[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5640-5647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I will submit. 
First is in the form of a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.


                           Amendment No. 164

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that funds recovered from 
  any Federal tobacco-related litigation should be set-aside for the 
 purpose of first strengthening the Medicare trust fund and second to 
               fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 164.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 5641]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is 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.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this resolution--``The Federal Tobacco 
Recovery and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Resolution of 1999''--
urges the Administration to set aside funds from any Federal tobacco-
related litigation for the primary purpose of strengthening the 
solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and second to help pay for a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  In the President's January 19, 1999 State of the Union Address he 
announced that the Justice Department was preparing a litigation plan 
to take tobacco companies to court and that the funds recovered from 
such an effort would be used to strengthen the Medicare program.
  The details of the Justice Department's litigation plan are still not 
known at this time. However, the United States Senate should be on 
record as to how any funds recovered should be spent.
  It is my belief that our first priority must be to shore up the 
Medicare Trust Fund which, by the most recent estimates of the 
Congressional Budget Office, shows the program going into insolvency in 
2010.
  The second use of these funds should then go to help defray the costs 
of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  While this resolution states clearly as to how these funds ought to 
be spent, a few things must be made clear:
  1. This resolution must not impede our efforts to address the 
immediate need among seniors for access to affordable prescription 
drugs. We must do something now and must not use this resolution as an 
excuse not to act now.
  2. The funding mechanism for this benefit is not a tax, is not a 
payroll increase, is not a premium increase and does not tap into the 
``surplus''.
  Some of you might ask the question, ``Why should we look to the 
tobacco industry to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit?''
  The answer to this question is clear. Tobacco companies produce a 
product that is responsible for millions of deaths and billions of 
dollars worth of tobacco-related illness in this country. Taxpayers 
should not be forced to pay for what the tobacco industry is primarily 
responsible for.
  Medicare alone is estimated to incur more than $10 billion in 
expenses for the treatment of tobacco-related illness every year. This 
figure reflects what Medicare covers. What this figure does not reflect 
is the amount of money paid out of the pockets of beneficiaries for all 
the outpatient prescription drugs needed for the treatment of tobacco-
related illness that Medicare does not cover. The types of drugs I am 
referring to include:
  Zyban--The only prescription drug available to assist smokers in 
quitting. This would be a key element in a smoking cessation and 
broader prevention strategy.
  Bronchodilators--used in the treatment of emphysema.
  Nitroglycerin--used in the treatment of angina pectoris (reduction in 
blood flow to the heart).
  Cholestyramine and Colestipol--used in the treatment of high 
cholesterol.
  Calcium Channel Blockers/Diuretics/Beta Blockers/Vasodilators--used 
in the treatment of high blood pressure.
  The use of tobacco products and the cost of treatment is draining the 
Medicare program. But it is costing Medicare beneficiaries their lives.
  According to the American Cancer Society, individuals who smoke have 
double the heart attack risk of non-smokers. Cigarette smoking is the 
biggest risk factor for sudden cardiac death. And smokers who have a 
heart attack are more likely to die and die suddenly (within an hour) 
than are non-smokers.
  These are real costs that real people face every day.
  Combine these sobering facts with the overwhelming desire among 
nearly all our colleagues, the Nation's leading policy experts, and 
most importantly, beneficiaries of the program, that prescription drugs 
must be included in any reform of the Medicare program. The need for 
prescription drugs is undeniable. Just listen to some of the facts:
  80 percent of retired persons take a prescription drug every day.
  Annual drug expenditures for the average Medicare beneficiary are 
approximately $600.
  While individuals 65 or older represent 12 percent of the U.S. 
population, they consume more than one-third of all prescription drugs.
  Excluding the cost of premiums, drugs account for almost one-third of 
the elderly's health costs and expenditures.
  Approximately 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries account for nearly 
half of all drug spending among the elderly.
  By 2007, the Health Care Financing Administration projects that drug 
costs will make up over 8 percent of total health care spending (in 
1996 this figure was 6 percent).
  Combine this need with the fact that in a recent study published in 
the journal Health Affairs, approximately one

