[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5800-5855]
[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 concurrent 
resolution.


                           Amendment No. 154

  (Purpose: Expressing the Sense of the Senate that agricultural risk 
        management programs should include livestock producers)

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending 
amendment aside to call up amendment No. 154.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Conrad proposes an amendment 
     numbered 154.

  Mr. ENZI. 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 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;
       (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 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.

  Mr. ENZI. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. This amendment, offered by myself, Senator Grassley, 
Senator Thomas, and now Senator Conrad, is a sense of the Senate that 
resolves that any consideration of reform of Federal crop insurance and 
risk management programs should include the needs of livestock 
producers as well.
  The livestock industry has very few risk management tools available 
to manage the short- and long-term impacts of weather-related and 
natural disaster situations. They do not have an insurance program to 
help guard against losses. In fact, livestock producers are prohibited 
by law from participating in USDA's Crop Insurance Program. That 
prohibition must be removed.
  We must devote our resources to finding a rational approach to risk 
management that will eliminate the need for ranchers and farmers to ask 
Congress each year for disaster assistance. Any program offered to the 
agricultural producers should cover them in the event of any crop or 
livestock losses due to excessive rain and snow, wind, drought, and 
even insect infestation. We need a program that is actuarially sound.
  The livestock industry is comprised of smart, hardworking businessmen 
who constantly operate at the whims of Mother Nature. They are not 
looking for a Government handout. They simply want to be given the 
opportunity to better manage the risks they face in trying to get their 
cattle and sheep to market. We promised our ranchers help, but we have 
not delivered. This amendment is a good first step.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back any time that I have.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, very briefly, let me just say I hope our 
colleagues will support the amendment which my colleague from Wyoming 
has offered, along with a number of others of us who are very concerned 
about what has happened in the livestock industry.
  In American agriculture now, we face the lowest prices in 52 years. 
We have been through an absolute price collapse in many sectors of the 
livestock industry. In the hog industry alone, prices have dropped to 
8.5 cents a pound.
  Mr. President, it takes 40 cents a pound to break even in the 
livestock industry. And 8.5 cents a pound is absolutely ridiculous. We 
anticipate losing as many as three-quarters of the hog producers in our 
State if something is not done.
  This amendment, offered by Senator Enzi, cosponsored by others of us, 
we think is one way to help livestock producers manage risk through a 
program of risk management. I hope very much our colleagues will 
support it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Enzi, Grassley, 
Thomas, Conrad amendment. Livestock producers have few viable risk 
management tools available to deal with drought, excessive rain and 
snow, flood, or disease. Dismal profits for cattlemen and the collapse 
of hog market in the Fall of 1998 are two of the

[[Page 5801]]

predominate factors which have spurred a renewed interest in livestock 
insurance. I feel it is important that any consideration of reform for 
federal crop insurance and/or federal risk management programs should 
include the needs of livestock producers.
  Since the introduction of revenue insurance programs in 1996 farmers 
raising crops have been provided risk management tools which better 
mediate the unavoidable risks farmers experience. Programs such as Crop 
Revenue Coverage (CRC), Income Protection (IP), and Revenue Assurance 
(RA) are available for crops, but currently a statutory prohibition 
bans the development of federally supported livestock insurance.
  It is my opinion that we have a responsibility to provide risk 
management tools to all farmers, whether they raise crops or livestock. 
Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development 
(CARD) has studied the possible benefits of Whole-Farm Revenue 
Insurance for crop and livestock producers. The center has developed 
data which lends credibility to those who advocate adding a livestock 
net revenue guarantee to existing whole-farm crop revenue guarantees.
  CARD determined Whole-Farm Revenue insurance programs could 
supplement existing risk management tools offered through the Chicago 
Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade for livestock. CARD 
also ascertained that the addition of livestock to whole-farm revenue 
guarantees could dramatically reduce both insurance rates and insurance 
premiums. Lower rates could lead to expanded coverage and less risk 
exposure for farmers.
  Mr. President, risk management tools are necessary for the success of 
the agriculture community. Congress must work together and focus on 
expanded risk management to better mediate the unavoidable risks 
farmers experience. It's time for Congress to take an active role in 
providing these tools to all farmers.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support livestock producers by 
supporting the Enzi, Grassley, Thomas, Conrad amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection on our side. I think it has been 
cleared on the Democrat side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 154) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 177

  Mr. DOMENICI. I think our next Senator with an amendment has arrived. 
We have agreed your amendment would be next, I say to Senator Gorton. 
But we have to finish the Kennedy amendment in just a minute here.
  Just give me a moment, I say to the Senator.
  First, as I indicated earlier this morning, something very 
significant happened, and I am sure it will be adopted when we vote 
later on. That is the introduction of a bipartisan amendment to this 
budget resolution whereby the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Roth, joined by Senator Frist, on our side, and two very 
distinguished Democrats, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Senator Breaux 
of Louisiana, indicated in an official way, for the first time, that 
the Senate is going to be asked, because of their amendment, to proceed 
in a bipartisan manner to reform and fix Medicare so that it will be 
effective for our senior citizens for decades to come.
  I must say that when we vote on that--and I believe it will be agreed 
to--we will have started down a path. But it will not be a long path; 
it will be a very short path. That path is going to lead, before the 
year is up, to a resolution in the Senate of the Medicare program for 
our senior citizens and for our children and for the taxpayers, all of 
whom have a very big stake in making sure this Medicare program is 
reformed and fixed.
  So I once again congratulate those four Senators. They have permitted 
me to join them, so I am the fifth man on the team. I hope, before the 
day is out, many others will join. But I am certain by our vote we will 
indicate that that is precisely the path we want to take.
  Some will get up and say it is very specific and precise. But 
ultimately, it lays down some markers. It says to the Finance 
Committee, let's get on with it; let's quit talking about it; let's fix 
it.
  It is interesting that as soon as that amendment got debated, a kind 
of a furor occurred, and it was not on our side of the aisle, it was on 
the other side of the aisle. That is because that was a significant 
amendment that people in this country are going to understand. It is 
not politics; it is not talking; it is a commitment to fix Medicare for 
our senior citizens.
  If there are new ideas beyond what the Commission--there are two 
commissions that are recalled in that amendment--if there are ideas 
beyond it, it is going to come out of that bipartisan committee, who 
are so committed to repairing and fixing and modifying that program.
  Having said that, the commotion got quick, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts arrived on the floor. Let me suggest, I have great 
respect for the distinguished Senator. I do know--I do know--that I am 
as concerned about Medicare people in America--our people, our friends, 
our neighbors, our relatives--as he is. I am just as compassionate and 
just as concerned. But I do believe--I do believe--we have to talk a 
little bit about reality.
  Let me tell you the first reality. When the vote starts and the 
Senator is through with his charts, I would like very much for the rule 
to be applied and they be taken down, because they are only supposed to 
be up for a little while. Frankly, whatever little while, they should 
not have been up at all, because those charts are not true. Those 
charts state things that are not true.
  Let me just tell you, ``Republican Plan Would Slash Medicare''--there 
is no Republican plan. We are waiting for the Finance Committee to 
produce a plan. We have given them latitude in the budget resolution, 
but there is none. It is a bipartisan plan. So he might have said that 
up there, ``The Bipartisan Plan,'' if it is that plan that he does not 
like.
  The chart says that cuts under the Democratic plan are zero. What 
does that mean? What in the world does that mean? There will be no 
reform that saves any money, that changes anything in Medicare under a 
Democratic plan--can't be, can't be. Everybody that is for fixing 
Medicare is going to have something in that column because they will 
repair it so it is more efficient. Some will legitimately call that a 
cut.
  The next column in the chart is really preposterous, ``Cuts under 
Republican plan, 1999-2020.'' We have not even been talking about the 
year 2020 on the floor. There is no budget resolution for 2020 and 
there is no Republican plan. How can it be that we have $686 billion in 
cuts by the year 2020? Perhaps that number is if you leave the program 
alone for 20 years, it needs $686 billion worth of resources--that 
might be the number.
  What does that have to do with our Republican plan, what we are 
talking about on the floor? Is the Senator suggesting we ought to put 
$686 billion into Medicare out of general taxes to America? It will 
never happen. That will not happen. Everybody knows that.
  We have debated this issue. I should stop debating it because I have 
done it three times, but every time they bring up an amendment I have 
to get up because they get up. I don't want anybody out there listening 
to this debate to think that is accurate because that is not accurate.
  We can put up charts and claim whatever we want, but that chart is 
not accurate. It does not adequately describe nor appropriately 
describe anything with reference to where we are.
  Having said that, we debated and voted an amendment very similar to 
this amendment. The only thing is it was subject to a point of order. 
Perhaps Senator Kennedy has doctored this up so it is not subject to a 
point of order. The Senate rejected by a majority a plan of Senator 
Conrad's which is very similar, except for one thing. It is a little 
better in terms of trying to protect Medicare than this one. It 
establishes a

[[Page 5802]]

point of order of some kind which makes it difficult to spend this 
extra money that is sitting around, or this surplus that is sitting 
around. The Kennedy amendment does not even do that.
  I need no more time. I have used about 5 minutes; the Senator has 
used 2\1/2\ minutes. I hope we get on with the rest of this and let 
other Senators have a chance to debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Lautenberg 
is to be recognized for the purpose of presenting amendments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since a 
challenge was put down by the chairman of the committee on the 
information presented by the Senator from Massachusetts, that the 
Senator from Massachusetts be allowed 5 minutes to respond.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the courtesy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2\1/
2\ minutes be made available before we send our amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this $686 billion is the amount that we 
would like and the President would like to have out of the surplus to 
fund the Medicare trust system so that it will be financially stable to 
the year 2020. That is what it represents.
  Under the budget proposal of the majority, if you are not going to 
allocate this 15 percent of the surplus for the Medicare system, you 
are going to have to have $686 billion in cuts or premium increases.
  That is not what I am saying; that is what the Medicare trustees have 
said.
  To conclude, basically what we are saying, let us go ahead, prior to 
the tax cut, take the 10-year budget, take $320 billion of what the 
Republicans are intending to use for a tax cut, and use it to put the 
Medicare system on a sound financial system. That is it. Put the 
protection of Medicare first, prior to a tax cut. That is what this 
vote is about.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record statements from 
the AARP and virtually every senior citizen organization, including the 
National Council of Senior Citizens, the National Committee to Preserve 
Social Security, the OWL organization, Families USA, Gray Panthers, all 
of the organizations that are in strong support of using the 15 percent 
to make Medicare financially sound so we will have the opportunity to 
bring about reforms, and do that prior to the time we have tax breaks. 
That makes sense to protect working families in this country.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               National Council of


