[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2929-S2949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 
                       1999, 2000, 2001, AND 2003

  The Senate continued with consideration of the concurrent resolution.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2209

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Roth 
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     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
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     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
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2209) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, once again, I don't think we are going 
to hear any profound speeches in the next few minutes, but at least we 
ought to know what it is that is going on, because if those amendments 
are not up there by the witching hour of 6 o'clock, they will not have 
a chance to get an amendment considered, whether it is a ``vote-a-
thon,'' ``vote-a-rama,'' ``rapid fire,'' or whatever you want to call 
it, or whether there will be a chance for debate. Six o'clock is it. We 
all turn into pumpkins at that time.


Amendment No. 2204, As Modified, and Amendment Nos. 2226 through 2247, 
                                en bloc

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have amendments to send to the desk 
on behalf of the following Senators: Senator Kohl from Wisconsin has a 
modification to amendment No. 2204, Senator Rockefeller, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Bumpers, Senator Feinstein, Senator John Kerry, Senator 
Wellstone, Senator Charles Robb, Senator Biden, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Bingaman, Senator Bingaman again, Senator Robert Kerrey, Senator 
Moseley-Braun, Senator Moseley-Braun again, Senator Moseley-Braun 
again, Senator Durbin, Senator Dorgan, Senator Lautenberg, Senator 
Lautenberg again, Senator Torricelli, Senator Torricelli again, and 
Senator Moynihan.
  I offer those amendments and ask for their consideration. I ask 
unanimous consent that we suspend the reading of the amendments.
  Mr. President, I offer them en bloc. I also ask unanimous consent 
that they be put aside after being laid at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment numbered 2204, as modified, and amendments numbered 
2226 through 2247, en bloc, are as follows:


                    amendment no. 2204, as modified

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
establishment of a national background check system for long-term care 
                                workers)

       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) The impending retirement of the baby boom generation 
     will greatly increase the demand and need for quality long-
     term care and it is incumbent on Congress and the President 
     to ensure that medicare and medicaid patients are protected 
     from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment.
       (2) Although the majority of long-term care facilities do 
     an excellent job in caring for elderly and disabled patients, 
     incidents of abuse and neglect and mistreatment do occur at 
     an unacceptable rate and are not lim9ited to nursing homes 
     alone.
       (3) Current Federal and State safeguards are inadequate 
     because there is little or no information sharing between 
     States about known abusers and no common State procedures for 
     tracking abusers from State to State and facility to 
     facility.
       (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 a national 
     registry of abusive long-term care workers should be 
     established by building upon existing infrastructures at the 
     Federal and State levels that would enable long-term care 
     providers who participate in the medicare and medicaid 
     programs (412 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et seq.) to conduct 
     background checks on prospective employees.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2226

       On page 14, line 7, strike ``$51,500,000,000.'' and all 
     that follows through line 24, and substitute in lieu thereof 
     the following:
       ``$51,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000.'' and all that 
     follows through line 25, and substitute in lieu thereof the 
     following:

[[Page S2930]]

       ``$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
       On page 31, line 24, strike subsection (6) in its entirety.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2227

(Purpose: To ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution may 
                 be used to strengthen Social Security)

       On page 28, strike line 2 through line 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation that reserves the Federal share of receipts from 
     tobacco legislation for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund or the Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability 
     Insurance Trust Funds.
       (b) Revised Aggregates and 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 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) 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 the Federal share of receipts resulting from 
     tobacco legislation shall not be taken into account.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2228

  (Purpose: To provide for funding to help the states comply with the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by eliminating an 
                       unjustified tax loophole)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $39,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $67,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $71,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $39,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $67,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $71,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $39,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $67,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $71,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $39,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $67,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $71,000,000.
       On page 16, line 9, increase the amount by $39,000,000.
       On page 16, line 10, increase the amount by $39,000,000.
       On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 16, line 14, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 16, line 17, increase the amount by $67,000,000.
       On page 16, line 18, increase the amount by $67,000,000.
       On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 16, line 25, increase the amount by $71,000,000.
       On page 17, line 1, increase the amount by $71,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2229

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on education goals)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EDUCATION GOALS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals 
     underlying this resolution assume that the Federal Government 
     should work hand-in-hand with States, school districts, and 
     local leaders--
       (1) to accomplish the following goals by the year 2005:
       (A) establish achievement levels and assessments in every 
     grade for the core academic curriculum; measure each regular 
     student's performance; and prohibit the practice of social 
     promotion of students (promoting students routinely from one 
     grade to the next without regard to their academic 
     achievement);
       (B) provide remedial programs for students whose 
     achievement levels indicate they should not be promoted to 
     the next grade;
       (C) create smaller schools to enable students to have 
     closer interaction with teachers;
       (D) require at least 180 days per year of instruction in 
     core curriculum subjects;
       (E) recruit new teachers who are adequately trained and 
     credentialed in the subject or subjects they teach and 
     encourage excellent, experienced teachers to remain in the 
     classroom by providing adequate salaries; require all 
     teachers to be credentialed and limit emergency or temporary 
     teaching credentials to a limited period of time; hold 
     teachers and principals accountable to high educational 
     standards; and
       (F) require all regular students to pass an examination in 
     basic core curriculum subjects in order to receive a high 
     school diploma; and
       (2) to reaffirm the importance of public schooling and 
     commit to guaranteeing excellence and accountability in the 
     public schools of this nation.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2230

  (Purpose: To ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution 
                        protects public health)

       On page 28, strike line 2 through line 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be adjusted and allocations may be adjusted 
     for legislation that reserves the Federal share of receipts 
     from tobacco legislation for--
       (1) (A) public health efforts to reduce the use of tobacco 
     products by children, including youth tobacco control 
     education and prevention programs, counter-advertising, 
     research, and smoking cessation;
       (B) transition assistance programs for tobacco farmers;
       (C) increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration 
     to protect children from the hazards of tobacco products;
       (D) improving the availability, affordability and quality 
     of child care;
       (E) increased funding for education;
       (F) increased funding for health research;
       (G) reimbursements to States for tobacco-related health 
     costs; or,
       (H) expanding children's health insurance coverage; and,
       ``(2) savings for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund or the Social Security Federal Old-Age, Survivors and 
     Disability Insurance Trust Funds.
       (b) Revised Aggregates and 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 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) 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 the Federal share of receipts resulting from 
     tobacco legislation and used to fund subsection (a)(2) shall 
     not be taken into account.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2231

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting additional 
      funding for fiscal year 1999 for medical care for veterans)

       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 functional totals 
     underlying this resolution assume that $159,116,000 in 
     additional amounts above the President's budget levels will 
     be made available for veterans health care for fiscal year 
     1999.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2232

  (Purpose: To ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution 
                       protects tobacco farmers)

       On page 28, strike lines 1 through 17, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 202. TOBACCO RESERVE FUND.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be increased and allocations may be increased 
     for legislation which reserves the Federal share of receipts 
     from tobacco legislation only for the Medical Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund or for providing transition assistance 
     to tobacco farmers.
       (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 with the 
     Senate appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and increased 
     aggregates to carry out this section. These aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as the allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.

[[Page S2931]]

       (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, except the portion dedicated to 
     providing transition assistance to tobacco farmers.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2233

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SENATE'S SUPPORT FOR 
                   FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:--
       (1) Our Federal, State and local law enforcement officers 
     provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
     freedom and safety, and with the support of federal 
     assistance, state and local law enforcement officers have 
     succeeded in reducing the national scourge of violent crime, 
     illustrated by a murder rate in 1996 which is projected to be 
     the lowest since 1971 and a violent crime total in 1990 which 
     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) Recent gains by Federal, State and local law 
     enforcement in the fight against violent crime and violence 
     against women are fragile, and continued financial commitment 
     from the Federal Government for funding and financial 
     assistance is required to sustain and build upon these gains; 
     and
       (4) The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund as adopted by 
     the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     funds the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and the 
     Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 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 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, shall be maintained and funding for the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund shall continue to at least 
     fiscal year 2003.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2234

  (Purpose: To expand the uses of the tobacco reserve fund to include 
   funding for health research, including the National Institutes of 
                                Health)

       On page 28, beginning on line 5, after ``Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund,'' strike all through the end of line 
     17, and insert the following:
       ``, or for health research, including funding for the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH).
       ``(b) Revised Budgetary Levels and Limits.--Upon the 
     consideration of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may 
     adjust all appropriate budgetary levels and limits, including 
     aggregates and allocations, to carry out this section. These 
     budgetary levels and limits shall be considered for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the 
     budgetary levels and limits 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, except the portion dedicated to 
     health research, including the National Institutes of 
     Health.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2235

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the analysis of 
       civilian science and technology expenditures in the budget

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ANALYSIS OF CIVILIAN 
     SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET.
       ``(a) findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       ``(1) The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of 
     Engineering, and Institute of Medicine have recommended, in 
     their 1995 report, entitled `Allocating Federal Funds for 
     Science and Technology,' that the Federal science and 
     technology budget `be presented as a comprehensive whole in 
     the President's budget and similarly considered as a whole at 
     the beginning of the congressional budget process before the 
     total federal budget is disaggregated and sent to the 
     appropriations committees and subcommittees.'
       ``(2) Civilian federal agencies are supporting more than 
     $35 billion of research and development in fiscal year 1998, 
     but it is difficult for the Congress and the public to track 
     or understand this support because it is dispersed among 12 
     different budget functions.
       ``(3) A meaningful examination of the overall Federal 
     budget for science and technology, consistent with the 
     recommendation of the National Academies, as well as an 
     examination of science and technology budgets in individual 
     civilian agencies, would be facilitated if the President's 
     budget request clearly displayed the amounts requested for 
     science and technology programs across all civilian agencies 
     and classified these amounts in Budget Function 250.
       ``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Congressional budget for the United States for 
     fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 should 
     consolidate the spending for all federal civilian science and 
     technology programs in Budget Function 250, and that the 
     President should accordingly transmit to the Congress a 
     budget request for fiscal year 2000 that classifies these 
     programs, across all federal civilian departments and 
     agencies, in Budget Function 250.''.


                           amendment no. 2236

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding long-term 
             civilian science and technology budget trends)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CIVILIAN SCIENCE AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

       ``It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the function totals in this budget resolution 
     assume that expenditures for civilian science and technology 
     programs in the Federal budget will double over the period 
     from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2008.''.


                           amendment no. 2237

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on long-term Federal 
            budgeting and the repayment of the public debt)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING AND 
                   REPAYMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) today, there are 34,000,000 Americans over the age of 
     65, and by the year 2030, that number will grow to nearly 
     70,000,000;
       (2) in 1963, mandatory spending represented 30 percent of 
     the Federal budget, while discretionary spending made up 70 
     percent, and by 1998, those proportions have almost 
     completely reversed, in that mandatory spending now accounts 
     for 68 percent of the Federal budget, while discretionary 
     spending represents 32 percent;
       (3) according to the 1997 Annual Report of the Board of 
     Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and 
     Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund--
       (A) the difference between the income and benefits for the 
     OASDI program is a deficit of 2.23 percent of taxable 
     payroll;
       (B) the assets in the Trust Fund are expected to be 
     depleted under present law in the year 2029;
       (C) by the time the assets in the Trust Fund are depleted, 
     annual tax revenues will be sufficient to cover only three-
     fourths of the annual expenditures;
       (D) intermediate estimates are that OASDI will absorb 
     nearly 17.5 percent of national payroll by the year 2030; and
       (E) the cost of the OASDI program is estimated to rise from 
     its current level of 4.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product to 
     6.7 percent by the end of the 75-year projection period;
       (4) according to reports by the Congressional Budget 
     Office, the Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1999-
     2008 (January 1998) and Reducing the Deficit: Spending and 
     Revenue Options (March 1997)--
       (A) the Medicare Part A Trust Fund will be exhausted early 
     in fiscal year 2010;
       (B) enrollment in Medicare will increase dramatically as 
     the baby boomers reach age 65;
       (C) between the years 2010 and 2030, enrollment in Medicare 
     is projected to grow by 2.4 percent per year, up from the 1.4 
     percent average annual growth projected through 2007;
       (D) by the year 2030, Medicare enrollment will have 
     doubled, to 75,000,000 people; and
       (E) the increase in Medicare enrollment caused by the aging 
     of the population will be accompanied by a tapering of the 
     growth rate of the working age population, and the number of 
     workers will drop from 3.8 for every Medicare beneficiary in 
     1997 to 2.02 per beneficiary by 2030;
       (5) the demographic shift that is currently taking place, 
     and will continue for the next 30 years, will put a 
     tremendous burden on workers as the cost of programs such as 
     Social Security and Medicare are borne by proportionately 
     fewer workers;
       (6) the current Budget Resolution, which projects revenues 
     and spending only for the next 10 years, does not give 
     Congress a clear picture of the budget problems that confront 
     the United States shortly after the turn of the century;
       (7) currently, 14 percent of the Federal budget is spent on 
     interest payments on the national debt; and
       (8) if projected surpluses are used entirely for debt 
     reduction and current tax and spending policies remain 
     unchanged, the share of Federal income needed to pay interest 
     would drop below 5 percent within 12 years, and in 1997, that 
     10 percentage-point reduction would have amounted to 
     $158,000,000,000 available for other priorities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals in this concurrent resolution 
     assume that future budget resolutions and future budgets 
     submitted by the President should include--

[[Page S2932]]

       (1) an analysis for the period of 30 fiscal years beginning 
     with such fiscal year, of the estimated levels of total 
     budget outlays and total new budget authority, the estimated 
     revenues to be received, the estimated surplus or deficit, if 
     any, for each major Federal entitlement program for each 
     fiscal year in such period; and
       (2) a specific accounting of payments, if any, made to 
     reduce the public debt, or unfunded liabilities associated 
     with each major Federal entitlement program.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2238

