[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2864-S2872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

                                 ______
                                 

           CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

                                 ______
                                 

                    SMITH AMENDMENTS NOS. 2179-2181

  Mr. SMITH (of Oregon) proposed three amendments to the concurrent 
resolution (S. Con. Res. 86) setting forth the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 
and 2003 and revising the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1998; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 2179

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section, and renumber the remaining sections accordingly:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.

       (A) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) financing for Social Security Old Age, Survivors, and 
     Disability Insurance (OASDI) is provided primarily by taxes 
     levied on wages and net self-employment income. The level of 
     these tax rates is set permanently in the law at the rate 
     payable today;
       (2) more than ninety-five percent of the work force--an 
     estimated 148.2 million workers in 1998--is required to pay 
     Social Security taxes;
       (3) Social Security taxes are paid both by employees and 
     employers and the self-employed on earnings up to a maximum 
     amount of $68,400 in 1998, the amount increasing at the same 
     rate as average earnings in the economy;
       (4) the Social Security tax was first levied in 1937 at a 
     rate of 1% on earnings up to $3,000 per year;
       (5) the rate in 1998 has risen to 6.2 perecent--an increase 
     of 620 percent, and a majority of American families pay more 
     in Social Security taxes than income taxes;
       (6) in his State of the Union message on January 27, 1998, 
     President Clinton called on Congress to ``save Social 
     Security first'' and to ``reserve one hundred percent of the 
     surplus, that is any penny of the surplus, until we have 
     taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social 
     Security system for the twenty-first century.''
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that when the 
     Congress moves to work in a bipartisan way on specific 
     legislation to reform the Social Security system, it will not 
     consider increasing

[[Page S2865]]

     Social Security tax rates on American workers, beyond the 
     permanent levels set in current law nor increase the maximum 
     earnings subject to Social Security taxation beyond those 
     prescribed by the wage indexing rules of current law.
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 2180

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . GENERAL PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF MARIJUANA FOR 
                   MEDICINAL PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that no funds appropriated by Congress 
     should be used to provide, procure, furnish, fund or support, 
     or to compel any individual, institution or government entity 
     to provide, procure, furnish, fund or support, any item, 
     good, benefit, program or service, for the purpose of the use 
     of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 2181

       On page 53, strike lines 1 through 22 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRICE INCREASE ON TOBACCO 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the use of tobacco products by children and teenagers 
     has become a public health epidemic and according to the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 
     16,000,000 of our Nation's children today will become regular 
     smokers;
       (2) of the 16,000,000 children who become regular smokers, 
     approximately one-third or 5,000,000 children will die of 
     tobacco-related illness;
       (3) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 
     that tobacco use costs medicare approximately $10,000,000,000 
     per year, and the total economic cost of tobacco in health-
     related costs is more than 100,000,000,000 per year; and
       (4) the public health community recognizes that by 
     increasing the cost of tobacco products by $1.50 per pack, 
     the rate of tobacco us among children and teenagers will be 
     reduced.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that, if 
     comprehensive tobacco legislation requires an increase in the 
     price of cigarettes, any such revenue should be used to 
     restore solvency to the medicare program under title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act.
                                 ______
                                 

                      HOLLINGS AMENDMENT NO. 2182

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS submitted an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. ____. PROTECTING THE OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment or motion 
     thereto or conference report thereon, including legislation 
     reported by the Committee on the Budget of either House 
     pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, that changes section 301(i), 302(f), 310(g), or 311 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or section 13301 of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, section 202 of H. Con. Res. 
     67 (104 Congress), or this section, or would otherwise change 
     budget procedures regarding Social Security.
       (b) 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.
       (c) 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 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 KENNEDY (AND BOXER) AMENDMENT NO. 3183

  Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mrs. Boxer) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING A PATIENT'S BILL OF 
                   RIGHTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) patients lack reliable information about health plans 
     and the quality of care that health plans provide;
       (2) experts agree that the quality of health care can be 
     substantially improved, resulting in less illness and less 
     premature death;
       (3) some managed care plans have created obstacles for 
     patients who need to see specialists on an ongoing basis and 
     have required that women get permission from their primary 
     care physician before seeing a gynecologist;
       (4) a majority of consumers believe that health plans 
     compromise their quality of care to save money;
       (5) Federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 prevents States from enforcing 
     protections for the 125,000,000 workers and their families 
     receiving health insurance through employment-based group 
     health plans; and
       (6) the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and 
     Quality in the Health Care Industry has unanimously 
     recommended a patient bill of rights to protect patients 
     against abuses by health plan and health insurance issuers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense Senate that the 
     assumptions underlying this resolution provide for the 
     enactment of legislation to establish a patient's bill of 
     rights for participants in health plans, and that legislation 
     should include--
       (1) a guarantee of access to covered services, including 
     needed emergency care, specialty care, obstetrical and 
     gynecological care for women, and prescription drugs;
       (2) provisions to ensure that the special needs of women 
     are met, including protecting women against ``drive-through 
     mastectomies'';
       (3) provisions to ensure that the special needs of children 
     are met, including access to pediatric specialists and 
     centers of pediatric excellence;
       (4) provisions to ensure that the special needs of 
     individuals with disabilities and the chronically ill are 
     met, including the possibility of standing referrals to 
     specialists or the ability to have a specialist act as a 
     primary care provider;
       (5) a procedure to hold health plans accountable for their 
     decisions and to provide for the appeal of a decision of a 
     health plan to deny care to an independent, impartial 
     reviewer;
       (6) measures to protect the integrity of the physician-
     patient relationship, including a ban on ``gag clauses'' and 
     a ban on improper incentive arrangements; and
       (7) measures to provide greater information about health 
     plans to patients and to improve the quality of care.
                                 ______
                                 