[[Page 5642]]

third of all Medicare beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage 
at all.
  And the two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries that reportedly do have 
coverage (through supplemental programs such as Medigap or employee-
based retirement health plans) have coverage that is not uniform, often 
limited, and frequently very expensive.
  A recent study conducted by the League of Women Voters and the Kaiser 
Family Foundation, in which over 6,500 of current and future Medicare 
beneficiaries were interviewed on their views of reforming the Medicare 
program, found that after fraud, waste, and abuse, the number one 
concern for beneficiaries is access to affordable prescription drugs.
  Advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering have brought about 
a true revolution in the care and treatment of patients. What once 
seemed science fiction in 1965 is today's scientific reality.
  In today's, and tomorrow's, health care system, prescription drugs 
are an integral part of every health care professional's medical 
arsenal.
  But these advances in technology have come at a price. A price that, 
for many seniors, is not affordable. Or even worse, forces them to make 
decisions nobody should face.
  Decisions about purchasing drugs or paying the rent. Or skipping 
doses of a prescription or reducing the dosage to make it last longer--
decisions that can often have serious health consequences.
  What good are the best drugs in the world if nobody can afford them 
or they bankrupt people trying to do the right thing?
  This is where this resolution makes a difference. This resolution 
says that we ought to find a way to pay for prescription drugs. To pay 
for them in a manner that is fiscally responsible.
  As I noted earlier, this resolution does not guarantee a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit since it is contingent upon a successful 
litigation effort by the Justice Department.
  And, the size and scope of a benefit funded by such a recovery would 
be dependent on the size of the recovery.
  To give my colleagues a sense of the potential size of a successful 
litigation effort, and using the recent State tobacco settlement as a 
benchmark, we could expect a Federal lawsuit that could match or exceed 
the $206 billion settlement of the States.
  So this is no small undertaking and has the potential to have far 
reaching, positive consequences for the Medicare program.
  This resolution would also prioritize the types of prescription drugs 
that ought to be funded. First priority would go to funding drugs used 
in the treatment of tobacco-related illness. If additional funds are 
available, the range of drugs could then be expanded.
  I want to reiterate that this resolution should not be used to take 
this distinguished body off the hook for addressing the immediate need 
among seniors for affordable prescription drugs.
  We must continue to work to find a way to handle this problem now. 
Our resolution, if adopted, would provide momentum for this effort and 
for the Justice Department's litigation efforts.
  Finally, this resolution has the support of the nation's largest 
senior membership organization, the American Association of Retired 
Persons.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. President, last week, we had very heated debate on the question 
of whether the Federal Government should designate a portion of the 
tobacco settlements received by the 50 individual States and require 
them to use those designated funds for certain specific purposes. By 
more than a 2-to-1 margin, the Senate rejected that proposal.
  There were a number of reasons why the Senate rejected that proposal. 
I think they were strong and compelling reasons. They included the fact 
that the States had initiated these litigations against the tobacco 
industry without the assistance of the Federal Government, that the 
States were acting responsibly in utilizing the tobacco funds; and I 
believe a persuasive reason was the fact that the Federal Government 
announced its intention to initiate its own litigation against the 
tobacco industry for its loss of revenue through programs such as 
Medicare to tobacco-related diseases.
  This amendment builds upon that debate of last week. It builds, also, 
upon a statement that was made by the President in his January 19 State 
of the Union Address in which the President stated that the Justice 
Department was preparing a litigation plan to take tobacco companies to 
court, and that the funds recovered from that effort would be used to 
strengthen the Medicare program. The details of the Justice Department 
litigation plan are still unknown at this time. However, I think it is 
appropriate that the Senate should be on record as to how these funds, 
when recovered, should be utilized.
  It is my belief that the first priority must be to strengthen the 
Medicare system, and that the most appropriate method of achieving that 
objective is to provide that the first call of any recovery from a 
Federal tobacco litigation would be to replace those funds in the 
Medicare trust fund that have been excessively expended in order to 
treat tobacco-related afflictions.
  Second is that those funds should be used to commence a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. Why is it appropriate that the second call 
for these funds should be to fund a prescription medication benefit? 
These reasons include that a substantial amount of the expenditures for 
tobacco-related diseases end up having a pharmacological cost, and some 
of the most used and most expensive medications are those which are 
related to the treatment through prescription medication of tobacco-
related diseases. Zyban, for instance, is the only prescription drug 
available to assist smokers in quitting their addiction. Other drugs 
that relate to bronchitis, used for treatment in emphysema, 
nitroglycerin, and used for treatment of angina pectoris, a disease 
frequently associated with tobacco use, are examples of the types of 
prescription medications that are utilized in large part because of a 
tobacco affliction. The use of tobacco products is costing Medicare by 
draining its resources. But it is costing the Medicare beneficiaries 
potentially their lives.
  According to the American Cancer Society, individuals who smoke have 
double the heart attack risk of nonsmokers. Therefore, they are more 
likely to require the medication associated with heart disease. 
Cigarette smoking is the biggest risk factor for sudden cardiac death. 
Smokers who had a heart attack are more likely to die, and die 
suddenly, than nonsmokers. These are real costs, these are real people 
whose lives are at stake.
  Mr. President, just listen to some of the facts in terms of the use 
by our Medicare beneficiary population of prescription medication--
medication which today is not covered by the Medicare program. Eighty 
percent of retired persons take at least one prescribed drug every day.
  Annual drug expenditures for the average Medicare beneficiary is 
$600. While individuals 65 or older represent only 12 percent of the 
United States population, they consume more than one-third of all 
prescription drugs. Excluding the cost of premiums, drugs account for 
almost one-third of the elderly's health costs and expenditures. 
Approximately 10 percent of Medicare beneficiary accounts for nearly 
half of all drug spending among the elderly.
  By the year 2007, the Health Care Finance Administration projects 
that drug costs will make up over eight percent of total health care 
spending. This compares to 6 percent as recently as 1996.
  Mr. President, these are all reasons why it is appropriate that as 
the Federal Government commences its litigation to recover the cost 
that the Federal Government has expended through programs such as 
Medicare, that the first use of these funds should be to strengthen 
Medicare, and the second use should be to commence the funding of a 
prescription drug benefit.
  This proposal is receiving the strong support of groups which 
represent the interests of older Americans. The