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding tax legislation 
            that increases the complexity of any tax return)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING LEGISLATION THAT 
                   INCREASES COMPLEXITY OF TAX RETURNS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) As part of the consideration by the Senate of tax cuts 
     for the families of America, the Senate should also examine 
     the condition of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) According to the Congressional Research Service, the 
     Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 added 1,000,000 words and 
     315 pages to the Internal Revenue Code.
       (3) The Internal Revenue Code continues to grow more 
     complex and difficult for the average taxpayer to understand, 
     and the average tax return has become more time-consuming to 
     prepare.
       (4) The average taxpayer will spend 9 hours and 54 minutes 
     preparing Form 1040 for the 1997 tax year.
       (5) The average taxpayer spend between 21 and 28 hours each 
     year on tax matters.
       (6) In 1995, 58,965,000 of the 118,218,327 tax returns that 
     were filed, almost 50 percent, were filed by taxpayers who 
     utilized the help of paid tax preparers.
       (7) The average taxpayer spends $72 each year for tax 
     preparation.
       (8) The total burden on all taxpayers of maintaining 
     records, and preparing and filing tax returns is estimated to 
     be in excess of 1,600,000 hours per year.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that the 
     Senate should give priority to tax proposals that simplify 
     the tax code and reject proposals that add greater complexity 
     in the tax code and increase compliance costs for the 
     taxpayer.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2239

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the President should 
          submit a generational study with the budget request)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels in 
     this resolution assume that the President should submit, as 
     part of the budget request of the President that is submitted 
     to Congress, a study of the impact of the provisions of the 
     budget on each generation of Americans and its long-term 
     effects on each generation.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2240

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the value of the 
              social security system for future retirees)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . 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) 78 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 a 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 budgetary levels in 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.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2241

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the right to 
           affordable, high-quality health care for seniors)

       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.
       (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, that they have the right to choose 
     their physicians, and that no change should be made to the 
     medicare program that could--
       (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.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2242

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on ensuring Social 
                           Security solvency)

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

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

       (a) FINDINGS.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Social Security system provides benefits to 
     44,000,000 Americans, including 27,300,000 retirees, over 
     4,500,000 people with disabilities, 3,800,000 surviving 
     children, and 8,400,000 surviving adults, and is essential to 
     the dignity and security of the Nation's elderly and 
     disabled;
       (2) the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust funds have reported 
     to Congress that the ``total income'' of the Social Security 
     system ``is estimated to fall short of expenditures beginning 
     in 2019 and in each year therafter. . .until [trust fund] 
     assets are exhausted in 2029'';
       (3) intergenerational fairness, honest accounting 
     principles, prudent budgeting, and sound economic policy all 
     require saving Social Security first, in order that the 
     Nation may better afford the retirement of the baby boom 
     generation beginning in 2010;
       (4) in reforming Social Security in 1983, Congress intended 
     that near-term Social Security trust fund surpluses be used 
     to prefund the retirement of the baby boom generation;
       (5) in his State of the Union message to the joint session 
     of Congress 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 any 
     surplus, until we have taken all the necessary measures to 
     strengthen the Social Security system for the twenty-first 
     century'';
       (6) the nation will engage in a national dialogue during 
     1998 on the future of Social Security, which will include 4 
     regional conferences organized by the Concord Coalition and 
     the American Association of Retired Persons, a White House 
     summit on private retirement savings in July, and a White 
     House Conference on Social Security in December; and
       (7) saving Social Security first would work to expand 
     national savings, reduce interest rates, enhance private 
     investment, increase labor productivity, and boost economic 
     growth.
       (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the levels in this resolution assume that:
       (1) Congress should save Social Security first by reserving 
     any unified budget surplus until legislation is enacted to 
     make Social Security actuarially sound and capable of paying 
     future retirees the benefits to which they are entitled;
       (2) enactment of such legislation will require a broad base 
     of public support that should be developed during 1998 
     through a national bipartisan discussion of alternative 
     approaches to ensuring Social Security solvency; and

[[Page S2933]]

       (3) since that discussion has just begun, Congress should 
     not act now to foreclose policy options that could help 
     ensure Social Security solvency.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2243

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Congress and the 
   Administration should fulfill the intent of the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act of 1997 and appropriate sufficient funds in each of 
    the next five years to enable Amtrak to implement its Strategic 
   Business Plan, while preserving the integrity of the $2.2 billion 
  provided under the Taxpayer Relief Act for the statutory purpose of 
                          capital investment)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  .> SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AMTRAK FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) on November 13, 1997 the Senate unanimously passed the 
     Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, P.L. 105-134, 
     authorizing appropriations of $1,058,000,000 for FY99; 
     $1,023,000,000 for FY00, $989,000,000 for FY01; and 
     $955,000,000 for FY02, totaling $4.025 billion FY99-02;
       (2) in P.L. 105-134 the Congress declared that ``intercity 
     rail passenger service is an essential component of a 
     national intermodal passenger transportation system'';
       (3) section 201 of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act 
     of 1997 has now statutorily formalized prior Congressional 
     directives to Amtrak to reach operating self-sufficiency by 
     fiscal year 2002;
       (4) the Congress and the President, through enactment of 
     this legislation, have effectively agreed that Congress will 
     provide adequate funding to permit Amtrak to achieve the goal 
     of operating self-sufficiency;
       (5) capital investment is critical to reducing operating 
     costs and increasing the quality of Amtrak service;
       (6) capital investment is essential to improving Amtrak's 
     long-term financial health;
       (7) the $2.2 billion provided to Amtrak through the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act is for the sole purpose of capital 
     expenditures and other qualified expenses and is intended to 
     supplement, no supplant, annual appropriations.
       (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 Congress and the Administration 
     will fulfill the intent of the Amtrak Reform and 
     Accountability Act of 1997 and appropriate sufficient funds 
     in each of the next five fiscal years for Amtrak to implement 
     its FY 1998-FY 2003 Strategic Business Plan, while preserving 
     the integrity of the $2.2 billion provided under the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act for the statutory purpose of capital investment.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2244

  The text of Amendment No. 2244 is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2245

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on battlefield 
                             preservation)

       On page 53, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 3  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the budget levels in 
     this resolution assume that--
       (1) preserving Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil 
     War battlefields is an integral part of preserving our 
     Nation's history;
       (2) the Secretary of the Interior should give special 
     priority to the preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 
     1812 battlefields, by making funds available for the conduct 
     of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Historic 
     Preservation Study as authorized by section 603 of Public Law 
     104-333 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5 note); and
       (3) the Secretary of the Interior should give special 
     priority to the preservation of Revolutionary War, War of 
     1812, and Civil War battlefields by allocating funds in the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund for the purchase of 
     battlefield sites the integrity of which is threatened by 
     urban or suburban development.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2246

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the Land and Water 
                           Conservation Fund)

       On page 53, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 3  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE LAND AND WATER 
                   CONSERVATION FUND.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the budget levels in 
     this resolution assume that programs funded from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund should be funded in the full amount 
     authorized by law.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2247

  (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that the Committee on 
  Finance should consider legislation to preserve Social Security and 
  ensure its long-run solvency; and that no policy options, affecting 
either outlays, revenues, or the manner of investment of funds, should 
                    be excluded from consideration)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Public confidence in the long-term viability of the 
     Social Security System is low, with opinion polls repeatedly 
     indicating that a majority of non-retired young adults do not 
     believe they will receive Social Security when they retire;
       (2) In the year 2012, outlays for Old Age Survivors and 
     Disability Insurance will exceed its tax revenues;
       (3) Early action by the Congress is needed in order to 
     strengthen public confidence in Social Security and address 
     the long-run actuarial deficit of the program;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that:
       (1) the Committee on Finance should at the earliest 
     possible date hold hearings on and begin consideration of 
     legislation to preserve the Social Security program and 
     ensure its long-run solvency; and that no policy options 
     affecting either revenues, outlays or the manner of 
     investment of funds, should be excluded from consideration.


             Amendments Nos. 2203, 2212, and 2193, en bloc

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have three more amendments that are 
currently at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be called 
up and then put aside: Senator Wyden's amendment No. 2203, Senator 
Torricelli's amendment No. 2212, and Senator Hollings' amendment No. 
2193.
  Again, I ask unanimous consent that they be brought up and then put 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that we forgo the reading of 
the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments numbered 2203, 2212, and 2193, en bloc, are as 
follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2203

   (Purpose: To direct the Congressional Budget Office to calculate 
   inflation swings or shortfalls in each function of the Government)

       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.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2212

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on battlefield 
                             preservation)

       On page 53, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the budget levels in 
     this resolution assume that--
       (1) preserving Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil 
     War battlefields is an integral part of preserving our 
     Nation's history;
       (2) the Secretary of the Interior should give special 
     priority to the preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 
     1812 battlefields, by making funds available for the conduct 
     of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Historic 
     Preservation Study as authorized by section 603 of Public Law 
     104-333 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5 note); and
       (3) the Secretary of the Interior should give special 
     priority to the preservation of Revolutionary War, War of 
     1812, and Civil War battlefields by allocating funds in the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund for the purchase of 
     battlefield sites the integrity of which is threatened by 
     urban or suburban development.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2193

(Purpose: To provide a supermajority point of order against any change 
              in the off-budget status of Social Security)

       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.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? In 
the

[[Page S2934]]

calling off of the names of the amendment, I have an amendment there, 
and I did not hear my name called. Is it at the desk?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for a question 
on one of the amendments, I did not hear my name mentioned. I have two 
amendments. I am hopeful that you received both amendments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In response to the Senator, both amendments were 
received that she offered and were sent to the desk.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


             Amendments Nos. 2266, 2222, and 2208, en bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request, it is now my privilege to introduce the amendments that we 
have on this side.
  Let me start it this way. There is pending at the desk an amendment 
numbered 2266, Senator Grams numbered 2222, and an amendment numbered 
2208 by Senator Hutchison.
  I would like to call them up and set them aside. I ask unanimous 
consent to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments numbered 2266, 2222, and 2208, en bloc, are as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 2266

      (Purpose: To extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Discretionary Limits.--In the Senate, in this section 
     and for the purposes of allocations made for the 
     discretionary category pursuant to section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional budget Act of 1974, the term `discretionary 
     spending limit' means--
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 1999--
       ``(A) for the defense category: $271,570,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $266,635,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the nondefense category: $255,450,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $289,547,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(C) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $5,800,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,953,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2000--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $532,693,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $558,711,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $4,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,554,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $537,632,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $558,415,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $4,400,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,981,000,000 in 
     outlays; and
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $546,574,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $556,269,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $4,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,530,000,000 in 
     outlays;

     ``as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b) of 
     section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985; and section 314 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act.
       ``(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, 
     or 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 
     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 302(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974) to be exceeded.
       ``(2) Exception.--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.
       ``(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.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2222

(Purpose: To use any budget surplus to reduce payroll tax and establish 
        personal retirement accounts for hard-working Americans)

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

     SEC.  . USE OF BUDGET SURPLUS TO REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals included in the resolution 
     assume--
       (a) the Congress and the President should use any budget 
     surplus to reduce the Social Security payroll tax and to 
     establish personal retirement accounts with the tax reduction 
     for hard-working Americans.
       (b) the Congress and the President should not use the 
     Social Security surplus to finance general government 
     programs and other spending, should begin to build real 
     assets for the trust funds, and work to reform the Social 
     Security system.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2208

 (Purpose: to express the sense of the Senate that any budget surplus 
  should be dedicated to debt reduction or direct tax relief for hard-
                       working American families)

       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.


               Amendments Nos. 2248 through 2272 en bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk the following 
amendments: Senator Bond amendment, Senator Abraham, Senator Thurmond, 
Senator Sessions, Senator Domenici in behalf of Senator Faircloth, 
Senator Specter, a second amendment in behalf of Senator Specter, and a 
third amendment in behalf of Senator Specter, Senator Nickles, Senator 
Frist, Senator McConnell, Senator Sessions, Senators Craig and 
Domenici, Senators Coverdell and Shelby, Senator Santorum, second 
Santorum amendment, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Gramm, Senator 
Coverdell, second Senator Coverdell, a third, fourth, fifth, and 
Senator Mack.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:.

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Donenici) proposes 
     amendments numbered 2248 through 2272, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2248

       At the appropriate place insert:
       It is the Sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that included in the funding for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is $2 million 
     for the establishment of INS circuit rides in the former 
     Soviet Union for the purpose of processing refugees and 
     conducting medical examinations of refugees who will enter 
     the United States under the Refugee Act of 1980.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2249

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Budget Act should 
be amended to facilitate the use of future unified budget surpluses to 
strengthen and reform Social Security, reform the tax code, and reduce 
                the tax burden on middle-class families)

       In the pending resolution, insert the following section at 
     the appropriate place:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ACT REFORMS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that The Budget Control Act of 1974 and the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     should be amended to facilitate the use of future unified 
     budget surpluses to strengthen and reform Social Security, 
     reform the tax code, and reduce the tax burden on middle-
     class families, including:
       (1) Eliminating Paygo rules with regard to revenue 
     reductions while the unified budget is in surplus; and
       (2) Striking points of order against reducing the Social 
     Security payroll tax.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2250

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding long-term care 
                                 needs)

       On page 43, strike line 4 through line 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Our Nation is not financially prepared to meet the 
     long-term care needs of its rapidly aging population and that 
     long-term care needs threaten the financial security of 
     American families; and
       (2) Many people are unaware that most long-term care costs 
     are not covered by

[[Page S2935]]

     Medicare and that Medicaid covers long-term care only after 
     the person's assets have been exhausted.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) this concurrent resolution on the budget assumes that 
     the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare 
     should, as part of its deliberations, describe long-term care 
     needs and make all appropriate recommendations including 
     private sector options that reflect the need for a continuum 
     of care that spans from acute to long-term care. This is not 
     a specific recommendation that any new program be added to 
     Medicare;
       (2) the Federal Government should take all appropriate 
     steps to inform the public about the financial risks by long-
     term care costs and about the need for families to plan for 
     their long-term care needs;
       (3) the Federal Government should take all appropriate 
     steps to inform the public that Medicare does not cover most 
     long-term care costs and that Medicaid covers long-term care 
     costs only when the beneficiary has exhausted his or her 
     assets;
       (4) the appropriate committees of the Senate, together with 
     the Department of Health and Human Services and other 
     appropriate Executive Branch agencies, should develop 
     specific ideas for encouraging Americans to plan for their 
     own long-term care needs; and
       (5) the upcoming National Summit on Retirement Income 
     Savings should ensure that planning for long-term care is an 
     integral part of any discussion of retirement security.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2251

 Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Congress should 
           begin to phase out the marriage penalty this year

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
       (1) Marriage is the foundation of the American society and 
     the key institution preserving our values;
       (2) The tax code should not penalize those who choose to 
     marry;
       (3) However, the Congressional Budget Office found that 42 
     percent of married couples face a marriage penalty under the 
     current tax system;
       (4) The Congressional Budget Office found that the average 
     penalty amounts to $1380 a year;
       (5) This penalty is one of the factors behind the decline 
     of marriage.
       (6) In 1970, just 0.5 percent of the couples in the United 
     States were unmarried. By 1996, this percentage had risen to 
     7.2 percent.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions in this budget resolution assume that the 
     Congress shall begin to phase out the marriage penalty this 
     year.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2252

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the display of 
 the Ten Commandments by a judge on the circuit court of the State of 
                                Alabama)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DISPLAY OF TEN 
                   COMMANDMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The senate finds that--
       (1) the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on 
     the development of the fundamental legal principles of 
     Western Civilization; and
       (2) the Ten Commandments set forth a code of moral conduct, 
     observance of which is acknowledged to promote respect for 
     our system of laws and the good of society.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals in this concurrent resolution on 
     the budget assume that--
       (1) the Ten Commandments are a declaration of fundamental 
     principles that are the cornerstones of a fair and just 
     society; and
       (2) the public display, including display in the Supreme 
     Court, the Capitol building, the White House, and other 
     government offices and courthouses across the nation, of the 
     Ten Commandments should be permitted.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2253

(Purpose: 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--)

       In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OUTLAY ESTIMATES OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a new era for 
     federal spending and forced the Department of Defense to plan 
     on limited spending over the five year period from fiscal 
     year 1998 through 2002.
       (2) The agreements forged under the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997 specifically defined the available amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays, requiring the Department of Defense to 
     properly plan its future activities in the new, constrained 
     budget environment.
       (3) The Department of Defense worked with the Office of 
     Management and Budget to develop a fiscal year 1999 budget 
     which complies with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
       (4) Based on Department of Defense program plans and policy 
     changes, the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Department of Defense made detailed estimates of fiscal year 
     1999 Department of Defense outlay rates to ensure that the 
     budget submitted would comply with the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997.
       (5) The Congressional Budget Office outlay estimate of the 
     fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense budget request exceeds 
     both the outlay limit imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997 and the Office of Management and Budget's outlay 
     estimate, a disagreement which would force a total 
     restructuring of the Department of Defense's fiscal year 1999 
     budget.
       (6) The restructuring imposed on the Department of Defense 
     would have a devastating impact on readiness, troop morale, 
     military quality of life, and ongoing procurement and 
     development programs.
       (7) The restructuring of the budget would be driven solely 
     by differing statistical estimates made by capable parties.
       (8) In a letter dated March 31, 1998, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget identified multiple 
     differences between the Office of Management and Budget's 
     estimated outlay rates and the Congressional Budget Office's 
     estimated outlay rates.
       (9) New information on Department of Defense policy changes 
     and program execution plans now permit the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office to 
     reevaluate their initial projections of fiscal year 1999 
     outlay rates.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that not later than April 22, 1998, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Defense, 
     and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     complete discussions and develop a common estimate of the 
     projected fiscal year 1999 outlay rates for Department of 
     Defense accounts.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2254

        (Purpose: To modify the use of the tobacco reserve fund)

       On page 28, strike lines 1 through 17, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 202. TOBACCO RESERVE FUND.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be increased and allocations may be increased 
     for legislation that reserves the Federal share of receipts 
     from tobacco legislation for--
       (1) tobacco-related programs and activities, including 
     extending the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund; and
       (2) not less than $2,000,000,000 for biomedical research in 
     fiscal year 1999 and other public health research.
       (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 with the 
     Senate appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and increased 
     aggregates to carry out this section. These aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as the allocations and 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 used 
     to reimburse the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund shall 
     not be taken into account.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2255

   (Purpose: To modify the tobacco reserve fund to allow up to $10.5 
     billion to be spent on post-service smoking related Veterans 
                         compensation benefits)

       On page 28, line 17, after the material that appears on 
     line 17, insert the following:
       ``(d) Veterans.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     upon the consideration of legislation pursuant to section 
     (a), the Chairman of the Budget Committee may increase the 
     appropriate budget authority and outlay aggregates and 
     allocations by the amount such legislation increases spending 
     for post-service smoking related Veterans compensation 
     benefits.
       ``(2) The adjustments made pursuant to this subsection 
     shall not exceed $500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $10,500,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2256

       On page 28, line 17, after the material that appears on 
     line 17, insert the following:
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     $500,000,000 in receipts from tobacco legislation shall be 
     reserved for purposes of section 204(a) in function 920, 
     Allowances, as additional new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 1999 and additional outlays for fiscal year 1999; and 
     $10,500,000,000 in receipts from tobacco legislation shall be 
     reserved for purposes of section 204(a) in function 920, 
     Allowances, as additional new budget authority for fiscal 
     years 1999-2003, and additional outlays for fiscal years 
     1999-2003.
       On page 31, line 24, strike subsection (6) in its entirety.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2257

    (Purpose: Prohibiting precatory language on budget resolutions)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S2936]]

     ``SEC.  . PROHIBITION ON PRECATORY AMENDMENTS.

       In setting forth the budget authority and outlay amounts in 
     this resolution, the Senate assumes that the Senate of the 
     United States instructs the Senate Parliamentarian to 
     interpret Section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 as amended by inserting after the second sentence the 
     following: ``For purposes of the preceding sentence an 
     amendment is not germane if it states precatory language.''; 
     and that precatory includes, in the context of Senate 
     consideration of any budget resolution, amendments which 
     reference the budget resolution's assumptions regarding 
     budgetary levels; federal revenues; Federal Insurance 
     Contributions Act revenues for hospital insurance; budget 
     authority; budget outlays; deficits; public debt; social 
     security revenues, and outlays; loan obligations; loan 
     guarantees; allowances; undistributed, and distributed, 
     offsetting receipts; reconciliation; reserve funds; 
     allocations; revenue, spending, and revised aggregates; 
     offsets; appropriations; mandatory spending; entitlements; 
     and any other term or definition employed, under the Budget 
     Act, in a budget resolution.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2258

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding funding for the 
                      Airport Improvement Program)

       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.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2259

   (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the award of 
attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions of $285,864.78 ordered by United 
 States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 18, 1997, should 
                    not be paid with taxpayer funds)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.__. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PAYMENT OF COSTS OF 
                   LITIGATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the President's Task Force on National Health Care 
     Reform, convened by President Clinton in 1993, was charged 
     with calling together officials of the Federal Government and 
     others to debate critical health issues of concern to the 
     American public;
       (2) the Task Force convened behind closed doors and 
     inappropriately included individuals who were not employees 
     of the Federal Government;
       (3) United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled in 
     Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., et al. 
     versus Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al., that representatives 
     of the administration engaged in ``dishonest'' and 
     ``reprehensible'' conduct in characterizing the membership of 
     the Task Force;
       (4) Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the basis of such conduct 
     ruled against the defendants and ordered them to pay 
     $285,864.78 in attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions for the 
     plaintiffs; and
       (5) American taxpayers should not be held responsible for 
     the inappropriate and dishonest conduct of Federal Government 
     officials and lawyers involved with the Task Force.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the functional totals in this concurrent resolution on 
     the budget assume that the award of $285,864.78 in attorneys' 
     fees, costs, and sanctions that Judge Royce C. Lamberth 
     ordered the defendants to pay in Association of American 
     Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., et al. versus Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton, et al., should not be paid with taxpayer funds.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2260

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding limitations on 
          attorneys' fees under any global tobacco settlement)

       At the end of title III add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING LIMITATIONS ON 
                   ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER ANY NATIONAL TOBACCO 
                   SETTLEMENT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that legislation providing for a national tobacco settlement 
     should provide the following:
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State 
     that receives funds under such legislation may not utilize 
     those funds to pay attorneys' fees, on behalf of attorneys 
     for the State in connection with an action maintained by a 
     State against one or more tobacco companies to recover 
     tobacco-related medicaid expenditures, or for other causes of 
     action, in excess of the reasonable and customary fee for 
     similarly skilled legal services for the specific locale. In 
     no event should the rate exceed $500 per hour.
       (2) The limitation described in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to any amounts provided for the attorneys' reasonable 
     and customary expenses.
       (3) No award of attorneys' fees shall be made under any 
     national tobacco settlement until the attorneys involved 
     have--
       (A) provided State officials with a detailed time 
     accounting with respect to the work performed in relation to 
     any legal action which is the subject of the settlement or 
     with regard to the settlement itself; and
       (B) made public disclosure of the time accounting under 
     subparagraph (A) and any fee agreements entered into, or fee 
     arrangements made, with respect to any legal action that is 
     the subject of the settlement.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2261

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the eligibility of 
 individuals suffering from post-service smoking-related illnesses for 
                            VA compensation)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON VA COMPENSATION AND POST-
                   SERVICE SMOKING-RELATED ILLNESSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the President has twice included in his budgets not 
     permitting the program expansion that the Veterans 
     Administration (referred to as the ``VA'') is proposing to 
     allow post-service smoking-related illness to be eligible for 
     VA compensation;
       (2) Congress has never acted on this program expansion;
       (3) the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of 
     Management and Budget have concluded that this change in VA 
     policy would result in at least $10,000,000,000 in additional 
     costs to the VA;
       (4) these increased number of claims and the resulting 
     costs may present undue delay and hardship on veterans 
     seeking claim review; and
       (5) the programs expansion apparently runs counter to all 
     existing VA policy, including a statement by former Secretary 
     Brown that ``It is inappropriate to compensate for death or 
     disability resulting from veterans' personal choice to engage 
     in conduct damaging to their health.''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the function totals and assumptions underlying this 
     resolution assume the following:
       (1) The support of the President's proposal to not allow 
     post-service smoking related illnesses to be eligible for VA 
     compensation until the study annd report required by 
     paragraph (2) are completed.
       (2) The Veterans Administration and the Office of 
     Management and Budget are jointly required to--
       (A) jointly study (referred to in this section as the 
     ``study'') the VA General Counsel's determination (O.G.C. 2-
     93) and the resulting actions to change the compensation 
     rules to include disability and death benefits for conditions 
     related to the use of tobacco products during service; and
       (B) deliver an opinion as to whether illnesses resulting 
     from post-service smoking should be considered as a 
     compensable disability.
       (3) The study should include--
       (A) the estimated numbers of those filing such claims, the 
     cost resulting from such benefits, the time necessary to 
     review such claims, and how such a number of claims will 
     affect the VA's ability to review its current claim load;
       (B) an examination of how the proposed change corresponds 
     to prior VA policy relating to post-service actions taken by 
     an individual; and
       (C) what Federal benefits, both VA and non-VA, former 
     service members having smoking-related illnesses are eligible 
     to receive.
       (4) The study shall be completed no later than July 1, 
     1999.
       (5) The Veterans Administration shall report its finding to 
     the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the 
     chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate Budget 
     and Veterans' Affairs Committees.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2262

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the procurement of 
   Blackhawk utility helicopters for Colombia to reduce illicit drug 
                              trafficking)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COLOMBIAN DRUG WAR 
                   HELICOPTERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Colombia is the leading illicit drug producing country 
     in the Western Hemisphere;
       (2) 80 percent of the world's cocaine originates in 
     Colombia;
       (3) based on the most recent data of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration (DEA), more than 60 percent of the heroin 
     seized in the United States originates in Colombia;
       (4) in the last 10 years more than 4,000 officers of the 
     Colombian National Police have died fighting the scourge of 
     drugs;
       (5) in one recent year alone, according to data of the 
     United States Government, the United States had 141,000 new 
     heroin users and the United States faces historic levels of 
     heroin use among teenagers between the ages of 12 and 17;
       (6) once Colombian heroin is in the stream of commerce it 
     is nearly impossible to interdict because it is concealed and 
     trafficked in very small quantities;
       (7) the best and most cost efficient method of preventing 
     Colombian heroin from entering the United States is to 
     destroy the opium poppies in the high Andes mountains where 
     Colombian heroin is produced;
       (8) the elite anti-narcotics unit of the Colombian National 
     Police has the responsibility to eradicate both coca and 
     opium in Colombia, including the reduction and elimination of 
     cocaine and heroin production, and

