[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3280-S3290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AMENDMENT SUBMITTED ON MARCH 24, 1999

                                 ______
                                 

        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                 ABRAHAM (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 143

  Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
Roth, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Grams, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
Santorum, Mr. Craig, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Fitzgerald) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 20) setting forth 
the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
years 2000 through 2009; as follows:

     SEC. XX. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROTECTION OF THE 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) The Congress finds that--
        (1) Congress and the President should balance the budget 
     excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security 
     trust funds;
       (2) reducing the federal debt held by the public is a top 
     national priority, strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, 
     as evidenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's 
     comments that debt reduction ``is a very important element in 
     sustaining economic growth,'' as well as President Clinton's 
     comments that it ``is very, very important that we get the 
     government debt down'' when referencing his own plans to use 
     the budget surplus to reduce federal debt held by the public;
       (3) according to the Congressional Budget Office, balancing 
     the budget excluding the surpluses generated by the Social 
     Security trust funds will reduce debt held by the public by a 
     total of $1,723,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009, 
     $417,000,000,000, or 32 per cent, more than it would be 
     reduced under the President's fiscal year 2000 budget 
     submission;
       (4) further according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
     that the President's budget would actually spend 
     $40,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses in fiscal 
     year 2000 on new spending programs, and spend 
     $158,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses on new 
     spending programs from fiscal year 2000 through 2004; and
       (5) Social Security surpluses should be used for Social 
     Security reform or to reduce the debt held by the public and 
     should not be used for other purposes.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals 
     in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that 
     Congress shall pass legislation which--
       (1) Reaffirms the provisions of section 13301 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that provides that 
     the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust 
     funds shall not be counted for the purposes of the budget 
     submitted by the President, the congressional budget, or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     and provides for a Point of Order within the Senate against 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment 
     thereto, or a conference report thereon that violates that 
     section.

[[Page S3281]]

       (2) Mandates that the Social Security surpluses are used 
     only for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or to reduce the federal debt held by the 
     public, and not spent on non-Social Security programs or used 
     to offset tax cuts.
       (3) Provides for a Senate super-majority Point of Order 
     against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
     report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything 
     other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or the reduction of the federal debt held by 
     the public.
       (4) Ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on 
     time.
       (5) Accomodates Social Security reform legislation.
                                 ______
                                 

                      LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT NO. 144

  Mr. LAUTENBERG proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC. ____. SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE FIRST.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider--
       (1) any bill, resolution, motion, amendment, or conference 
     report that would reduce revenues without offsetting them in 
     accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 until 
     Congress first enacts legislation that--
       (A) ensures the long-term fiscal solvency of the Social 
     Security Trust Funds and extends the solvency of the Medicare 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by at least 12 years; and
       (B) includes a certification that the legislation complies 
     with subparagraph (A); or
       (2) any bill, resolution, motion, amendment, or conference 
     report that would increase spending above the levels provided 
     in this resolution, unless such spending increases are offset 
     in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 until 
     Congress first enacts legislation that--
       (A) ensures the long-term fiscal solvency of the Social 
     Security Trust Funds and extends the solvency of the Medicare 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by at least 12 years; and
       (B) includes a certification that the legislation complies 
     with subparagraph (A).
       (b) Supermajority Waiver.--
       (1) Waiver.--The point of order in subsection (a) may be 
     waived or suspended only by the affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 

                ASHCROFT (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 145

  Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Smith of New 
Hampshire, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Warner) 
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, 
supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
                   SHOULD NOT INVEST THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST 
                   FUNDS IN PRIVATE FINANCIAL MARKETS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that the Federal Government should not directly invest 
     contributions made to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) in private financial markets.
                                 ______
                                 

                  CRAIG (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 146

  Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Inhofe) 
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, 
supra; as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

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

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Surplus Protection Amendment''.
       (b) In General.--In the Senate, for purposes of section 202 
     of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress), it shall 
     not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that provides an 
     increase in direct spending unless the increase is offset by 
     a decrease in direct spending.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of direct spending for a fiscal year 
     shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 

                        CONRAD AMENDMENT NO. 147

  Mr. CONRAD proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       After section 206, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE FIRST LOCKBOX.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Social 
     Security and Medicare lockbox'' means with respect to any 
     fiscal year, the Social Security surplus (as described in 
     section 311(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), 
     and the Medicare surplus reserve, which shall consist of 
     amounts allocated to save the Medicare program as provided in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Medicare Surplus Reserve.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to adjustment pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the amounts reserved for the Medicare surplus 
     reserve in each year are--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $0;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $3,000,000,000;
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $26,000,000,000;
       (D) for fiscal year 2003, $15,000,000,000;
       (E) for fiscal year 2004, $21,000,000,000;
       (F) for fiscal year 2005, $35,000,000,000;
       (G) for fiscal year 2006, $63,000,000,000;
       (H) for fiscal year 2007, $68,000,000,000;
       (I) for fiscal year 2008, $72,000,000,000;
       (J) for fiscal year 2009, $73,000,000,000;
       (K) for fiscal year 2010, $70,000,000,000;
       (L) for fiscal year 2011, $73,000,000,000;
       (M) for fiscal year 2012, $70,000,000,000;
       (N) for fiscal year 2013, $66,000,000,000; and
       (O) for fiscal year 2014, $52,000,000,000.
       (2) Adjustment.--
       (A) In general.--The amounts in paragraph (1) for each 
     fiscal year shall be adjusted each year in the budget 
     resolution by a fixed percentage equal to the adjustment 
     required to those amounts sufficient to extend the solvency 
     of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund based on the 
     most recent Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (intermediate assumptions) 
     through fiscal year 2020 or 12 years after the date of 
     insolvency specified in the 1999 Report, whichever date is 
     later.
       (B) Limit based on total surplus.--The Medicare surplus 
     reserve, as adjusted by subparagraph (A), shall not exceed 
     the total budget resolution baseline surplus in any fiscal 
     year.
       (c) Medicare Surplus Reserve Point of Order.--It shall not 
     be in order in the Senate to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference 
     report on the resolution) that would decrease the surplus in 
     any of the fiscal years covered by the concurrent resolution 
     below the levels of the Medicare surplus reserve for those 
     fiscal years calculated in accordance with subsection (b)(1).
       (d) Enforcement of Medicare Surplus.--After a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget is agreed to, it shall not be in 
     order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would cause a 
     decrease in the Medicare surplus reserve in any of the fiscal 
     years covered by the concurrent resolution.
       (e) Social Security Off-Budget Point of Order.--It shall 
     not be in order in the Senate to consider a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, an amendment thereto, or a 
     conference report thereon that violates section 13301 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
       (f) Supermajority Waiver.--
       (1) Waiver.--A bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report violating this section shall be subject to 
     a point of order that may be waived or suspended only by the 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen 
     and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under paragraph (1).
       On page 46, strike section 204.
       At the end of section 101, insert the following:
       (7) Medicare Surplus Reserve.--The amounts of the surplus 
     that shall be reserved for Medicare are as follows:
       (A) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (B) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (C) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000;
       (D) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000;
       (E) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000;
       (F) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000;
       (G) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000;
       (H) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000;
       (I) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000; and
       (J) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Increase the levels of Federal revenues in section 
     101(1)(A) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $25,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $13,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $18,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $31,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $57,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $58,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $59,000,000,000; and