                       KENNEDY AMENDMENT NO. 2184

  Mr. KENNEDY proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       On page 16, line 9, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 16, line 10, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $318,000,000.
       On page 16, line 14, increase the amount by $146,000,000.
       On page 16, line 17, increase the amount by $386,000,000.
       On page 16, line 18, increase the amount by $276,000,000.
       On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $359,000,000.
       On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $358,000,000.
       On page 16, line 25, increase the amount by $272,000,000.
       On page 17, line 1, increase the amount by $359,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$500,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 9, strike ``-$1,900,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$1,910,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 12, strike ``-$1,200,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$1,518,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 13, strike ``-$4,600,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$4,746,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 16, strike ``-$2,700,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$3,086,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 17, strike ``-$3,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$3,276,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 20, strike ``-$3,800,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$4,159,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 21, strike ``-$7,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$7,358,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 24, strike ``-$5,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$5,672,000,000''.
       On page 25, line 25, strike ``-$5,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$5,359,000,000''.
                                 ______
                                 

                 KENNEDY (AND ROBB) AMENDMENT NO. 2185

  Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Robb) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
                   OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

       It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals in 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should receive 
     $279,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 1999.
                                 ______
                                 

                      WELLSTONE AMENDMENT NO. 2186

  Mr. WELLSTONE proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       ``It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional levels in this concurrent budget 
     resolution on the budget assume that corporate tax loopholes 
     and corporate welfare should be reduced in order to produce 
     the funds necessary to increase the maximum Pell Grant award 
     to $4,000.''
                                 ______
                                 

              WELLSTONE (AND MOYNIHAN) AMENDMENT NO. 2187

  Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Moynihan) proposed an amendment to 
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:


[[Page S2866]]


       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AN EVALUATION OF THE 
                   OUTCOME OF WELFARE REFORM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels in 
     this resolution assume that--
       (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services will, as 
     part of the annual report to Congress under section 411 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611), include data 
     regarding the rate of employment, job retention, and earnings 
     characteristics of former recipients of assistance under the 
     State programs funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) for each such State 
     program; and
       (2) for purposes of the annual report for fiscal year 1997, 
     the information described in paragraph (1) will be 
     transmitted to Congress not later than September 1, 1998.
                                 ______
                                 

                      WELLSTONE AMENDMENT NO. 2188

  Mr. WELLSTONE proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       On page 21, strike lines 7 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       Fiscal Year 1999:
       (A) New Budget Authority, $42,840,274,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,340,274.000.
       On page 53, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR MEDICAL CARE FOR 
                   VETERANS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional levels in this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assume that any additional amounts 
     made available for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 
     fiscal year 1999 as a result of the declarations of 
     additional budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 1999 
     for Veterans Benefits and Services (budget function 700) by 
     reason of the adoption by the Senate of this amendment be 
     available for medical care for veterans.
                                 ______
                                 

                        FIRST AMENDMENT NO. 2189

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. FRIST submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE 
                   AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the congressional budget 
     for the United States Government as provided for in this 
     resolution should assure that--
       (1) the contract authority level for the Airport 
     Improvement Program (provided for in part B of subtitle VII 
     of title 49, United States Code) not be reduced below the 
     current level of $2,347,000,000; and
       (2) the critical infrastructure development, maintenance, 
     and repair of airports not be jeopardized.
                                 ______
                                 

                 BURNS (AND BAUCUS) AMENDMENT NO. 2190

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Baucus) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the concurrent resolution, supra; as 
follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PERMANENT EXTENSION OF 
                   INCOME AVERAGING FOR FARMERS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that if the revenue levels are reduced 
     pursuant to section 201 of this resolution for tax 
     legislation, such amount as is necessary shall be used to 
     permanently extend income averaging for farmers for purposes 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 ______
                                 

                   THURMOND AMENDMENTS NOS. 2191-2192

  Mr. THURMOND proposed two amendments to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 2191

       On page 26, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. 104. OUTLAY LEVELS FOR MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       (a) Determinations for Fiscal Year 1999.--Notwithstanding 
     the provisions of section 103, outlay levels for the major 
     functional categories for fiscal year 1999 shall be 
     determined in the following manner:
       (1) Prior year outlays shall be determined using historical 
     rates as employed by the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Current and future year outlays shall be determined 
     using rates calculated by the Congressional Budget Office.
       (b) Determinations for Fiscal Years 2000 and Thereafter.--
     Notwithstanding the provisions of section 103, outlay levels 
     for the major functional categories for fiscal years 2000 and 
     thereafter shall be determined in the following manner:
       (1) The Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall annually attempt to 
     reconcile their technical assumptions with respect to 
     preparing estimates for all accounts in those categories, and 
     shall report the outcome of these attempts to the Committees 
     on the Budget not later than December 15 of each year.
       (2) If the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Congressional Budget Office are able to reconcile their 
     technical assumptions by the date of that report, the 
     technical assumptions used to determine outlay levels shall 
     be those agreed to by those agencies.
       (3) If the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Congressional Budget Office are unable in any year to 
     reconcile their technical assumptions, the outlay levels for 
     that fiscal year shall be determined by the Committee on the 
     Budget of each House, prior to the receipt by the committee 
     of the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 2192

       On page 26, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. 104. OUTLAY LEVELS FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.

