Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)

[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.

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.

``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.

____________________