[[Page S3282]]

       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $56,000,000,000.
       Change the levels of Federal revenues in section 101(1)(B) 
     by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $25,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $13,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $18,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $31,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $57,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $58,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $59,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $56,000,000,000.
       Reduce the levels of total budget authority and outlays in 
     section 101(2) and section 101(3) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $0;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $1,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $3,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $4,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $6,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $10,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $13,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $17,000,000,000.
       Increase the levels of surplus in section 101(4) by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of public debt in section 101(5) by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of debt held by the public in section 
     101(6) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Reduce the levels of budget authority and outlays in 
     section 103(18) for function 900, Net Interest, by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $0;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $1,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $3,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $4,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $6,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $10,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $13,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $17,000,000,000.
       Reduce the levels in section 104(1) by which the Senate 
     Committee on Finance is instructed to reduce revenues by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) $0 in fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $59,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004; and
       (3) $320,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2009.
                                 ______
                                 

                      COVERDELL AMENDMENT NO. 148

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. COVERDELL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him 
to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. RESTRICTION ON RETROACTIVE INCOME AND ESTATE TAX 
                   RATE INCREASES.

       (a) Purpose.--The Senate declares that it is essential to 
     ensure taxpayers are protected against retroactive income and 
     estate tax rate increases.
       (b) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report, that includes a retroactive Federal income 
     tax rate increase.
       (2) Definition.--In this section--
       (A) the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' means any 
     amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 
     1, or to section 11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, that imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and 
     thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by any such 
     section; and
       (B) a Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if it 
     applies to a period beginning prior to the enactment of the 
     provision.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver.--
       (1) Waiver.--The point of order in subsection (b) may be 
     waived or suspended only by the affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under subsection (b).
       (d) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on January 
     1, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 

                        GRAMS AMENDMENT NO. 149

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. GRAMS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, as follows:

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

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX FOR THE 
                   ACCUMULATED ASSETS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST 
                   FUNDS.

       Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Congress should create a safe-deposit box to lock in all 
     the accumulated Social Security surplus in the Social 
     Security Trust Funds by gradually reducing government 
     spending to ensure this surplus be used exclusively for 
     Social Security.
                                 ______
                                 

                  GRAMS (AND CRAPO) AMENDMENT NO. 150

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Crapo) submitted an amendment intended 
to be proposed by them to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, 
as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASED ON-BUDGET SURPLUS IN 
                   THE OUTYEARS.

       (a) In General.--Any additional on-budget surplus exceeding 
     the level assumed in this resolution during the period of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2009 as reestimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall be reserved exclusively for 
     tax relief or debt reduction.
       (b) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate may reduce the spending and revenue 
     aggregates and may revise committee allocations by taking the 
     additional amount of the on-budget surplus referred to in 
     subsection (a) for tax relief or debt reduction in the period 
     of fiscal year 2001 through 2009.
       (c) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that uses 
     the additional on-budget surplus reserved in subsection (a) 
     for additional Government spending other than tax relief or 
     debt reduction, a point of order may be made by a Senator 
     against the measure, and if the Presiding Officer sustains 
     that point of order, it may not be offered as an amendment 
     from the floor.
       (2) Supermajority.--This point of order may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised allocations and 
     aggregates under subsection (a) shall be considered for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.
                                 ______
                                 

                         BOND AMENDMENT NO. 151

  Mr. BOND proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 20, supra; as follows:

         Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2000.

         (a) Declaration.--Congress determines and declares that 
     this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2000 including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 as authorized by 
     section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
         (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 2. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 3. Social Security.
Sec. 4. Major functional categories.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

         The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004:
         (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
         (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $1,406,025,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $1,445,309,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $1,507,935,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $1,562,820,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $1,631,839,000,000.
         (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $11,046,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $10,612,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $10,609,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $9,952,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $9,490,000,000.
         (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the 
     enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total new budget authority are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $1,546,344,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $1,584,835,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $1,645,262,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $1,715,370,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $1,769,129,000,000.
         (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $1,531,949,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $1,561,030,000,000.

[[Page S3283]]

         Fiscal year 2002: $1,631,887,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $1,699,388,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $1,777,965,000,000.
         (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $125,924,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $115,721,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $123,952,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $136,568,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $146,126,000,000.
         (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public 
     debt are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $5,778,600,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $5,999,800,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $6,234,000,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $6,498,400,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $6,765,100,000,000.
         (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     the debt held by the public are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $3,532,443,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $3,398,722,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $3,215,290,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $3,034,629,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $2,824,701,000,000.