       (a) Determinations for Fiscal Year 1999.--Notwithstanding 
     the provisions of section 103, outlay levels for major 
     functional category 050 (national defense) for fiscal year 
     1999 shall be determined in the following manner:
       (1) Prior year outlays shall be determined using historical 
     rates as employed by the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Current and future year outlays shall be determined 
     using rates calculated by the Congressional Budget Office.
       (b) Determinations for Fiscal Years 2000 and Thereafter.--
     Notwithstanding the provisions of section 103, outlay levels 
     for major functional category 050 (national defense) for 
     fiscal years 2000 and thereafter shall be determined in the 
     following manner:
       (1) The Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall annually attempt to 
     reconcile their technical assumptions with respect to 
     preparing estimates for all accounts in those categories, and 
     shall report the outcome of these attempts in the report 
     required by section 226 of title 10, United States Code.
       (2) If the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Congressional Budget Office are able to reconcile their 
     technical assumptions by the date of that report, the 
     technical assumptions used to determine outlay levels shall 
     be those agreed to by those agencies.
       (3) If the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Congressional Budget Office are unable in any year to 
     reconcile their technical assumptions, the outlay levels for 
     that fiscal year shall be determined by the Committee on the 
     Budget of each House, prior to its receipt of the estimate of 
     the Congressional Budget Office.
                                 ______
                                 

                      HOLLINGS AMENDMENT NO. 2193

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Hollings) proposed an amendment 
to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. ____. PROTECTING THE OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment or motion 
     thereto or conference report thereon, including legislation 
     reported by the Committee on the Budget of either House 
     pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, that changes section 301(i), 302(f), 310(g), or 311 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or section 13301 of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, section 202 of H. Con. Res. 
     67 (104 Congress), or this section, or would otherwise change 
     budget procedures regarding Social Security.
       (b) 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.
       (c) 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 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.
                                 ______
                                 

               LAUTENBERG (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2194

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Kennedy) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as 
follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRICE INCREASE ON TOBACCO 
                   PRODUCTS OF $1.50 PER PACK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) smoking rates among children and teenagers have reached 
     epidemic proportions;
       (2) of the 3,000 children and teenagers who begin smoking 
     every day, 1000 will eventually die of smoking-related 
     disease; and
       (3) public health experts and economists agree that the 
     most effective and efficient way to achieve major reduction 
     in youth smoking rates is to raise the price of tobacco 
     products by at least $1.50 per pack.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that comprehensive 
     tobacco legislation should increase the price of each pack of 
     cigarettes sold by at least $1.50 through a per-pack free or 
     other mechanism

[[Page S2867]]

     that will guarantee a price increase of $1.50 per pack within 
     three years not including existing scheduled Federal, State, 
     and local tax increases, with equivalent price increases on 
     other tobacco products, and should index these price 
     increases by an appropriate measure of inflation.
                                 ______
                                 

              LAUTENBERG (AND DASCHLE) AMENDMENT NO. 2195

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Daschle) proposed an amendment to 
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND 
                   NATURAL RESOURCES.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits 
     may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation to improve the quality of our nation's air, 
     water, land, and natural resources, provided that, to the 
     extent that this concurrent resolution on the budget does not 
     include the costs of that legislation, the enactment of that 
     legislation will not increase (by virtue of either 
     contemporaneous or previously-passed reinstatement or 
     modification of expired excise or environmental taxes) the 
     deficit in this resolution for--
       (1) fiscal year 1999;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
       (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 section 302(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 of the Senate 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 
     submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate 
     appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(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 
     committees shall report appropriately-revised allocations 
     pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to carry out this section.
                                 ______
                                 

                  McCAIN (AND MACK) AMENDMENT NO. 2196

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Mack) submitted an amendment intended 
to be proposed by them to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, 
supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS 
                   FUNDED FROM HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       (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 (96 Stat. 2097);
       (2) 152 demonstration projects totaling $1,400,000,000 were 
     included in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 132);
       (3) 538 location-specific projects totaling $6,230,000,000 
     were included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1914);
       (4) more than $1,600,000,000 of the funds authorized for 
     the 538 location-specific projects remained unobligated as of 
     March 18, 1998;
       (5) more than 1,000 location-specific projects totaling an 
     estimated $18,000,000,000 have been added in the House of 
     Representatives to legislation that would reauthorize the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 1914);
       (6) the General Accounting Office determined that 31 
     States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would have 
     received more funding if the funds for location-specific 
     projects made available under the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1914) 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;
       (8) on June 20, 1995, by a vote of 75 yeas to 21 nays, the 
     Senate voted to prohibit the use of Highway Trust Fund money 
     for new location-specific projects; and
       (9) on March 12, 1998, by a vote of 78 yeas to 22 nays, the 
     Senate voted to require that any new location-specific 
     projects be funded within a State's Highway Trust Fund 
     allocation.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budget levels in this resolution assume that--
       (1) notwithstanding different views on the Highway Trust 
     Fund distribution formulas, funding for demonstration, high 
     priority, 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, through their transportation departments and 
     metropolitan planning organizations, are best able to 
     determine the priorities for allocating Highway Trust Fund 
     money within their jurisdiction;
       (3) Congress will not divert Highway Trust Fund money away 
     from the transportation priorities of States and metropolitan 
     planning organizations by authorizing new demonstration, high 
     priority, or other similarly titled projects; and
       (4) Congress will not authorize any new demonstration, high 
     priority, or other similarly titled projects as part of 
     legislation to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1914).
                                 ______
                                 

                        SMITH AMENDMENT NO. 2197

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
him to amendment No. 2180 proposed by him to the concurrent resolution, 
S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       On page 2 of the amendment, line 2, insert before the 
     period the following: ``, except that this section shall not 
     apply to Federally sponsored research''.

                       McCAIN AMENDMENT NO. 2198

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . REPEAL OF TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX.