[[Page 5643]]

AARP has officially endorsed the concept of utilizing recoveries from 
the to be litigation by the Federal Government for purposes of 
strengthening Medicare and then providing for a prescription drug 
benefit.
  The American Association of Retired Persons is a strong voice in 
support of this proposal.
  Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues give their support in 
adopting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask uanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
letter from the American Association of Retired Persons.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                         AARP,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     review the ``Affordable Prescription Drugs for Seniors 
     Resolution'' that you plan to offer during the Senate's 
     debate of the FY 2000 Budget Resolution. I want to commend 
     you for your leadership in calling the Congress's attention 
     to the issue of the high cost of prescription drugs and the 
     difficulties older Americans have because out-patient 
     prescription drugs are not included in Medicare's benefit 
     package.
       Since Medicare was created over 30 years ago, prescription 
     drugs have become more and more central to the delivery of 
     high quality health care. As a result most health insurance 
     plans for workers cover prescription drugs. Medicare, 
     however, does not. A huge challenge before us is to find an 
     affordable way to provide prescription drug coverage to 
     Medicare beneficiaries in whatever health care plan they 
     choose.
       Your resolution presents a way to help finance a 
     prescription drug benefit through earmarking a portion of 
     funds recovered from any tobacco-related federal litigation. 
     AARP views this idea as a constructive effort to address a 
     very serious problem for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. 
     For years, the Medicare program has borne the cost of caring 
     for people with tobacco-related illnesses. It, therefore, 
     seems fair and reasonable that this health insurance program 
     get a share of funds recovered from a Justice Department 
     lawsuit to fund a needed benefit. However, as you point out, 
     your proposal is contingent upon successful federal 
     litigation.
       Providing Medicare beneficiaries with a prescription drug 
     benefit is an important issue for AARP and we are pleased 
     that your resolution begins to address this. We look forward 
     to working with you and other Members of Congress on a 
     bipartisan basis to investigate approaches for providing a 
     Medicare prescription drug benefits and to address the high 
     cost of prescription drugs. Please feel free to contact me or 
     have your staff contact Tricia Smith or Mila Becker of our 
     Federal Affairs Health Team at (202) 434-3770.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Horace B. Deets,
                                               Executive Director.