[[Page S2937]]

     they have done a remarkably effective job with the limited 
     and outdated equipment at their disposal;
       (9) more than 40 percent of the anti-narcotics operations 
     of the Colombian National Police involve hostile ground fire 
     from narco-terrorists and 90 percent of such operations 
     involve the use of helicopters;
       (10) the need for better high performance helicopters by 
     the Colombian National Police, especially for use in the high 
     Andes mountains, is essential for more effective eradication 
     of opium in Colombia;
       (11) on December 23, 1997, one of the antiquated Vietnam-
     era UH-1H Huey helicopters used by the Colombian National 
     Police in an opium eradication mission crashed in the high 
     Andes mountains due to high winds and because it was flying 
     above the safety level recommended by the original 
     manufacturer;
       (12) in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-
     118), amounts were appropriated for the procurement by the 
     United States for the Colombian National Police of three UH-
     60L Blackhawk utility helicopters that can operate safely and 
     more effectively at the high altitudes of the Andes mountains 
     where Colombian opium grows at altitudes as high as 12,000 
     feet;
       (13) the Blackhawk helicopter is a high performance utility 
     helicopter, with greater lift capacity, that can perform at 
     the high altitudes of the Andes mountains, as well as survive 
     crashes and sustain ground fire, much better than any other 
     utility helicopter now available to the Colombian National 
     Police in the war on drugs;
       (14) because the Vietnam-era Huey helicopters that the 
     United States has provided the Colombian National Police are 
     outdated and have been developing numerous stress cracks, a 
     sufficient number should be upgraded to Huey II's and the 
     remainder should be phased-out as soon as possible;
       (15) these Huey helicopters are much older than most of the 
     pilots who fly them, do not have the range due to limited 
     fuel capacity to reach many of the expanding locations of the 
     coca fields or cocaine labs in southern Colombia, nor do they 
     have the lift capacity to carry enough armed officers to 
     reach and secure the opium fields in the high Andes mountains 
     prior to eradication;
       (16) the elite anti-narcotics unit of the Colombian 
     National Police has a stellar record in respecting for human 
     rights and has received the commendation of a leading 
     international human rights group in their operations to 
     reduce and eradicate illicit drugs in Colombia;
       (17) the narco-terrorists of Colombia have announced that 
     they will now target United States citizens, particularly 
     those United States citizens working with their Colombian 
     counterparts in the fight against illicit drugs in Colombia;
       (18) a leading commander of the Revolutionary Armed Forces 
     of Colombia (``FARC'') announced recently that the objective 
     of these narco-terrorists, in light of recent successes, will 
     be ``to defeat the Americans'';
       (19) United States Government personnel in Colombia who fly 
     in these helicopters accompanying the Colombian National 
     Police on missions are now at even greater risk from these 
     narco-terrorists and their drug trafficking allies;
       (20) in the last six months four anti-narcotics helicopters 
     of the Colombian National Police have been downed in 
     operations;
       (21) Congress intends to provide the necessary support and 
     assistance to wage an effective war on illicit drugs in 
     Colombia and provide the equipment and assistance needed to 
     protect all of the men and women of the Colombian National 
     Police as well as those Americans who work side by side with 
     the Colombian National Police in this common struggle against 
     illicit drugs;
       (22) the new Government of Bolivia has made a commitment to 
     eradicate coca and cocaine production in that country within 
     5 years;
       (23) the United States should support any country that is 
     interested in removing the scourge of drugs from its 
     citizens; and
       (24) Bolivia has succeeded, in large measure due to United 
     States assistance, in reducing acreage used to produce coca, 
     which is the basis for cocaine production.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this resolution assume 
     that--
       (1) the President should, with funds made available under 
     Public Law 105-118, expeditiously procure and provide to the 
     Colombian National Police three UH-60L Blackhawk utility 
     helicopters solely for the purpose of assisting the Colombian 
     National Police to perform their responsibilities to reduce 
     and eliminate the production of illicit drugs in Colombia and 
     the trafficking of such illicit drugs, including the 
     trafficking of drugs such as heroin and cocaine to the United 
     States;
       (2) if the President determines that the procurement and 
     transfer to the Colombian National Police of three UH-60L 
     Blackhawk utility helicopters is not an adequate number of 
     such helicopters to maintain operational feasibility and 
     effectiveness of the Colombian National Police, then the 
     President should promptly inform Congress as to the 
     appropriate number of additional UH-60L Blackhawk utility 
     helicopters for the Colombian National Police so that amounts 
     can be authorized for the procurement and transfer of such 
     additional helicopters; and
       (3) assistance for Bolivia should be maintained at least at 
     the level assumed in the fiscal year 1998 budget submission 
     of the President and the Administration should act 
     accordingly.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2263

(Purpose: expressing the Sense of the Senate regarding reauthorization 
                  of the Farmland Protection Program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE 105TH CONGRESS, 2ND 
                   SESSION SHOULD REAUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR THE 
                   FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings--
       (1) Eighteen states and dozens of localities have spent 
     nearly $1 billion to protect over 600,000 acres of important 
     farmland;
       (2) The Farmland Protection Program has provided cost-
     sharing for eighteen states and dozens of localities to 
     protect over 82,000 acres on 230 farms since 1996;
       (3) The Farmland Protection Program has generated new 
     interest in saving farmland in communities around the 
     country;
       (4) The Farmland Protection Program represents an 
     innovative and voluntary partnership, rewards local 
     ingenuity, and supports local priorities;
       (5) current funds authorized for the Farmland Protection 
     Program will be exhausted in the next six months;
       (6) The United States is losing two acres of our best 
     farmland to development every minute of every day;
       (7) These lands produce three quarters of the fruits and 
     vegetables and over one half of the dairy in the United 
     States;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals contained in this resolution 
     assume that the 105th Congress, 2nd Session will reauthorize 
     funds for the Farmland Protection Program.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2264

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning health care 
   quality for participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
                                Program)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE QUALITY.

       (A) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Out of a total 549 plans under the FEHBP, which 
     includes fee-for-service, point of service, and HMOs, only 
     186 were fully accredited;
       (2) Out of a total 549 plans under the FEHBP, which 
     includes fee-for-service, point of service, and HMOs, 7 were 
     denied accreditation.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this resolution provide for 
     the enactment of legislation requiring all health plans 
     participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
     Program to be accredited by a nationally recognized 
     accreditation organization representative of a spectrum of 
     health care interests including purchasers, consumers, 
     providers and health plans.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2265

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The Market Access Program (MAP) continues to be a vital 
     and important part of U.S. trade policy aimed at maintaining 
     and expanding U.S. agricultural exports, countering 
     subsidized foreign competition, strengthening farm income and 
     protecting American jobs. Further, the Senate finds that:
       (A) The Market Access Program is specifically targeted 
     towards small business, farmer cooperatives and trade 
     associations.
       (B) The Market Access Program is administered on a cost-
     share basis. Participants, including farmers and ranchers, 
     are required to contribute up to 50 percent or more toward 
     the cost of the program.
       (2) The Market Access Program has been a tremendous success 
     by any measure. Since the program was established, U.S. 
     agricultural exports have doubled. In FY 1997, U.S. 
     agricultural exports amounted to $57.3 billion, resulting in 
     a positive agricultural trade surplus of approximately $22 
     billion, and contributing billions of dollars more in 
     increased economic activity and additional tax revenues.
       (3) The Market Access Program has also helped maintain and 
     create needed jobs throughout the nation's economy. More than 
     one million Americans now have jobs that depend on U.S. 
     agricultural exports. Further, every billion dollars in 
     additional U.S. agricultural exports helps create as many as 
     17,000 or more new jobs.
       (4) U.S. agricultural, including farm income and related 
     jobs, is more dependent than ever on maintaining and 
     expanding U.S. agricultural exports as federal farm programs 
     are gradually reduced under the FAIR Act of 1996.
       (5) In addition to the Asian economic situation and 
     exchange rate fluctuations, U.S. agricultural exports 
     continue to be adversely impacted by continued subsidized 
     foreign competition, artificial trade barriers and other 
     unfair foreign trade practices.
       (6) The European Union (EU) and other foreign competitors 
     continue to heavily outspend the U.S. by more than 10 to 1 
     with regard to export subsidies.
       (A) In 1997, the EU budgeted $7.2 billion for export 
     subsidies aimed at capturing a larger

[[Page S2938]]

     share of the world market at the expense of U.S. agriculture.
       (B) EU and other foreign competitors also spent nearly $500 
     million on market promotion activities. The EU, spends more 
     on wine promotion than the U.S. currently spends on all 
     commodities and related agricultural products.
       (C) The EU has announced a major new initiative aimed at 
     increasing their exports to Japan-historically, the largest 
     single market for U.S. agriculture exports.
       (7) U.S. agriculture is the most competitive industry in 
     the world, but it can not and should not be expected to 
     compete alone against the treasuries of foreign governments.
       (8) Reducing or eliminating funding for the Market Access 
     Program would adversely affect U.S. agriculture's ability to 
     remain competitive in today's global marketplace. A reduction 
     in U.S. agricultural exports would translate into lower farm 
     income, a worsening trade deficit, slower economic growth, 
     fewer export-related jobs, and a declining tax base.
       (9) U.S. success in upcoming trade negotiations on 
     agriculture scheduled to begin in 1999 depends on maintaining 
     an aggressive trade strategy and related policies and 
     programs. Reducing or eliminating the Market Access Program 
     would represent a form of unilateral disarmament and weaken 
     the U.S. negotiating position.
       (10) The Market Access Program is one of the few programs 
     specifically allowed under the current Uruguay Round 
     Agreement.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) should be 
     fully maintained as authorized and aggressively utilized by 
     the U.S. Department of Agriculture to encourage U.S. 
     agricultural exports, strengthen farm income, counter 
     subsidized foreign competition, and protect American jobs.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2266

       Purpose: To extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC.  . EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Discretionary Limits.--In the Senate, in this section 
     and for the purposes of allocations made for the 
     discretionary category pursuant to section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the term `discretionary 
     spending limit' means--
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 1999--
       ``(A) for the defense category: $271,570,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $266,635,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the nondefense category: $255,450,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and 289,547,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(C) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $5,800,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,953,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2000--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $532,693,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $558,711,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $4,500,000,000 in budget authority and $5,554,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $537,632,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $558,415,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $4,400,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,981,000,000 in 
     outlays; and
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $546,574,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $556,269,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $4,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,530,000,000 in 
     outlays;
     ``as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b) of 
     section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and section 314 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act.
       ``(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, 
     or 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 
     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 302(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974) to be exceeded.
       ``(2) Exception.--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.
       ``(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.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2267

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Department 
           of Justice's pursuit of Medicare fraud and abuse)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EFFORTS TO COMBAT 
                   MEDICARE FRAUD AND ABUSE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that while fighting Medicare fraud and 
     abuse is critical, so is the avoidance of criminalizing those 
     parties whose errors were made inadvertently. The Senate 
     applauds heightened attention to fraud and abuse issues in 
     the effort to promote Medicare solvency. In evaluating the 
     enforcement activities of the Department of Justice regarding 
     fraud and abuse, the Senate should ensure that standards of 
     proof as prescribed by law are present in these activities. 
     It is incumbent upon the Senate to ensure that parties are 
     not subject to criminal penalties absent a finding of 
     specific intent to defraud.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2268

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING NATIONAL RESPONSE TO 
                   THE THREAT OF ILLEGAL DRUGS.

       Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       1) the provisions of this resolution assume that Congress 
     will significantly increase funding for drug interdiction 
     operations by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     Customs Service, Coast Guard, Department of Defense and other 
     responsible agencies;
       2) the provisions of this resolution assume that Congress 
     will continue to support and increase funding for anti-drug 
     education and prevention efforts aimed at informing every 
     American child in the middle school and high school age 
     brackets about the dangers of drugs and at empowering them to 
     reject illegal drug use;
       3) increasing grassroots parental involvement should be a 
     key component of our national drug education and prevention 
     efforts;
       4) Congress should promote efforts to establish annual 
     measures of performance for evaluating the effectiveness of 
     the National Drug Control Strategy.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2269

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on Wasteful Spending in 
               Defense Department Acquisition Practices)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING WASTEFUL SPENDING IN 
                   DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ACQUISITION PRACTICES.

       a) Findings.--the Senate finds that--
       1) According to the Defense Department's Inspector General, 
     despite efforts to streamline government purchases, the 
     military, in some cases, paid more than ``fair value'' for 
     many items;
       2) efficient purchasing policies, in the context of 
     decreasing defense budgets, are more important than ever to 
     ensure Defense Department spending contributes to military 
     readiness.
       b) Sense of the Senate.--it is the sense of the Senate that 
     the provisions of this resolution assume that the Defense 
     Department should continue efforts to eliminate wasteful 
     spending such that defense spending allocated in the FY 99 
     budget, and all subsequent budgets, is spent in the manner 
     most efficient to maintain and promote military readiness for 
     U.S. armed forces around the globe.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2270

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE UNITED STATES 
                   RESPONSE TO THE CHANGING NATURE OF TERRORISM

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The threat of terrorism to American citizens and 
     interests remains high, with Americans suffering one-third of 
     the total terrorist attacks in the world in 1997;
       (2) The terrorist threat is changing--while past acts were 
     generally limited to the use of conventional explosives and 
     weapons, terrorists today are exploiting technological 
     advances and increasingly lethal tools and strategies to 
     pursue their agenda;
       (3) On a worldwide basis, terrorists are focusing on 
     afflicting mass casualties on civilian targets through the 
     acquisition of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of 
     mass destruction;
       (4) Chemical and biological weapons in the hands of 
     terrorists or rogue nations constitute a threat to the United 
     States;
       (5) The multi-faceted nature of the terrorist threat 
     encompasses not only foreign terrorists targeting American 
     citizens and interests abroad, but foreign terrorists 
     operating within the United States itself, as well as 
     domestic terrorists;

[[Page S2939]]

       (6) Terrorist groups are becoming increasingly 
     multinational, more associated with criminal activity, and 
     less responsive to external influences;
       (7) Terrorists exploit America's free and open society to 
     illegally enter the country, raise funds, recruit new 
     members, spread propaganda, and plan future activities;
       (8) Terrorists are also making use of computer technology 
     to communicate, solicit money and support, and store 
     information essential to their operations;
       (9) State sponsors to terrorism and other foreign countries 
     are known to be developing computer intrusion and 
     manipulation capabilities which could pose a treat to 
     essential public and private information systems in the 
     United States;
       (10) The infrastructures deemed critical to the United 
     States are the telecommunications networks, the electric 
     power grid, oil and gas distribution, water distribution 
     facilities, transportation systems, financial networks, 
     emergency services, and the continuity of government 
     services, the disruption of which could result in significant 
     losses to the United States economic well-being, public 
     welfare, or national security;
       (11) A national strategy of infrastructure protection, as 
     required by the Defense Appropriations Act of 1996, and 
     subsequent amendments, has yet to be issued; and
       (12) We as a nation remain fundamentally unprepared to 
     respond in a coordinated and effective manner to these 
     growing terrorist threats.
       (b) Sense of the Senate--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) The federal government must take the lead in 
     establishing effective coordination between intelligence-
     gathering and law enforcement agencies, among federal, state, 
     and local levels of government, and with the private sector, 
     for the purpose of assessing, warning, and protecting against 
     terrorist attacks;
       (2) Technical preparedness for the detection and analysis 
     of chemical and biological weapons, and for swift and 
     adequate emergency response to their use by terrorists, must 
     be a near-term continuing priority;
       (3) The United States must seek full international 
     cooperation in securing the capture and conviction of 
     terrorists who attack or pose a threat to American citizens 
     and interests;
       (4) The United States should fully enforce its laws 
     intended to deny foreign terrorist organizations the ability 
     to raise money in the United States, prevent the evasion of 
     our immigration laws and furthering of criminal activities, 
     and curtail the use of our country as a base of operations; 
     and
       (5) A national strategy, adequate to addressing the 
     complexity of protecting our critical infrastructures, and as 
     required by the Defense Appropriations Act of 1996 and 
     subsequent amendments, must be completed and implemented 
     immediately.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2271

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A MULTINATIONAL 
                   ALLIANCE AGAINST DERUG TRAFFICKING.