       (a) In General.--Effective with respect to amounts paid 
     pursuant to bills first rendered on or after January 1, 1999, 
     subchapter B of chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (26 U.S.C. 4251 et seq.) is repealed. For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, in the case of communications 
     services rendered before December 1, 1998, for which a bill 
     has not been rendered before January 1, 1999, a bill shall be 
     treated as having been first rendered on December 31, 1998.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Effective January 1, 1999, the 
     table of subchapters for such chapter is amended by striking 
     out the item relating to subchapter B.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I submit an amendment to repeal the three 
percent federal excise tax that all Americans pay every time they use a 
telephone.
  Under current law, the federal government taxes you three percent of 
your monthly phone bill for the so-called ``privilege'' of using your 
phone lines. This tax was first imposed one hundred years ago. To help 
finance the Spanish-American War, the federal government taxed 
telephone service, which in 1898 was a luxury service enjoyed by 
relatively few. The tax reappeared as a means of raising revenue for 
World War I, and continued as a revenue-raiser during the Great 
Depression, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the chronic 
federal budget deficits of the last twenty years.
  Earlier this month, however, we received some long-overdue good news: 
thanks to the Balanced Budget Act enacted by the Congress in 1997, the 
Congressional Budget Office projected an $8 billion federal budget 
surplus for 1998. Mr. President, that announcement should mean the end 
of the federal phone excise tax.
  Here is why. First of all, the telephone is a modern-day necessity, 
not like alcohol, or furs, or jewelry, or other items of the sort that 
the government taxes this way. The Congress specifically recognized the 
need for all Americans to have affordable telephone service when it 
enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The universal service 
provisions of the Act are intended to assure that all Americans, 
regardless of where they live or how much money they make, have access 
to affordable telephone service. The telephone excise tax, which bears 
no relationship to any government service received by the consumer, is 
flatly inconsistent with the goal of universal telephone service.
  It is also a highly regressive and unfair tax that hurts low-income 
and rural Americans even more than other Americans. Low-income families 
spend a higher percentage of their income

[[Page S2868]]

than medium- or high-income families on telephone service, and that 
means the telephone tax hits low-income families much harder. For that 
reason the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that increases in 
the telephone tax would have a greater impact on low-income families 
than tax increases on alcohol or tobacco products. And a study by the 
American Agriculture Movement concluded that excise taxes like the 
telephone tax impose a disproportionately large tax burden on rural 
customers, too, who rely on telephone service in isolated areas.
  But, in addition to being unfair and unnecessary, there is another 
reason why we should eliminate the telephone excise tax. Implementation 
of the Telecom Act of 1996 requires all telecommunications carriers--
local, long-distance, and wireless--to incur new costs in order to 
produce a new, more competitive market for telecommunications services 
of all kinds.
  Unfortunately, the cost increases are arriving far more quickly than 
the new, more competitive market. The Telecom Act created a new subsidy 
program for wiring schools and libraries to the Internet, and the cost 
of funding that subsidy has already increased bills for business users 
of long-distance telephone service and for consumers of wireless 
services. Because of more universal service subsidy requirements and 
other new Telecom Act mandates, more rate increases for all users will 
occur later this year and next year.
  Mr. President, the fact that the Telecom Act is imposing new charges 
on consumers' bills makes it absolutely incumbent upon us to strip away 
any unnecessary old charges. And that means the telephone excise tax.
  Mr. President, the telephone excise tax is not a harmless artifact 
from bygone days. It collects money for wars that are already over, and 
for budget deficits that no longer exist, from people who can least 
afford to spend it now and from people who will have new bills to foot 
as the 1996 Telecom Act gets implemented. That is unfair, that's wrong, 
and that must be stopped.
  San Juan Hill and Pork Chop Hill have now gone down in history, and 
so should this tax.
                                 ______
                                 

               COVERDELL (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2199

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Craig, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
Helms, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Kyl) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       On page 27, strike beginning with line 3 through page 33, 
     line 2, and insert the following:

     SEC. 201. DEDICATION OF OFFSETS TO MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, for the purposes of section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may reserve not to exceed 
     $101,500,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 of the 
     reductions in new budget authority and outlays resulting from 
     reductions in nondefense discretionary spending (as compared 
     to the levels contained in this resolution) affecting the 
     programs in functions specified in subsection (c) for middle 
     class tax relief as specified in subsection (b).
       (b) Tax Relief.--The savings from reductions in 
     discretionary spending are reserved to offset legislation 
     that reduces revenues by providing middle class tax relief 
     that--
       (1) raises the threshold for the 15 per cent individual 
     income tax bracket; and
       (2) begins taxing income at 28 per cent in the case of--
       (A) individuals who are married filing jointly at a taxable 
     income in excess of $70,000;
       (B) individuals who are single heads of households at a 
     taxable income in excess of $52,600;
       (C) individuals who are single at a taxable income in 
     excess of $35,000; and
       (D) individuals who are married filing separately at 
     taxable incomes in excess of $35,000.
       (c) Programs.-- The following reductions in discretionary 
     spending are reserved in function 920, Allowances, for 
     purposes of subsection (a):


                            national defense

       (1) (050): For fiscal year 1999, $0 in budget authority and 
     $0 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-2003, $0 in budget 
     authority and $0 in outlays.


                         international affairs

       (2) (150): For fiscal year 1999, $1,002,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $986,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $7,061,000,000 in budget authority and $6,445,000,000 
     in outlays.


                 general science, space and technology

       (3) (250): For fiscal year 1999, $965,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $949,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $6,741,000,000 in budget authority and $6,108,000,000 
     in outlays.


                                 energy

       (4) (270): For fiscal year 1999, $149,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $175,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $1,025,000,000 in budget authority and $986,000,000 in 
     outlays.


                   natural resources and environment

       (5) (300): For fiscal year 1999, $1,199,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,193,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
     1999-2003, $8,693,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $7,908,000,000 in outlays.


                              agriculture

       (6) (350): For fiscal year 1999, $217,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $223,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $1,526,000,000 in budget authority and $1,376,000,000 
     in outlays.


                      commerce and housing credit

       (7) (370): For fiscal year 1999, $159,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $154,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $1,145,000,000 in budget authority and $1,045,000,000 
     in outlays.