                           Amendment No. 165

       (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the 
     Congress and the President should offset inappropriate 
     emergency funding from fiscal year 1999 in fiscal year 1999.)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which is 
cosponsored by Senators Snowe and Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), for himself, and Mr. 
     Feingold, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 165.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is 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.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we learned last year that five years of 
fiscal austerity and economic growth had transformed a $290 billion 
deficit into the first budget surplus in more than a generation.
  I am dedicated to strengthening the nation's long-term economic 
prospects through prudent fiscal policy.
  This discipline helped to create favorable economic, fiscal, 
demographic and political conditions to address the long-term Social 
Security and Medicare deficits that will accompany the aging of our 
nation's population.
  These deficits threaten to undo the hard work and fiscal discipline 
of recent years as well as undermine our potential for future economic 
growth.
  But that success did not give the Congress license to return to the 
free-spending ways of the past--especially since 100 percent of the 
surplus was the result of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund.
  We owe it to our children and grandchildren to save this money until 
Social Security's long-term solvency is assured.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the last legislative action of the last 
Congress made a mockery of our promises to be fiscally disciplined.
  In the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, we passed a 
$532 billion Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
  Included in that was $21.4 billion in so-called ``emergency'' 
spending.
  Since that $21.4 billion could be approved without offsets, that 
funding came right out of the surplus--reducing it from $80 billion to 
$59 billion.
  That action would have been more palatable had all of the supposedly 
``emergency'' funds been allocated for true emergencies.
  But while some of the $21.4 billion was used to fund what had 
traditionally been accepted as emergencies--necessary expenditures for 
sudden, urgent or unforeseen temporary needs--much of it was not.
  For example, the Y2K computer problem received $3.35 billion.
  And $100 million went to a new visitors center at the Capitol.
  These projects might be worthy. They might be mandatory.
  But to label them ``emergency'' threatens to undermine efforts to 
safeguard the surplus of Social Security.
  Even worse, this budgetary slight of hand was also used to increase 
funding for projects that had been funded in the regular appropriations 
process.
  For example, after previously allocating $270.5 billion for defense, 
Congress provided an additional $8.3 billion in ``emergency'' defense 
spending in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
  And that's not all.
  Because these pseudo-emergency spending provisions were included in 
an Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report, they could not be removed 
without sending the entire funding package down to defeat.
  Members of both Houses were left with an unpalatable choice: shut 
down the government, or steal from our children's and grandchildren's 
Social Security surplus.
  Mr. President, that's not a choice. It's a national disgrace.
  It is vital that we institute an emergency spending process that 
responds quickly to true emergencies without opening the door to 
misuse.
  We must establish procedural safeguards to deter future Congresses 
from misusing the emergency spending process.
  We should not attach any emergency spending to non-emergency 
legislation or designate emergency spending measures that do not meet 
the definition of an emergency.
  Mr. President, in February I was pleased to join Senator Olympia 
Snowe of Maine in introducing legislation that will protect our newly 
won budget surplus from false, emergency budgetary alarms.
  We proposed three reforms.
  First, to create a point of order, similar to the Byrd Rule, that 
prevents non-emergency items from being included in emergency spending.
  This will enable members to challenge the validity of any individual 
item that is designated an emergency without defeating the entire 
emergency spending bill.
  Second, to require a 60-vote super-majority in the Senate for passage 
of any bill that contains emergency spending, whether it is designated 
an ``emergency'' spending bill or not.