                                              Senior Citizens,

                                Silver Spring, MD, March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy. In behalf of the members and officers 
     of the National Council of Senior Citizens and our nationwide 
     network of clubs and councils, I write in strong support of 
     your efforts to amend the Senate budget resolution to assure 
     the utilization of 15 percent of the budget surplus to extend 
     the solvency of the Medicare program.
       We also support your work to include in the final 
     resolution a straight-forward reserve fund to create a 
     Medicare pharmaceutical benefit with no ambiguity in regard 
     to the use of reserve fund resources. The Snowe Amendment to 
     the resolution falls to deliver on this point. It will not 
     create a viable reserve fund for the Medicare prescription 
     benefit. It would set up hurdles before the Congress could 
     access the fund for the benefit. The overriding issue is the 
     need of millions of seniors for a comprehensive Medicare drug 
     benefit now.
       The Senate and the Congress must not lose this historic 
     opportunity to make a significant investment in the future 
     health needs of both older persons and Baby Boomers as they 
     reach Medicare eligibility. By this action, the Congress will 
     provide for sufficient time to consider a large range of 
     options both to strengthen Medicare and assure long-term 
     solvency.
       We applaud your efforts and those of your colleagues.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Steve Protulis,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


                     Statement on Medicare Funding

 (By Max Rightman, Executive Vice-President, The National Committee To 
         Preserve Social Security and Medicare, March 18, 1999)

       The measure proposed for Medicare by the Budget Committee 
     is inadequate and short-sighted.
       The President's request to devote 15 percent of the surplus 
     to Medicare is a critical element in saving Medicare. The 
     Budget Committees' plan falls far short of that.
       What the congressional measure do, quite frankly, is 
     shortchanged today's seniors--the seniors here with this 
     morning--and shortchange millions of baby-boomers who in just 
     a few short years will be retiring and relying on Medicare to 
     be there for them.
       America has a long-standing commitment to all of our 
     retirees of adequate and affordable health care--it's a 
     commitment called Medicare.
       Devoting fifteen percent of the surplus for Medicare will 
     extend solvency for a number of additional, critical years. 
     It also will reassure today's baby boomer that this Congress 
     will keep its commitment to them when they retire.
       The National Committee urges Congress to adopt the 
     President's 15-percent Medicare proposal. Thank you.
                                  ____

                                          The Voice of Midlife and


                                                  Older Women,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: OWL, the only national membership 
     organization to address issues unique to women as they age, 
     urges the Congress to set aside 15 percent of the projected 
     federal budget surplus to extend the solvency of the Medicare 
     Trust Fund for an additional decade. We need a more complete 
     public discussion of thoughtful reform and its implications 
     on all Americans.
       Medicare is a women's issue. Any effort to strengthen and 
     modernize the system must be viewed for its impact on women. 
     Women are 58 percent of the Medicare population at age 65 and 
     that number rises to 71 percent at age 85. Women's health 
     care needs differ from men's needs. They have more chronic 
     illness, often more than one chronic illness at a time. As a 
     result, women must have access to specialists, leading-edge 
     medications, and technology. Chronic illness means that women 
     interface with the Medicare system more frequently and, 
     appropriately managed, their care can remain cost effective 
     and they remain independent longer. Inappropriately managed, 
     their poorer, frailer health can lead to expensive acute care 
     episodes or long-term stays in nursing facilities. Medicare 
     reform, to be successful, must address her needs.
       As you know, Senator Daschle, women are also poorer in 
     retirement than men. She has almost less than half of the 
     income that her male counterpart has in retirement and she 
     lives an average of six years longer. She spends more out-of-
     pocket for health care needs covered by Medicare. She 
     averages 22 percent of her lower income in out-of-pocket 
     expenses compared to 17 percent by men. Thus, efforts to 
     change Medicare that would increase out-of-pocket costs for 
     the Medicare population would have a disparate impact on the 
     majority of the Medicare population who are women.
       You know, too, Senator that Medicare and Social Security 
     are inextricably linked in women's retirement security. We 
     must examine the impact on each as we move forward to resolve 
     the long-term issues facing these important programs. We 
     cannot move in haste. We must engage the American public in 
     this important process. Therefore, we urge Congress to set 
     aside 15 percent of the projected surplus. Bolstering the 
     Trust Fund will remove Medicare from the critical list and 
     give both the public and policymakers the necessary breathing 
     room to consider a range of options. It means that we can and 
     will develop a program to strengthen Medicare that will work 
     for all Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                          Deborah Briceland-Betts,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                      Families USA Foundation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: Protecting the Medicare program's 
     effectiveness and solvency is of utmost concern to America's 
     seniors and people with disabilities--and their families as 
     well. It should be a top priority in this Congress.
       To protect the Medicare program, Families USA strongly 
     supports committing 15 percent of the federal budget surplus 
     to extending the Medicare trust fund. We do not believe that 
     any credible reform of the program can be achieved without 
     including significant new resources for the program. As the 
     recently disbanded Medicare Commission has demonstrated, even 
     so-called ``reforms'' that reduce seniors' benefit packages, 
     increase beneficiary out-of-pocket costs, and cause younger 
     seniors to lose health insurance coverage fail to secure the 
     long-term solvency of the program. Hence, the commitment of 
     15 percent of the federal budget surplus is a very 
     constructive and helpful first

[[Page 5803]]

     step in strengthening the fiscal integrity of the program.
       Medicare is a program that works well for millions of older 
     Americans and people with disabilities. By extending the life 
     of the Medicare Part A trust fund to the year 2020, the 
     proposed transfer of surplus funds will help to ensure that 
     the program remains effective and viable in the years ahead.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ron Pollack,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                Gray Panthers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I am writing you this letter on 
     behalf of Gray Panthers across the country regarding the 
     improvements we see necessary for the Medicare Program. For 
     almost thirty years, Gray Panthers have represented older 
     Americans and families across the country. Today, our fifty 
     chapters and over 20,000 members across the United States, 
     include members who are patients, caregivers, providers, 
     business owners, association members, and active voters. All 
     of our members have a vested interest in the Medicare 
     program. Our members are extremely active on the Medicare 
     issue and demand the Congress Protect, Improve, and Modernize 
     Medicare.
       As a first step then, in protecting the program, Gray 
     Panthers urges members of Congress to vote in favor of 
     setting aside 15% of the non-Social Security budget surplus 
     specifically for Medicare. We understand that this will 
     guarantee the financial integrity of the program for at least 
     the next decade. Gray Panthers also recommends lifting the 
     cap on Social Security in order to expand that budget as well 
     as build fiscal integrity for the program.
       We thank you for your time and consideration of this 
     matter.
           Yours truly,
                                                Patricia A. Rizzo,
     National Deputy Director.
                                  ____

                                             Association of Jewish


                                               Aging Services,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 1999.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: On behalf of the membership of the 
     Association of Jewish Aging Services and the over 150,000 
     elderly served in communities across the nation we urge you 
     to protect at least 15% of the projected budget surplus to 
     extend Medicare solvency.
       Shoring up Social Security, not privatization, and 
     improving the quality and accessibility of health care 
     deserve the highest Congressional priority. To do otherwise, 
     is an abdication of leadership responsibility and abandonment 
     of our country's fundamental responsibilities to its aging 
     citizenry.
           Sincerely,
                                               Lawrence M. Zippin,
     President.
                                  ____


    NCOA Applauds President's Social Security and Medicare Proposals

 (By James Firman, President & CEO, The National Council on the Aging, 
                           January 20, 1999)

       President Clinton's proposal to fortify Social Security and 
     Medicare for the years ahead deserves the support of all 
     Americans. His proposals would pay dividends in the form of a 
     higher quality of life for us all--not only the chronically 
     ill, the disabled and the frail elderly but also their 
     families. The National Council on the Aging strongly supports 
     investing the budget surplus to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare rather than squandering it on a one-
     time tax break.
       Setting aside additional money today is the only way to 
     prepare for the great demographic changes that our economy 
     and our culture will face as the massive baby boom generation 
     enters its later years. President Clinton's proposals would 
     provide much-needed relief to today's older Americans and 
     their families--and it would also help ensure a more secure 
     and fulfilling old age for the baby boomers who are today's 
     wage earners and tomorrow's Senior Boom.
       By extending the solvency of these essential programs 
     without privatizing them, cutting benefits or slashing 
     eligibility, the Clinton plan benefits all Americans--those 
     who are in need of assistance today, and those who will be 
     tomorrow. The National Council on the Aging, on behalf of 
     older Americans and those who care about them, strongly 
     supports using the surplus for this purpose.
       The President's recognition of the need to ease the poverty 
     of older women--particularly widows--is also welcome and long 
     overdue. For far too long, our nation has looked the other 
     way as aging women sink deeper and deeper into poverty. We 
     all know women live longer than men, on average, and that 
     they tend to earn less over the course of their lifetimes. 
     Too often, these factors doom them to a sparse and barren 
     subsistence in their later years. In our individual lives, we 
     would not willingly abandon our wives and mothers to spend 
     their final years in poverty. Yet for too long, we as a 
     nation have denied women their right to a safe and 
     financially secure retirement.
       We likewise applaud and will support the President's 
     proposals to provide a $1,000 long-term care tax credit, to 
     make home-care and caregiver services more available to those 
     who need them, to increase the minimum wage and to raise 
     additional revenues from the tobacco industry and use some of 
     the proceeds to support the Medicare program.
       We would also call on Congress to increase funding and to 
     reauthorize the Older Americans Act, which provides for so 
     many services--congregate and home-delivered meals, the older 
     worker employment program, senior centers and other home and 
     community-based activities--that are crucial to older 
     Americans.
       We look forward to working with the President and the 
     Congress to win passage of these crucial measures, which 
     will--sooner rather than later--touch the lives of each of 
     us.
                                  ____


 Statement by AARP Executive Director Horace Deets on the President's 
                       State of the Union Address

       We are pleased that the President has offered creative 
     ideas to strengthen Social Security and Medicare--issues of 
     primary concern to AARP and the American people. We eagerly 
     await the details.
       The President has offered some very intriguing ideas and we 
     are anxious to learn more about them and how they would 
     affect the American people. AARP has long advocated that any 
     discussion of Social Security needs to be in the broader 
     context of retirement income. These ideas should be measured 
     against American's family budgets, as well as against the 
     federal budget.
       AARP's goal for Social Security reform remains steadfast a 
     program that will guarantee benefits for future generations, 
     that cannot be jeopardized by misfortune, eroded by 
     inflation, or depleted by a long life. Following a year of 
     dialogue, AARP believes it is now time to move forward with 
     purpose and conviction and begin to carefully examine and 
     debate specific proposals on these and other retirement 
     issues.
       The President's plan to bolster, along with Social 
     Security, Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund with funds 
     from the federal budget surplus adknowledges what most 
     Americans have long understood--that health security and 
     economic security in retirement go hand-in-hand.
       AARP has long supported the addition of a prescription drug 
     benefit to Medicare and we applaud the President's support of 
     one. AARP believes Medicare should remain an earned guarantee 
     of specified health-care benefits for all older Americans and 
     those with disabilities.
       One piece of unfinished business from the last Congress 
     that should be addressed quickly is consumer protections in 
     managed health care. AARP continues to be deeply committed to 
     assuring quality and consumer protection in health care, and 
     we urge the Congress to enact legislation that will ensure 
     such basic safeguards for all consumers as a fair and 
     meaningful external appeals process, understandable health 
     plan information, and access to specialty care.
       The President's proposal to provide a tax credit to 
     Americans who need long-term health care is long-overdue 
     recognition to the many American families who are assuming 
     the enormous burden of providing high quality care to a 
     family member. The tax credit builds on the similar proposal 
     put forward previously by House Republicans. AARP believes it 
     is but one of a number of steps that can be taken to solve 
     the nation's long-term care.
       We are pleased that the President and the Republicans 
     through their legislative agenda have given high priority to 
     these issues. AARP encourages bipartisan Congressional action 
     this year.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Kennedy, I don't know if you were paying 
attention, but I did say to you that I compliment you on your 
compassion and your concern in this area. All I indicated was that you 
in your Irish way are compassionate; I, in my Italian way, am just as 
compassionate and I compliment you for trying to save Medicare.
  I now know where the $686 billion came from. So everyone will know--I 
was wondering where the figure came from--it came from the President's 
budget, the dollar number that he is going to transfer to the Medicare 
fund and take back IOUs.
  Let me tell Members what that is, I finally understand it. It is like 
postdating a check for all these billions and then saying to the 
American people, ``You are going to wake up one day when we have to pay 
them, but we are telling you now in advance you will pay them,'' and 
the only thing that can happen is we will pay a huge amount of