                             transportation

       (8) (400): For fiscal year 1999, $737,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,100,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
     1999-2003, $5,183,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $15,170,000,000 in outlays.


                   community and regional development

       (9) (450): For fiscal year 1999, $435,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $583,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $2,909,000,000 in budget authority and $3,167,000,000 
     in outlays.


          education, training, employment, and social services

       (10) (500): For fiscal year 1999, $2,493,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,445,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
     1999-2003, $18,680,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $16,810,000,000 in outlays.


                                 health

       (11) (550): For fiscal year 1999, $1,490,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,432,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
     1999-2003, $11,171,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $9,946,000,000 in outlays.


                                medicare

       (12) (570): For fiscal year 1999, $0 in budget authority 
     and $0 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-2003, $0 in budget 
     authority and $0 in outlays.


                            income security

       (13) (600): For fiscal year 1999, $1,740,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,233,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
     1999-2003, $14,258,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $13,485,000,000 in outlays.


                            social security

       (14) (650): For fiscal year 1999, $0 in budget authority 
     and $0 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-2003, $0 in budget 
     authority and $0 in outlays.


                     veterans benefits and services

       (15) (700): For fiscal year 1999, $1,013,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,039,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
     1999-2003, $7,165,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $6,559,000,000 in outlays.


                       administration of justice

       (16) (750): For fiscal year 1999, $1,336,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,289,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
     1999-2003, $9,423,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $8,513,000,000 in outlays.


                           general government

       (17) (800): For fiscal year 1999, $636,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $589,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $4,411,000,000 in budget authority and $3,936,000,000 
     in outlays.
       (d) Discretionary Caps.--In the Senate, for purposes of 
     budget enforcement, the nondefense discretionary cap for 
     fiscal year 1999 and the discretionary caps for fiscal years 
     2000 through 2003 shall be reduced by the amounts of 
     reductions referred to in subsection (a) after the enactment 
     of legislation reducing nondefense discretionary spending as 
     provided in this section.

     SEC. 202. TAX CUT RESERVE FUND.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be reduced and allocations may be reduced for 
     legislation that reduces revenues by providing middle class 
     and family tax relief (including relief from the ``marriage 
     penalty'' and support for child care expenses incurred by all 
     parents), and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, 
     job creation, and economic growth (including community 
     renewal initiatives) if such legislation will not increase 
     the deficit or reduce the surplus for--
       (1) fiscal year 1999;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1999-2003; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2004-2008.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--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 section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised 
     aggregates to carry out this section. These revised 
     allocations and aggregates shall be considered for

[[Page S2869]]

     the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.

     SEC. 203. TOBACCO RESERVE FUND.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue aggregates may be 
     increased for legislation which reserves the Federal share of 
     receipts from tobacco legislation only for the Medicare 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
       (b) Revised Aggregates.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file increased 
     aggregates to carry out this section. These aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as the aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (c) Application of Section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67.--For the 
     purposes of enforcement of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67 
     (104th Congress) with respect to this resolution, the 
     increase in receipts resulting from tobacco legislation shall 
     not be taken into account.

     SEC. 204. SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATION.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be increased and allocations may be increased 
     only for legislation that reauthorizes and reforms the 
     Superfund program to facilitate the cleanup of hazardous 
     waste sites if such legislation will not increase the deficit 
     or reduce the surplus for--
       (1) fiscal year 1999;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1999-2003; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2004-2008.
       (b) Revised Aggregates.--In the Senate, after the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works reports a bill (or after the 
     submission of a conference report thereon) to reform the 
     Superfund program to facilitate the cleanup of hazardous 
     waste sites that does not exceed--
       (1) $200,000,000 in budget authority and outlays for fiscal 
     year 1999; and
       (2) $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003;

     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may 
     increase the appropriate aggregates and the appropriate 
     allocations of budget authority in this resolution by the 
     amounts provided in that bill for that purpose and the 
     outlays flowing in all years from such budget authority. 
     These revised allocations and aggregates shall be considered 
     for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     the allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.

     SEC. 205. DEDICATION OF OFFSETS TO TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Spending Reserve.--In accordance with section 312(a) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for the purposes of 
     title III of that Act, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may reserve the estimated reductions in new budget 
     authority and outlays resulting from changes in legislation 
     affecting the programs specified in subsection (b), if 
     contained in the Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, for the purpose of offsetting--
       (1) additional outlays not to exceed $1,300,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1999 and $18,500,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003 for discretionary highway programs as called for 
     in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1998; and
       (2) additional budget authority not to exceed 
     $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $5,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for discretionary transit 
     programs as called for in the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998.
       (b) Offsets.-- The following reductions in mandatory 
     spending are reserved in function 920, Allowances, for 
     purposes of subsection (a):
       (1) For reductions in programs in function 350, 
     Agriculture: For fiscal year 1999, $107,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $107,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $603,000,000 in budget authority and $598,000,000 in 
     outlays.
       (2) For reductions in programs in function 370, Commerce 
     and Housing Credit: For fiscal year 1999, $242,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $242,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal 
     years 1999-2003, $1,195,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $1,195,000,000 in outlays.
       (3) For reductions in programs in function 500, Education, 
     Training, Employment, and Social Services: For fiscal year 
     1999, $471,000,000 in budget authority and $424,000,000 in 
     outlays; For fiscal years 1999-2003, $3,182,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $3,079,000,000 in outlays.
       (4) For reductions in programs in function 550, Health: For 
     fiscal year 1999, $250,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $250,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-2003, 
     $1,900,000,000 in budget authority and $1,900,000,000 in 
     outlays.
       (5) For reductions in programs in function 600, Income 
     Security: For fiscal year 1999, $260,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $260,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
     2003, $1,700,000,000 in budget authority and $1,700,000,000 
     in outlays.
       (6) For reductions in programs in function 700, Veterans 
     Benefits and Services: For fiscal year 1999, $500,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $500,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal 
     years 1999-2003, $10,500,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $10,500,000,000 in outlays.