     SEC. 3. SOCIAL SECURITY.

         (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $468,020,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $487,744,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $506,293,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $527,326,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $549,876,000,000.
         (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
         Fiscal year 2000: $262,175,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001: $283,322,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002: $272,819,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003: $282,098,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004: $275,846,000,000.

     SEC. 4. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

         Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 for each major functional 
     category are:
         (1) National Defense (050):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $280,525,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $283,261,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $300,207,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $284,991,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $301,966,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $293,701,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $312,360,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $303,803,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $321,228,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $313,787,000,000.
         (2) International Affairs (150):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $16,111,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $16,728,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $16,375,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $17,510,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $15,514,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $17,755,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $17,449,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $17,421,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $18,633,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $17,643,000,000.
         (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $19,279,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $18,773,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $19,476,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $19,140,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $19,406,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $19,283,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $19,373,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $19,135,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $19,369,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $19,163,000,000.
         (4) Energy (270):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $1,165,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $148,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $1,315,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-605,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $1,056,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $52,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $1,106,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-15,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $842,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-155,000,000.
         (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $24,592,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $24,084,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $23,964,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $24,242,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $23,894,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $23,971,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $23,985,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $24,119,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $23,998,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $23,960,000,000.
         (6) Agriculture (350):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $15,155,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $13,554,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $13,007,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $11,240,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $9,489,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $11,456,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $9,762,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $11,474,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $9,986,000,000.
         (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $11,098,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $5,752,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $11,819,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $6,917,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $15,580,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $11,265,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $15,649,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $11,878,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $15,022,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $11,493,000,000.
         (8) Transportation (400):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $54,233,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $48,054,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $54,505,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $50,370,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $55,546,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $50,716,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $57,826,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $52,706,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $59,047,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $53,799,000,000.
         (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $11,898,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $9,141,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $10,931,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $9,077,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $10,919,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $9,234,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $10,232,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $9,217,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $9,694,000,000.
         (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $67,427,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $64,315,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $69,342,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $68,734,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $68,902,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $69,111,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $70,490,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $70,413,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $70,806,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $70,439,000,000.
         (11) Health (550):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $157,699,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $153,576,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $166,827,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $165,390,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $176,310,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $177,172,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $188,429,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $189,416,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $202,009,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $202,815,000,000.
         (12) Medicare (570):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $207,313,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $207,342,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $219,958,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $220,098,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $228,786,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $228,414,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:

[[Page S3284]]

         (A) New budget authority, $248,871,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $248,998,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $266,671,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $266,850,000,000.
         (13) Income Security (600):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $256,590,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $259,635,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $268,839,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $271,765,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $282,063,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $285,263,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $291,119,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $295,138,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $301,746,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $303,967,000,000.
         (14) Social Security (650):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $95,790,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $95,791,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $80,518,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $80,518,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $104,023,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $104,023,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $103,449,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $103,449,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $122,837,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $122,837,000,000.
         (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $43,786,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $43,931,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $44,439,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $44,877,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $44,980,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $45,304,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $45,526,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $45,864,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $45,875,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $46,287,000,000.
         (16) Administration of Justice (750):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $26,616,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $26,608,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $26,988,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $27,189,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $27,160,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $27,146,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $26,901,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $27,044,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $26,924,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $26,995,000,000.
         (17) General Government (800):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $13,785,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $14,850,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $14,583,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $14,732,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $14,294,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $14,431,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $14,383,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $14,270,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $14,353,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $14,427,000,000.
         (18) Net Interest (900):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $278,294,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $278,294,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $279,933,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $279,933,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $282,562,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $282,562,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $282,562,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $282,562,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $292,566,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $292,566,000,000.
         (19) Allowances (920):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $0.
         (B) Outlays, $1,365,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $2,299,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $4,425,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
         (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
         Fiscal year 2000:
         (A) New budget authority, $-35,012,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-35,012,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2001:
         (A) New budget authority, $-39,401,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-39,401,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2002:
         (A) New budget authority, $-43,115,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-43,115,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2003:
         (A) New budget authority, $-38,226,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-38,226,000,000.
         Fiscal year 2004:
         (A) New budget authority, $-38,488,000,000.
         (B) Outlays, $-38,488,000,000.
                                 ______
                                 

                  SMITH (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 152

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Feingold) 
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, as 
follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section and number it accordingly:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING 
                   FOR U.S. INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) U.S. international leadership is essential to 
     maintaining security and peace for all Americans;
       (2) such leadership depends on effective diplomacy as well 
     as a strong military;
       (3) effective diplomacy requires adequate resources both 
     for embassy security and for international programs;
       (4) in addition to building peace, prosperity and democracy 
     around the world, programs in the International Affairs (150) 
     account serve U.S. interests by ensuring better jobs and a 
     higher standard of living, promoting the health of our 
     citizens and preserving our natural environment, and 
     protecting the rights and safety of those who travel or do 
     business overseas;
       (5) real spending for International Affairs has declined 
     more than 50 percent since the mid-1980s, at the same time 
     that major new challenges and opportunities have arisen from 
     the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the worldwide 
     trends toward democracy and free markets;
       (6) current ceilings on discretionary spending will impose 
     severe additional cuts in funding for International Affairs; 
     and
       (7) improved security for U.S. diplomatic missions and 
     personnel will place further strain on the International 
     Affairs budget absent significant additional resources.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that additional 
     budgetary resources should be identified for function 150 to 
     enable successful U.S. international leadership.
                                 ______
                                 

                 JOHNSON (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 153

  Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
Reid, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Robb, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hatch, Ms. 
Snowe, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Specter, Mr. Grams, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grassley, 
and Mr. Domenici) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, 
S. Con. Res. 20, as follows:

