscal year 1998 as they continue to build democratic 
     and free market institutions.

     SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A NATIONAL COMMISSION 
                   ON HIGHER EDUCATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assure that a national commission should be 
     established to study and make specific recommendations 
     regarding the extent to which increases in student financial 
     aid, and the extent to which Federal, State, and local laws 
     and regulations, contribute to increases in college and 
     university tuition.

     SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LOCKBOX.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that to ensure all savings from medicare 
     reform are used to keep the medicare program solvent, the 
     Treasury Secretary should credit the Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund (Part A) with government securities 
     equal to any savings from Medicare Supplemental Medical 
     Insurance (Part B) reforms enacted pursuant to the 
     reconciliation instructions contained in this budget 
     resolution.

     SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) an April 1997 study by the Internal Revenue Service of 
     Earned Income Credit (EIC) filers for tax year 1994 revealed 
     that over $4,000,000,000 of the $17,000,000,000 spent on the 
     EIC for that year was erroneously claimed and paid by the 
     IRS, resulting in a fraud and error rate of 25.8 percent;
       (2) the IRS study further concluded that EIC reforms 
     enacted by the One Hundred Fourth Congress will only lower 
     the fraud error rate to 20.7 percent, meaning over 
     $23,000,000,000 will be wasted over the next five years; and
       (3) the President's recent proposals to combat EIC fraud 
     and error contained within this budget resolution are 
     estimated to save $124,000,000 in scoreable savings over the 
     next five years and additional savings from deterrent 
     effects.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that the 
     President should propose and Congress should enact additional 
     programmatic changes sufficient to ensure that the primary 
     purpose of the EIC to encourage work over welfare is achieved 
     without wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on fraud and 
     error.

     SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REPAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL 
                   DEBT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Congress and the President have a basic moral and 
     ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the 
     Federal debt, including money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund;
       (2) the Congress and the President should enact a law that 
     creates a regimen for paying off the Federal debt within 30 
     years; and
       (3) if spending growth were held to a level one percentage 
     point lower than projected growth in revenues, then the 
     Federal debt could be repaid within 30 years.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) the President's annual budget submission to Congress 
     should include a plan for repayment of the Federal debt 
     beyond the year 2002, including the money borrowed from the 
     Social Security Trust Fund; and
       (2) the plan should specifically explain how the President 
     would cap spending growth at a level one percentage point 
     lower than projected growth in revenues.

     SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING LONG-TERM 
                   ENTITLEMENT REFORMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the resolution assumes 
     the following--
       (1) entitlement spending has risen dramatically over the 
     last thirty-five years;
       (2) in 1963, mandatory spending (i.e., entitlement spending 
     and interest on the debt) made up 29.6 percent of the budget, 
     this figure rose to 61.4 percent by 1993 and is expected to 
     reach 70 percent shortly after the year 2000;
       (3) this mandatory spending is crowding out spending for 
     the traditional ``discretionary'' functions of Government 
     like clean air and water, a strong national defense, parks 
     and recreation, education, our transportation system, law 
     enforcement, research and development and other 
     infrastructure spending;
       (4) taking significant steps sooner rather than later to 
     reform entitlement spending will not only boost economic 
     growth in this country, it will also prevent the need for 
     drastic tax and spending decisions in the next century.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this budget resolution assume that 
     Congress and the President should work to enact structural 
     reforms in entitlement spending in 1997 and beyond which 
     sufficiently restrain the growth of mandatory spending in 
     order to keep the budget in balance over the long term, 
     extend the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare Trust 
     Funds, avoid crowding out funding for basic Government 
     functions and that every effort should be made to hold 
     mandatory spending to no more than 70 percent of the budget.

     SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) emergency spending adds to the deficit and total 
     spending;
       (2) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempts emergency 
     spending from the discretionary spending caps and pay-go 
     requirements;
       (3) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 expires in 1998 and 
     needs to be extended;
       (4) since the enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act, 
     Congress and the President have approved an average of 
     $5,800,000,000 per year in emergency spending;
       (5) a natural disaster in any particular State is 
     unpredictable, by the United States is likely to experience a 
     natural disaster almost every year.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assume that the Congress should 
     consider in the extension of the Budget Enforcement Act and 
     in appropriations Acts--
       (1) provisions that budget for emergencies or that require 
     emergency spending to be offset;
       (2) provisions that provide flexibility to meet emergency 
     funding requirements associated with natural disasters;
       (3) Congress and the President should consider 
     appropriating at least $5,000,000,000 every year within 
     discretionary limits to provide natural disaster relief;

[[Page S5062]]

       (4) Congress and the President should not designate any 
     emergency spending for natural disaster relief until such 
     amounts provided in regular appropriations are exhausted.

     SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ENFORCEMENT OF BIPARTISAN 
                   BUDGET AGREEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the bipartisan budget agreement is contingent upon--
       (A) favorable economic conditions for the next 5 years; and
       (B) accurate estimates of the fiscal impacts of assumptions 
     in this resolution; and
       (C) enactment of legislation to reduce the deficit;
       (2) if either of the conditions in paragraph (1) are not 
     met, our ability to achieve a balanced budget by 2002 will be 
     jeopardized.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals and limits in this resolution 
     assume that--
       (1) reconciliation legislation should include legislation 
     to enforce the targets set forth in the budget process 
     description included in the agreement and to ensure the 
     balanced budget goal is met; and
       (2) such legislation shall--
       (A) establish procedures to ensure those targets are met 
     every year;
       (B) require that the President's annual budget and annual 
     Congressional concurrent resolutions on the budget comply 
     with those targets every year;
       (C) consider provisions which provide that if the deficit 
     is below or the surplus is above the deficits projected in 
     the agreement in any year, such savings are locked in for 
     deficit and debt reduction; and
       (D) consider provisions which include a provision to budget 
     for and control emergency spending in order to prevent the 
     use of emergencies to evade the budget targets.

     SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL 
                   INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) heart disease was the leading cause of death for both 
     men and women in every year from 1970 to 1993;
       (2) mortality rates for individuals suffering from prostate 
     cancer, skin cancer, and kidney cancer continue to rise;
       (3) the mortality rate for African American women suffering 
     from diabetes is 134 percent higher than the mortality rate 
     of Caucasian women suffering from diabetes;
       (4) asthma rates for children increased 58 percent from 
     1982 to 1992;
       (5) nearly half of all American women between the ages of 
     65 and 75 reported having arthritis;
       (6) AIDS is the leading cause of death for Americans 
     between the ages of 24 and 44;
       (7) the Institute of Medicine has described United States 
     clinical research to be ``in a state of crisis'' and the 
     National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1994 that ``the 
     present cohort of clinical investigators is not adequate'';
       (8) biomedical research has been shown to be effective in 
     saving lives and reducing health care expenditures;
       (9) research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health 
     has contributed significantly to the first overall reduction 
     in cancer death rates since recordkeeping was instituted;
       (10) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health has resulted in the identification of genetic 
     mutations for osteoporosis; Lou Gehrig's Disease, cystic 
     fibrosis, and Huntington's Disease; breast, skin and prostate 
     cancer; and a variety of other illnesses;
       (11) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health has been key to the development of Magnetic Resonance 
     Imaging (MRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning 
     technologies;
       (12) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health has developed effective treatments for Acute 
     Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Today, 80 percent of children 
     diagnosed with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia are alive and 
     free of the disease after 5 years; and
       (13) research sponsored by the National Institutes of 
     Health contributed to the development of a new, cost-saving 
     cure for peptic ulcers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this Resolution assumes that--
       (1) appropriations for the National Institutes of Health 
     should be increased by 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal 
     years; and
       (2) appropriations for the National Institutes of Health 
     should be increased by $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 
     over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CERTAIN ELDERLY LEGAL 
                   ALIENS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) the Committee on Finance will include in its 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     changes in laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Finance that allow certain elderly, legal immigrants who will 
     cease to receive benefits under the supplemental security 
     income program as a result of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
     193; 110 Stat. 2105) to continue to receive benefits during a 
     redetermination or reapplication period to determine if such 
     aliens would qualify for such benefits on the basis of being 
     disabled; and
       (2) the Committee on Finance in developing these 
     recommendations should offset the additional cost of this 
     proposal out of other programs within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Finance.

     SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING RETROACTIVE TAXES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in general, the practice of increasing a tax 
     retroactively is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers; and
       (2) retroactive taxation is disruptive to families and 
     small business in their ability to plan and budget.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) except for closing tax loopholes, no revenues should be 
     generated from any retroactively increased tax; and
       (2) the Congress and the President should work together to 
     ensure that any revenue generating proposal contained within 
     reconciliation legislation pursuant to this concurrent 
     resolution proposal, except those proposals closing tax 
     loopholes, should take effect prospectively.

     SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND 
                   BALANCING THE BUDGET.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) this budget resolution is projected to balance the 
     unified budget of the United States in fiscal year 2002;
       (2) section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 
     requires that the deficit be computed without counting the 
     annual surpluses of the Social Security Trust Funds; and
       (3) if the deficit were calculated according to the 
     requirements of section 13301, this budget resolution would 
     be projected to result in a deficit of $108,700,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this budget resolution assume 
     that after balancing the unified Federal budget, the Congress 
     should continue efforts to reduce the on-budget deficit, so 
     that the Federal budget will be balanced without counting 
     social security surpluses.

     SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING SUFFICIENT FUNDING 
                   FOR VETERANS PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) veterans and their families represent approximately 27 
     percent of the United States population;
       (2) more than 20 million of our 26 million living veterans 
     served during wartime, sacrificing their freedom so that we 
     may have ours; and
       (3) veterans have earned the benefits promised to them.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the assumptions underlying this Budget Resolution 
     assume that the 602(b) allocation to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs will be sufficient in fiscal year 1998 to 
     fully fund all discretionary veterans programs, including 
     medical care; and
       (2) funds collected from legislation to improve the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs' ability to collect and retain 
     reimbursement from third-party payers ought to be used to 
     supplement, not supplant, an adequate appropriation for 
     medical care.

     SEC. 320. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION 
                   CLARIFYING AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Domestic violence is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women. The Department of Justice estimates that 
     over 1,000,000 violent crimes against women are committed by 
     intimate partners annually.
       (2) Domestic violence dramatically affects the victim's 
     ability to participate in the workforce. A University of 
     Minnesota survey reported that \1/4\ of battered women 
     surveyed had lost a job partly because of being abused and 
     that over \1/2\ of these women had been harassed by their 
     abuser at work.
       (3) Domestic violence is often intensified as women seek to 
     gain economic independence through attending school or 
     training programs. Batterers have been reported to prevent 
     women from attending these programs or sabotage their efforts 
     at self-improvement.
       (4) Nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by the 
     Taylor Institute of Chicago, Illinois, document, for the 
     first time, the interrelationship between domestic violence 
     and welfare by showing that from 34 percent to 65 percent of 
     AFDC recipients are current or past victims of domestic 
     violence.
       (5) Over \1/2\ of the women surveyed stayed with their 
     batterers because they lacked the resources to support 
     themselves and their children. The surveys also found that 
     the availability of economic support is a critical factor in 
     poor women's ability to leave abusive situations that 
     threaten them and their children.
       (6) The restructuring of the welfare programs may impact 
     the availability of the economic support and the safety net 
     necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse without risking 
     homelessness and starvation for their families.
       (7) In recognition of this finding, the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate in considering the 1997 Resolution on 
     the budget of the United States unanimously adopted a sense 
     of the Congress amendment concerning domestic violence and 
     Federal assistance. Subsequently, Congress adopted the family 
     violence option amendment as part of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996.
       (8) The family violence option gives States the flexibility 
     to grant temporary waivers from time limits and work 
     requirements for domestic violence victims who would suffer 
     extreme hardship from the application of these provisions. 
     These waivers were not intended to be included as part of the 
     permanent 20 percent hardship exemption.
       (9) The Department of Health and Human Services has been 
     slow to issue regulations regarding this provision. As a 
     result, States are hesitant to fully implement the family 
     violence option fearing that it will interfere with the 20 
     percent hardship exemption.
       (10) Currently 15 States have opted to include the family 
     violence option in their welfare plans, and 13 other States 
     have included some type of domestic violence provisions in 
     their plans.

[[Page S5063]]

       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the provisions of this Resolution assume that--
       (1) States should not be subject to any numerical limits in 
     granting domestic violence good cause waivers under section 
     402(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(7)(A)(iii)) to individuals receiving assistance, for 
     all requirements where compliance with such requirements 
     would make it more difficult for individuals receiving 
     assistance to escape domestic violence; and
       (2) any individual who is granted a domestic violence good 
     cause waiver by a State shall not be included in the States' 
     20 percent hardship exemption under section 408(a)(7) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)).

     SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX CUTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Concurrent 
     Resolution on the Budget assumes that--
       (1) a substantial majority of the tax cut benefits provided 
     in the tax reconciliation bill will go to middle class 
     working families earning less than approximately $100,000 per 
     year; and
       (2) the tax cuts in the tax reconciliation bill will not 
     cause revenue losses to increase significantly in years after 
     2007.

     SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ASSISTANCE TO AMTRAK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Amtrak is in a financial crisis, with growing and 
     substantial debt obligations approaching $2,000,000,000;
       (2) Amtrak has not been authorized since 1994;
       (3) the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation favorably reported legislation to reform 
     Amtrak during the last two Congresses, but no legislation was 
     enacted;
       (4) the Finance Committee favorably reported legislation in 
     the last Congress that created a dedicated trust fund for 
     Amtrak, but no legislation was enacted;
       (5) in 1997 Amtrak testified before the Congress that it 
     cannot survive beyond 1998 without comprehensive legislative 
     reforms and a dedicated source of capital funding; and
       (6) Congress is obligated to invest Federal tax dollars 
     responsibly and to reduce waste and inefficiency in Federal 
     programs, including Amtrak.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that:
       (1) Legislative reform is urgently needed to address 
     Amtrak's financial and operational problems.
       (2) It is fiscally irresponsible for Congress to allocate 
     additional Federal dollars to Amtrak, and to distribute money 
     from a new trust fund, without providing reforms requested by 
     Amtrak to address its precarious financial situation.
       (3) The distribution of money from any new fund to finance 
     an intercity rail passenger fund should be implemented in 
     conjunction with legislation to reauthorize and reform the 
     National Rail Passenger Corporation.

     SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Today's children and the next generation of children 
     are the prime beneficiaries of a balanced Federal budget. 
     Without a balanced budget, today's children will bear the 
     increasing burden of the Federal debt. Continued deficit 
     spending would doom future generations to slower economic 
     growth, higher taxes, and lower living standards.
       (2) The health of children is essential to the future 
     economic and social well-being of the Nation.
       (3) The medicaid program provides health coverage for over 
     17,000,000 children, or 1 out of every 4 children.
       (4) While children represent \1/2\ of all individuals 
     eligible for medicaid, children account for less than 25 
     percent of expenditures under the medicaid program.
       (5) Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funding under the 
     medicaid program has allowed States to provide health care 
     services to thousands of uninsured pregnant women and 
     children. DSH funding under the medicaid program is critical 
     for these populations.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that the health 
     care needs of low-income pregnant women and children should 
     be a top priority. Careful study must be made of the impact 
     of medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reform 
     proposals on children's health and on vital sources of care, 
     including children's hospitals. Any restrictions on DSH 
     funding under the medicaid program should not harm State 
     medicaid coverage of children and pregnant women.

     SEC. 324. DEPOSIT OF ALL FEDERAL GASOLINE TAXES INTO THE 
                   HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1956, Federal gasoline excise tax revenues have 
     generally been deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and 
     reserved for transportation uses.
       (2) In 1993, Congress and the President enacted the first 
     permanent increase in the Federal gasoline excise tax which 
     was dedicated to general revenues, not the Highway Trust 
     Fund.
       (3) Over the next five years, approximately $7,000,000,000 
     per year in Federal gasoline excise tax revenues will be 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury, rather than 
     the Highway Trust Fund.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions in this resolution assume that Congress 
     should in the extension of the Budget Enforcement Act, ISTEA 
     reauthorization, appropriations Acts, and in any revenue 
     bills, that all revenues from Federal gasoline excise taxes, 
     including amounts dedicated to general revenues in 1993, 
     should be dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund so that such 
     taxes may be used for the purpose to which they have 
     historically been dedicated, promoting transportation 
     infrastructure and building roads.

     SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE SENATE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Scientific research on the development of the brain has 
     confirmed that the early childhood years, particularly from 
     birth to the age of 3, are critical to children's 
     development.
       (2) Studies repeatedly have shown that good quality child 
     care helps children develop well, enter school ready to 
     succeed, improve their skills, cognitive abilities and 
     socioemotional development, improve classroom learning 
     behavior, and stay safe while their parents work. Further, 
     quality early childhood programs can positively affect 
     children's long-term success in school achievement, higher 
     earnings as adults, decrease reliance on public assistance 
     and decrease involvement with the criminal justice system.
       (3) The first of the National Education Goals, endorsed by 
     the Nation's governors, passed by Congress and signed into 
     law by President Bush, stated that by the year 2000, every 
     child should enter school ready to learn and that access to a 
     high quality early childhood education program was integral 
     to meeting this goal.
       (4) According to data compiled by the RAND Corporation, 
     while 90 percent of human brain growth occurs by the age of 
     3, public spending on children in that age range equals only 
     8 percent of spending on all children. A vast majority of 
     public spending on children occurs after the brain has gone 
     through its most dramatic changes, often to correct problems 
     that should have been addressed during early childhood 
     development.
       (5) According to the Department of Education, of 
     $29,400,000,000 in current estimated education expenditures, 
     only $1,500,000,000, or 5 percent, is spent on children from 
     birth to age 5. The vast majority is spent on children over 
     age 5.
       (6) A new commitment to quality child care and early 
     childhood education is a necessary response to the fact that 
     children from birth to the age of 3 are spending more time in 
     care away from their homes. Almost 60 percent of women in the 
     workforce have children under the age of 3 requiring care.
       (7) Many States and communities are currently experimenting 
     with innovative programs directed at early childhood care and 
     education in a variety of care settings, including the home. 
     States and local communities are best able to deliver 
     efficient, cost-effective services, but while such programs 
     are long on demand, they are short on resources. Additional 
     Federal resources should not create new bureaucracy, but 
     build on successful locally driven efforts.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budget totals and levels in this resolution assume 
     that funds ought to be directed toward increasing the supply 
     of quality child care, early childhood education, and teacher 
     and parent training for children from birth through age 3.