[[Page 5644]]

  This will encourage Congress to either pay for supplemental 
appropriations or make sure they represent a true emergency.
  And third, to make all proposed emergency spending subject to a 60-
vote point of order in the Senate.
  This rule will help to prevent non-emergency items from ever being 
included in emergency legislation.
  But even if passed, our legislation will not be the total cure for 
Congress' budding addiction to emergency spending.
  In the short term, it is vital that we immediately replenish the 
surplus with the funds that were ``borrowed'' last fall.
  On the day after passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Act--October 
21, 1998--I wrote the President and asked that the federal government 
commit itself to restoring funding the the non-traditional 
``emergency'' items during this fiscal year.
  I did not receive a response.
  So in January, I again wrote to the President and made the same 
request for a commitment to fiscal discipline.
  Once again, I have not received a response.
  And on January 18, 1999, Roll Call published an opinion piece of mine 
in which I asked the President to address this subject in his State of 
the Union address.
  He did not.
  Fortunately, the United States Constitution says that the Congress 
need not wait for the President.
  We can--and must--take the steps necessary to restore the budget 
surplus to its previous levels.
  And we must do that now, before the urge to spend the surplus becomes 
a full-fledged addiction.
  To that end, tonight I am introducing a Sense of the Senate 
Resolution that starts the process of rectifying last fall's budgetary 
process.
  Its message is simple: Congress and the President should restore 
those funds that were inappropriately deemed as emergencies and taken 
from the budget surplus.
  Mr. President, as we debate the first post-deficit Budget Resolution 
in more than a quarter-century, it is vital that the American people 
know that we will maintain the fiscal discipline that has helped to 
produce our favorable economic climate.
  Fiscal responsibility means taking responsibility for our mistakes--
and ensuring that we do not misuse our emergency spending powers.
  The next Congress that leaves the door wide open to raids on the 
surplus will be the one that passes on more debt--and a less secure 
Social Security system--to our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, we have heard much today--and I particularly commend 
you and Senator Grams of Minnesota for the amendment that you just 
offered--on the subject of locking up the non-Social Security surplus 
in excess of that which is currently anticipated. We have considered 
several proposals throughout the day today. I anticipate other 
proposals of a similar nature will be considered tomorrow. I believe 
there is a strong resolve among the Members of the Senate to protect 
both the Social Security surplus and the non-Social Security surplus 
and to use it for appropriate purposes.
  I might say personally that I believe the first use of the money 
should be to reduce the enormous national debt that we have accumulated 
over the last 30 years, and I will advocate that be the priority 
purpose. Unless we first direct our attention to protecting the surplus 
itself, there won't be anything left, no matter how tightly it is 
contained in a lockbox to be used for any of these desirable ends. So 
our first goal must be to focus on how can we protect the surplus 
itself, and then see that the surplus is used for appropriate purposes.
  Recently, Senator Olympia Snowe and myself introduced legislation 
which was intended to close one of the loopholes which you, Mr. 
President, have just alluded to. That was a major source of leakage of 
the surplus as recently as October of last year. That was the 
inappropriate use of the so-called ``emergency appropriations 
account.'' Certainly there are emergencies. We have a policy that where 
there are emergencies defined as being ``unexpected events,'' 
particularly of a scale that is beyond the capacity of a local 
community to appropriately respond without Federal assistance, that for 
those true emergencies we do not require that there be an offset in 
spending, or a tax increase to pay for them. The problem is that last 
October an appropriate public policy for true emergencies was stretched 
out of recognition by having many other items which had never in the 
past been thought of as emergencies included in that emergency account, 
and suddenly over $21 billion was expended. It was expended in a way, 
Mr. President, because it was included in a conference committee report 
that was not subject to amendment that was no way to excise, to apply a 
scalpel to cut out those inappropriate items.
  The amendment that we are offering in the form of a sense of a Senate 
would commit this Senate to first analyst those items in that $21 
billion emergency expenditure that is outside the traditional 
definition of an emergency, and we would commit ourselves in this 
fiscal year and in the next two fiscal years when expenditures of those 
funds are provided for pursuant to our action in October to find 
offsets. That is, we would not continue to treat them as emergencies. 
Just because we made a serious error last fall, we are not committed to 
continuing to repeat that error this year, next year, and two years 
from now.
  Let me just illustrate with this graph why I think focusing on 
protecting the surplus is so critical.
  In 1998, we had a total Social Security surplus of the $99 billion. 
The first thing that came off the top of that $99 billion was that we 
had a $27 billion deficit in the non-Social Security account. The first 
use of the Social Security surplus in 1998 was to pay the deficit, and 
the rest of the budget. Then in addition to that, in 1998, we 
designated $3 billion as emergency outlays, which meant that we didn't 
have to either find new taxes to pay for them, or cut spending 
someplace else to replace these emergency expenditures. They came out 
of the surplus. What started out as a $99 billion surplus ended up as a 
$69 billion surplus. So effectively, $30 billion that should have gone 
to protect the Social Security fund was drained away to pay for deficit 
elsewhere in the Federal Government, and for emergency accounts.
  In 1999, we start with a Social Security surplus of $127 billion. 
Again, the first call on that was to pay the deficit in the rest of the 
Federal Government, which, fortunately, has significantly shrunk from 
$27 billion year before to $3 billion in the year 1999. But what 
ballooned was the emergency account. This is where that October raid on 
the surplus showed up in our 1999 account with a $13 billion hit 
against the Social Security surplus.
  Last year we lost $16 billion that should have gone to protect the 
solvency of the Social Security fund and was used to fund other Federal 
deficits, emergencies, a significant proportion of which were 
emergencies in name only.
  We have already started to ``cook the cake'' for the year 2000 where 
we are projecting a non-Social Security deficit of $5 billion.
  I was pleased with some of the remarks that our Presiding Officer 
made earlier this evening in which he indicated that maybe when the 
next estimate of our national fiscal position based on the strength of 
the economy is made we will in fact not face this $5 billion deficit in 
fiscal year 2000. I hope his prophesy comes to be.
  But we also have already added $5 billion by the emergency, so-called 
emergency, expenditures of October of 1998, to the year 2000 fiscal 
year. So, with a $138 billion Social Security surplus, we are going to 
be reducing it by $10 billion to pay off deficits elsewhere and these 
emergency accounts.
  So the amendment we are offering states that we commit ourselves that 
we will first closely scrutinize those items which were listed as an 
emergency in October of 1998, and for those that do not meet the test 
of being a true emergency, that we will commit