       On page 31 line 23 strike ``44,724,000,000''. and insert 
     ``46,724,000,000''.
       On page 31 line 24 strike ``45,064,000,000''. and insert 
     ``47,064,000,000''.
       On page 38 line 15 strike ``8,033,000,000''. and insert 
     ``10,033,000,000''.
       On page 38 line 16 strike ``8,094,000,000''. and insert 
     ``10,094,000,000''.
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       ``(A) It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions in 
     this resolution assume that if CBO determines there is an on-
     budget surplus for FY 2000, $2 billion of that surplus will 
     be restored to the programs cut in this amendment.
       ``(B) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that none of these 
     offsets will come from defense or veterans, and to the extent 
     possible should come from administrative functions.''
                                 ______
                                 

                  ENZI (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 154

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Thomas) submitted an 
amendment intended to be proposed by them to the concurrent resolution, 
S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT AGRICULTURAL RISK 
                   MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS SHOULD BENEFIT LIVESTOCK 
                   PRODUCERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) extremes in weather-related and natural conditions have 
     a profound impact on the economic viability of producers;

[[Page S3285]]

       (2) these extremes, such as drought, excessive rain and 
     snow, flood, wind, insect infestation are certainly beyond 
     the control of livestock producers;
       (3) these extremes do not impact livestock producers within 
     a state, region or the nation in the same manner or during 
     the same time frame or for the same duration of time;
       (4) the livestock producers have a few effective risk 
     management tools at their disposal to adequately manage the 
     short and long term impacts of weather-related or natural 
     disaster situations; and
       (5) ad hoc natural disaster assistance programs, while 
     providing some relief, are not sufficient to meet livestock 
     producers' needs for rational risk management planning.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that any consideration of 
     reform of federal crop insurance and risk management programs 
     should include the needs of livestock producers.
                                 ______
                                 

                         ENZI AMENDMENT NO. 155

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ELIMINATING THE MARRIAGE 
                   PENALTY AND ACROSS THE BOARD INCOME TAX RATE 
                   CUTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The institution of marriage is the cornerstone of the 
     family and civil society;
       (2) Strengthening of the marriage commitment and the family 
     is an indispensable step in the renewal of America's culture;
       (3) The Federal income tax punishes marriage by imposing a 
     greater tax burden on married couples than on their single 
     counterparts;
       (4) America's tax code should give each married couple the 
     choice to be treated as one economic unit, regardless of 
     which spouse earns the income; and
       (5) All American taxpayers are responsible for any budget 
     surplus and deserve broad-based tax relief after the Social 
     Security Trust fund has been protected.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that--
       (1) Congress should eliminate the marriage penalty in a 
     manner that treats all married couples equally, regardless of 
     which spouse earns the income; and
       (2) Congress should implement an equal, across the board 
     reduction in each of the current federal income tax rates as 
     soon as there is a non-Social Security surplus.
                                 ______
                                 

                COVERDELL (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 156

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Abraham) 
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING INCENTIVES FOR SMALL 
                   SAVERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in general, the Federal budget will accumulate nearly 
     $800,000,000,000 in non-Social Security surpluses through 
     2009;
       (2) such a level of surplus afford Congress the opportunity 
     to return a portion to the taxpayers in the form of tax 
     relief;
       (3) the Federal tax burden is at its highest level in over 
     50 years;
       (4) personal bankruptcy filings reached a record high in 
     1998 with $40,000,000,000 in debts discharged;
       (5) the personal savings rate is at record lows not seen 
     since the Great Depression;
       (6) the personal savings rate was 9 percent of income in 
     1982;
       (7) the personal savings rate was 5.7 percent of income in 
     1992;
       (8) the personal savings rate plummeted to 0.5 percent in 
     1998;
       (9) the personal savings rate could plummet to as low as 
     negative 4.5 percent if current trends do not change;
       (10) personal savings is important as a means for the 
     American people to prepare for crisis, such as a job loss, 
     health emergency, or some other personal tragedy, or to 
     prepare for retirement;
       (11) President Clinton recently acknowledged the low rate 
     of personal savings as a concern;
       (12) raising the starting point for the 28 percent personal 
     income tax bracket by $10,000 over 5 years would move 
     7,000,000 middle-income taxpayers into the lowest income tax 
     bracket;
       (13) excluding the first $500 from interest and dividends 
     income, or $250 for singles, would enable 30,000,000 low- and 
     middle-income taxpayers to save tax-free and would translate 
     into approximately $1,000,000,000,000 in savings;
       (14) exempting the first $5,000 in capital gains income 
     from capital gains taxation would mean 10,000,000 low- and 
     middle-income taxpayers would no longer pay capital gains 
     tax;
       (15) raising the deductible limit for Individual Retirement 
     Account contributions from $2,000 to $3,000, would mean over 
     5,000,000 taxpayers will be better equipped for retirement; 
     and
       (16) tax relief measures to encourage savings and 
     investments for low- and middle-income savers would mean tax 
     relief for nearly 112,000,000 individual taxpayers by--
       (A) raising the starting point for the 28 percent personal 
     income tax bracket by $10,000 over 5 years;
       (B) excluding from income the first $500 in interest and 
     dividend income ($250 for singles);
       (C) exempting from capital gains taxation the first $5,000 
     in capital gains taxes; and
       (D) raising the deductible limit for Individual Retirement 
     Account contributions from $2,000 to $3,000.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this budget resolution and legislation 
     enacted pursuant to this resolution assume that--
       (1) Congress will adopt tax relief that provides incentives 
     for savings and investment for low- and middle-income working 
     families that assist in preparing for unexpected emergencies 
     and retirement, such as--
       (A) raising the starting point for the 28 percent personal 
     income tax bracket by $10,000 over 5 years;
       (B) excluding from income the first $500 in interest and 
     dividend income ($250 for singles);
       (C) exempting from capital gains taxation the first $5,000 
     in capital gains taxes; and
       (D) raising the deductible limit for Individual Retirement 
     Account contributions from $2,000 to $3,000; and
       (2) tax relief as described in this subsection is fully 
     achievable within the parameters set forth under this budget 
     resolution.
                                 ______
                                 