       Findings.--the Senate finds that--
       (1) the traffic in illegal drugs greatly threatens 
     democracy, security and stability in the Western Hemisphere 
     due to the violence and corruption associated with drug 
     trafficking organizations;
       (2) drug trafficking organizations operate without respect 
     for borders or national sovereignty;
       (3) the production, transport, sale, and use of illicit 
     drugs endangers the people and legitimate institutions of all 
     countries in the hemisphere;
       (4) no single country can successfully confront and defeat 
     this common enemy;
       (5) full bilateral cooperation with the United States to 
     reduce the flow of drugs is in the national interests of our 
     neighbors in the hemisphere;
       (6) in addition, victory in the hemispheric battle against 
     drug traffickers requires expanded multilateral cooperation 
     among the nations of the region.
       Sense of the Senate--it is the sense of Senate that the 
     provisions of this resolution assume that in addition to 
     existing bilateral cooperative efforts, the Administration 
     should promote at the Summit of the Americas and in other 
     fora the concept of a multinational hemispheric ``war 
     alliance'' bringing together the United States and key 
     illicit drug producing and transiting countries in the 
     Western Hemisphere for the purpose of implementing a 
     coordinated plan of action against illegal drug trafficking 
     and promoting full cooperation against this common menace.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2272

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that, at a minimum, 
 appropriations for the National Institutes of Health should match the 
                recommendations provided in the budget)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . 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 the function totals in this budget resolution assume 
     that--
       (1) appropriations for the National Institutes of health 
     should be increased by 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal 
     years;
       (2) appropriations for the National Institutes of Health 
     should be increased by $2,000,000,000 in year 1999 over the 
     amount appropriated in fiscal year 1998;
       (3) the budget resolution takes a major step toward meeting 
     this goal; and
       (4) at a minimum, appropriations for the National 
     Institutes of Health should match the recommendations 
     provided in the budget resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to explore with the Senate 
how we might proceed.
  Mr. President, what I have discussed with the leader and with the 
ranking member is that we try to have three amendments ready to vote 
pursuant to the order at 7 o'clock. I think we can do that.
  First, we will attempt to have the amendment of Senator Moseley-
Braun. It would be on or in relation thereto. Then I understand Senator 
Hollings has an amendment. Could he quickly tell us what it is?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Just requiring a 60-vote margin relating to the Social 
Security trust fund.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Then we have a sense of the Senate; Senator Faircloth, 
or I in behalf of, on the marital deduction disparity and efforts that 
we want the Senate to make in terms of clearing that deficiency with 
reference to the marital deduction. The first vote will be 15 minutes, 
and 10 minutes thereafter, as we have already agreed to.
  Would Senator Lautenberg like to let Senator Hollings proceed?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment 
that is brought up be that offered by the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator from New Mexico. As part of the 
structure that we have arranged, which is a half hour for those 
amendments that can be heard that are equally divided, and then there 
is a provision for 20 minutes for any second-degree amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2273

(Purpose: To assure that use of the tobacco reserve fund is consistent 
     with comprehensive tobacco legislation approved by the Senate)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the clock strikes 6, I have one 
additional amendment which would not be in order after that.
  In behalf of Senator Hatch, I send this amendment to the desk. It is 
the last one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2273.

[[Page S2940]]

       On page 28, strike lines 1 through 17, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 202. TOBACCO RESERVE FUND.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be increased and allocations may be increased 
     for legislation that reserves the Federal share of receipts 
     for tobacco-related programs and activities authorized by 
     Senate-passed comprehensive tobacco legislation.
       (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 with the 
     Senate appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and increased 
     aggregates to carry out this section. These aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as the allocations and 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 used 
     to reimburse the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund shall 
     not be taken into account.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wanted to just explore publicly a question that 
arose, and that is we have not yet had an opportunity to examine these 
amendments and there may be an interest on either side to have a second 
degree. So we are not precluded, I assume, by that. I just wanted to 
confirm that with the chairman of the Budget Committee as to the 
process, assuming that there is no obstruction to that, and I know of 
none now, but I do have an inquiry that says what happens in a 
particular case if we have a second degree? There is no prohibition to 
that?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand when we entered into the unanimous consent 
request we very particularly and specifically did not mention the issue 
of second-degree amendments, other than the amount of time that would 
be allotted to debate them. That means when an amendment comes up or as 
it is getting prepared, Senators who are interested in a second degree 
would obviously have time before the amendment and have time during the 
amendment, which is 30 minutes, to prepare and send to the desk the 
second-degree amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee. I ask 
one more question, or at least seek to get a clarification among those 
who hear us. That is, it is my understanding we are going to be very 
strict.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator will suspend. The 
Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I understand, with the approval of 
the leadership, which I am asking indirectly, that we will be very 
strict about the time on these amendments. The traditional 15- or 20-
minutes will be as it is and thereafter 10 minutes. But I ask all of 
our colleagues--because as I did a mental count here, we probably have 
60 or 65 amendments sitting there--that we ought to not have anybody 
saying just give me a minute more. We made those decisions as of this 
moment and we are going to try to move the agenda along as 
expeditiously as we can.
  Last, everyone should understand that this is done at the request of 
Senators on both sides, lots of Senators who say let's get our business 
done, let's complete our agenda and let's be prepared to conclude the 
week, hopefully, by tomorrow evening. I do not mean to put words in the 
mouth of the Senator from New Mexico, but as I remember our discussion, 
that's where we want to be.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask consent that it be in order to 
file an amendment in behalf of Senator Sessions. It was not part of my 
package. I ask it be in order nonetheless at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2274

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding limitations on 
          attorneys' fees under any global tobacco settlement)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk 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 Mr. 
     Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 2274.

  The amendment follows:
       At the end of title III add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING LIMITATIONS ON 
                   ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER ANY NATIONAL TOBACCO 
                   SETTLEMENT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that legislation providing for a national tobacco settlement 
     should provide the following:
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State 
     that receives funds under such legislation may not utilize 
     more than $5,000,000 to pay attorneys' fees on behalf of 
     attorneys for the State in connection with an action 
     maintained by a State against one or more tobacco companies 
     to recover tobacco-related medicaid expenditures, or for 
     other causes of action.
       (2) The limitation described in paragraph (1) shall apply 
     to attorneys' fees provided for or in connection with an 
     action of the type described in such paragraph under any--
       (A) court order;
       (B) settlement agreement;
       (C) Contingency fee arrangement;
       (D) arbitration procedure;
       (E) alternative dispute resolution procedure (including 
     mediation); or
       (F) other arrangement providing for the payment of 
     attorneys' fees.
       (3) The limitation described in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to any amounts provided for the attorneys' reasonable 
     and customary expenses.
       (4) No award of attorneys' fees shall be made under any 
     national tobacco settlement until the attorneys involved 
     have--
       (A) provided to the Governor of the appropriate State, a 
     detailed time accounting with respect to the work performed 
     in relation to any legal action which is the subject of the 
     settlement or with regard to the settlement itself; and
       (B) made public disclosure of the time accounting under 
     subparagraph (A) and any fee agreements entered into, or fee 
     arrangements made, with respect to any legal action that is 
     the subject of the settlement.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask that Senator Grassley be added 
as a cosponsor on amendment No. 2213 on behalf of Senator Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to follow up on the remarks of my distinguished 
ranking member. The leader has indicated to me that we are supposed to 
proceed as the floor managers see best tonight. We are going to try to 
have three votes at 7 p.m.. They will be expeditious in terms of time 
allotted to both, and then we intend to continue on for the evening, 
perhaps an hour, hour and a half. After that we will have another group 
of amendments, and we will do this until we see some daylight, in terms 
of the entire time running out on this bill.
  With that I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 2193

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2193 on 
behalf of Senator Daschle, Senator Conrad, Senator Feingold, Senator 
Dorgan and Senator Reid of Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, this goes right to the point of the 
requirement of a 60-vote supermajority in order to spend the Social 
Security funds or report a budget with respect to Social Security 
funds. It conforms to the sense of the Senate that the Members will 
find on page 37 and 38 of the concurrent resolution itself. We passed 
in the Budget Committee the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
underlying the functional totals included in this resolution assume 
that Congress and the President should continue to rid our country of 
debt and work to balance the budget without counting Social Security 
trust fund surpluses.
  There was, of course, a unanimous vote in the Budget Committee. 
Incidentally, it was partly a response to the clarion call of the 
President of the United States, in his State of the Union address to 
the joint session of Congress, that we ``save Social Security first.'' 
And, incidentally, some 8 years ago, 98 Senators voted for the very 
same thing.
  The reason for the 98-Senator vote back in 1990 was to comply with 
the suggestions of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security. The 
Greenspan Commission in 1983 suggested a very high payroll tax, not 
just to balance Social Security's budget, but also to build up a 
surplus for the baby boomers in the next generation. For example,

[[Page S2941]]

the Commission's report included projections to the year 2056.
  We have constantly heard on the floor of the Congress, in both 
Houses, ``Oh, the baby boomers are going to cause a problem, the baby 
boomers are going to cause a problem in the next generation.'' Not at 
all, not at all, Madam President. The fact is, if we quit looting the 
Social Security trust fund, we could get along well with just minor 
adjustments to the Social Security program. The problem is being caused 
not by the baby boomers, but by the adults on the floor of the Congress 
itself--in that we have this euphemism called the unified budget.
  Let me tell you about that unified budget. The unified budget is a 
device of the financial community, of corporate America, of the Federal 
Reserve Board, to keep interest rates low. They could care less about 
the burden of having to pay the bill. They are not Congressmen. They 
are not Senators. They don't have to face up to the present deficit of 
$631 billion we owe Social Security now, or the $1.2 trillion this 
government will owe Social Security by the end of the budget under 
consideration.
  We are going right up against the wall. We will owe this money and 
then someone will say, ``Well, we can't raise taxes.'' Someone is going 
to say, ``Well, we have to raise the age.'' Then someone will say, ``We 
have to limit the benefits.'' These are the remarks we can expect to 
hear in this Congress at the turn of the century.
  The President, to his credit, grabbed ahold of this particular issue, 
which we have been working on for years. He said, ``Save Social 
Security first.'' We passed, already, one sense of the Senate by a vote 
of 100 to nothing. We passed the one I now propose by 20 to nothing in 
the Budget Committee. I would like to remark on a comment made in the 
Commerce Committee's markup of the tobacco bill just a few moments ago, 
when the distinguished chairman turned to another Senator and said, 
``Now, wait a minute, is this a sense of the Senate?''

  And the Senator responded, ``No, this is real. This counts.''
  I want, and I am sure every Senator here wants, the desire to save 
Social Security to count. One of the best ways to make sure it counts 
here is to require--for the first time on the parliamentary treatment 
of issues here, in the reading of bills and concurrent resolutions--at 
least a 60-vote supermajority margin in order to spend Social Security 
surpluses, or list them, or waive the requirement they not be expended.
  To return to the Greenspan Commission report for a moment, I believe 
that report was very judicious in its vision with respect to the baby 
boomers. The report said we know we have this high tax and we are going 
to have surpluses. But we want to make sure these surpluses are not 
expended by some tricky device called a unified budget, or a unified 
deficit. Section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report required just 
that, that Social Security be put off-budget. After the Commission made 
its report, we struggled within the Budget Committee for years to 
implement its suggestions. It wasn't until 1990 that we finally were 
able to require, by a vote of 20 to 1, that trust funds be taken off-
budget. And then, on the floor of the Senate, by a vote of 98 to 2, we 
passed section 13301 of the statutory law of the Budget Act--which was 
then passed by the House and signed into law by President Bush on 
November 5, 1990. Section 13301, which I have a copy of now, prohibited 
Congress from including Social Security trust funds in the budget.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record at this 
particular point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Subtitle C Social Security

     SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Exclusion of Social Security From All Budgets.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
     receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       (b) Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional 
     Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and 
     revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability 
     insurance program established under title II of the Social 
     Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals 
     required by this subsection or in . . .

  Mr. HOLLINGS. As you can see, we passed the law. But it has been 
ignored. And we are ignoring it again, Madam President, because if you 
look on page 67 of the committee's report, you will find at the bottom 
line: ``on budget for 1998, minus $95.6 billion.'' Then: ``off budget, 
$103.4 billion.'' The report then states a total surplus of ``$7.8 
billion.''
  That is not the actual deficit, Madam President--not at all. That is 
the so-called unified deficit, which its adherents arrive at by looting 
trust funds. But if you look on page 5 of the resolution itself, you 
will see the deficit is listed for fiscal year 1999 as $108.2 billion. 
This is a far cry from a surplus. That is in response to section 13301. 
That is the actual deficit. Just go down one step further to the 
section, on that same page 5, labeled ``Public debt.'' You will find 
that from 1998 to 1999, in the present budget under consideration, all 
you need to do to compute the actual deficit is to subtract the 
increase in the national debt. That is the actual spending that occurs 
that we do not pay for. That is the actual outlay that is not taken 
care of by revenues themselves. You only have to do simple arithmetic 
to find that for the year 1999, according to this present budget under 
consideration, the deficit will be $186.3 billion.
  Madam President, it is interesting, in this time of headlines that 
tout surpluses as far as the eye can see, to just look at the deficits 
for the next 5 years--the additions to the national debt. You will see 
that they add up each year to a total of $905 billion. In other words, 
under the budget currently being considered, the government will spend 
almost $1 trillion more than it receives in revenue. Yet, we have 
people claiming on the floor of the Congress, and in newspapers and 
editorials, ``Look at what a wonderful job we have done.''
  The fact is, instead of balancing the budget, instead of continuing 
to lower deficits as we have done 6 years in a row--and I give the 
current administration credit for having done so --we are going to turn 
and change course and, for the first time now with this 1999 concurrent 
resolution for this particular budget for 1999, we will increase rather 
than lower the deficit. We will increase the deficit some $32 billion. 
We will go from $153 to $186 billion--$31 billion, not counting 
decimals here. That is $31 billion that we are increasing the deficit.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to return to the original point: some 
kind of parliamentary restriction to bring sobriety to this body, to 
prevent politicians from claiming, ``I voted for a sense of the Senate; 
I voted not to spend Social Security.'' That was just not real. That 
was just a sense of the Senate. This resolution would be binding at 
least for a 60-vote majority. It ought to really have 100 votes, 
because that is what we voted time and time again when actually voted 
on.
  I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time is remaining on the time of the Senator 
from South Carolina?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from South 
Carolina for yielding and, more importantly, for taking the lead on 
this amendment. There is no more important amendment in this whole 
budget resolution than the Hollings amendment. This goes to the heart 
of the matter.
  Madam President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), in offering this amendment to close 
a loophole in the rules protecting the Social Security Trust Fund 
balances.
  Let me note it gives me particular pleasure in cosponsoring this 
amendment with Senator Hollings; both in this body and in the Budget 
Committee, he has been a consistent voice for fiscal prudence.