     SEC. 326. HIGHWAY TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR 
                   DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Highway Trust Fund from the totals of 
     the Budget of the United States Government.

     SEC. 327. AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the budget resolution that the Congress should 
     consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund from the 
     totals of the Budget of the United States Government.

     SEC. 328. MILITARY RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the retirement and disability trust funds 
     for members of the Armed Forces of the United States from the 
     totals of the Budget of the United States Government.

     SEC. 329. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the retirement and disability trust funds 
     for civilian employees of the United States from the totals 
     of the Budget of the United States Government.

     SEC. 330. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Unemployment Compensation Trust 
     Fund from the totals of the Budget of the United States 
     Government.

     SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) there is no direct linkage between the fuel taxes 
     deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and the transportation 
     spending from the Highway Trust Fund;
       (2) the Federal budget process has severed this linkage by 
     dividing revenues and spending into separate budget 
     categories with--
       (A) fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund as 
     revenues; and

[[Page S5064]]

       (B) most spending from the Highway Trust Fund in the 
     discretionary category;
       (3) each budget category referred to in paragraph (2) has 
     its own rules and procedures; and
       (4) under budget rules in effect prior to the date of 
     adoption of this resolution, an increase in fuel taxes 
     permits increased spending to be included in the budget, but 
     not for increased Highway Trust Fund spending.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) in this session of Congress, Congress should, within a 
     unified budget, change the Federal budget process to 
     establish a linkage between the fuel taxes deposited in the 
     Highway Trust Fund, including any fuel tax increases that may 
     be enacted into law after the date of adoption of this 
     resolution, and the spending from the Highway Trust Fund; and
       (2) changes to the budgetary treatment of the Highway Trust 
     Fund should not result in total program levels for highways 
     or mass transit that is inconsistent with those assumed under 
     the resolution.

     SEC. 332. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING TAX INCENTIVES FOR 
                   THE COST OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that any revenue reconciliation bill should 
     include tax incentives for the cost of post-secondary 
     education, including expenses of workforce education and 
     training at vocational schools and community colleges.

     SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that nothing in this 
     resolution shall be construed as prohibiting Congress in 
     future years from providing additional tax relief if the cost 
     of such tax relief is offset by reductions in discretionary 
     or mandatory spending, or increases in revenue from 
     alternative sources.

     SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRUTH IN BUDGETING 
                   AND SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.

       (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) the electromagnetic spectrum is the property of the 
     American people and is managed on their behalf by the Federal 
     Government;
       (2) the spectrum is a highly valuable and limited natural 
     resource;
       (3) the auctioning of spectrum has raised billions of 
     dollars for the Treasury;
       (4) the estimates made regarding the value of spectrum in 
     the past have proven unreliable, having previously 
     understated and now overstating its worth;
       (5) because estimates of spectrum value depend on a number 
     of technological, economic, market forces, and other 
     variables that cannot be predicted or completely controlled, 
     it is not possible to reliably estimate the value of a given 
     segment of spectrum; therefore,
       (b) It is the Sense of the Senate that as auctions occur as 
     assumed by this Resolution, the Congress shall take such 
     steps as necessary to reconcile the difference between actual 
     revenues raised and estimates made and shall reduce spending 
     accordingly if such auctions raise less revenue than 
     projected.