[[Page 5804]]

new taxes, or we will have to cut the Medicare program dramatically.
  I don't think that is how we ought to do business. That is what the 
number represents.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will make a unanimous consent 
request just to take 1 minute to parallel my friend and chairman of the 
Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the President of the United States has 
a plan to extend Medicare's solvency to 2020. I heard the impassioned 
and always eloquent appeal by the chairman of the Budget Committee that 
this was a bipartisan effort. It is true that there are a couple of 
Democrats that are supporters of the amendment under discussion, but 
this is by no means to be judged in this moment to be a bipartisan 
effort.
  Each of us is going to look at it as we see it. The Republicans do 
not have anything in the plan to extend the solvency.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.


                Amendments Nos. 183 through 205, en bloc

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, under the provisions of the consent 
agreement of yesterday, I send a package of amendments to the desk and 
ask they be considered and offered individually, set aside en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 183

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact 
              legislation to modernize America's schools)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MODERNIZING AMERICA'S 
                   SCHOOLS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The General Accounting Office has performed a 
     comprehensive survey of the Nation's public elementary and 
     secondary school facilities and has found severe levels of 
     disrepair in all areas of the United States.
       (2) The General Accounting Office has concluded that more 
     than 14,000,000 children attend schools in need of extensive 
     repair or replacement; 7,000,000 children attend schools with 
     life safety code violations; and 12,000,000 children attend 
     schools with leaky roofs.
       (3) The General Accounting Office has found that the 
     problem of crumbling schools transcends demographic and 
     geographic boundaries. At 38 percent of urban schools, 30 
     percent of rural schools, and 29 percent of suburban schools, 
     at least 1 building is in need of extensive repair or should 
     be completely replaced.
       (4) The condition of school facilities has a direct effect 
     on the safety of students and teachers and on the ability of 
     students to learn. Academic research has provided a direct 
     correlation between the condition of school facilities and 
     student achievement. At Georgetown University, researchers 
     have found the test scores of students assigned to schools in 
     poor condition can be expected to fall 10.9 percentage points 
     below the test scores of students in buildings in excellent 
     condition. Similar studies have demonstrated up to a 20 
     percent improvement in test scores when students were moved 
     from a poor facility to a new facility.
       (5) The General Accounting Office has found most schools 
     are not prepared to incorporate modern technology in the 
     classroom. 46 percent of schools lack adequate electrical 
     wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. More than 
     a third of schools lack the requisite electrical power. 56 
     percent of schools have insufficient phone lines for modems.
       (6) The Department of Education has reported that 
     elementary and secondary school enrollment, already at a 
     record high level, will continue to grow over the next 10 
     years, and that in order to accommodate this growth, the 
     United States will need to build an additional 6,000 schools.
       (7) The General Accounting Office has determined that the 
     cost of bringing schools up to good, overall condition to be 
     $112,000,000,000, not including the cost of modernizing 
     schools to accommodate technology, or the cost of building 
     additional facilities needed to meet record enrollment 
     levels.
       (8) Schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for 
     Native American children are also in dire need of repair and 
     renovation. The General Accounting Office has reported that 
     the cost of total inventory repairs needed for BIA facilities 
     is $754,000,000. The December 1997 report by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States states that, ``Compared with 
     other schools nationally, BIA schools are generally in poorer 
     physical condition, have more unsatisfactory environmental 
     factors, more often lack key facilities requirements for 
     education reform, and are less able to support computer and 
     communications technology.
       (9) State and local financing mechanisms have proven 
     inadequate to meet the challenges facing today's aging school 
     facilities. Large numbers of local educational agencies have 
     difficulties securing financing for school facility 
     improvement.
       (10) The Federal Government has provided resources for 
     school construction in the past. For example, between 1933 
     and 1939, the Federal Government assisted in 70 percent of 
     all new school construction.
       (11) The Federal Government can support elementary and 
     secondary school facilities without interfering in issues of 
     local control, and should help communities leverage 
     additional funds for the improvement of elementary and 
     secondary school facilities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this budget resolution assume 
     that Congress will enact measures to assist school districts 
     in modernizing their facilities, including--
       (1) legislation to allow States and school districts to 
     issue at least $24,800,000,000 worth of zero-interest bonds 
     to rebuild and modernize our Nation's schools, and to provide 
     Federal income tax credits to the purchasers of those bonds 
     in lieu of interest payments; and
       (2) appropriate funding for the Education Infrastructure 
     Act of 1994 during the period 2000 through 2004, which would 
     provide grants to local school districts for the repair, 
     renovation and construction of public school facilities.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues--
Senator Lautenberg and Senator Robb in sponsoring this important 
amendment which calls on Congress to pass legislation to fix our 
Nation's crumbling schools.
  The condition of our Nation's schools is well known--they are in 
deplorable condition. Last year, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers issued a report card on the condition of America's 
infrastructure. The report made it clear that the physical 
infrastructure in this country is in dire need. However, the only area 
that warranted a failing grade was education. The group was concerned 
about the condition of things like our roads, bridges, and wastewater 
systems. But the only area that was deemed inadequate is education. It 
is clear we must place repair of our nation's schools at the top of our 
Nation's priority list.
  There are 14 million children--almost 5 times the number of people in 
all of Iowa--that are attending classes in buildings that are literally 
falling down around them. The General Accounting Office tells us that 
we need $112 billion to modernize our Nation's schools to bring them to 
good overall condition. The Civil Engineers also say we need $60 
billion in new construction to accommodate increasing enrollments.
  This is a serious problem, and one that is not getting better. As a 
matter of fact, every day we delay, it gets worse and will cost more 
money to address.
  Iowa State University conducted a comprehensive survey on the 
condition of schools in Iowa. In 1995 the estimated cost over the next 
10 years was $3.4 billion. Two years later it was $4 billion and I 
would guess that if the study were updated for 1999 we would find that 
the cost has increased even more.
  There are many that say this is a local problem and federal support 
is unwarranted and unwise. All across this country school districts are 
struggling to repair and upgrade their facilities because the cost is 
enormous.
  It is simply unacceptable that we tolerate this situation. It is 
unconscionable that children in this country go to school in buildings 
where the plumbing doesn't work, the windows are broken, and the roofs 
leak.
  This amendment calls on Congress to enact legislation to provide a 
comprehensive strategy to modernize our Nation's schools. First, we 
must pass legislation to provide funding for the Education 
Infrastructure Act. This is an existing federal program which has been 
on the books since 1994.
  During each of the last two years, the Senate has passed legislation 
which included my proposal to appropriate $100 million for this 
program. Unfortunately, we have been unable to hold the funds in 
conference with the House.
  We must redouble our efforts to provide funding for this grant 
program to

[[Page 5805]]

assist needy school districts and the resolution calls on us to make 
this investment.
  Second, the amendment calls on Congress to pass legislation to 
provide at least $24.8 billion in tax credits to holders of school 
construction bonds. These tax credits will make it possible for school 
districts to build and renovate school facilities at a reduced cost 
because the holder of the bond would receive a federal tax credit in 
lieu of interest.
  Mr. President, We have high expectations for our children. We want 
them to be the best in the world--to reach the highest academic 
standards. But then we ask them to attend class in buildings that just 
don't make the grade--in buildings that are not equipped to provide a 
quality 21st century education.
  We must enact legislation now to remedy this situation and I urge my 
colleagues to support our amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 184

(Purpose: To establish a budget-neutral reserve fund for environmental 
                         and natural resources)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits 
     may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation to improve the quality of our nation's air, 
     water, land, and natural resources, provided that, to the 
     extent that this concurrent resolution on the budget does not 
     include the costs of that legislation, the enactment of the 
     legislation will not (by virtue of either contemporaneous or 
     previously-passed reinstatement or modification of expired 
     excise or environmental taxes) increase the deficit or 
     decrease the surplus for--
       (1) fiscal year 2000;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--
       (1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the 
     Senate appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised 
     functional levels and aggregates to carry out this section. 
     These revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment 
     under this section for legislation in furtherance of the 
     purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an 
     amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such 
     submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate 
     appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this resolution.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committees shall report appropriately-revised allocations 
     pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to carry out this section.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 185

    (Purpose: To provide a substitute for section 205 regarding the 
                 emergency designation point of order)

       On page 47, strike section 205 and insert the following:

     SEC. 205. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) Designations.--
       (1) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of 
     legislation as an emergency requirement under section 
     251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, the committee report and any 
     statement of managers accompanying that legislation shall 
     analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all 
     the criteria in paragraph (2).
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) In general.--The criteria to be considered in 
     determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change is 
     an emergency requirement are whether it is--
       (i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or 
     beneficial);
       (ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;
       (iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       (iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       (v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       (3) Justification for failure to meet criteria.--If the 
     proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria 
     set forth in paragraph (2), the committee report or the 
     statement of managers, as the case may be, shall provide a 
     written justification of why the requirement should be 
     accorded emergency status.
       (b) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, upon a 
     point of order being made by a Senator against any provision 
     in that measure designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the 
     Presiding Officer sustains that point of order, that 
     provision along with the language making the designation 
     shall be stricken from the measure and may not be offered as 
     an amendment from the floor.
       (2) General point of order.--A point of order under this 
     subsection may be raised by a Senator as provided in section 
     313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (3) Conference reports.--If a point of order is sustained 
     under this subsection against a conference report the report 
     shall be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.