[[Page 5645]]

ourselves to find appropriate offsets to pay for those emergencies and 
not use them as a further raid against the Social Security system and 
against the surplus which is to provide for its solvency.
  Mr. President, I anticipate that not only on this legislation but on 
other legislation which will be presented by the budget and the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, we will be considering some fundamental 
changes in the way in which we deal with emergency appropriations so we 
will not ever repeat the larceny against the Social Security trust fund 
and against the surpluses which support it that occurred late at night 
in October of 1998.
  I urge my colleagues to take the first step towards overcoming the 
indignity that we committed to the Social Security system last October 
by committing ourselves to restore to the Social Security surplus those 
expenditures which were inappropriately listed as emergencies.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment when it comes before the Senate 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                    Amendments. Nos. 166 Through 175

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send the following amendments to the 
desk. I ask that they all be considered as offered and laid aside and 
that related statements be printed in the Record at the appropriate 
place.
  The amendments are as follows: One from Senator Lautenberg, one from 
Senator Schumer, two from Senator Feinstein, one from Senator Harry 
Reid of Nevada, two from Senator Murray, one from Senator Hollings, and 
two from Senator Boxer.
  I ask, as I earlier said, they be considered as offered and laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator's request for 
consideration of the amendments which were just read is agreed to. The 
amendments will then be laid aside.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 166

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on saving Social Security 
  and Medicare, reducing the public debt, and targeting tax relief to 
                    middle-income working families.)