     SEC. 206. ADJUSTMENTS FOR LINE ITEM VETO LITIGATION.

       If the Supreme Court rules that the Line Item Veto Act is 
     unconstitutional, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may make appropriate adjustments to the allocations and 
     aggregates in this resolution to reflect the effects of the 
     President's cancellations becoming null and void.

     SEC. 207. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       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 CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

     SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FEDERAL DOMESTIC 
                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING RESTRAINTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Social Security and Medicare are deeply rooted 
     contracts, that must be honored, between the Federal 
     Government and the American people; and
       (2) Federal spending for fiscal year 1999 is--
       (A) more than twice the size of Federal spending for fiscal 
     year 1969, the last budget resulting in a surplus, in real 
     dollars; and
       (B) requires revenue equal to 20.1 percent of gross 
     domestic product, the highest since fiscal year 1945.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) the first priority of Congress will be to use any 
     unified budget surplus in order to reform Social Security and 
     preserve it for current and future generations;
       (2) Congress will ensure that Federal funds will be 
     available to strengthen and further preserve Medicare until 
     such time as legislation is enacted making Medicare 
     actuarially sound;
       (3) in making the spending reductions provided in section 
     201, programs that should be protected are those that--
       (A) address the needs of elementary and secondary 
     education;
       (B) enhance nutrition, particularly among children;
       (C) reduce illegal drug use, particularly among juveniles;
       (D) support medical priorities;
       (E) are targeted for low-income families; and
       (F) reduce illegal immigration; and
       (4) Congress will limit itself to only administrative 
     reductions when determining mandatory spending offsets for 
     middle class tax relief as described in section 201.
                                 ______
                                 

                       McCAIN AMENDMENT NO. 2200

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE OF 
                   $500,000,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COURT 
                   HOUSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Illegal drugs cost our society approximately 
     $67,000,000,000 each year.
       (2) Drug abuse and trafficking hurt families, businesses, 
     and neighborhoods, impede education, and choke criminal 
     justice, health, and social-service systems.
       (3) The war on drugs started in America during the Reagan 
     years and was eagerly joined by most of the western world.
       (4) Teenage drug use declined dramatically since the early 
     1980's, but that trend reversed in 1992, when teenage drug 
     use began to increase.
       (5) Statistics indicate that 1996 drug-use rates among 
     youth, were 9 percent, well below the 1979 peak of 16.3 
     percent, but substantially higher than the 1992 low of 5.3 
     percent.
       (6) The most recent National Drug Strategy figures show a 
     massive 66 percent increase in teenage drug use since the 
     1980's.
       (7) By 1996, 50.8 percent of high school seniors reported 
     having used illicit drugs.
       (8) The use of illicit drugs among eighth graders alone has 
     increased 150 percent over the past 5 years.
       (9) When juveniles engage in drug abuse, they, their 
     families, and their communities suffer.
       (10) Drug abuse is associated with violent crime and 
     income-generating crime by youth, which increases the demand 
     for juvenile and criminal justice services.
       (11) One study found that, of the 113 delinquent youth in a 
     State detention facility, 82 percent reported being heavy 
     (i.e., daily) users of alcohol and other drugs just prior to 
     admission.
       (12) A direct effect of juvenile drug use is an increasing 
     burden on the juvenile and criminal justice systems.
       (13) Reducing juvenile drug use would reduce the drain on 
     the criminal justice system and obviate the need to construct 
     additional courthouses.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--

[[Page S2870]]

       (1) $500,000,000 for courthouse construction should not be 
     spent until the United States has reduced drug use among 12- 
     to 17- year olds to not more than 4 percent; and
       (2) Congress' first priority should be to use the 
     $500,000,000 allocated for courthouse construction for 
     juvenile drug use prevention programs.
                                 ______
                                 

                  COVERDELL AMENDMENTS NOS. 2201-2202

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. COVERDELL submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him 
to the concurrent resolution, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 2201

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH, 
                   CONSUMER EDUCATION, AND PREVENTION EFFORTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that food safety research, consumer 
     education, and prevention efforts should be a high priority 
     at the Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of 
     Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, and our nation's colleges and 
     universities. The Senate applauds the efforts of institutions 
     whose work on E. coli 0157:H7, Cyclospora, and other food 
     borne pathogens has helped us gain a better understanding of 
     these new and emerging threats. The Senate considers this 
     matter of extreme importance and encourages the Department of 
     Agriculture, in cooperation with other agencies and 
     institutions, to utilize funds for food safety research and 
     consumer education partnerships.
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 2202

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MILITARY HEALTH CARE 
                   FOR VETERANS AND MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1998 the Congress recognized--
       (A) the moral obligation the United States has to provide 
     health care to members and former members of the Armed Forces 
     who are entitled to retired or retainer pay (or its 
     equivalent);
       (B) the necessity to provide quality, affordable health 
     care to these retirees; and
       (C) Congress and the President should take steps to address 
     the problems associated with the availability of health care 
     for such retirees within two years after the date of the 
     enactment of the 1998 National Defense Authorization Act;
       (2) several proposals lie before the Congress which address 
     military retiree health care.
       (3) the Congress has yet to take significant steps forward 
     on any of these proposals.
       (4) a shrinking Department of Defense health care 
     infrastructure and an increasing military retiree pool are 
     putting strains on our country's ability to provide military 
     retirees adequate health care.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that it is 
     morally incumbent upon the Senate to take steps to ensure 
     adequate health care for Veterans and military retirees in 
     its FY99 budget and all subsequent budgets, and it should 
     determine ways to provide funding adequate to cover the 
     health care needs of U.S. Veterans and military retirees.
                                 ______
                                 
      WYDEN AMENDMENT NO. 2203
  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. WYDEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the concurrent resolution, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. ____. CALCULATING INFLATION SAVINGS OR SHORTFALLS.