                           amendment no. 186

  (Purpose: to express the sense of the Senate that the provisions of 
 this resolution assume that it is the policy of the United States to 
 provide as soon as is technologically possible an education for every 
  American child that will enable each child to effectively meet the 
                    challenges of the 21st century)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS 
                   RESOLUTION ASSUME THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AS SOON AS IT 
                   TECHNOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE AN EDUCATION FOR EVERY 
                   AMERICAN CHILD THAT WILL ENABLE EACH CHILD TO 
                   EFFECTIVELY MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21ST 
                   CENTURY

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Pell Grants require an increase of $5 billion per year 
     to fund the maximum award established in the Higher Education 
     Act Amendments of 1998;
       (2) IDEA needs at least $13 billion more per year to fund 
     the federal commitment to fund 40% of the excess costs for 
     special education services;
       (3) Title I needs at least $4 billion more per year to 
     serve all eligible children;
       (4) over $11 billion over the next six years will be 
     required to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size to an 
     average of 18 in grades 1-3;
       (5) according to the General Accounting Office, it will 
     cost $112 billion just to bring existing school buildings up 
     to good overall condition. According to GAO, one-third of 
     schools serving 14 million children require extensive repair 
     or replacement of one or more of their buildings. GAO also 
     found that almost half of all schools lack even the basic 
     electrical wiring needed to support full-scale use of 
     computers;
       (6) the federal share of education spending has declined 
     from 11.9% in 1980 to 7.6% in 1998;
       (7) federal spending for education has declined from 2.5% 
     of all federal spending in FY 1980 to 2.0% in FY 1999:
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that it is the 
     policy of the United States to provide as soon as is 
     technologically possible an education for every American 
     child that will enable each child to effectively meet the 
     challenges of the 21st century.


                           amendment no. 187

(Purpose: To finance disability programs designed to allow individuals 
      with disabilities to become employed and remain independent)

       At the end of Title II, insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO FOSTER THE 
                   EMPLOYMENT AND INDEPENDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits 
     may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation that finances disability programs designed to 
     allow individuals with disabilities to become employed and 
     remain independent, provided, that, to the extent that this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the 
     costs of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation 
     will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or 
     previously-passed reduction) the deficit in this resolution 
     for--

[[Page 5806]]

       (1) fiscal year 2000;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--
       (1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the 
     Senate appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised 
     functional levels and aggregates to carry out this section. 
     These revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (2) Adjustments for amendments. If the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment 
     under this section for legislation in furtherance of the 
     purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an 
     amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such 
     submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate 
     appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this resolution.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committees shall report appropriately-revised allocations 
     pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to carry out this section.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 188

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that agricultural 
  commodities and products, medicines, and medical products should be 
              exempted from unilateral economic sanctions)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING EXEMPTION OF 
                   AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS, 
                   MEDICINES, AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS FROM UNILATERAL 
                   ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) prohibiting or otherwise restricting the donation or 
     sale of agricultural commodities or products, medicines, or 
     medical products in order to unilaterally sanction a foreign 
     government for actions or policies that the United States 
     finds objectionable unnecessarily harms innocent populations 
     in the targeted country and rarely causes the sanctioned 
     government to alter its actions or policies;
       (2) for the United States as a matter of policy to deny 
     access to agricultural commodities or products, medicines, or 
     medical products by innocent men, women, and children in 
     other countries weakens the international leadership and 
     moral authority of the United States; and
       (3) unilateral sanctions on the sale or donation of 
     agricultural commodities or products, medicines, or medical 
     products needlessly harm agricultural producers and workers 
     employed in the agricultural or medical sectors in the United 
     States by foreclosing markets for the commodities, products, 
     or medicines.
       (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 President 
     should--
       (1) subject to paragraph (2), exempt agricultural 
     commodities and products, medicines, and medical products 
     from any unilateral economic sanction imposed on a foreign 
     government; and
       (2) apply the sanction to the commodities, products, or 
     medicines if the application is necessary--
       (A) for health or safety reasons; or
       (B) due to a domestic shortage of the commodities, 
     products, or medicines.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 189

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding capital gains 
                    tax fairness for family farmers)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CAPITAL GAINS TAX 
                   FAIRNESS FOR FAMILY FARMERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) one of the most popular provisions included in the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 permits many families to exclude 
     from Federal income taxes up to $500,000 of gain from the 
     sale of their principal residences;
       (2) under current law, family farmers are not able to take 
     full advantage of this $500,000 capital gains exclusion that 
     families living in urban or suburban areas enjoy on the sale 
     of their homes;
       (3) for most urban and suburban residents, their homes are 
     their major financial asset and as a result such families, 
     who have owned their homes through many years of 
     appreciation, can often benefit from a large portion of this 
     new $500,000 capital gains exclusion;
       (4) most family farmers plow any profits they make back 
     into the whole farm rather than into the house which holds 
     little or no value;
       (5) unfortunately, farm families receive little benefit 
     from this capital gains exclusion because the Internal 
     Revenue Service separates the value of their homes from the 
     value of the land the homes sit on;
       (6) we should recognize in our tax laws the unique 
     character and role of our farm families and their important 
     contributions to our economy, and allow them to benefit more 
     fully from the capital gains tax exclusion that urban and 
     suburban homeowners already enjoy; and
       (7) we should expand the $500,000 capital gains tax 
     exclusion to cover sales of the farmhouse and the surrounding 
     farmland over their lifetimes.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that if we pass tax 
     relief measures in accordance with the assumptions in the 
     budget resolution, we should ensure that such legislation 
     removes the disparity between farm families and their urban 
     and suburban counterparts with respect to the new $500,000 
     capital gains tax exclusion for principal residence sales by 
     expanding it to cover gains from the sale of farmland along 
     with the sale of the farmhouse.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 190

  (Purpose: To provide for a 1-year delay in a portion of certain tax 
         provisions necessary to avoid future budget deficits)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. 1-YEAR DELAY OF PORTION OF CERTAIN TAX PROVISIONS 
                   NECESSARY TO AVOID FUTURE BUDGET DEFICITS.

       (a) In General.--The Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate shall provide in any reconciliation legislation 
     provided pursuant to sections 104 and 105--
       (1) a provision requiring the Congressional Budget Office 
     to report to Congress on June 30 of each year (beginning in 
     2000) on the estimated Federal budget revenue impact over the 
     next 1, 5, and 10-fiscal year period of that portion of any 
     tax provision included in such reconciliation legislation 
     which has not gone into effect in the taxable year in which 
     such report is made, and
       (2) in any tax provision to be included in such 
     reconciliation legislation a provision delaying for 1 
     additional taxable year that portion of such provision which 
     did not go into effect before a trigger year.
       (b) Trigger Year.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the 
     term ``trigger year'' means the 1st fiscal year in which the 
     projected Federal on-budget surplus for the 1, 5, or 10-
     fiscal year period, as determined by the report under 
     subsection (a)(1), is exceeded by the amount of the aggregate 
     reduction in revenues for such period resulting from the 
     enactment of all of the tax provisions in the reconciliation 
     legislation described in subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 191

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Urban Parks and 
      Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program should be fully funded)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR THE 
                   URBAN PARKS AND RECREATION RECOVERY (UPARR) 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) every analysis of national recreation issues in the 
     last 3 decades has identified the importance of close-to-home 
     recreation opportunities, particularly for residents in 
     densely-populated urban areas;
       (2) the Land and Water Conservation Fund grants program 
     under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.) was established partly to address the 
     pressing needs of urban areas;
       (3) the National Urban Recreation Study of 1978 and the 
     President's Commission on Americans Outdoors of 1987 revealed 
     that critical urban recreation resources were not being 
     addressed;
       (4) older city park structures and infrastructures worth 
     billions of dollars are at risk because government incentives 
     favored the development of new areas over the revitalization 
     of existing resources, ranging from downtown parks 
     established in the 19th century to neighborhood playgrounds 
     and sports centers built from the 1920's to the 1950's;
       (5) the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) 
     program, established under the Urban Park and Recreation 
     Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), authorized 
     $725,000,000 to provide matching grants and technical 
     assistance to economically distressed urban communities;
       (6) the purposes of the UPARR program is to provide direct 
     Federal assistance to urban localities for rehabilitation of 
     critically needed recreation facilities, and to encourage 
     local planning and a commitment to continuing operation and 
     maintenance of recreation programs, sites, and facilities; 
     and
       (7) funding for UPARR is supported by a wide range of 
     organizations, including the National Association of Police 
     Athletic Leagues, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers 
     Association, the Conference of Mayors, and Major League 
     Baseball.
       (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 Congress considers

[[Page 5807]]

     the UPARR program to be a high priority, and should 
     appropriate such amounts as are necessary to carry out the 
     Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program 
     established under the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).

  Mr. TORRICELL. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member 
for accepting this amendment that I have offered expressing the Sense 
of the Senate and the Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery Program 
(UPARR) should be a high Congressional budget. Community recreation 
services and green open spaces are an invaluable investment in our 
urban areas. Few things can make as big a difference for improving the 
quality of life and improving community morale in inner cities as a 
simple investment in parks. However, many facilities are old, overused, 
and called upon to perform years beyond their original life spans.
  Established in 1978 by Public Law 95-625, the UPARR program was 
authorized at a level of $725 million to provide (70% federal and 30% 
local) grants and technical assistance to economically distressed urban 
communities. Prior to the elimination of funding for UPARR in 1995, the 
program experienced great success. UPARR funds have returned more than 
1500 facilities to functional use in 400 local jurisdictions in 42 
states. In the last round of applications when UPARR money was 
available, over 200 communities sought grants. Grants of only a few 
hundred thousand dollars have been enough to provide the spark to turn 
abandoned industrial facilities and armories into green open spaces and 
neighborhood recreational facilities.
  By providing safe recreation opportunities these grants will improve 
our city's quality of life and help address the needs of at-risk youth. 
Violent crime arrests grew 94% between 1980-1995 for youth under age 
15. FBI analysis of 1991-93 data indicate violent crimes committed by 
juveniles occurs with the greatest frequency after school. While 
federal financial assistance cannot rebuild all urban parks or solve 
all urban recreation problems, the program's original mission of 
providing seed money for local investments is one that is still 
valuable to make as we prepare to enter a new millennium.
  Funding for UPARR is supported by a wide range of organizations--from 
the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues and the Sporting 
Goods Manufacturers Association, to the Conference of Mayors and Mayor 
League Baseball. They know the results of studies of studies that show 
that when students have an activity available after school hours, crime 
rates and juvenile arrests decrease. A study of the Big Brothers/Big 
Sisters mentoring program demonstrated that young people with adult 
supervision were only after half as likely to begin illegal drug use as 
those who had no mentor. Research at Columbia University has shown that 
Boys and Girls Clubs have been effective in reducing drug activities 
and juvenile crime in public housing and that participants do better in 
school and are less attracted to gangs as non-participants.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their support and look forward to 
working to ensure sufficient funding for this important program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 192

 (Purpose: To fully fund the Class Size Initiative and the Individuals 
 with Disabilities Act with mandatory funds, the amendment reduces the 
      resolution's tax cut by one fifth, frees up $43 billion in 
  discretionary spending within Function 500 (in 2001-2009) for other 
 important education programs, and leaves 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: $1,436,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,467,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,548,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,604,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,668,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,703,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,756,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,826,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,890,274,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$6,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$40,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$14,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$29,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$42,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$87,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$114,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$129,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$155,436,000,000.
       (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: $1,474,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,506,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,580,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,633,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,688,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,717,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,773,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,835,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,896,955,000,000.
       (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: $1,436,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,467,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,548,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,601,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,659,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,688,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,736,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,801,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,862,458,000,000.
       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, $84,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,818,000,000.
       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, $91,744,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004, and $621,426,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009; and

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, at first glance, the pending budget 
appears to place a high priority on education. The resolution invests 
more money than proposed by President Clinton and highlights increases 
for elementary and secondary education.
  This stands in sharp contrast to previous Republican budgets that 
slashed funding for vital discretionary education programs, cut college 
loans and called for elimination of the Department of Education. In 
some respects, this budget is a welcome change.
  To highlight elementary and secondary education, the resolution takes 
the unusual step of providing so-called ``sub-function'' allocations to 
prominently display the proposed increases for K-12 education. In 
addition, the resolution calls for an investment of $2.5 billion in 
special education over the next five years. That sounds pretty good.
  Unfortunately, a closer examination of the budget exposes serious 
flaws. On the one hand, the budget touts increases for K-12 schools but 
plays down the sobering fact that the only way to accomplish that 
objective is to cut other important education and training programs.
  Cuts, or in the best case scenario, freezes college grants.
  Denies 100,000 children Head Start services.
  Eliminates 73,000 young people from the summer jobs program.