                 SPECTER (AND HARKIN) AMENDMENT NO. 157

  Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Harkin) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S.Con.Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. ______. RESERVE FUND.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates and allocations may be revised under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for 
     legislation disallowing a Federal income tax deduction for 
     any payment to the Federal Government or any State or local 
     government in connection with any tobacco litigation or 
     settlement and to use $1,400,000,000 of the increased 
     revenues to fund biomedical research at the National 
     Institutes of Health.
       (b) Revised Aggregates.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file increased 
     aggregates to carry out this section. These aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as the aggregates contained in this resolution.
                                 ______
                                 

                  ROTH (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 158

  (Ordered to lie on the table.
  Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Gramm, 
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Thompson) 
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE MODERNIZATION AND 
                   IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage provided under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial 
     security for retired and disabled individuals, as such 
     coverage protects those individuals against the financially 
     ruinous costs of a major illness.
       (2) Expenditures under the medicare program for hospital, 
     physician, and other essential health care services that are 
     provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired and disabled 
     individuals will be $232,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
       (3) During the nearly 35 years since the medicare program 
     was established, the Nation's health care delivery and 
     financing system has undergone major transformations. 
     However, the medicare program has not kept pace with such 
     transformations.
       (4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert 
     Reischauer has described the medicare program as it exists 
     today as failing on the following 4 key dimensions (known as 
     the ``Four I's''):
       (A) The program is inefficient.
       (B) The program is inequitable.
       (C) The program is inadequate.
       (D) The program is insolvent.
       (5) The President's budget framework does not devote 15 
     percent of the budget surpluses to the medicare program. The 
     federal budget process does not provide a mechanism for 
     setting aside current surpluses for future obligations. As a 
     result, the notion of saving 15 percent of the surplus for 
     the medicare program cannot practically be carried out.
       (6) The President's budget framework would transfer to the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund more than 
     $900,000,000,000 over 15 years in new IOUs that must be 
     redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public, and these new 
     IOUs would increase the gross debt of the Federal Government 
     by the amounts transferred.

[[Page S3286]]

       (7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the 
     transfers described in paragraph (6) which are strictly 
     intragovernmental, have no effect on the unified budget 
     surpluses or the on-budget surpluses and therefore have no 
     effect on the debt held by the public.
       (8) The President's budget framework does not provide 
     access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.
       (9) The Comptroller General of the United States has stated 
     that the President's medicare proposal does not constitute 
     reform of the program and ``is likely to create a public 
     misperception that something meaningful is being done to 
     reform the Medicare program''.
       (10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted changes to the 
     medicare program which strengthen and extend the solvency of 
     that program.
       (11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that 
     without changes made to the medicare program by the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997, the depletion of the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund would now be imminent.
       (12) The President's budget proposes to cut medicare 
     program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, primarily 
     through reductions in payments to providers under that 
     program.
       (13) While the recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
     Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
     of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on the Future of Medicare, all of the President's 
     appointees to that commission opposed the bipartisan reform 
     plan.
       (14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new 
     prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries 
     within a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the 
     medicare program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Fund that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the 
     public.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions contained in this budget resolution 
     assume the following:
       (1) The resolution does not adopt the President's proposals 
     to reduce medicare program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 
     10 years, nor does this resolution adopt the President's 
     proposal to spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare program funds 
     on unrelated programs.
       (2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or 
     borrowing more from the public.
       (3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend 
     the solvency of the medicare program and to ensure that 
     benefits under that program will be available to 
     beneficiaries in the future.
       (4) The American public will be well and fairly served in 
     this undertaking if the medicare program reform proposes are 
     considered within a framework that is based on the following 
     5 key principles offered in testimony to the Senate Committee 
     on Finance by the Comptroller General of the United States:
       (A) Affordability.
       (B) Equity.
       (C) Adequacy.
       (D) Feasibility.
       (E) Public acceptance.
       (5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman 
     Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for the 
     neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially 
     improves the solvency of the medicare program without 
     transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new 
     IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public.
       (6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen and the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (7) Congress should continue to work with the President as 
     he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the 
     medicare program.
                                 ______
                                 

                  COLLINS (AND DODD) AMENDMENT NO. 159

  Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Dodd) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution. S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TEA-21 FUNDING AND THE STATES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) on May 22, 1998, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the 
     conference committee report on H.R. 2400, the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century, in a 88-5 roll call vote;
       (2) also on May 22, 1998, the House of Representatives 
     approved the conference committee report on this bill in a 
     297-86 recorded vote;
       (3) on June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed this bill 
     into law, thereby making it Public Law 105-178;
       (4) the TEA-21 legislation was a comprehensive 
     reauthorization of Federal highway and mass transit programs, 
     which authorized approximately $216,000,000,000 in Federal 
     transportation spending over the next 6 fiscal years;
       (5) section 1105 of this legislation called for any excess 
     Federal gasoline tax revenues to be provided to the States 
     under the formulas established by the final version of TEA-
     21; and
       (6) the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request 
     contained a proposal to distribute approximately 
     $1,000,000,000 in excess Federal gasoline tax revenues that 
     was not consistent with the provisions of section 1105 of 
     TEA-21 and would deprive States of needed revenues.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution and any legislation 
     enacted pursuant to this resolution assume that the 
     President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal to change the 
     manner in which any excess Federal gasoline tax revenues are 
     distributed to the States will not be implemented, but rather 
     any of these funds will be distributed to the States pursuant 
     to section 1105 of TEA-21.
                                 ______
                                 

                  DODD (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 160

  Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Kohl) proposed an amendment 
to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, as follows:

       On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, 
     line 14, and insert the following:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,586,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,650,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,683,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,737,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,807,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,870,515,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$6,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$52,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$30,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$47,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$60,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$107,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$133,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$148,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$175,195,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,457,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,488,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,562,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,614,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,667,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,699,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,754,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,815,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,875,969,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,584,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,640,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,668,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,717,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,782,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,842,699,000,000.