       For each fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     calculate the inflation savings or shortfall that occurs when 
     inflation is less or more than anticipated for each function 
     of the Government and report its findings to Congress in 
     March and August of each year. If inflation is less than 
     anticipated the report shall also include a detailed 
     explanation of how surplus funds are allocated.
                                 ______
                                 

                   KOHL (AND REID) AMENDMENT NO. 2204

  Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Reid) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 
                   A NATIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM FOR LONG-
                   TERM CARE WORKERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Over 43 percent of Americans over the age of 65 are 
     likely to spend time in a nursing home.
       (2) Home health care is the fastest growing portion of the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), with an average annual growth rate 
     of 32 percent since 1989.
       (3) A 1997 report from State Long-Term Care Ombudsmen 
     assisted under the Older Americans Act of 1965 indicated that 
     in 29 States surveyed, 7,043 cases of abuse, gross neglect, 
     or exploitation occurred in nursing homes and board and care 
     facilities.
       (4) A random sample survey of nursing home staff found that 
     10 percent of the staff admitted committing at least 1 act of 
     physical abuse in the preceding year.
       (5) Although the majority of long-term care facilities do 
     an excellent job in caring for elderly and disabled patients, 
     incidents of abuse and neglect do occur at an unacceptable 
     rate and are not limited to nursing homes alone.
       (6) Most long-term care facilities do not conduct both 
     Federal and State criminal background checks on prospective 
     employees.
       (7) Most State nurse aide abuse registries are limited to 
     nursing home aides, thereby failing to cover home health and 
     hospice aides.
       (8) Current State nurse aide abuse registries are 
     inadequate to screen out abusive long-term care workers 
     because no national system is in place to track abusers from 
     State to State and facility to facility.
       (9) Currently, 29 States have enacted varying forms of 
     criminal background check requirements for prospective long-
     term care employees. However current Federal and State 
     safeguards are inadequate because there is little or no 
     information sharing between States about known abusers.
       (10) Many facilities would choose to conduct background 
     checks on prospective employees if an efficient, accurate, 
     and cost-effective national system existed.
       (11) The impending retirement of the baby boom generation 
     will greatly increase the demand and need for quality long-
     term care.
       (12) It is incumbent on Congress and the President to 
     ensure that patients receiving care under the medicare and 
     medicaid programs (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et seq.) are 
     protected from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget assume that--
       (1) funds should be directed toward the establishment of a 
     national background check system for long-term care workers 
     who participate in the medicare and medicaid programs (42 
     U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et seq.);
       (2) such a system would include both a national registry of 
     abusive long-term care workers and a requirement for a 
     Federal criminal background check before such workers are 
     employed to provide long-term care; and
       (3) such a system would be created with ample input and 
     comment from representatives of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, State government, law enforcement, the 
     nursing home and home health industries, patient and consumer 
     advocates, and advocates for long-term care workers.
                                 ______
                                 

                 DURBIN (AND CHAFEE) AMENDMENT NO. 2205

  Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Chafee) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING 
                   AFFORDABLE, HIGH-QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR 
                   SENIORS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Seniors deserve affordable, high quality health care.
       (2) The medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) has made health care 
     affordable for millions of seniors.
       (3) Beneficiaries under the medicare program deserve to 
     know that such program will cover the benefits that they are 
     currently entitled to.
       (4) Beneficiaries under the medicare program can pay out-
     of-pocket for health care services whenever they--
       (A) do not want a claim for reimbursement for such services 
     submitted to such program; or
       (B) want or need to obtain health care services that such 
     program does not cover.
       (5) Beneficiaries under the medicare program can use 
     doctors who do not receive any reimbursement under such 
     program.
       (6) Close to 75 percent of seniors have annual incomes 
     below $25,000, including 4 percent who have annual incomes 
     below $5,000, making any additional out-of-pocket costs for 
     health care services extremely burdensome.
       (7) Very few beneficiaries under the medicare program 
     report having difficulty obtaining access to a physician who 
     accepts reimbursement under such program.
       (8) Allowing private contracting on a claim-by-claim basis 
     under the medicare program would impose significant out-of-
     pocket costs on beneficiaries under such program.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that seniors have the right to affordable, 
     high-quality health care and that they have the right to 
     choose their doctors, and that no change should be made to 
     the medicare program that could--

[[Page S2871]]

       (1) impose unreasonable and unpredictable out-of-pocket 
     costs for seniors or erode the benefits that the 38,000,000 
     beneficiaries under the medicare program are entitled to;
       (2) compromise the efforts of the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services to screen inappropriate or fraudulent claims 
     for reimbursement under such program; and
       (3) allow unscrupulous providers under such program to bill 
     twice for the same services.
                                 ______
                                 

                  REID (AND BRYAN) AMENDMENT NO. 2206

  Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE 
                   SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO FUND CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the Budget Committee 
     Report accompanying this resolution assumes that the 
     landowner incentive program of the Endangered Species 
     Recovery Act would be funded ``from the gross receipts 
     realized in the sales of excess BLM land, provided that BLM 
     has sufficient administrative funds to conduct such sales.''
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this resolution assume 
     that:
       (1) the landowner incentive program included in the 
     Endangered Species Recovery Act should be financed from a 
     dedicated source of funding; and
       (2) public lands should not be sold to fund the landowner 
     incentive program of the Endangered Species Recovery Act.
                                 ______
                                 

              FAIRCLOTH (AND HUTCHISON) AMENDMENT NO. 2207

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the resolution, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ELIMINATION OF THE 
                   MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Twenty-one million American couples in 1996 paid an 
     average of $1,400 more income tax, simply because they were 
     married, resulting in a marriage penalty tax.
       (2) The tax code discriminates against many married couples 
     in a way that undermines the institution of marriage, and 
     erodes our society's strength and stability.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the elimination of the marriage penalty tax should be 
     one of congress's highest priorities when enacting any tax 
     relief pursuant to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Years 
     1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.
                                 ______
                                 