[[Page 5808]]

  Makes it impossible for 102,000 dislocated workers to get the 
training they need to get new jobs.
  Unlike previous GOP budgets that launched a frontal assault on 
education, this budget is a stealth attack. The rhetoric touts 
education, but the details will spell disaster.
  That is why we are offering this amendment to fully fund two 
critically important education programs--special education and the 
class size reduction act. The amendment will enable us to meet two 
important goals.
  First, we will make sure there is full funding for these two 
initiatives. IDEA will be fully funded for the first time ever and we 
will meet our national goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce 
class size.
  Second, by providing this mandatory stream of funding, the amendment 
will free up precious discretionary funds that could be invested in 
other important national priorities such as college grants, Head Start, 
Title I, education technology and job training.
  The amendment is fully offset by reducing the tax breaks by 20%. That 
still leaves plenty of room for tax cuts for working families.
  We must renew the bipartisan effort we began last fall to reduce 
class size. Research has shown that smaller class sizes make a 
difference. Teachers are able to provide more personalized attention 
for students and have to spend less time on discipline. As a result, 
students do better and learn more.
  We got off to a good start last fall by enacting legislation as part 
of the omnibus appropriations bill for the first year of the seven year 
class size initiative. This amendment would enable us to finish the job 
and fully fund the initiative.
  The amendment also invests in IDEA. In the early seventies, two 
landmark federal district court cases--PARC versus Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania and Mills versus Board of Education of the District Court 
of Columbia--established that children with disabilities have a 
constitutional right to a free appropriate public education.
  In 1975, in response to these cases, the Congress enacted PL 94-142, 
the precursor to IDEA, to help states meet their constitutional 
obligations.
  When we enacted PL 94-142, the Congress authorized the maximum state 
award as the number of children served under the special education law 
times 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure.
  Congress has fallen far short of this goal. Indeed, in fiscal year 
1999, Congress appropriated only 11.7% of the national average per 
pupil expenditure for Part B of IDEA. Congress needs to do much more to 
help and this amendment would fully fund this program for the first 
time.
  As an editorial in the March 15 edition of the New York Times 
explained, ``Educating disabled youngsters is a national 
responsibility. The expense should be borne on the nation as a whole, 
not imposed haphazardly on stated or financially strapped districts 
that happen to serve a large number of disabled students.''
  As the ranking member on the education appropriations subcommittee, I 
am acutely aware of all the things we are unable to do because we do 
not have sufficient resources to invest. An added benefit of this 
amendment is to provide $43 billion for education and training programs 
over the next 10 years.
  Mr. President, this amendment will place education at the top of the 
national priority list and I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 193

  (Purpose: To allocate a portion of the surplus for legislation that 
   promotes early educational development and well-being of children)

       On page 43, strike beginning with line 13 through line page 
     44, line 10, and insert the following:

     for fiscal year 2000 or increases in the surplus for any of 
     the outyears, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall make the adjustments as provided in subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget shall take a portion of the amount of increases in the 
     on-budget surplus for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 
     estimated in the report submitted pursuant to subsection (a) 
     and--
       (1) increase the allocation by these amounts to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions only for 
     legislation that promotes early educational development and 
     well-being of children for fiscal years 2000 through 2004; 
     and
       (2) provide for or increase the on-budget surplus levels 
     used for determining compliance with the pay-as-you-go 
     requirements of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th 
     Congress) by those amounts for fiscal year 2000 through 2004.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 194

 (Purpose: To fully fund the Class Size Initiative and the Individuals 
 with Disabilities Act with mandatory funds, the amendment reduces the 
      resolution's tax cut by one-fifth, frees up $43 billion in 
  discretionary spending within Function 500 (in 2001-2009) for other 
 important education programs, and leaves 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: $1,436,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,467,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,548,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,604,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,668,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,703,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,756,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,826,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,890,274,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: -$0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$6,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$40,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$14,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$29,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$42,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$87,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$114,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$129,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$155,436,000,000.
       (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: $1,474,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,506,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,580,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,633,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,688,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,717,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,773,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,835,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,896,955,000,000.
       (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: $1,436,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,467,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,548,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,601,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,659,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,688,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,736,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,801,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,862,458,000,000.
       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, $84,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,818,000,000.
       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, $91,744,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004, and $621,426,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009; and

[[Page 5809]]




                           AMENDMENT NO. 195

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning an increase in 
                           the minimum wage)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE 
                   MINIMUM WAGE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the minimum hourly wage 
     under section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206) should be increased by 50 cents on September 1, 
     1999, and again on September 1, 2000, to bring the minimum 
     hourly wage to $6.15 an hour, and that such section should 
     apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 196

   (Purpose: To create a reserve fund for medicare prescription drug 
                               benefits)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) Adjustment.--If legislation is considered that 
     modernizes and strengthens the medicare program under title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) and 
     includes a benefit under such title providing affordable 
     prescription drug coverage for all medicare beneficiaries, 
     the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may change 
     committee allocations, revenue aggregates, and spending 
     aggregates if such legislation will not cause an on-budget 
     deficit for--
       (1) fiscal year 2000;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (b) Budgetary Enforcement.--The revision of allocations and 
     aggregates made under this section shall be considered for 
     the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 197

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding asset-building 
                         for the working poor)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE 
                   WORKING POOR.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) 33 percent of all American households and 60 percent of 
     African American households have no or negative financial 
     assets.
       (2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in 
     households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of 
     Caucasian children and 75 percent of African American 
     children.
       (3) In order to provide low-income families with more tools 
     for empowerment , incentives which encourage asset-building 
     should be established.
       (4) Across the Nation, numerous small public, private, and 
     public-private asset-building incentives, including 
     individual development accounts, are demonstrating success at 
     empowering low-income workers.
       (5) Middle and upper income Americans currently benefit 
     from tax incentives for building assets.
       (6) The Federal Government should utilize the Federal tax 
     code to provide low-income Americans with incentives to work 
     and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the provisions of this resolution assume that Congress should 
     modify the Federal tax law to include provisions which 
     encourage low-income workers and their families to save for 
     buying a first home, starting a business, obtaining an 
     education, or taking other measures to prepare for the 
     future.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 198

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need for 
 increased funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance program in 
                           fiscal year 2000)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SCAAP FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Government has the responsibility for 
     ensuring that our Nation's borders are safe and secure.
       (2) States and localities, particularly in high immigrant 
     States, face disproportionate costs in implementing our 
     Nation's immigration policies, particularly in the case of 
     incarcerating criminal illegal aliens.
       (3) Federal reimbursements have continually failed to cover 
     the actual costs borne by States and localities in 
     incarcerating criminal illegal aliens. In fiscal year 1999, 
     the costs to States and localities for incarcerating criminal 
     aliens reached over $1,700,000,000, but the Federal 
     Government reimbursed States only $585,000,000.
       (4) In fiscal year 1998, the State of California spent 
     approximately $577,000,000 for the incarceration and parole 
     supervision of criminal alien felons, but received just 
     $244,000,000 in reimbursements. The State of Texas spent 
     $133,000,000, but the Federal Government provided only a 
     $53,000,000 reimbursement. The State of Arizona incurred 
     $38,000,000 in costs, but only received $15,000,000 in 
     reimbursements. The State of New Mexico incurred $3,000,000 
     in cost, but only received $1,000,000 in reimbursements.
       (5) The current Administration request of $500,000,000 is 
     significantly below last year's Federal appropriation, 
     despite the fact that more aliens are now being detained in 
     State and local jails.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that the State 
     Criminal Alien Assistance program budget proposal should 
     increase to $970,000,000 and that the budget resolution 
     appropriately reflects sufficient funds to achieve this 
     objective.


                             Amendment 199

(Purpose: To help ensure the long-term national security of the United 
    States by budgeting for a robust Defense Science and Technology 
                                Program)

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

     ``SEC.   . BUDGETING FOR THE DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``It is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels 
     for National Defense (function 050) for fiscal years 2000 
     through 2008 assume funding for the Defense Science and 
     Technology program that is consistent with Section 214 of the 
     Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1999, which expresses a sense of the Congress that for 
     each of those fiscal years it should be an objective of the 
     Secretary of Defense to increase the budget request for the 
     Defense Science and Technology program by at least 2 percent 
     over inflation.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm very pleased to be joined by 
Senators from both sides of the aisle in offering this amendment 
regarding the Defense Science and Technology program. Senators DeWine, 
Kennedy, Hutchison, Graham, Santorum, Schumer, Chafee, Moynihan, and 
Lieberman are all cosponsors, and I thank them for their valuable 
support.
  This sense of the Senate amendment reemphasizes Congressional support 
for modest but needed increases in the Defense Science and Technology 
program budget. It reinforces that the Senate, honoring its 
responsibility for maintaining the long-term strength of our national 
defense, intends to see that the DoD places a greater priority on this 
high payoff investment in our national security.
  A little background is in order. Technological superiority, coupled 
with outstanding training, remains a keystone of our military strategy 
and might. Undergirding that superiority has been the patient, long-
term investment we have made in the Defense Science and Technology 
program--often known around here as ``S&T'' or ``6.1, 6.2, and 6.3'' 
funding. That investment gave us things like stealth and the advanced 
information systems that allowed us to totally dominate the battlespace 
during Desert Storm. It's sometimes said that the S&T of the 60's and 
70's was used to fight and win the Gulf War of the 90's, at a 
relatively low cost of American lives. And, it's worth remembering that 
each time you use the Internet, you're using the results of Defense 
S&T.
  Yet, despite the widely acknowledged and proven value of Defense S&T, 
despite the fact that new technology will help us counter the new 
threats we see emerging, despite the fact that overall Defense spending 
will significantly increase, the DoD plans to cut and continue cutting 
S&T. The fiscal 1999 S&T funding is $7.8 billion, whereas the budget 
request for fiscal 2000 is $7.4 billion, down around 15% in real terms 
since 1995. Moreover, that request includes the lowest level of S&T by 
the military services in 22 years. Worse yet, S&T is slated to decline 
to around $7 billion in constant dollars in the outyears--$1 billion 
less than the level recommended just last summer by the independent 
Defense Science Board. To my mind, that is just not consistent with 
maintaining the long term technological edge of our military.
  Now, both Houses of Congress have recognized this problem. Last year, 
we included in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act a 
sense of the Congress provision, Section 214, calling on the Secretary 
of Defense to increase the S&T budget request by at least 2% a year 
over inflation during fiscal 2000 through 2008. That provision was 
designed to be a flexible way of urging the DoD to place a higher 
priority on S&T. It contemplated they would plan sensible, gradual 
increases in S&T, which would reach the Defense Science Board target in 
real terms by fiscal 2005 or so.