     SEC. 335. HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) 10 demonstration projects totaling $362,000,000 were 
     listed for special line-item funding in the Surface 
     Transportation Assistance Act of 1982;
       (2) 152 demonstration projects totaling $1,400,000,000 were 
     named in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987;
       (3) 64 percent of the funding for the 152 projects had not 
     been obligated after 5 years and State transportation 
     officials determined the projects added little, if any, to 
     meeting their transportation infrastructure priorities;
       (4) 538 location specific projects totaling $6,230,000,000 
     were included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991;
       (5) more than $3,300,000,000 of the funds authorized for 
     the 538 location-specific projects remained unobligated as of 
     January 31, 1997;
       (6) the General Accounting Office determined that 31 States 
     plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico would have 
     received more funding if the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act location-specific project funds 
     were redistributed as Federal-aid highway program 
     apportionments;
       (7) this type of project funding diverts Highway Trust Fund 
     money away from State transportation priorities established 
     under the formula allocation process and under the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991;
       (8) on June 20, 1995, by a vote of 75 yeas to 21 nays, the 
     Senate voted to prohibit the use of Federal Highway Trust 
     Fund money for future demonstration projects;
       (9) the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 expires at the end of fiscal year 1997; and
       (10) hundreds of funding requests for specific 
     transportation projects in Congressional Districts have been 
     submitted in the House of Representatives.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) notwithstanding different views on existing Highway 
     Trust Fund distribution formulas, funding for demonstration 
     projects or other similarly titled projects diverts Highway 
     Trust Fund money away from State priorities and deprives 
     States of the ability to adequately address their 
     transportation needs;
       (2) States are best able to determine the priorities for 
     allocating Federal-Aid-To-Highway monies within their 
     jurisdiction;
       (3) Congress should not divert limited Highway Trust Fund 
     resources away from State transportation priorities by 
     authorizing new highway projects; and
       (4) Congress should not authorize any new demonstration 
     projects or other similarly-titled projects.

     SEC. 336. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF BUDGET 
                   SAVINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Poverty rates among the elderly are at the lowest level 
     since our Nation began to keep poverty statistics, due in 
     large part to the social security system and the medicare 
     program.
       (2) Twenty-two percent of every dollar spent by the Federal 
     Government goes to the social security system.
       (3) Eleven percent of every dollar spent by the Federal 
     Government goes to the medicare program.
       (4) Currently, spending on the elderly accounts for \1/3\ 
     of the Federal budget and more than \1/2\ of all domestic 
     spending other than interest on the national debt.
       (5) Future generations of Americans must be guaranteed the 
     same value from the social security system as past covered 
     recipients.
       (6) According to the 1997 report of the Managing Trustee 
     for the social security trust funds, the accumulated balance 
     in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is 
     estimated to fall to zero by 2029, and the estimated payroll 
     tax at that time will be sufficient to cover only 75 percent 
     of the benefits owed to retirees at that time.
       (7) The accumulated balance in the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund is estimated to fall to zero by 2001.
       (8) While the Federal budget deficit has shrunk for the 
     fourth straight year to $67,000,000,000 in 1997, measures 
     need to be taken to ensure that that trend continues.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that budget 
     savings in the mandatory spending area should be used--
       (1) to protect and enhance the retirement security of the 
     American people by ensuring the long-term future of the 
     social security system;
       (2) to protect and enhance the health care security of 
     senior citizens by ensuring the long-term future of the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.); and
       (3) to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline to 
     ensure that the level of private investment necessary for 
     long-term economic growth and prosperity is available.

     SEC. 337. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR FUTURE RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The social security system has allowed a generation of 
     Americans to retire with dignity. Today, 13 percent of the 
     population is 65 or older and by 2030, 20 percent of the 
     population will be 65 or older. More than \1/2\ of the 
     elderly do not receive private pensions and more than \1/3\ 
     have no income from assets.
       (2) For 60 percent of all senior citizens, social security 
     benefits provide almost 80 percent of their retirement 
     income. For 80 percent of all senior citizens, social 
     security benefits provide over 50 percent of their retirement 
     income.
       (3) Poverty rates among the elderly are at the lowest level 
     since the United States began to keep poverty statistics, due 
     in large part to the social security system.
       (4) Seventy-eight percent of Americans pay more in payroll 
     taxes than they do in income taxes.
       (5) According to the 1997 report of the Managing Trustee 
     for the social security trust funds, the accumulated balance 
     in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is 
     estimated to fall to zero by 2029, and the estimated payroll 
     tax at that time will be sufficient to cover only 75 percent 
     of the benefits owed to retirees at that time.
       (6) The average American retiring in the year 2015 will pay 
     $250,000 in payroll taxes over the course of his or her 
     working career.
       (7) Future generations of Americans must be guaranteed the 
     same value from the social security system as past covered 
     recipients.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that no change 
     in the social security system should be made that would 
     reduce the value of the social security system for future 
     generations of retirees.