                      HUTCHISON AMENDMENT NO. 2208

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mrs. HUTCHINSON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her 
to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE USE OF BUDGET SURPLUS FOR 
                   TAX RELIEF OR DEBT REDUCTION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that this resolution assumes 
     that any budget surplus should be dedicated to debt reduction 
     or direct tax relief for hard-working American families.
                                 ______
                                 

                  ROTH (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2209

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Roth for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Robb, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. 
Santorum) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 86, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL 
                   RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS AND THE BUDGET SURPLUS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The social security program is the foundation of 
     retirement income for most Americans, and solving the 
     financial problems of the social security program is a vital 
     national priority and essential for the retirement security 
     of today's working Americans and their families.
       (2) There is a growing bipartisan consensus that personal 
     retirement accounts should be an important feature of social 
     security reform.
       (3) Personal retirement accounts can provide a substantial 
     retirement nest egg and real personal wealth. For an 
     individual 28 years old on the date of the adoption of this 
     resolution, earning an average wage, and retiring at age 65 
     in 2035, just 1 percent of that individual's wages deposited 
     each year in a personal retirement account and invested in 
     securities consisting of the Standard & Poors 500 would grow 
     to $132,000, and be worth approximately 20 percent of the 
     benefits that would be provided to the individual under the 
     current provisions of the social security program.
       (4) Personal retirement accounts would give the majority of 
     Americans who do not own any investment assets a new stake in 
     the economic growth of America.
       (5) Personal retirement accounts would demonstrate the 
     value of savings and the magic of compound interest to all 
     Americans. Today, Americans save less than people in almost 
     every other country.
       (6) Personal retirement accounts would help Americans to 
     better prepare for retirement generally. According to the 
     Congressional Research Service, 60 percent of Americans are 
     not actively participating in a retirement plan other than 
     social security, although social security was never intended 
     to be the sole source of retirement income.
       (7) Personal retirement accounts would allow partial 
     prefunding of retirement benefits, thereby providing for 
     social security's future financial stability.
       (8) The Federal budget will register a surplus of 
     $671,000,000,000 over the next 10 years, offering a unique 
     opportunity to begin a permanent solution to social 
     security's financing.
       (9) Using the Federal budget surplus to fund personal 
     retirement accounts would be an important first step in 
     comprehensive social security reform and ensuring the 
     delivery of promised retirement benefits.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this resolution assumes that the Committee on Finance 
     shall consider and report a legislative proposal this year 
     that would dedicate the Federal budget surplus to the 
     establishment of a program of personal retirement accounts 
     for working Americans and reduce the unfunded liabilities of 
     the social security program.
                                 ______
                                 

                JOHNSON (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2210

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Johnson, for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Dorgan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. McCain) 
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, 
supra; as follows:

       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION 
                   NEEDS OF INDIAN SCHOOLS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) many of our Nation's tribal schools are in a state of 
     serious disrepair. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
     operates 187 school facilities nationwide. Enrollment in 
     these schools, which presently numbers 47,214 students, has 
     been growing rapidly. A recent General Accounting Office 
     report indicates that the repair backlog in these schools 
     totals $754 million, and that the BIA schools are in 
     generally worse condition than all schools nationally;
       (2) approximately 60 of these schools are in need of 
     complete replacement or serious renovation. Many of the 
     renovations include basic structural repair for the safety of 
     children, new heating components to keep students warm, and 
     roofing replacement to keep the snow and rain out of the 
     classroom. In addition to failing to provide adequate 
     learning environments for Indian children, these repair and 
     replacement needs pose a serious liability issue for the 
     Federal Government;
       (3) 63 percent of the BIA schools are over 30 years old, 26 
     percent are over 50 years old. Approximately forty percent of 
     all students in BIA schools are in portable classrooms. 
     Originally intended as temporary facilities while tribes 
     awaited new construction funds, these ``portables'' have a 
     maximum 10 year life-span. Because of the construction 
     backlog, children have been shuffling between classrooms in 
     the harsh climates of the Northern plains and Western States 
     for ten to fifteen years;
       (4) annual appropriations for BIA education facilities 
     replacement and repair combined have averaged $20-30 million 
     annually, meeting only 4 percent of total need. At the 
     present rate, one deteriorating BIA school can be replaced 
     each year, with estimates of completion of nine schools in 
     the next seven years. Since the new construction and repair 
     backlog is so great and growing, the current focus at BIA 
     construction must remain on emergency and safety needs only, 
     without prioritizing program needs such as increasing 
     enrollment or technology in the classroom; and
       (5) unlike most schools, the BIA schools are a 
     responsibility of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the 
     failure of the Federal Government to live up to this 
     responsibility has come at the expense of quality education 
     for some of this Nation's poorest children with the fewest 
     existing opportunities to better themselves.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     budget resolution assume that the repair and construction 
     backlog affecting Bureau of Indian Affairs school facilities 
     should be eliminated over a period of no more than five years 
     beginning with Fiscal Year 1999.
                                 ______
                                 

                 CRAIG (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 2211

  Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Grams, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, 
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Coverdell) proposed 
an

[[Page S2872]]

amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, supra; as 
follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. ____. REQUIREMENT TO OFFSET DIRECT SPENDING INCREASES BY 
                   DIRECT SPENDING DECREASES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Surplus Protection Amendment''.
       (b) In General.--In the Senate, for purposes of section 202 
     of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress), it shall 
     not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that provides an 
     increase in direct spending unless the increase is offset by 
     a decrease in direct spending.
       (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 direct spending for a fiscal year 
     shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

                          ____________________