[[Page S2942]]

  There is a fundamental difference between the way many in Congress 
approach the budget, and the way I approach it.
  That difference is Social Security.
  Since the time Lyndon Johnson lived in the White House, Presidents of 
both parties and Congresses controlled by both parties have included 
the Social Security Trust Fund balances in their budget calculations.
  The result is a false picture of our country's fiscal health, and, 
just like a false medical report that covers up a serious illness, it 
can lead to major problems in the future.
  This false budget picture has been used so often it has become almost 
a matter of ``budget convention,'' and it has so impressed itself into 
the vocabulary of the budget that we now hear the word ``surplus'' when 
there is no surplus.
  We hear people talking about a budget ``surplus'' in Congress, in 
news stories, and in the letters we receive from constituents.
  But there is no surplus; there is a deficit that is still being 
hidden, and Social Security is the curtain used to hide it.
  We need look no further than the budget resolution itself.
  On page 5 of S. Con. Res. 86, the deficit levels are listed for 
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003.
  For Fiscal Year 1998, the deficit is $95 billion.
  The deficit rises to over $120 billion in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 
before returning to levels below $100 billion, reaching $92 billion in 
Fiscal Year 2003.
  With surpluses like these, who needs deficits?
  Despite these continuing deficits, many in this body want to act as 
if we have a surplus--free money to hand out in the form of new 
spending or new tax cuts.
  The notion of a so-called unified budget, which began as a political 
convenience to mask the deficit almost 30 years ago, has now become the 
budget reality for many.
  This must stop.
  ``Surplus'' is supposed to mean something extra, like a bonus.
  It means, all the bills are paid and there is money left over.
  One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in 
excess of what is needed or required.''
  The so-called unified budget surplus is not ``more than or in excess 
of what is needed or required.''
  Those funds are needed; they are needed to pay future Social Security 
benefits.
  They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in 
anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries.
  When Congress makes budget obligations today based on those Social 
Security funds--whether in the form of tax cuts or spending increases--
we are committing to a path of fiscal policy that jeopardizes future 
Social Security benefits.
  The amendment Senator Hollings and I are offering is designed to 
shore up protections surrounding Social Security, and end talk of 
budget surpluses that are not really there.
  Our amendment does so by closing a loophole in the supermajority 
protections we give to Social Security.
  It establishes a point of order against any measure that would allow 
Congress to change the off-budget status of Social Security, directly 
or indirectly, without a supermajority vote.
  Under most circumstances, our rules require a supermajority vote to 
change the budget treatment of Social Security.
  But while supermajority points of order usually protect the Social 
Security Trust Fund balances, in certain circumstances those points of 
order are subject to amendment or repeal by only a simple majority 
vote.
  While legislation to amend budget rules and laws generally is subject 
to a supermajority point of order, under Section 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this point of order does not apply to 
legislation or a budget resolution that has been reported or discharged 
from the Senate Budget Committee, or to any amendments to such 
legislation.
  Our amendment eliminates this loophole in the supermajority 
protections we have established for Social Security.
  We must play it straight with the American people, and we must give 
them an honest balanced budget.
  This means Congress must stop pretending there is a surplus, and 
start acknowledging we still have a way to go before our budget is 
truly in balance.
  I very much hope our colleagues will support this sensible protection 
for Social Security, and will join us in making it harder to change our 
budget rules in a way which would allow Social Security Trust Fund 
balances to be used to pay for spending increases or tax cuts.
  Madam President, let me reiterate, the fact is, we do not have a 
surplus. All this talk about a surplus is not accurate, and the 
American people know it. We have made tremendous progress. I am glad 
that much of it was done in 1993. Some of it was done last year. But 
the fact is, we have a long way to go.
  What the Senator from South Carolina is doing is just trying to make 
this body face up to the reality by creating a little higher standard, 
a 60-vote rule rather than a majority-vote rule to continue this 
practice. This practice should not be continued at all. There should 
not be any 60 votes or 70 votes or 80 votes to use Social Security to 
try to pretend there is a real balanced budget. At least under the 
Hollings amendment, the standard would be tougher. It would require 60 
votes. You couldn't sanitize the process by running it through the 
Budget Committee.
  This is to me the most fundamental issue here, because we are, in 
effect, telling the American people something that just is not true. We 
have done well. The economy has stayed very solid throughout this, but 
to pretend that there is extra money, to pretend that we can do 
spending or big tax cuts at this time is not straightforward. This, of 
course, is not just with regard to our senior citizens.
  The Social Security fund is in good shape for a number of years to 
come but it has more to do with the baby boomers and the young people 
in their twenties and thirties and those in high school and even 
younger.
  I have had the experience of having high school kids ask me at high 
school forums not just about the issues one expects high school 
students to ask about, but whether or not Social Security will be there 
when they get to that age. That is an unusual question for a high 
school student, but they know they are potentially being taken for a 
ride.
  Many of them are working. They are getting a check from, let's say, 
McDonald's, and they notice something is being taken out of their 
checks. ``What is it being taken out for?''
  ``Well, for Social Security.''
  Then they find out it might not be there for them.
  What the Senator from South Carolina is saying is the Congress should 
stop borrowing from Social Security to try to make this look better. 
This is a very, very important amendment for truth in budgeting.
  I thank the Senator from South Carolina and yield back any time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Wisconsin. He has been a Trojan in the trenches working on the 
same side.
  I ask unanimous consent to add the distinguished Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment, 
which would establish a new point of order to protect the Social 
Security surplus. It's designed to enforce the principle that President 
Clinton emphasized in his State of the Union address: ``save Social 
Security first.''
  The Social Security program is the most important social insurance 
program in the United States. It's dramatically reduced poverty among 
older Americans. And it provides a critical safety net for those who 
suffer from disabilities, or the death of a family member.
  Unfortunately, Social Security's long-term viability is now 
threatened by the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, and 
the significant new pressures that will place on the system. Congress 
needs to act promptly to address this problem.
  Congress already has made a clear commitment to Social Security, and 
we've created various procedural protections to enforce that 
commitment.

[[Page S2943]]

For example, Section 301(i) of the Budget Act prohibits the Senate from 
considering a budget resolution that would reduce a Social Security 
surplus. And Section 311(a)(3) prohibits us from considering any 
measure that would decrease a Social Security surplus below the level 
set in the budget resolution.
  The point of order proposed today is consistent with these 
precedents. But rather than directly protecting Social Security, this 
point of order would protect the rules that protect Social Security.
  These budget rules, in effect, require 60 votes to reduce a Social 
Security surplus. The problem, though, is that there's a loophole. And 
the loophole is that these rules themselves can be amended under 
certain circumstances with only 50 votes.
  In general, legislation to amend budget laws is subject to a 
supermajority point of order, under Section 306 of the Budget Act. But 
this point of order doesn't apply to legislation that's been reported 
from the Budget Committee, or to any amendments to such legislation.
  So, for example, if the Budget Committee reports a minor bill to make 
technical corrections to the Budget Act, an amendment to gut the Social 
Security rules could be adopted by a simple majority vote.
  In my view, that's a loophole that we need to close.
  Let's not just proclaim our commitment to saving Social Security 
first. Let's put it in writing. And let's make it enforceable.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the 
amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time has Senator Hollings used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has used 13 
minutes 44 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So he has 1 minute-plus left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, unless my friend from New Jersey 
desires to speak, I will not use my entire 15 minutes. I will make a 
point of order that the Senator's amendment violates the Budget Act and 
requires 60 votes.
  Frankly, I do not understand what the distinguished Senator is 
talking about. He has been a longtime friend, and he has been on the 
Budget Committee. He has served on it. Actually, the Budget Committee 
is the source of the firewall that protects Social Security now. This 
amendment says he is taking away our jurisdiction, that we can't do 
anything with reference to Social Security, and we are the committee to 
make the recommendations.
  If, indeed, the recommendations in some other provision of law 
requires 60 votes to pass, that is a different thing. To say to a 
committee of jurisdiction that you cannot pass on anything because 
there is a supermajority requirement just seems to me that we could 
take every committee of jurisdiction, we could take away their 
jurisdiction all under the rubric that we are trying to keep them from 
spending money. Maybe we don't like Commerce. They have been putting 
out too many bills. So we adopt a process that says whatever your 
jurisdiction is, you can't report out any bills without a supermajority 
in these different areas.
  That is not right. The Senator apparently has some great goal in 
mind. I remind the U.S. Senate and my friend Senator Hollings, he does 
not like us to use the word ``balance,'' that we are in balance. So 
every time we use it, we better say the ``unified budget is in 
balance.''
  Let's acknowledge that only 6 years ago, 5 years ago, if he is 
worried about Social Security, the unified budget was $300 billion in 
the red. Have we made any headway in keeping the Social Security trust 
fund from getting spent? Of course. For starters, we have made $300 
billion worth, and right now we have a $10 billion surplus. That does 
not mean we have a surplus without the Social Security trust fund, but 
it means that we are borrowing $10 billion less from the Social 
Security fund because of the balance in the unified budget of the 
United States. Is that bad? That seems to me to be good.
  If some think that they can wipe out the nonunified deficit quicker, 
then there are only two ways to wipe it out quicker: One is to cut more 
expenditures or to raise taxes.
  That is what somebody has to be talking about if they want to make us 
stop the $90 billion worth of borrowing, which used to be more, and it 
is down from $100 billion to $90 billion this very year because of the 
surplus. Instead of talking about the Budget Committee doesn't have any 
jurisdiction without supermajorities to move anything with reference to 
Social Security--all we are doing is making recommendations to the 
Senate.
  To act as if this will in some way make the Social Security trust 
fund more solvent, frankly, in all honesty, I just don't understand how 
this is going to do any good, and I have not heard anything from the 
Senator yet that indicates that it will do anything good.
  In all respect, I just do not believe it is going to accomplish what 
the Senator wants. Social Security is not going to be any more 
protected, and we are just going to say that there is a 60-vote point 
of order against anything the Budget Committee would do with reference 
to recommending Social Security changes or reforms, which just seems to 
me doesn't have anything to do with the problems that he describes 
because we are still borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.
  I repeat, we are doing a lot better than we were 5 years ago, 6 years 
ago, and a lot better than we expected to do. That means Social 
Security is getting closer and closer to a stable state because the 
unified budget is getting more and more surplus, which the surplus is 
for now being applied to that debt, and we are borrowing less, which is 
now easy to understand. There is all kind of confusion. There are trust 
funds, IOUs. But the truth is, on paper, we are borrowing $10 billion 
less when we have a surplus than otherwise. If it gets up to $100 
billion, we won't be borrowing anything. That is pretty good, and that 
is reality.

  The Budget Committee had something to do with that. There is a 
firewall that does not permit us to spend any Social Security money 
that would, in any way, affect the actuarial soundness of the Social 
Security system. That is a firewall of 60 votes. That was recommended 
by the Budget Committee. If we put that in before and came to the 
floor, it would require 60 votes to become law. It doesn't seem to me 
that is right.
  When the time has expired, I will make a point of order and then we 
will have a vote and try to stack it as early as possible so we can 
dispose of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico doesn't have to remind the Senator from South Carolina that we 
are doing better than we were 6 years ago, because this Senator voted 
for that particular plan, which included spending cuts and which 
included tax increases to get this economy turned around. It included a 
tax increase on Social Security, as well. And we didn't get a single 
Republican vote for that Budget Act--not one vote from that side of the 
aisle.
  Now the Senator from New Mexico says we are borrowing $10 billion. 
Turn, if you please, to the analysis of the President's budget proposal 
by the Congressional Budget Office put out the day before yesterday. On 
page 36, you will find the actual debt increases to $184 billion. So we 
are not borrowing $10 billion less. The actual facts, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, are that we are borrowing $31 billion 
more.
  Tell me about the budgets and requirements of the Budget Committee 
supermajority. You have to get a supermajority to get the tobacco 
money. Why not a supermajority to protect Social Security? We have 
section 13301 of the Budget Act itself that is a firewall anyone 
disobeys when he spends that money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If I need more time, I can get some, I guess, off the 
resolution. But let me hear it. My time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

[[Page S2944]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 8 minutes 54 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I make the point of order that the 
amendment of the distinguished Senator, Senator Hollings, is out of 
order under the Budget Act. It is not germane.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, pursuant to Section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will stack the vote as soon as we can for three 
votes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Can we get the yeas and nays?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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, I am going to call up the Faircloth 
amendment with reference to the marriage penalty, and then we are going 
to stack four votes which will include two Democrat votes and two 
Republican votes. In order to get the second Republican vote, I would 
have to have Senator Craig offer a second one so we would have two. And 
that would make the votes be on two Democrat and two Republican 
amendments. Is that acceptable? All right.
  If you have another one that is ready--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.