[[Page 5810]]

  Unfortunately, the DoD may be falling into a classic trap that can 
catch the best of managers, that of focusing so hard on the short term 
problems that they shortchange the future. This year's plans continue 
to show declines for S&T in the outyears, and are largely unchanged 
from last year's plans.
  That's where we come in. The Senate is perhaps uniquely suited to 
take the long term view, to look after those things that require 
patience, yet lie at the very foundation of our national security--like 
Defense S&T. We have the luxury of not being subject to the day to day 
pressures of DoD managers, but we have the responsibility to make sure 
they don't shortchange the future.
  Hence, this amendment says that within the budgetary levels for 
National Defense, function 050, we assume the DoD will increase the S&T 
budget as called for in last year's Defense authorization act. This 
assumption, in turn, signals that we continue to be very serious about 
our long term investment in S&T, and will not just let the issue slide. 
Over time, I believe the DoD will hear our message and begin placing a 
higher priority on S&T and fix this problem.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join the ten of us and support 
this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the early seventies, two landmark 
federal district court cases--PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and 
Mills v. Board of Education of the District Court of Columbia--
established that children with disabilities have a constitutional right 
to a free appropriate public education.
  In 1975, in response to these cases, the Congress enacted PL 94-142, 
the precursor to IDEA, to help states meet their constitutional 
obligations.
  When we enacted PL 94-142, the Congress authorized the maximum state 
award as the number of children served under the special education law 
times 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure.
  Congress has fallen far short of this goal. Indeed, in fiscal year 
1999, Congress appropriated only 11.7% of the national average per 
pupil expenditure for Part B of IDEA.
  Congress needs to do much more to help school districts meet their 
constitutional obligations. Indeed, whenever I go home to Iowa, I am 
besieged by requests for additional federal funding for special 
education.
  These requests increased in intensity following the Supreme Court 
decision in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F. That 
decision reaffirmed the court's longstanding interpretation that 
schools must provide those health-related services necessary to allow a 
child with a disability to remain in school.
  This is a terribly important decision, which reaffirms that all 
children with disabilities have the right to a meaningful education. As 
Justice Stevens wrote, ``under the statute, [Supreme Court] precedent, 
and the purpose of the IDEA, the District must fund such ``related 
services'' in order to help guarantee that students like Garrett are 
integrated into the public schools.''
  The child in this case, Garrett Frey, happens to come from Iowa. He 
is friendly bright, articulate young man, who is also quadriplegic and 
ventilator-dependent. Twenty years ago, he probably would have been 
shunted off to an institution, at a terrible cost to taxpayers. 
Instead, he is thriving as a high school student, and will most likely 
go off to college and become a hard-working, tax paying citizen.
  An editorial in USA Today summed up the situation well.

       We've learned a lot about the costs of special education 
     over the past 24 years. In addition to the savings realized 
     when children can live at home with their families, we also 
     know there are astronomical costs associated with not 
     educating students with disabilities. Research shows that 
     individuals who did not benefit from IDEA are almost twice as 
     likely to not complete high school, not attend college and 
     not get a job. The bottom line: Providing appropriate special 
     education and related services to children saves government 
     hundreds of thousands of dollars in dependency costs.

  The Garrett Frey decision, also underscores the need for Congress to 
help school districts with the financial costs of educating children 
with disabilities. While the excess costs of educating some children 
with disabilities is minimal, the excess costs of educating other 
children with disabilities, like Garrett, is great.
  The pending amendment, of which I am pleased to cosponsor, would take 
two important steps. First, it would fully fund IDEA at the 40% goals. 
Secondly, the amendment would provide a mandatory stream of funding for 
this important program. Finally, the amendment is paid for by taking a 
portion of the funds set-aside for tax breaks and instead invest those 
funds in IDEA. Mr. President, my amendment would provide real money to 
help school districts meet their constitutional obligations. Local 
school districts should not have to bear the full costs of educating 
children with disabilities.
  Again, the USA Today editorial said it well.

       Let's be clear: The job of educating all our children is no 
     small feat. But kids in special education and kids in 
     ``gifted and talented'' programs are not to blame for tight 
     resources. We, as a nation, must increase our commitment to a 
     system of public education that has the capacity to meet the 
     needs of all children, including children with disabilities.

  Of course, in providing increased funding for IDEA, we must make sure 
we do not do so at the expense of other equally important education 
programs.
  We need to fully fund Head Start so that all children start school 
ready to learn.
  We need to fully fund Title I so that all children get the extra help 
they need in reading and math.
  We need to fully fund Pell Grants so that all students have a chance 
to go to college.
  There are many other important education initiatives, such as 
reducing class size, improving teacher training, and modernizing our 
crumbling schools, that will also help children with disabilities.
  Finally, I'd like to point out that when we reauthorized IDEA in 
1997, we made clear that the cost of serving students with disabilities 
should fall not just on school districts, but should be shared by all 
responsive state agencies, including state Medicaid agencies and state 
health departments. While Garrett does not qualify for any state 
programs, many children in his situation do, and the school districts 
can and should avail themselves of that money.
   Mr. President, this amendment is about setting rational national 
priorities. We must make education our nation's top priority since the 
real threat to our national security is an inability to compete in the 
global marketplace. We must have the best-educated, most-skilled, 
healthiest workers in the world to secure our nation's future. 
Investments in education are essential if we are to reach that goal.
  The amendment targets one important area--special education--and 
fully funds this important program. As an editorial in the March 15 
edition of the New York Times explained, ``Educating disabled 
youngsters is a national responsibility. The expense should be borne on 
the nation as a whole, not imposed haphazardly on states or financially 
strapped districts that happen to serve a large number of disabled 
students.''
  By providing these additional resources for special education, we 
would free up funds both here and in local school districts for other 
important education priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important amendment to fully fund IDEA by reducing tax breaks in the 
budget.


                           amendment no. 200

  (Purpose: To allow increased tobacco tax revenues to be used as an 
   offset for the Medicare prescription drug benefit provided for in 
                              section 209)

       On page 53, line 4, after ``may change committee 
     allocations'' insert ``, revenue aggregates for legislation 
     that increases taxes on tobacco or tobacco products 
     (only),''.

[[Page 5811]]




                           amendment no. 201

 (Purpose: To fund a 40 percent Federal share for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, the amendment reduces the resolution's tax 
cut by nearly one fifth, frees up $43 billion in discretionary spending 
   within Function 500 (in 2001-2009) for other important education 
   programs, and leaves 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: $1,436,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,466,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,547,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,602,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,666,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,700,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,755,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,826,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,890,274,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$6,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$41,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$16,216,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$31,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$44,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$90,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$115,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$129,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$155,436,000,000.
       (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: $1,472,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,504,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,578,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,630,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,685,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,717,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,773,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,835,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,896,955,000,000.
       (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: $1,436,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,466,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,547,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,599,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,656,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,685,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,735,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,801,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,862,458,000,000.
       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, $82,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,532,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,249,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,961,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,818,000,000.
       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, $96,028,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004, and $631,461,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009; and


                           amendment no. 202

  (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding funding for 
                           embassy security)

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

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING FOR 
                   EMBASSY SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Enhancing security at U.S. diplomatic missions overseas 
     is essential to protect U.S. government personnel serving on 
     the front lines of our national defense;
       (2) 80 percent of U.S. diplomatic missions do not meet 
     current security standards;
       (3) the Accountability Review Boards on the Embassy 
     Bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam recommended that the 
     Department of State spend $1.4 billion annually on embassy 
     security over each of the next ten years;
       (4) the amount of spending recommended for embassy security 
     by the Accountability Review Boards is approximately 36 
     percent of the operating budget requested for the Department 
     of State in Fiscal Year 2000; and
       (5) the funding requirements necessary to improve security 
     for United States diplomatic missions and personnel abroad 
     cannot be borne within the current budgetary resources of the 
     Department of State;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this budget resolution assume 
     that as the Congress contemplates changes in the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to reflect projected on-
     budget surpluses, provisions similar to those set forth in 
     Section 314(b) of that Act should be considered to ensure 
     adequate funding for enhancements to the security of U.S. 
     diplomatic missions.


                           amendment no. 203

  (Purpose: To allow for the creation of a mandatory fund for medical 
research under the authority of the National Institutes of Health fully 
funded through a tax provision providing that certain funds provided by 
  tobacco companies to states or local governments in connection with 
       tobacco litigation or settlement shall not be deductible)

       Page 3, line 9: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 10: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 11: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 12: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 13: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 14: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 15: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 16: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 17: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 3, line 18: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 4: change the figure to read -$1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 5: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 6: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 7: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 8: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 9: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 10: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 11: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 12: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 13: reduce the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 17: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 18: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 19: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 20: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 21: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 22: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 23: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 24: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 4, line 25: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 1: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 5: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 6: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 7: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 8: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 9: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 10: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 11: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 12: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 13: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 5, line 14: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 7: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 8: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 11: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 12: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 15: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.

[[Page 5812]]

       Page 25, line 16: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 19: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 20: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 23: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 25, line 24: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 2: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 3: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 6: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 7: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 10: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 11: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 14: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 15: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 18: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.
       Page 26, line 19: increase the figure by $1,400,000,000.


                           amendment no. 204

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

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

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

       (a) Discretionary Limits.--In the Senate, in this section, 
     and for the purposes of allocations made for the 
     discretionary category pursuant to section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
       (A) the Chairman of the Budget Committee shall make the 
     necessary adjustments in the discretionary spending limits to 
     reflect the changes in (B); and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,025,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,718,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
       (A) the Chairman of the Budget Committee shall make the 
     necessary adjustments in the discretionary spending limits to 
     reflect the changes in (B); and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,169,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,020,000,000 in 
     outlays; and
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
       (A) the Chairman of the Budget Committee shall make the 
     necessary adjustments in the discretionary spending limits to 
     reflect the changes in (B); and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,316,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,161,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       (4) with respect to fiscal year 2004--
       (A) the Chairman of the Budget Committee shall make the 
     necessary adjustments in the discretionary spending limits to 
     reflect the changes in (B); and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: $6,458,000 in 
     new budget authority and $6,303,000,000 in outlays; and
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
       (A) the Chairman of the Budget Committee shall make the 
     necessary adjustments in the discretionary spending limits to 
     reflect the changes in (B); and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: $6,616,000 in 
     new budget authority and $6,452,000,000 in outlays;

     as adjusted in strict conformance with section 251(b) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and 
     section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider--
       (A) a revision of this resolution or any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for any of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2005 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on 
     such a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in 
     excess of the discretionary spending limit or limits for such 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) any bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on such bill or resolution) for any of the 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2005 that would cause any of the 
     limits in this section (or suballocations of the 
     discretionary limits made pursuant to section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to be exceeded.
       (2) Exception.--This section shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by Congress is in effect or if a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new 
     entitlement authority, revenues, and deficits for a fiscal 
     year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.