     SEC. 338. SENSE OF SENATE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH DIVIDEND 
                   PROTECTION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that with respect to the 
     revenue levels established under this resolution:
       (1) According to the President's own economists, the tax 
     burden on Americans is the highest ever at 31.7 percent.
       (2) According to the National Taxpayers Union, the average 
     American family now pays almost 40 percent of their income in 
     State, local, and Federal taxes.
       (3) Between 1978 and 1985, while the top marginal rate on 
     capital gains was cut almost in half--from 35 to 20 percent--
     total annual Federal receipts from the tax almost tripled 
     from $9,100,000,000 annually to $26,500,000,000 annually.
       (4) Conversely, when Congress raised the rate in 1986, 
     revenues actually fell well below what was anticipated.
       (5) Economists across-the-board predict that cutting the 
     capital gains rate will result in a revenue windfall for the 
     Treasury.
       (6) While a USA Today poll from this March found 70 percent 
     of the American people believe that they need a tax cut, 
     under this resolution Federal spending will grow 17 percent 
     over five years while the net tax cuts are less than 1 
     percent of the total tax burden.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     with respect to the revenue levels established under this 
     resolution, to the extent that actual revenues exceed the 
     revenues projected under this resolution due to higher than

[[Page S5065]]

     anticipated economic growth, that revenue windfall should be 
     reserved exclusively for additional tax cuts and/or deficit 
     reduction.

     SEC. 339. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be changed and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation that provides funding for early childhood 
     development programs for children ages zero to six provided 
     that the legislation which changes revenues or changes 
     spending will not increase the deficit for--
       (1) fiscal year 1998;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--
       (1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the 
     Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 
     302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and 
     revised functional levels and aggregates to carry out this 
     section. These revised allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional 
     levels and aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget submits an adjustment under this 
     section for legislation in furtherance of the purpose 
     described in subsection (a) upon the offering of an amendment 
     to that legislation that would necessitate such a submission, 
     the chairman shall submit to the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels and aggregates 
     contained in this resolution.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee shall report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 340. SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 
     provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
     freedoms and security, and with the support of Federal 
     assistance, State and local law enforcement officers have 
     succeeded in reducing the national scourge of violent crime, 
     as illustrated by a murder rate in 1996 that is projected to 
     be the lowest since 1971 and a violent crime total in 1996 
     that is the lowest since 1990.
       (2) Through a comprehensive effort to attack violence 
     against women mounted by State and local law enforcement, and 
     dedicated volunteers and professionals who provide victim 
     services, shelter, counseling, and advocacy to battered women 
     and their children, important strides have been made against 
     the national scourge of violence against women, illustrated 
     by the decline in the murder rate for wives, ex-wives, and 
     girlfriends at the hands of their ``intimates'' fell to a 19-
     year low in 1995.
       (3) Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts need 
     continued financial commitment from the Federal Government 
     for funding and financial assistance to continue their 
     efforts to combat violent crime and violence against women.
       (4) Federal, State and local law enforcement also face 
     other challenges which require continued financial commitment 
     from the Federal Government, including regaining control over 
     the Southwest Border, where drug trafficking and illegal 
     immigration continue to threaten public safety and menace 
     residents on the border and throughout the Nation.
       (5) The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established in 
     section 310001 the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) fully funds the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, including the 
     Violence Against Women Act, without adding to the Federal 
     budget deficit.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions and the functional totals underlying this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) the Federal Government's commitment to fund Federal law 
     enforcement programs and programs to assist State and local 
     efforts to combat violent crime, including violence against 
     women, will be maintained; and
       (2) funding for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund will 
     continue in its current form at least through fiscal year 
     2002.