       On page 28, strike beginning with line 13 through page 31, 
     line 19, and insert the following:
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,126,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $306,155,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $312,948,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,104,000,000.


[[Page S3287]]


       On page 42, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in fiscal year 
     2000, $136,989,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004, and $762,544,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009; and
                                 ______
                                 

                      VOINOVICH AMENDMENT NO. 161

  Mr. VOINOVICH proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $7,433,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $53,118,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $32,303,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $49,180,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $62,637,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 
     $109,275,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by 
     $135,754,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by 
     $150,692,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $177,195,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $7,433,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $53,118,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $32,303,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $49,180,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $62,637,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $109,275,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $135,754,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by 
     $150,692,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by 
     $177,195,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $165,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $1,566,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $3,8924,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $6,114,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $9,232,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $13,931,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $20,801,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $29,114,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $38,871,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $165,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,566,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $3,892,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $6,114,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $9,232,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $13,931,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $20,801,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $29,114,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $38,871,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $7,598,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $54,684,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $36,195,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $55,294,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $71,869,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $123,206,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by 
     $156,555,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $179,806,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $216,066,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $7,598,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $62,282,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $98,477,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $153,771,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $225,640,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $348,846,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $505,401,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $685,207,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $901,273,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $7,598,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $62,282,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $98,477,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $153,771,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $225,640,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $348,846,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $505,401,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $685,207,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $901,273,000,000.
       On page 37, line 2, decrease the amount by $165,000,000.
       On page 37, line 3, decrease the amount by $165,000,000.
       On page 37, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,566,000,000.
       On page 37, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,566,000,000.
       On page 37, line 10, decrease the amount by $3,892,000,000.
       On page 37, line 11, decrease the amount by $3,892,000,000.
       On page 37, line 14, decrease the amount by $6,114,000,000.
       On page 37, line 15, decrease the amount by $6,114,000,000.
       On page 37, line 18, decrease the amount by $9,232,000,000.
       On page 37, line 19, decrease the amount by $9,232,000,000.
       On page 37, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $13,931,000,000.
       On page 37, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $13,931,000,000.
       On page 38, line 2, decrease the amount by $20,801,000,000.
       On page 38, line 3, decrease the amount by $20,801,000,000.
       On page 38, line 6, decrease the amount by $29,114,000,000.
       On page 38, line 7, decrease the amount by $29,114,000,000.
       On page 38, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $38,871,000,000.
       On page 38, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $38,871,000,000.
       On page 42, strike lines 1 through 5 and lines 15 through 
     19.
       Strike section 201.
                                 ______
                                 

                  REED (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 162

  Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Murray) 
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, 
supra; as follows:

       On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, 
     line 14, and insert the following:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,438,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,461,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,538,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,592,543,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,656,146,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,689,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,743,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,813,532,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,876,549,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$4,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$46,866,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$25,035,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$41,606,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$54,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$101,451,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$127,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$142,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$169,161,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,433,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,462,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,494,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,567,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,619,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,673,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,704,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,759,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,820,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,881,193,000,000.
       (3) Budget Outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,438,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,461,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,538,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,589,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,646,315,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,674,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,723,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,788,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,848,733,000,000.
       On page 21, strike beginning with line 20 through 23, line 
     11, and insert the following:
       (9) Community and regional development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,273,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:

[[Page S3288]]

       (A) New budget authority, $9,217,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,722,000,000.
       On page 42, strike lines 1 through 5.
       Change $142,034,000,000 to $117,526,000,000.
       Change $777,587,000,000 to $713,363,000,000.
                                 ______
                                 

                  CRAPO (AND GRAMS) AMENDMENT NO. 163

  Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Grams) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASED ON-BUDGET SURPLUS IN 
                   THE OUTYEARS.

       (a) In General.--Any additional on-budget surplus exceeding 
     the level assumed in this resolution during the period of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2009 as reestimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall be reserved exclusively for 
     tax relief or debt reduction.
       (b) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate may reduce the spending and revenue 
     aggregates and may revise committee allocations by taking the 
     additional amount of the on-budget surplus referred to in 
     subsection (a) for tax relief or debt reduction in the period 
     of fiscal year 2001 through 2009.
       (c) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that uses 
     the additional on-budget surplus reserved in subsection (a) 
     for additional Government spending other than tax relief or 
     debt reduction, a point of order may be made by a Senator 
     against the measure, and if the Presiding Officer sustains 
     that point of order, it may not be offered as an amendment 
     from the floor.
       (2) Supermajority.--This point of order may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised allocations and 
     aggregates under subsection (a) shall be considered for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.
                                 ______
                                 