       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.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, earlier we considered an amendment 
that asked the Senate to endorse every line in the President's budget.
  This amendment asks the Senate to endorse only the general principles 
of that budget and its proposals for using projected budget surpluses.
  The President's budget calls for no net increase in spending and no 
net tax cut until we have acted to reform Social Security. It is vital 
that we make Social Security our top priority so that the program will 
still be strong when our children and grandchildren are ready to 
retire.
  The amendment I have now proposed would address what many describe as 
the President's other budget, his framework for using projected budget 
surpluses once we have taken care of Social Security.
  This amendment lays out the President's overall principles, which are 
designed to prepare our Nation for the next century.
  The amendment says that Congress should reserve the entire off-budget 
surplus for Social Security and, over 15 years, allocate: 77 percent or 
$3.6 trillion of the total surplus for Social Security and Medicare; 
and 23 percent of the surplus, or $1 trillion, for investments in key 
domestic priorities, such as education, the environment, and law 
enforcement; investments in military readiness, and pro-savings tax 
cuts for working families.
  The amendment also says that tax cuts or spending increases should 
not be enacted before the solvency of Social Security is assured and 
Medicare solvency is extended 12 years.
  In addition, the amendment states that the 77 percent or $3.6 
trillion of the total surplus for Social Security and Medicare should 
be used to reduce publicly held debt. That would provide great 
dividends for our economy. Reducing the future debt burden and future 
interest costs would essentially provide a tax cut for our children.
  And, finally, the amendment says that 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.
  Mr. President, this framework emphasizes saving for the future. It's 
fiscally responsible. It would help protect Social Security and 
Medicare. And it calls for tax relief and investments where they are 
most needed.
  The amendment does not endorse every dot and comma of the President's 
budget. But it would endorse the overall priorities of that proposal.
  I hope my colleagues will support it.


                           amendment no. 167

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the COPS Program 
                        should be reauthorized)

       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
       (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.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 168

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding school 
    construction grants, and reducing school sizes and class sizes)

       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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the social promotion of 
               elementary and secondary school students)

       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

[[Page 5646]]

     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.


                           amendment no. 170

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding social security 
                           ``notch babies'')

       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.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Social Security notch causes 11 million 
Americans born between the years 1917-1926 to receive less in Social 
Security benefits than Americans born outside the notch years.
  The notch inequity is a direct result of changes made by Congress in 
1977 to the Social Security benefits formula.
  It is important that we restore the confidence of the notch victims 
and show them that we in Congress will accept responsibility for any 
error that was made.
  While we must save Social Security for the future, we have an 
obligation to those who receive less than individuals who were 
fortunate enough to have been born just days before or after the notch 
period.
  Many notch babies, through no fault of their own, receive more than 
$200 less per month than their neighbors.
  It is time for us to right this wrong. I recently introduced 
legislation--the Notch Fairness Act of 1999--that proposes using any 
projected budget surplus to pay a lump sum benefit to notch babies.
  While we have a surplus, let's fix the notch problem once and for all 
and restore the confidence of the millions of notch babies across this 
land.
  Government has an obligation to be fair. I don't think we have been 
in the case of the notch babies.
  Please join my efforts to correct the inequity created by the Social 
Security notch.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 171

  (Purpose: To ensure that the President's after school initiative is 
                   fully funded for fiscal year 2000)

       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 or 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.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 172

   (Purpose: To fully fund the Class Size Initiative, the amendment 
   reduces the resolution's tax cut by ten billion dollars, leaving 
 adequate room in the revenue reconciliation instructions for targeted 
  tax cuts that help those in need and tax breaks for communities to 
                modernize and rebuild crumbling schools)

       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: $2,435,289,000,000.
       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: $1,865,515,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 173

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on women and Social 
                            Security reform)

       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,

[[Page 5647]]

     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.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 174

(Purpose: To continue Federal spending at the current services baseline 
                 levels and pay down the Federal debt)

       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: $1,655,402,000,000.
       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.


                           amendment no. 175

  (Purpose: To ensure that the substantial majority of any income tax 
             cuts go to middle and lower income taxpayers)

       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.

                          ____________________