     SEC. 341. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN 
                   PREVENTION OF DRUG USE BY CHILDREN.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that, from resources available in this 
     budget resolution, a portion should be set aside for a 
     national grassroots volunteer effort to encourage parental 
     education and involvement in youth drug prevention and to 
     create a drug-intolerant culture for our children.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  [Applause.]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House and is 
authorized to appoint conferees.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a couple unanimous consent requests 
that I think Members will be very interested in. First, let me take a 
moment to comment on the cooperation and the significance of that vote.
  It truly was a bipartisan effort. It was cooperation between the 
Congress and the President. I think we should be proud of it, and it is 
an example of what I hope we can do more of in the future.
  I thank the Democratic leader for his efforts, his willingness to be 
on the floor and work with us on some of these votes. We had a couple 
of bumpy spots along the way, but I think the result was a good one.
  I particularly thank the chairman of the committee. I know he feels a 
rush of emotion right now. He has been working on trying to get us to 
this type of budget resolution for 25 years. I think he has done a 
great job. I commend him and thank him for the great work he has done.
  [Applause, Senators rising.]
  Mr. LOTT. Also, the Senator from New Jersey stood right there with 
him. They worked together. He kept his word, and we got a tremendous 
result here of 78 to 22, overwhelming. Without that type of cooperation 
across the aisle from the Budget Committee, it could not have been 
achieved. So I thank one and all for what has been achieved today.
  [Applause, Senators rising.]
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield for just a moment, I 
know people are waiting for the vote on the judges, so we need to be 
expeditious. I, too, commend the distinguished Budget Committee 
chairman and the ranking member for the extraordinary demonstration of 
leadership. This vote would not have been possible were it not for the 
way they worked with the White House, with us, in coming to the vote we 
have today.
  This is a historic moment. We will balance the budget as a result of 
this resolution. Democrats and Republicans alike can take credit and 
can take a great deal of pride in what we have done today. So I commend 
them and appreciate very much their leadership today.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the leader yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, I will yield to him. 
He has earned the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't want to start thanking people, because there 
are so many who did so much. I do want to say, from my standpoint, that 
my highest, highest thanks go to our majority leader. He has not been a 
majority leader for a long time, and this is a very, very difficult 
undertaking. There were a lot of potential pitfalls.
  Frankly, I commend him for being a very, very courageous majority 
leader. He has a lot of courage. When something has to be done and he 
agrees to do it, it is like you have a great army with you; we just 
move. If he wasn't in the lead, I was, and we took turns and we got 
this done.
  I also want to say that this is a bipartisan effort. I say to Senator 
Daschle, thank you. When we had trouble, we would call on him.
  Last but not least, I always knew Frank Lautenberg, but I didn't know 
we were really friends. I think I can say we have a bond between us now 
that came about because we worked on a very, very difficult set of 
issues for a long time. I thank him and his staff for their 
cooperation, and close by saying to all the Senators, thanks for the 
way you conducted yourselves. This is a complicated, messy process, but 
I think we did the Senate well, which I always want to do.
  I will close by saying that the one staff person I must always 
recognize, and I think the White House at one point suggested without 
Bill Hoagland we couldn't put this together. I thank him publicly.
  Frank, it is good to be your friend.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, Mr. President, I too, want to say that my 
work with Pete Domenici was illuminating, a learning experience at 
times. His smile sometimes was beguiling, but the steel nerves always 
showed through. It was a good experience.

[[Page S5066]]

  I noted with one of our colleagues over there, Senator Nickles--and I 
am sure that he does not mind my quoting him here--he said that this 
markup in the budget was the least acrimonious that he had seen in his 
17 years on the Budget Committee. I, too, in the 14 years I have been 
on the Budget Committee.
  We had plenty of differences. Do not let anybody think it was smooth 
going all the way. But there was a determination to get the job done. 
It was largely Pete's leadership and our willingness to just put aside 
some differences.
  My leader, Tom Daschle, was always there to encourage me and the 
team.
  Senator Lott, too, you know how to push at times and how to pull at 
other times. You still got us going in the same direction. I don't get 
it. But it was a pleasure working with the majority leader.
  My team, John Cahill, Bruce King, Sander Lurie, Marty Morris, Sue 
Nelson, Mitch Warren, and the others whom I was fortunate enough to 
inherit from the experienced days of Senator Exon and Senator Sasser, 
Amy Abraham, Matt Greenwald, Phil Karsting, Jim Klumpner, Nell Mays, 
and Jon Rosenwasser, everybody helped enormously. I want to say Bill 
Hoagland and the majority leader's team were cooperative. They tried to 
always make sure we understood exactly what was going to be in there. 
There was no attempt to deceive or fool.
  Thus, we have an agreement that we can all be proud of. The American 
people should be proud of it. They saw us cooperating, as the majority 
leader said. And here we saw a vote of 78 to 22. That is pretty darn 
good.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator.
  I do have a couple unanimous-consent requests to make. I think 
Members will be very interested in this. Then we can go on with some 
closing statements and some wrapup information.
  We have some other matters that we are going to try to work through 
in the afternoon. But if we can get these two agreements, then we could 
announce there would be no further votes today. I think that would be 
very important.

                          ____________________