                           amendment no. 205

  (Purpose: to allow for a tax cut for working families that could be 
provided immediately, before enactment of Social Security reform would 
            make on-budget surpluses available as an offset)

       On page 46, after line 10, add a new subsection (c) that 
     reads as follows:
       (c) Limitation.--This reserve fund will only be available 
     for the following types of tax relief:
       (1) Tax relief to help working families afford child care, 
     including assistance for families with a parent staying out 
     of the workforce in order to care for young children;
       (2) Tax relief to help individuals and their families 
     afford the expense of long-term health care;
       (3) Tax relief to ease the tax code's marriage penalties on 
     working families;
       (4) Any other individual tax relief targeted exclusively 
     for families in the bottom 90 percent of the family income 
     distribution;
       (5) The extension of the Research and Experimentation tax 
     credit, the Work Opportunity tax credit, and other expiring 
     tax provisions, a number of which are important to help 
     American businesses compete in the modern international 
     economy and to help bring the benefits of a strong economy to 
     disadvantaged individuals and communities; and,
       (6) Tax incentives to help small businesses offer pension 
     plans to their employees, and other proposals to increase 
     pension access, portability, and security.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to strike 
section 204 of the budget resolution, as well as the reconciliation 
instructions to cut taxes by $778 billion over the next 10 years 
without offsetting their costs.
  I move to eliminate these provisions because they strike at the very 
heart of the fiscal discipline that has brought about the first unified 
balanced budget in 30 years.
  In 1993, in President Clinton's first budget, we introduced a new 
pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate. This rule provided for a 60-vote 
point of order in the Senate against legislation that would increase 
the deficit over 10 years. That has served to keep the Senate and the 
Congress on a course of fiscal responsibility by requiring Congress to 
pay for any changes in revenues or direct spending.
  The budget resolution before us, however, abandons the pay-go rule 
and allows Congress to spend the projected onbudget surpluses without 
offsetting their costs.
  While supporters of this language promote this as a simple 
clarification of existing principles, arguing the pay-go rules were not 
to apply in times of onbudget surpluses, the Congressional Budget 
Office disagrees.
  In my judgment, it would be irresponsible to abandon the very pay-go 
rules that brought us to this point when we still face a $3.7 trillion 
debt held by the public, and a total debt of over $5.5 trillion.
  But, Mr. President, regardless of one's views on whether these rules 
were meant to apply in our current fiscal circumstances, I believe it 
is in our interest not to abandon the pay-go rules at this time. They 
have been instrumental in imposing fiscal discipline on this body, 
something that has been sorely lacking in previous years.
  Paying for new spending or new tax cuts forces legislators to make 
tough choices. If we abandon this rule, we are saying, in effect, we 
don't have to make tough choices anymore. And that is particularly 
troubling when we make long-term decisions based only on projections, 
as we do today.
  Mr. President, those who support this change are using it to pass a 
tax cut that would otherwise be subject to a point of order under the 
current pay-go rules. But I want to ask our colleagues, which is the 
more fiscally conservative position? Supporters of this new language 
may think of themselves as fiscal conservatives. In my view, the 
fiscally conservative position demands paying for other priorities and 
using the total surplus, not just the off-budget surplus, to pay down 
the publicly held debt.
  By ridding ourselves of this debt, we dramatically increase our 
flexibility to

[[Page 5813]]

solve some of our long-term funding challenges in Social Security and 
Medicare.
  The budget resolution before us is short shrift to Social Security 
and Medicare by abandoning the pay-go rules and using the onbudget 
surplus for tax cuts. Once again, it puts short-term political 
interests ahead of long-term planning. As long as the only window we 
are looking through faces the next election rather than our economic 
strength in the next century, we will continue to put our focus on 
feel-good tax cuts at the expense of preparing for the future of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Bottom line, Mr. President, the responsible position is to maintain 
the current budget rules and pay down the debt, and that is the 
proposition that Americans support.
  We have a responsibility to the next generation to reduce the debt 
that clouds our Nation's future prosperity, and the way to remove that 
debt is to stick to the pay-go rules that have served us so well.
  With this amendment, cosponsored by Senator Graham of Florida, we 
will keep the pay-go rules, we will pay off the debt, and we will 
ensure that any tax cut doesn't threaten to plunge us back into the 
large deficits from which we have so recently been delivered.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining. I thank 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it in order for the Senator to submit the Republican 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order.


                Amendments Nos. 206 through 243, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to inform the Senate that the 
timeline runs out on the resolution--because votes count and everything 
now--at 7 o'clock. Here are 36 amendments that Republicans have asked 
me to send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They will be received at the desk.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 206

  (Purpose: To provide the Sense of the Senate regarding support for 
  Federal, State and local law enforcement, and for the Violent Crime 
                         Reduction Trust Fund)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL, 
                   STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FOR THE 
                   VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Findings.--the Senate finds that:--
       ``(1) Our Federal, State and local law enforcement officers 
     provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
     freedom and safety, and with the support of federal 
     assistance such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 
     Program, the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant 
     Program, the COPS Program, and the Byrne Grant Program, state 
     and local law enforcement officers have succeeded in reducing 
     the national scourge of violent crime, illustrated by a 
     violent crime rate that has dropped in each of the past four 
     years;
       ``(2) Assistance, such as the Violent Offender 
     Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants, provided 
     to State corrections systems to encourage truth in sentencing 
     laws for violent offenders has resulted in longer time served 
     by violent criminals and safer streets for law abiding people 
     across the Nation;
       ``(3) Through a comprehensive effort by state and local law 
     enforcement to attack violence against women, in concert with 
     the efforts of dedicated volunteers and professionals who 
     provide victim services, shelter, counseling and advocacy to 
     battered women and their children, important strides have 
     been made against the national scourge of violence against 
     women.
       ``(4) Despite recent gains, the violent crime rate remains 
     high by historical standards;
       ``(5) Federal efforts to investigate and prosecute 
     international terrorism and complex interstate and 
     international crime are vital aspects of a National anticrime 
     strategy, and should be maintained;
       ``(6) The recent gains by Federal, State and local law 
     enforcement in the fight against violent crime and violence 
     against women are fragile, and continued financial commitment 
     from the Federal Government for funding and financial 
     assistance is required to sustain and build upon these gains; 
     and
       ``(7) The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, enacted as a 
     part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994, funds the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and the 
     Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 
     without adding to the federal budget deficit.
       ``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions and the functional totals underlying this 
     resolution assume that the Federal Government's commitment to 
     fund Federal law enforcement programs and programs to assist 
     State and local efforts to combat violent crime, such as the 
     Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, the Juvenile 
     Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, the Violent 
     Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants 
     Program, the Violence Against Women Act, the COPS Program, 
     and the Byrne Grant Program, shall be maintained, and that 
     funding for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund shall 
     continue to at least fiscal year 2005.''


                           amendment no. 207

   (Purpose: To ensure a rational adjustment to merger notification 
   thresholds for small business and to ensure adequate funding for 
            Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MERGER ENFORCEMENT BY 
                   DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice 
     is charged with the civil and criminal enforcement of the 
     antitrust laws, including review of corporate mergers likely 
     to reduce competition in particular markets, with a goal to 
     promote and protect the competitive process;
       ``(2) the Antitrust Division requests a 16 percent increase 
     in funding for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(3) justification for such an increase is based, in part, 
     on increasingly numerous and complex merger filings pursuant 
     to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976;
       ``(4) the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
     1976 sets value thresholds which trigger the requirement for 
     filing premerger notification;
       ``(5) the number of merger filings under the Hart-Scott-
     Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, which the 
     Department, in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, 
     is required to review, increased by 38 percent in fiscal year 
     1998;
       ``(6) the Department expects the number of merger filings 
     to increase in fiscal years 1999 and 2000;
       ``(7) the value thresholds, which relate to both the size 
     of the companies involved and the size of the transaction, 
     under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
     1976 have not been adjusted since passage of that Act.
       ``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the Antitrust Division needs adequate resources and that 
     the levels in this resolution assume the Division will have 
     such adequate resources, including necessary increases, 
     notwithstanding any report language to the contrary, to 
     enable it to meet its statutory requirements, including those 
     related to reviewing and investigating increasingly numerous 
     and complex mergers, but that Congress should pursue 
     consideration of modest, budget neutral, adjustments to the 
     Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 to 
     account for inflation in the value thresholds of the Act, and 
     in so doing, ensure that the Antitrust Division's resources 
     are focused on matters and transactions most deserving of the 
     Division's attention.


                           Amendment No. 208

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that the Marriage Penalty 
   should be eliminated and the marginal income tax rates should be 
                           uniformly reduced)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     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.

[[Page 5814]]




                           amendment no. 209

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Internal Revenue 
                Code of 1986 needs comprehensive reform)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REFORM OF THE INTERNAL 
                   REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (referred to in this 
     section as the ``tax code'') is unnecessarily complex and 
     burdensome, consisting of 2,000 pages of tax code, and 
     resulting in 12,000 pages of regulations and 200,000 pages of 
     court proceedings;
       (2) the complexity of the tax code results in taxpayers 
     spending approximately 5,400,000,000 hours and 
     $200,000,000,000 on tax compliance each year;
       (3) the impact of the complexity of the tax code is 
     inherently inequitable, rewarding taxpayers which hire 
     professional tax preparers and penalizing taxpayers which 
     seek to comply with the tax code without professional 
     assistance;
       (4) the percentage of the income of an average family of 
     four that is paid for taxes has grown significantly, 
     comprising nearly 40 percent of the family's earnings, a 
     percentage which represents more than a family spends in the 
     aggregate on food, clothing, and housing;
       (5) the total amount of Federal, State, and local tax 
     collections in 1998 increased approximately 5.7 percent over 
     such collections in 1997;
       (6) the tax code penalizes saving and investment by 
     imposing tax on these important activities twice while 
     promoting consumption by only taxing income used for 
     consumption once;
       (7) the tax code stifles economic growth by discouraging 
     work and capital formation through high tax rates;
       (8) Congress and the President have found it necessary on 
     several occasions to enact laws to protect taxpayers from 
     abusive actions and procedures of the Internal Revenue 
     Service in enforcement of the tax code; and
       (9) the complexity of the tax code is largely responsible 
     for the growth in size of the Internal Revenue Service.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that--
       (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 needs comprehensive 
     reform; and
       (2) Congress should move expeditiously to consider 
     comprehensive proposals to reform the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.


                           amendment no. 210

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the additional tax 
          incentives should be provided for education savings)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX INCENTIVES FOR 
                   EDUCATION SAVINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) families in the United States have accrued more college 
     debt in the 1990s than during the previous 3 decades 
     combined; and
       (2) families should have every resource available to them 
     to meet the rising cost of higher education.
       (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 additional tax 
     incentives should be provided for education savings, 
     including--
       (1) excluding from gross income distributions from 
     qualified State tuition plans; and
       (2) providing a tax deferral for private prepaid tuition 
     plans in years 2000 through 2003 and excluding from gross 
     income distributions from such plans in years 2004 and after.