                           Amendment No. 2251

  Mr. DOMENICI. I call up amendment No. 2251.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Amendment numbered 2251 previously proposed by the Senator 
     from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Faircloth.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes of the opening remarks to Senator 
Sessions with reference to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to offer some comments in 
support of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding the 
elimination of the marriage penalty. Marriage is an institution to be 
venerated, and our public policy should affirm marriage and we should 
have laws that treat married couples on an equal basis with those that 
are not married. That is the fundamental principle of fairness.
  The fact is that under our current laws, married couples suffer a 
financial penalty when it comes to taxation. In fact, married couples 
pay often substantially more tax than they would pay if they were not 
married.
  For example, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that 42 
percent of married couples face a marriage penalty under the current 
tax system. The Congressional Budget Office also found that the average 
tax penalty amounts to $1,380 per year. That is a $100-a-month tax 
penalty on people who choose to be married rather than those who choose 
not to marry. As a result of that, we are taking more of their money to 
in fact subsidize people who are not married who receive those 
benefits.
  I think some people have suggested this is in fact a realistic cause 
of people not to marry. For example, in 1970, just .5 percent of the 
couples in the United States were not married. By 1996, that number had 
risen to 7.2 percent.
  So, Madam President, I would say that this is a very important 
debate. And I will not belabor the subject. This is a matter that has 
been the subject of much debate, with much intellectual and financial 
study, and the conclusion of these numbers is plain and obvious. Under 
our current tax system, married couples are being subjected to an 
unfair financial penalty. This is a matter that this Senate must 
address.
  It may be a bit late this year to make those changes. I wish it could 
have been done this year, but it is a change we are going to have to 
make. We are going to have to eliminate the circumstance in which a 
married couple is penalized for being married. It is not just, it is 
not fair, not appropriate, and it is unbecoming of the laws of the 
United States.
  So, Madam President, I support this resolution and yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I compliment the Senator on his remarks. They are right 
on point. As a matter of fact, the resolution as drafted says to the 
U.S. Congress to begin to cure this marital tax inequity this year. In 
essence what we are saying is, if we are going to have a tax bill, we 
have no authority to dictate its content, but we are saying it is the 
sense of the Senate that we shall start down the road of eliminating 
that this year.
  Now, I might add----
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I would like to say how much 
I appreciate the Chairman's support for this concept, and for this 
resolution. I think we can begin now to take the kind of steps 
necessary to improve the tax laws in this regard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I just want to ask a question. 
You used the figure of $1,380 a year or $1,340?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The number I have is $1,380.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is this what you mean? If you have two single people 
earning a combined income, that are single and filing separate returns, 
and you have a married couple with exactly the same amount of income, 
the married couple, everything else being equal, will pay $1,380 more 
in taxes per year?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is exactly correct. That is the average for 
those who suffer a penalty. That is the average amount of penalty that 
is suffered, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So it could be a very large amount of money for people 
above the average?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I assume it could be $2,000, $3,000, $5,000, $10,000?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course, for those under the average it would be 
less. But is it not true that you have heard, as I have, that some 
people do not get married who are living together saying they are doing 
better on taxes without being married, and that this is frequently used 
in conversation if not in reality?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from New Mexico is exactly correct. 
Certainly we have more people, more men and women living together 
without being married today than ever before.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I tell you what, I am going to 
support this amendment. So I ask if I can talk as one of the proponents 
for a minute to raise a question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 16 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much of that would you like?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No. I would like a short period of time. I think if 
we can agree--and I do not see anybody here that wants to talk in 
opposition--we ought to yield back the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We do have Senator Faircloth en route. If he is not 
here shortly, then we will be able to do what you suggest. But I am 
trying to hold a little bit of time for him.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I see. My only question relates, frankly, to the 
schedule that is proposed here. The one thing I have to remind my 
friend and colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, about is the volume 
of the sense-

[[Page S2945]]

of-the-Senate resolutions. We are building--we may have a record year 
this year, I say to the chairman.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We might.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So we just let it flow, go with the flow, as they 
say. None of us want to do anything to impose a penalty on marriage. 
The statistics are not as good as we would like to see in the first 
place, so we do not want to make it any more difficult. But when the 
schedule says ``shall begin to phase out the marriage penalty this 
year,'' I think that is somewhat precipitous. But hearing the Senator 
from Alabama confirm I think what we all know, all we can do is kind of 
make this abstract recommendation and hope that it gets picked up along 
the way. So with that, with that caution, I am ready to go to a vote. I 
hope, I say to the chairman, in the interest of time, that we might be 
able to move it along.
  Is Senator Faircloth still on his way?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, he is. And Senator Hutchison is one of the 
original cosponsors. She would like some of the time. I yield the 
Senator 4 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Four minutes. I thank the Senator. I appreciate that.
  This is the Faircloth-Hutchison amendment and it is also the 
Faircloth-Hutchison bill that would eliminate the marriage penalty tax.

  All this amendment says is, it is a priority of Congress to eliminate 
the marriage penalty tax. We don't think Americans should have to 
choose between love and money. Yet 21 million American couples today 
have to make that exact choice, because they go into a higher tax 
bracket when they get married.
  Let me give an example. A rookie policemen in Houston, TX, makes 
$33,500. His wife is a schoolteacher in the Pasadena independent school 
district making $28,200 a year. When this young couple got married, 
they owed Uncle Sam $1,000 more a year. This is at a time when they 
would like to buy their first home, when they have to buy a second car. 
They are having to pay Uncle Sam $1,000 because they got married. That 
could be two house payments, three or four car payments, and we are 
taking it away from them by an unfair Tax Code.
  Our Tax Code does not meet the fairness test. I think this sense of 
the Senate says it best--that it will be the highest priority of 
Congress to correct this inequity in the law. I don't think Congress 
intended it, but that is the way it happened, and Congress does have 
the power to correct it.
  I hope we will take this opportunity to speak with a loud, firm, 
clear voice, that Americans should not have to pay more money because 
they get married than they would have to pay if they stay single. That 
is the issue, a very simple amendment. I hope we will have a unanimous 
vote when this amendment comes forward to show that we intend to do 
something about this if we possibly can within the constraints of the 
surplus, and that if we are not able to do something, it will be the 
highest priority when we do have that budget surplus that I have seen 
spent in so many ways already in the last year. We haven't seen that 
budget surplus, so I think spending it is a little premature.
  I do appreciate the fact that this committee set aside $10 billion 
for the first year for tax cuts, and I think if we can build on that, 
we can do some good for the hard-working American. We should continue 
to give money back to the people who earned it. You can always tell who 
cares about the people who earn the money, and that is by how they 
refer to tax dollars. We refer to tax dollars as belonging to the 
people who worked for them, and we are going to try to let people keep 
more of the money they earned. They deserve it. That is what setting 
this priority will do for 21 million American couples.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I concur with most of what has been said here. I read 
this resolution, and it is hard to argue with a resolution that is 
praising marriage and the married. I think we are all for that. 
Anything in the law of this land, whether tax law or otherwise, which 
detracts from that institution, should be examined and seriously 
considered.
  But I keep wondering--I am not an expert on tax law, but there are 
some situations where marriage actually reduces the tax burden; where, 
in fact, if you have one of the spouses who has a high income and 
marries someone with a much lower income, it could reduce the tax rate. 
I certainly hope there is nothing in this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution which suggests we should change that. I think we want to try 
to encourage people, and when the Tax Code rewards those who are 
married, we should continue doing that.
  What I am told is there are two sides to the story. As there are 
those who are losers and are penalized by the Tax Code by marriage, 
there are those who are benefited by the Tax Code.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would love to address that issue. It is a valid 
point.
  We will not take away the break that a couple has in the one-income-
earner family; that is, where people are ahead if they have one income 
in the family, they get a break on taxes. The people who get hit are 
the low-income people with two wage-earners in the family. They are the 
ones that often have to work to make ends meet, and yet they are 
penalized because they get married. It is a couple that makes $28,000 a 
year and $33,000 a year, and together they move into the higher 
bracket, but separately they would not be in the higher bracket, they 
would stay at the 15 percent bracket.
  What we are trying to do is create an equity for those lower- and 
middle-income two-earner couples that right now are paying a hefty 
penalty.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas for that clarification. I 
hope we can do everything in our power to make the Tax Code not only 
friendly to those who are married but more progressive so that those in 
the lower- and middle-income categories get a helping hand from the 
Federal Government instead of the backhand.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Illinois for allowing me to 
clarify that. It is certainly important for us to keep the advantage 
for the one-income-earner couple, but that we give that added advantage 
to that two-income-earner couple that really does need it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am prepared to yield back.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  If Senator Faircloth is not going to be able to give remarks, I would 
like to be able to say on his behalf what a leader he has been.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will try to arrange this right now, if you listen to 
my consent. If it doesn't work, we will use some time here.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that after the time is yielded 
back and we proceed to the next amendment, that nonetheless, prior to 
the vote at 9 o'clock or thereafter on the Faircloth amendment, that he 
be permitted to speak for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I reserve the right to ask a question? That is, 
this depends on the time, because we agreed we were going to control 
the time carefully. I ask how much time is left for the proponents of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes 36 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What I was trying to do is give back the 6 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And trade for 3.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And trade for 3.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I consent to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would this be included in this batch of votes?

  Mr. DOMENICI. When we take up Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator 
Hollings, this would be the third one in that sequence.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be at 7 o'clock--you said 9 o'clock.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Nine o'clock.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thought we talked about a series of votes at 7 
o'clock.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think people heard 9 o'clock or 9ish, so we ought to 
get on with more amendments.
  I thought the 7 o'clock was precluded when the Chair went right ahead 
and made us vote on previous amendments.

[[Page S2946]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is there a unanimous consent request at the desk 
calling for a specific time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me correct that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me correct that. I believe that only I was thinking 
that that previous vote did that and nobody else was, so I must not 
have told anybody. Everybody on the staff agrees. They must be right. 
We can't do anything without them.
  Perhaps what we can do--Senator Craig, would you be willing to spend 
15 minutes on your amendment?
  Mr. CRAIG. I can.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to get one more stacked.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just to clear the air and be sure we are both hearing 
what each other is saying, that is that if that is the case, then we 
are going to ask for another unanimous consent that would enable 
Senator Craig to offer his amendment, give us a chance to take a look 
at it, but Senator Craig, I thought, debated his amendment last night.
  Mr. CRAIG. I did.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, he did.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So what time would be available for Senator Craig now 
if the debate was conducted last night? What system are we operating 
under?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I assume we are operating on the half hour.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. But how much time did Senator Craig use last night to 
debate his amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That was before we had an agreement. I don't want to 
argue over it. That is what we did with anybody who argued an amendment 
two nights ago. If he could have 15 minutes, you 15 minutes, we will 
get 4 votes in here in 15 or 20 or 30 minutes--assuming you won't use 
all the time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is all right with us. I agree, certainly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All time is yielded back then on the Faircloth 
amendment, and we will proceed to Senator Craig at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2211

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, last night I offered an amendment called 
the Surplus Protection Amendment for myself and several other 
colleagues here in the Senate: Senator Allard, Senator Coverdell, 
Senator Grams, Senator Helms, Senator Hutchinson, Senator Inhofe, 
Senator Sessions, and Senator Thomas. My amendment is a fundamentally 
simple amendment which sets forth very clearly a new approach toward 
how we handle mandatory spending. Pay-as-you-go budget enforcement 
rules were established to help put Washington's fiscal house in order.
  Since fiscal year 1994, the Senate has had a point of order requiring 
60 votes to waive against any legislation that would increase the 
deficit. However, mandatory spending in Washington is Washington's 
version of a fiscal autopilot. Once enacted, it requires no further 
congressional action to operate. Rather than a perpetual motion 
machine, what we have found out with mandatory spending, of course, is 
that it is a perpetual spending machine. It is, if you will, the 
Energizer Bunny of budgeting and has kept growing and growing and 
growing.
  What all this means--and I think it concerns us all greatly--is an 
increase in mandatory spending must be paid for with a tax increase. 
Any tax cut must be paid for by a mandatory spending cut. As anyone can 
tell, pay-go, in its present form, is very insufficient to control 
mandatory spending.
  Mandatory spending has increased dramatically and will continue to 
increase dramatically over the next few years. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, in 1987 mandatory spending accounted for 
47 percent of the Federal budget; in 1997, it accounted for 
approximately 56 percent; in the year 2008, it will account for 70 
percent. Many of us have struggled mightily, as has the chairman of the 
full committee, to control this.
  What is happening is that mandatory spending is crowding out, rapidly 
crowding out, Federal Government spending for schools, for roads, for 
law enforcement, and for those infrastructure maintenance kinds of 
programs that most citizens in our country feel are legitimate spending 
areas for our Government.
  I have sensed, as many of my colleagues have, that it is time to make 
a modest adjustment to try to change the process by which we deal with 
this issue. Current estimates are that the budget will be balanced this 
year, and the chairman of the full committee and many colleagues on 
this floor deserve credit for that because it will be, and we are 
pleased about it, excited about it, and I think the country is also. It 
is true that we are nearly 4 years ahead of schedule in balancing the 
budget, and there is a lot to be credited for that--certainly our 
ability to begin to control spending here, but also our ability to help 
free this economy and to see it move as successfully as it has, has 
been another major contributing factor.
  However, we must look not just to the horizon of spending, as this 
budget resolution does, but look well beyond it. If we fail to look 
beyond it, we fail to recognize what is out there in the very, very 
near future of additional spending as a result of the drive of 
mandatory entitlement-style spending. To avoid what will happen in the 
future, I think we have to change the way we work now, because if we 
don't gradually move into controlling these kinds of spending areas, 
the step that we would want to take or have to take out there or be 
forced to take would be uncontrollable-- tax increases, major budget 
cuts of the kind many might find intolerable. What I am proposing is a 
modest step. I guess I am a bit like a doctor tonight. I am going to 
suggest that we first pledge to do no harm. What I am offering tonight 
does no harm to this budget.