                        GRAHAM AMENDMENT NO. 164

  Mr. GRAHAM proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING RECOVERY OF FUNDS 
                   BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN TOBACCO-RELATED 
                   LITIGATION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Federal Tobacco Recovery and Medicare Prescription Drug 
     Benefit Resolution of 1999''.
       (b) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The President, in his January 19, 1999 State of the 
     Union address--
       (A) announced that the Department of Justice would develop 
     a litigation plan for the Federal Government against the 
     tobacco industry;
       (B) indicated that any funds recovered through such 
     litigation would be used to strengthen the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.); and
       (C) urged Congress to pass legislation to include a 
     prescription drug benefit in the medicare program.
       (2) The traditional medicare program does not include most 
     outpatient prescription drugs as part of its benefit package.
       (3) Prescription drugs are a central element in improving 
     quality of life and in routine health maintenance.
       (4) Prescription drugs are a key component to early health 
     care intervention strategies for the elderly.
       (5) Eighty percent of retired individuals take at least 1 
     prescription drug every day.
       (6) Individuals 65 years of age or older represent 12 
     percent of the population of the United States but consume 
     more than \1/3\ of all prescription drugs consumed in the 
     United States.
       (7) Exclusive of health care-related premiums, prescription 
     drugs account for almost \1/3\ of the health care costs and 
     expenditures of elderly individuals.
       (8) Approximately 10 percent of all medicare beneficiaries 
     account for nearly 50 percent of all prescription drug 
     spending by the elderly.
       (9) Research and development on new generations of 
     pharmaceuticals represent new opportunities for healthier, 
     longer lives for our Nation's elderly.
       (10) Prescription drugs are among the key tools in every 
     health care professional's medical arsenal to help combat and 
     prevent the onset, recurrence, or debilitating effects of 
     illness and disease.
       (11) While Federal litigation against tobacco companies 
     will take time to develop and execute, Congress should 
     continue to work to address the immediate need among the 
     elderly for access to affordable prescription drugs.
       (12) Treatment of tobacco-related illness is estimated to 
     cost the medicare program approximately $10,000,000,000 every 
     year.
       (13) In 1998, 50 States reached a settlement with the 
     tobacco industry for tobacco-related illness in the amount of 
     $206,000,000,000.
       (14) Recoveries from Federal tobacco-related litigation, if 
     successful, will likely be comparable to or exceed the dollar 
     amount recovered by the States under the 1998 settlement.
       (15) In the event Federal tobacco-related litigation is 
     undertaken and is successful, funds recovered under such 
     litigation should first be used for the purpose of 
     strengthening the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and 
     second to finance a medicare prescription drug benefit.
       (16) The scope of any medicare prescription drug benefit 
     should be as comprehensive as possible, with drugs used in 
     fighting tobacco-related illnesses given a first priority.
       (17) Most Americans want the medicare program to cover the 
     costs of prescription drugs.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that funds recovered under any tobacco-
     related litigation commenced by the Federal Government should 
     be used first for the purpose of strengthening the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and second to fund a medicare 
     prescription drug benefit.
                                 ______
                                 

                 GRAHAM (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 165

  Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Ms. Snowe) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as 
follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OFFSETTING INAPPROPRIATE 
                   EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) some emergency expenditures made at the end of the 
     105th Congress for fiscal year 1999 were inappropriately 
     deemed as emergencies; and
       (2) Congress and the President should identify these 
     inappropriate expenditures and fully pay for these 
     expenditures during the fiscal year in which they will be 
     incurred.
                                 ______
                                 

                      LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT NO. 166

  Mr. LAUTENBERG proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution S. 
Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY AND 
                   MEDICARE, REDUCING THE PUBLIC DEBT, AND 
                   TARGETING TAX RELIEF TO MIDDLE-INCOME WORKING 
                   FAMILIES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) Congress should adopt a budget that--
       (A) reserves the entire off-budget surplus for Social 
     Security each year; and
       (B) over 15 years, like the President's budget, reserves--
       (i) 77 percent, or $3,600,000,000 of the total surplus for 
     Social Security and Medicare;
       (ii) 23 percent, or $1,000,000,000 of the surplus for--

       (I) investments in key domestic priorities such as 
     education, the environment, and law enforcement;
       (II) investments in military readiness; and
       (III) pro-savings tax cuts for working families;

       (2) any tax cuts or spending increases should not be 
     enacted before the solvency of Social Security is assured and 
     Medicare solvency is extended twelve years;
       (3) the 77 percent or $3,600,0000,000 of the total surplus 
     for Social Security and Medicare should be used to reduce the 
     publicly held debt; and
       (4) any tax cuts should be targeted to provide tax relief 
     to middle-income working families and should not provide 
     disproportionate tax relief to people with the highest 
     incomes.
                                 ______
                                 

                LAUTENBERG (AND LEAHY) AMENDMENT NO 167

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Leahy) proposed an amendment to 
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; and follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REAUTHORIZING THE COPS 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) as of December 1998, the Community Oriented Policing 
     Services (COPS) Program had awarded grants for the hiring or 
     redeployment to the nation's streets of more than 92,000 
     police officers and sheriff's deputies;
       (2) according to the United States Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics, the Nation's violent crime rate declined almost 7 
     percent during 1997 and has fallen more than 21 percent since 
     1993; and

[[Page S3289]]

       (3) enhanced community policing has significantly 
     contributed to this decline in the violent crime rate.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that the Community 
     Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program should be 
     reauthorized in order to provide continued Federal funding 
     for the hiring, deployment, and retention of community law 
     enforcement officers.
                                 ______
                                 

                   FEINSTEIN AMENDMENTS NOS. 168-169

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mrs. Feinstein) proposed two amendments to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; and follows:

                           Amendment No. 168

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that funds will be provided for legislation--
       (1) to provide 50-50 matching grants to build new schools, 
     and to reduce school sizes and class sizes, so that--
       (A)(i) kindergarten through grade 5 schools serve not more 
     than 500 students;
       (ii) grade 6 through grade 8 schools serve not more than 
     750 students; and
       (iii) grade 9 through grade 12 schools serve not more than 
     1,500 students; and
       (B)(i) kindergarten through grade 6 classes have not more 
     than 20 students per teacher; and
       (ii) grade 7 through grade 12 classes have not more than 28 
     students per teacher; and
       (2) to enable students to meet academic achievement 
     standards, and to enable school districts to provide remedial 
     education and terminate the practice of social promotion.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 169

         At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL PROMOTION.

         It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that funds will be provided for legislation--
         (1) to provide remedial educational and other 
     instructional interventions to assist public elementary and 
     secondary school students in meeting achievement levels; and
         (2) to terminate practices which advance students from 
     one grade to the next who do not meet State achievement 
     standards in the core academic curriculum.
                                 ______
                                 

                         REID AMENDMENT NO. 170

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Reid) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; and follows:

         At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   NOTCH BABIES.

         (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
         (1) the Social Security Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 
     95-216) substantially altered the way social security 
     benefits are computed;
         (2) those amendments resulted in disparate benefits 
     depending upon the year in which a worker becomes eligible 
     for benefits; and
         (3) those individuals born between the years 1917 and 
     1926, and who are commonly referred to as ``notch babies'' 
     receive benefits that are lower than those retirees who were 
     born before or after those years.
         (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted 
     pursuant to this resolution assume that the Congress should 
     allow workers who attain age 65 after 1981 and before 1992 to 
     choose either lump sum payments over 4 years totaling $5,000 
     or an improved benefit computation formula under a new 10-
     year rule governing the transition to the changes in benefit 
     computation rules enacted in the Social Security Amendments 
     of 1977.
                                 ______
                                 

                        BOXER AMENDMENT NO. 171

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mrs. Boxer) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; and follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR AFTER SCHOOL 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The demand for after school education is very high. In 
     fiscal year 1998 the Department of Education's after school 
     grant program was the most competitive in the Department's 
     history. Nearly 2,000 school districts applied for over 
     $540,000,000.
       (2) After school programs help to fight juvenile crime. Law 
     enforcement statistics show that youth who are ages 12 
     through 17 are most at risk of committing violent acts and 
     being victims of violent acts between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 
     After school programs have been shown to reduce juvenile 
     crime, sometimes by up to 75 percent according to the 
     National Association of Police Athletic and Activity Leagues.
       (3) After school programs can improve educational 
     achievement. They ensure children have safe and positive 
     learning environments in the after school hours. In the 
     Sacramento START after school program 75 percent of the 
     students showed an increase in their grades.
       (4) After school programs have widespread support. Over 90 
     percent of the American people support such programs. Over 
     450 of the nation's leading police chiefs, sheriffs, and 
     prosecutors, along with presidents of the Fraternal Order of 
     Police, and the International Union of Police Associations 
     support government funding of after school programs. And many 
     of our nation's governors endorse increasing the number of 
     after school programs through a Federal of State partnership.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that Congress will 
     provide $600,000,000 for the President's after school 
     initiative in fiscal year 2000.
                                 ______
                                 

                 MURRAY (AND KENNEDY) AMENDMENT NO. 172

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mrs. Murray) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; and follows:

       On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, 
     line 14, and insert the following:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,456,068,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,586,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,650,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,683,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,736,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,805,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,865,565,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$7,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$52,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$30,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$47,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$60,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$106,822,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$134,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$150,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$177,195,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,457,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,489,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,562,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,614,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,668,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,697,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,752,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,813,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,873,969,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,456,068,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,640,655,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,669,062,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,716,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,780,977,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,840,699,000,000.
       On page 23, strike beginning with line 14 through page 25, 
     line 3, and insert the following:
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,049,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,947,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,069,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,264,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,118,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,144,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,051,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,059,000,000.
       On page 42, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in fiscal year 
     2000, $137,750,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004, and $767,552,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009; and

[[Page S3290]]

                                 ______
                                 

                        MURRAY AMENDMENT NO. 173

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mrs. Murray proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON WOMEN AND SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty 
     rate among women would have been 52.2 percent, and among 
     widows would have been 60.6 percent;
       (2) women tend to live longer and tend to have lower 
     lifetime earnings than men do;
       (3) during their working years, women earn an average of 70 
     cents for every dollar men earn; and
       (4) women spend an average of 11.5 years out of their 
     careers to care for their families, and are more likely to 
     work part-time than full-time.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that--
       (1) women face unique obstacles in ensuring retirement 
     security and survivor and disability stability;
       (2) Social Security plays an essential role in guaranteeing 
     inflation-protected financial stability for women throughout 
     their old age;
       (3) the Congress and the Administration should act, as part 
     of Social Security reform, to ensure that widows and other 
     poor elderly women receive more adequate benefits that reduce 
     their poverty rates and that women, under whatever approach 
     is taken to reform Social Security, should receive no lesser 
     a share of overall federally-funded retirement benefits than 
     they receive today; and
       (4) the sacrifice that women make to care for their family 
     should be recognized during reform of Social Security and 
     that women should not be penalized by taking an average of 
     11.5 years out of their careers to care for their family.
                                 ______
                                 

                       HOLLINGS AMENDMENT NO. 174

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Hollings) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:
       Strike Titles 1 and 2 of the resolution and insert the 
     following:

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2009:
       (1) Federal Revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,442,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,508,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,563,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,634,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,710,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,790,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,871,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,956,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,045,710,000,000.
       (2) New Budget Authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,424,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,451,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,481,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,544,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,597,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,665,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,705,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,770,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,840,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,910,187,000,000.
       (3) Budget Outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,406,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,431,899,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,449,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,512,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,566,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,631,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,674,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,737,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,810,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,880,338,000,000.
       (4) Deficits or Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits or surpluses 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: -$4,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $10,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $59,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $51,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $67,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $79,068,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $115,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $133,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $145,995,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $165,372,000,000.
       (5) Public Debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,637,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,710,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,739,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,776,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,792,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $5,794,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,755,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,696,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,615,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,510,500,000,000.
       (6) Debt Held by the Public.--The appropriate levels of the 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $3,511,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $3,371,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $3,175,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $2,979,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,756,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,507,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,211,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,886,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,539,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,168,200,000,000.

     SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, and 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $468,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $487,744,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $506,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $527,326,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $549,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $576,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $601,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $628,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $654,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $681,313,000,000.
       (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, and 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $327,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $339,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $350,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $362,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $375,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $389,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $404,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $420,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $438,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $459,496,000,000.

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal year 2000 through 2009 for each major functional 
     category are at the CBO March Baseline On-Budget totals for 
     BA and outlays, committee allocations and resolution 
     aggregates.
                                 ______
                                 

                        BOXER AMENDMENT NO. 175

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mrs. Boxer) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX CUTS FOR LOWER AND 
                   MIDDLE INCOME TAXPAYERS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that Congress will not approve an across-
     the-board cut in income tax rates, or any other tax 
     legislation, that would provide substantially more benefits 
     to the top 10 percent of taxpayers than to the remaining 90 
     percent.

                          ____________________