  My amendment establishes a point of order that requires new mandatory 
spending programs to be paid for by mandatory spending savings. In 
other words, it would require 60 votes in the Senate to create a new 
mandatory spending program that was not funded by an equivalent 
mandatory spending savings. Tough choices? Not necessarily. But it 
forces the Congress to do the work that it probably hasn't liked to do 
over the years, and that is to do oversight to see whether these 
programs are working or they ought to be adjusted or changed, and if 
they are changed, is there something better that we might adjust to? If 
all of the new mandatory spending programs had been paid for, as we had 
claimed, we would not be facing a fiscal future of exploding spending 
and exploding deficits.
  I think anybody who might be listening to what I am saying tonight 
would be scratching their heads and saying: But, Senator, the budget 
you are proposing this night is balanced. The budget that the senior 
Senator from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee, is offering 
is at balance, and we are talking about the potential of surplus 
revenues.
  My point is--and it is a point that nobody disputes--that the current 
budget path that we are on, which is the right path, is unsustainable. 
As good as a balanced budget is today, it will not remain a balanced 
budget for long. The path that we are traveling is no secret that it is 
unsustainable. It is not. We all know because so many have told us so, 
including some of our own colleagues here on the floor. Senator Kerrey 
of Nebraska, who chaired the bipartisan commission on entitlement and 
tax reforms, has said so. The General Accounting Office has said so. 
Interestingly enough, the President's budget has said so. And in the 
most recent report, the Congressional Budget Office said:

       Currently, more than half of the nearly $1.7 trillion in 
     Federal spending goes for entitlements and other mandatory 
     spending programs. As a share of the total outlay, mandatory 
     spending has jumped from 32 percent in 1962 to 56 percent in 
     1997. If current policies remain unchanged, such spending 
     will continue to grow faster than other spending, reaching 63 
     percent of total outlays by the year 2002, or twice the size 
     of discretionary outlays.

  Under baseline assumptions, continued growth in mandatory outlays 
would raise their share of the budget to 70 percent by the year 2008. 
Last year, the Congressional Budget Office wrote that this year's 
budgetary news should not lull people into complacency and, most 
assuredly, this budget, the budget resolution we have before us, should 
not. It is an excellent work and it controls spending. It gets us to a 
balanced budget.

[[Page S2947]]

  But let me suggest that the retirement of a large baby boomer 
generation is just over the horizon. If the budgetary pressure from 
both demographic and health care spending is not relieved by reducing 
the growth of expenditures or increasing taxes, deficits will mount and 
seriously erode future economic growth. That report concluded:

       Current budget policy is unsustainable and attempting to 
     preserve it would severely damage the economy.

  How serious are the future projections? The Congressional Budget 
Office concluded that even if the budget were balanced in the year 
2002--and that is our goal and we are going to get there--we would have 
a deficit equal to 34 percent of the gross domestic product by the year 
2050 and the public debt would be 283 percent of the gross domestic 
product. Those are the outward projections of the current path of 
expenditure.
  There will be a demographic shift to older populations. This Senator 
standing before you tonight is part of that group. I am part of that 
baby boomer crowd. I am going to be one who will be collecting my 
Social Security and my Medicare. And there is no question that, in 
1995, there were 34 million 65-year-old and older citizens. But by the 
year 2030, there will be twice that number, or 68 million. There will 
be more elderly. They will live longer and they will be using Federal 
services more intensively. There will be relatively fewer workers 
around to put foot all of these bills. If we don't sense that now--and 
several sense-of-the-Senate resolutions have talked about it today, but 
my amendment changes the process, forces the issue, causes us to work 
our way through these kinds of tough decisions.

  In 1950, there were 7.3 workers for every senior. In 1990, there were 
4.8 workers for every one senior. In 2030, there will be 2.8. We all 
know the reality of that. What I am talking about are the taxpayers 
paying into the programs that will fund that one individual. It will 
take all 2.8 of those workers working together at a very large chunk--a 
60-plus percent tax rate on their income to fund that one individual, 
along with all the other Government services and necessary programs 
that we think are appropriate.
  So what the demographic shift means is that spending rises very 
rapidly relative to revenue. Quoting the Congressional Budget Office:

       Revenues will be squeezed as the number of people working 
     and the economy grows slower. At the same time, outlays for 
     Government programs that aid the elderly will burgeon as the 
     number of people eligible to receive benefits from these 
     programs will shoot up.

  What the fiscal squeeze means is major new revenues in the form of 
taxes or enormous deficits. The deficit, last year, was less than 1 
percent of GDP. It would be 29.8 percent by the year 2030. The Federal 
debt was 50 percent of GDP last year; it would be 250 percent by the 
year 2035. Those are not my numbers; that is the Congressional Budget 
Office speaking. Those are valid numbers, and anybody who studies the 
budget curves understands that. This is unprecedented. We have never 
had a period of time in our country's history where these numbers 
became reality, because we never have spent that much of the gross 
domestic product of our country. The deficit has been higher than 10 
percent of GDP only briefly, during major wars. And we understand those 
reasons--when our Nation is at risk and our freedoms are to be secured. 
The debt exceeded 100 percent only once and that was during World War 
II. The result would be based on the figures by the year 2035 of 
economic catastrophes. I don't know of any other way to explain it, any 
other way to compare it. Those would be the realities. Even to make the 
burden sustainable, the Congressional Budget Office terminology 
allowing debt to rise, but keeping constant in relation to the gross 
domestic product, would have dire consequences. The tax burden would 
have to increase 20 percent just to continue running deficits and 
adding debt.
  Of course, someone will say that the budget agreement solves the 
problem. No, the budget agreement doesn't solve the problem. It 
addresses the immediate, it addresses the desire to maintain current 
spending while mandatory spending within this continues to grow at the 
rates offered in these projections that brings us to the year 2035. It 
is certainly an improvement, and I am very laudatory of the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, and others. It delays the scenario I have just 
outlined. But according to the CBO, if the budget is balanced through 
the year 2010--and that is what I believe this Congress strives to do--
it will take less than 15 years to reach the same scenario that I have 
just described--a huge deficit and a debt of 230 percent of gross 
domestic product by that time. Quoting the Congressional Budget Office:

       Regardless of how the budget is balanced in the near term, 
     congressional budget action would still be needed to put the 
     budget on a sustainable path.

  So what I am proposing is a modest first step. The years 2030 to the 
year 2050 are not real to us on this floor. We cannot even begin to 
appreciate the kinds of budget numbers those years will produce. But 
they are very real to our children or any child that might be in the 
galleries tonight, because they are the ones who will be paying that 
huge tax rate out there to fund these kinds of programs that we have 
already put in progress today. So those are the realities of what we 
are dealing with. My amendment is a first step in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 14 minutes 43 
seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Has the proponent side used all of 
its time at this juncture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator 
Craig's amendment. This amendment would prohibit using revenues to 
offset new mandatory spending and, instead, require all new mandatory 
spending to be offset with other mandatory cuts. The amendment would 
prohibit using revenues to offset new mandatory spending. 
Alternatively, instead, it would require all new mandatory spending to 
be offset with mandatory cuts.
  The amendment would represent a significant departure from current 
pay-as-you-go rules. It would give special protection to special 
interest tax loopholes at the expense of programs like Social Security 
and Medicare. It would further undermine the prospects for 
comprehensive tobacco legislation.
  There is nothing new about using revenues to offset mandatory 
spending. The pay-as-you-go rule has been in place for many years and 
it has worked well. That rule says that new mandatory spending must be 
fully offset either by revenue increases or mandatory savings. In other 
words, new mandatory spending must be deficit neutral.
  Under Senator Craig's proposal, however, deficit neutrality is not 
enough. Under this amendment, legislation to provide a new mandatory 
benefit, like Medicare coverage for a new medical procedure, would have 
to be offset with other mandatory spending cuts. No new revenue could 
be used.
  If you think about that for a minute, it really doesn't make sense. 
If we are looking to pay for a new benefit, why would we say that 
cutting Social Security is fine, but closing a wasteful tax loophole is 
not? Why would we say that cutting Medicare is OK, but eliminating a 
corporate tax subsidy is not? Well, Mr. President, maybe some people 
think that the Tax Code is just fine the way it is and that it doesn't 
contain any loopholes or special breaks for the special interests. I 
happen not to be one of them. I don't think many Senators on either 
side of the aisle would make that claim. After all, we are now hearing 
calls to scrap the entire Tax Code even without a replacement. Can 
these same Senators now also be claiming that there is not one special 
tax break or loophole that deserves closing, even if the savings could 
be used to provide for new health benefits for people stricken with 
newly discovered deadly diseases? I hope that not many of my colleagues 
really believe that. In my view, we ought to be intensifying our 
efforts to eliminate wasteful tax loopholes. The last thing we should 
do is give any special protections to them

[[Page S2948]]

at the expense of Social Security or Medicare. So it is a little out of 
balance.

  This amendment would compound the obstacles already created in this 
budget resolution for comprehensive tobacco legislation. Under this 
amendment, tobacco legislation could not use tobacco revenues to pay to 
finance antitobacco activities. It doesn't make sense, and it would 
undercut what could be the most important piece of legislation in this 
session of the 105th Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It would change a 
fundamental rule that has worked well for many years. It would give 
special protection to wasteful tax loopholes at the expense of programs 
like Social Security and Medicare and could seriously impair the 
ability to get us to a comprehensive tobacco program.
  The pending amendment is not germane. I, therefore, raise a point of 
order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  I don't see anyone else in opposition. I yield the time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to waive the Congressional Budget 
Act.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we 
scheduled to start voting now?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is the condition, as I understand it. I ask the 
manager of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are going to vote on four amendments very shortly. 
Senator Moseley-Braun is going to be first with her amendment, then we 
are going to follow that with Senator Hollings' amendment, which is 
subject to a point of order, and then we are going to follow that and 
Senator Faircloth's marriage penalty, to be followed in fourth place by 
Senator Craig.
  I have a parliamentary inquiry with reference to Senator Moseley-
Braun's amendment. What is the unanimous consent? Does the Senator have 
some time, and do we have some time at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has used all of her 
time. The Senator from New Mexico rises in opposition.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, it was my understanding that the 
unanimous consent agreement had 1 minute before for each side in 
addition to the time budgeted for the amendment. There was supposed to 
be 1 minute for each side before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That unanimous consent has not been entered 
into relative to this amendment. But that is the standard agreement. 
That is the usual practice.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We would like to make sure that occurs. So I ask 
unanimous consent that be the case with reference to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It will be the case with the subsequent ones, will it 
not?
  You said it is not a part of the unanimous consent already. I thought 
it was.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making that request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I had my entire time left on Senator Moseley-Braun's. I 
yield that back and will use 1 minute before I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the manager whether this now 
precludes second degrees. Are we going to go ahead? Are we just going 
to vote?
  Mr. DOMENICI. My understanding is there will be no second degrees. I 
ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to 
the four amendments that are pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2175

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, our amendment is a sense of the Senate that the fiscal 
year 1999 budget resolution assumes that we will enact legislation 
creating a partnership between the State, local, and national 
governments to rebuild and modernize our schools and the classrooms for 
the 21st century.
  Winston Churchill once said, ``We shape our buildings, thereafter 
they shape us.'' Nowhere is that more true than with schools.
  The poor condition of America's schools has a direct effect on the 
ability of our students to learn the kinds of skills they will need to 
compete in the 21st century global economy. America cannot compete if 
our students cannot learn, and our students cannot learn if their 
schools are crumbling down around them.
  Our amendment would ensure that school districts around the Nation 
have the resources they need to address school improvement priorities 
so we can give our children an environment suitable for learning.
  I encourage support for this amendment. It is, after all, a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment. It will give everyone an opportunity to express 
without the particularity of the actual legislation. I express the 
support of doing the right thing by our kids.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a question I would like to 
resolve that I think is agreed upon. The first vote would be the 
traditional 15, plus 5, and thereafter 10-minute votes. All of them are 
strictly controlled so we can move the program along.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a unanimous consent?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. That will be the order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to ask. I thought when we entered into the 
unanimous consent agreement earlier in the day about stacking votes 
that we said we were going to have them 15, 10 and 10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  I have 1 minute on this amendment. Let me just say there is a 
statement behind me that was made in the budget by the President of the 
United States. It is very simple. It says:

       The construction and renovation of school facilities has 
     traditionally been the responsibility of State and local 
     government, financed primarily by local taxpayers; we are 
     opposed to the creation of a new Federal grant program for 
     school construction.

  I acknowledge that is a grant program. But I believe that we should 
change that word and say, ``We are opposed to tax credits for school 
construction,'' because I don't believe the U.S. Government ought to 
change its tax laws to allow a total tax deduction, which is what a 
credit is for the interest that a bond will yield if it is for 
construction of schools in the United States.
  There is no formula. We don't know how we will do this. We don't know 
whether poor districts will get it. I think we ought not start down 
this path. I know for some any education program is difficult. I 
understand this may be one of those. But I truly don't believe we ought 
to do this.
  I remind everyone, in any event, this is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. It is not binding. That will give you latitude to vote 
differently than I recommend, since it is not binding. But I don't 
believe we ought to tell the Finance Committee we want them to start 
down this path in a big way with reference to school construction.
  Having said that, I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays on 
my motion to table.
  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 New Mexico to lay on 
the table the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. On this question, 
the yeas and nays are ordered, and 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 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig

[[Page S2949]]


     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     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--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     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 motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2175) was agreed 
to.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have three votes to go. We can move them 
along promptly if we can have order in the Chamber.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I announce that when we finish this 
series of votes tonight, there will be no more votes tonight, but we 
will stay and debate five additional amendments --three from the 
Democratic side, two from the Republican side. Those will be stacked in 
the morning under the previous order, a 15-minute vote followed by 10-
minute votes.
  I will tell everyone, we now have in excess of 75 first-degree 
amendments filed. We will take care of five of them tonight, and that 
will probably leave us with about 70. Obviously, we could not dispose 
of 70 amendments at 10 or 15 minutes each in a very short period of 
time. So tomorrow morning, we will have, and my friend Senator 
Lautenberg says his staff will have some charts to show you your 
amendments while we are voting in the morning.
  We would like you to be honest; we don't ask you tonight in the full 
light of everybody which ones you really want to vote on and which ones 
you would like for us to consider and which ones you might withdraw. We 
are going to work on accepting as many as we can, with the idea that 
there is still a conference to go to, during which time those accepted 
amendments will be given due consideration.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator intend to stack the votes on these five 
amendments for in the morning?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

                          ____________________