                           amendment no. 211

(Purpose: Expressing the Sense of the Senate regarding the Davis-Bacon 
                                  Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DAVIS-BACON.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that in carrying out the 
     assumptions in this budget resolution, the Senate will 
     consider reform of the Davis-Bacon Act as an alternative to 
     repeal.


                           amendment no. 212

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

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE 106TH CONGRESS, 1ST 
                   SESSION SHOULD REAUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR THE 
                   FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings--
       (1) Nineteen states and dozens of localities have spent 
     nearly $1 billion to protect over 600,000 acres of important 
     farmland;
       (2) The Farmland Protection Program has provided cost-
     sharing for nineteen states and dozens of localities to 
     protect over 123,000 acres on 432 farms since 1996;
       (3) The Farmland Protection Program has generated new 
     interest in saving farmland in communities around the 
     country;
       (4) The Farmland Protection Program represents an 
     innovative and voluntary partnership, rewards local 
     ingenuity, and supports local priorities;
       (5) The Farmland Protection Program is a matching grant 
     program that is completely voluntary in which the federal 
     government does not acquire the land or easement;
       (6) Funds authorized for the Farmland Protection Program 
     were expended at the end of Fiscal Year 1998, and no funds 
     were appropriated in Fiscal Year 1999;
       (7) The United States is losing two acres of our best 
     farmland to development every minute of every day;
       (8) These lands produce three quarters of the fruits and 
     vegetables and over one half of the dairy in the United 
     States;
       (b) Senate of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals contained in this resolution 
     assume that the 106th Congress, 1st Session will reauthorize 
     funds for the Farmland Protection Program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 213

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding support for 
                    State and local law enforcement)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPPORT FOR STATE AND 
                   LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the President's budget request for fiscal year 2000 
     proposes significant reductions in Federal support for State 
     and local law enforcement efforts to combat crime by 
     eliminating more than $1,000,000,000 from State and local law 
     enforcement programs that directly support the Nation's 
     communities, including--
       (A) zero funding for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, 
     for which $523,000,000 was made available for fiscal year 
     1999;
       (B) a reduction from the amount made available for fiscal 
     year 1999 of $645,000,000 for State prison grants (including 
     Violent Offender Incarceration Grants and Truth-in-Sentencing 
     Incentive Grants);
       (C) a reduction from the amount made available for fiscal 
     year 1999 of more than $85,000,000 from the State Criminal 
     Alien Incarceration Program, which reimburses States for the 
     incarceration of illegal aliens;
       (D) a reduction in funding for the popular Byrne grant 
     program under part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968; and
       (E) elimination of funding for Juvenile Accountability 
     Block Grants, which have provided $500,000,000 over the last 
     2 years to communities attempting to control the plague of 
     youth violence;
       (2) as national crime rates are beginning to fall as a 
     result of State and local efforts, with Federal support, it 
     is unwise to ignore the responsibility of the Federal 
     Government to communities still overwhelmed by crime;
       (3) Federal support is crucial to the provision of critical 
     crime fighting services and the effective administration of 
     justice in the States, such as the approximately 600 
     qualified State and local crime laboratories and medical 
     examiners' offices, which deliver over 90 percent of the 
     forensic services in the United States;
       (4) dramatic increases in crime rates over the last decade 
     have generally exceeded the capacity of State and local crime 
     laboratories to process their forensic examinations, 
     resulting in tremendous backlogs that prevent the swift 
     administration of justice and impede fundamental individual 
     rights, such as the right to a speedy trial and to 
     exculpatory evidence;
       (5) last year, Congress passed the Crime Identification 
     Technology Act of 1998, which authorizes $250,000,000 each 
     year for 5 years to assist State and local law enforcement 
     agencies in integrating their anticrime technology systems 
     into national databases, and in upgrading their forensic 
     laboratories and information and communications 
     infrastructures upon which these crime fighting systems rely; 
     and
       (6) the Federal Government must continue efforts to 
     significantly reduce crime by at least maintaining Federal 
     funding for State and local law enforcement, and wisely 
     targeting these resources.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) the amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 to 
     assist State and local law enforcement efforts will be--
       (A) greater than the amounts proposed in the President's 
     budget request for fiscal year 2000; and
       (B) comparable to amounts made available for that purpose 
     for fiscal year 1999;
       (2) the amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 for 
     crime technology programs should be used to further the 
     purposes of the program under section 102 of the Crime 
     Identification Technology Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601); and
       (3) Congress should consider legislation that specifically 
     addresses the backlogs in State and local crime laboratories 
     and medical examiners' offices.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 214

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that funding for Federal 
drug control activities should be at a level higher than that proposed 
        in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2000)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

[[Page 5815]]



     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR COUNTER-
                   NARCOTICS INITIATIVES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) from 1985-1992, the Federal Government's drug control 
     budget was balanced among education, treatment, law 
     enforcement, and international supply reduction activities 
     and this resulted in a 13-percent reduction in total drug use 
     from 1988 to 1991;
       (2) since 1992, overall drug use among teens aged 12 to 17 
     rose by 70 percent, cocaine and marijuana use by high school 
     seniors rose 80 percent, and heroin use by high school 
     seniors rose 100 percent;
       (3) during this same period, the Federal investment in 
     reducing the flow of drugs outside our borders declined both 
     in real dollars and as a proportion of the Federal drug 
     control budget;
       (4) while the Federal Government works with State and local 
     governments and numerous private organizations to reduce the 
     demand for illegal drugs, seize drugs, and break down drug 
     trafficking organizations within our borders, only the 
     Federal Government can seize and destroy drugs outside of our 
     borders;
       (5) in an effort to restore Federal international 
     eradication and interdiction efforts, in 1998, Congress 
     passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act which 
     authorized an additional $2,600,000,000 over 3 years for 
     international interdiction, eradication, and alternative 
     development activities;
       (6) Congress appropriated over $800,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1999 for anti-drug activities authorized in the Western 
     Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act;
       (7) the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 
     would invest $100,000,000 less than what Congress 
     appropriated in fiscal year 1999;
       (8) the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 
     contains no funding for the Western Hemisphere Drug 
     Elimination Act's top 5 priorities, namely, including funds 
     for an enhanced United States Customs Service air 
     interdiction program, counter-drug intelligence programs, 
     security enhancements for our United States-Mexico border, 
     and a promising eradication program against coca, opium, 
     poppy, and marijuana; and
       (9) the proposed Drug Free Century Act would build upon 
     many of the initiatives authorized in the Western Hemisphere 
     Drug Elimination Act, including additional funding for the 
     Department of Defense for counter-drug intelligence and 
     related activities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) funding for Federal drug control activities should be 
     at a level higher than that proposed in the President's 
     budget request for fiscal year 2000; and
       (2) funding for Federal drug control activities should 
     allow for investments in programs authorized in the Western 
     Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and in the proposed Drug Free 
     Century Act.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 215

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning resources for 
   autism research through the National Institutes of Health and the 
              Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING AUTISM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Infantile autism and autism spectrum disorders are 
     biologically-based neurodevelopmental diseases that cause 
     severe impairments in language and communication and 
     generally manifest in young children sometime during the 
     first two years of life.
       (2) Best estimates indicate that 1 in 500 children born 
     today will be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and 
     that 400,000 Americans have autism or an autism spectrum 
     disorder.
       (3) There is little information on the prevalence of autism 
     and other pervasive developmental disabilities in the United 
     States. There have never been any national prevalence studies 
     in the United States, and the two studies that were conducted 
     in the 1980s examined only selected areas of the country. 
     Recent studies in Canada, Europe, and Japan suggest that the 
     prevalence of classic autism alone may be 300 percent to 400 
     percent higher than previously estimated.
       (4) Three quarters of those with infantile autism spend 
     their adult lives in institutions or group homes, and usually 
     enter institutions by the age of 13.
       (5) The cost of caring for individuals with autism and 
     autism spectrum disorder is great, and is estimated to be 
     $13.3 billion per year solely for direct costs.
       (6) The rapid advancements in biomedical science suggest 
     that effective treatments and a cure for autism are 
     attainable if--
       (A) there is appropriate coordination of the efforts of the 
     various agencies of the Federal Government involved in 
     biomedical research on autism and autism spectrum disorders;
       (B) there is an increased understanding of autism and 
     autism spectrum disorders by the scientific and medical 
     communities involved in autism research and treatment; and
       (C) sufficient funds are allocated to research.
       (7) The discovery of effective treatments and a cure for 
     autism will be greatly enhanced when scientists and 
     epidemiologists have an accurate understanding of the 
     prevalence and incidence of autism.
       (8) Recent research suggests that environmental factors may 
     contribute to autism. As a result, contributing causes of 
     autism, if identified, may be preventable.
       (9) Finding the answers to the causes of autism and related 
     developmental disabilities may help researchers to understand 
     other disorders, ranging from learning problems, to 
     hyperactivity, to communications deficits that affect 
     millions of Americans.
       (10) Specifically, more knowledge is needed concerning--
       (A) the underlying causes of autism and autism spectrum 
     disorders, how to treat the underlying abnormality or 
     abnormalities causing the severe symptoms of autism, and how 
     to prevent these abnormalities from occurring in the future;
       (B) the epidemiology of, and the identification of risk 
     factors for, infantile autism and autism spectrum disorders;
       (C) the development of methods for early medical diagnosis 
     and functional assessment of individuals with autism and 
     autism spectrum disorders, including identification and 
     assessment of the subtypes within the autism spectrum 
     disorders, for the purpose of monitoring the course of the 
     disease and developing medically sound strategies for 
     improving the outcomes of such individuals;
       (D) existing biomedical and diagnostic data that are 
     relevant to autism and autism spectrum disorders for 
     dissemination to medical personnel, particularly 
     pediatricians, to aid in the early diagnosis and treatment of 
     this disease; and
       (E) the costs incurred in educating and caring for 
     individuals with autism and autism spectrum disorders.
       (11) In 1998, the National Institutes of Health announced a 
     program of research on autism and autism spectrum disorders. 
     A sufficient level of funding should be made available for 
     carrying out the program.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this resolution assume that 
     additional resources will be targeted towards autism research 
     through the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 216

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the potential 
   impact of the amendments to the medicare program contained in the 
Balanced Budget Act on access to items and services under such program)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ACCESS TO ITEMS AND 
                   SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Total hospital operating margins with respect to items 
     and services provided to medicare beneficiaries are expected 
     to decline from 4.3 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 0.1 
     percent in fiscal year 1999.
       (2) Total operating margins for small rural hospitals are 
     expected to decline from 4.2 percent in fiscal year 1998 to 
     negative 5.6 percent in fiscal year 2002, a 233 percent 
     decline.
       (3) The Congressional Budget Office recently has estimated 
     that the amount of savings to the medicare program in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002 by reason of the amendments to that 
     program contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is 
     $88,500,000 more than the amount of savings to the program by 
     reason of those amendments that the Congressional Budget 
     Office estimated for those fiscal years immediately prior to 
     the enactment of that Act.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the provisions contained in this budget resolution assume 
     that the Senate should--
       (1) consider whether the amendments to the medicare program 
     contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have had an 
     adverse impact on access to items and services under that 
     program; and
       (2) if it is determined that additional resources are 
     available, additional budget authority and outlays shall be 
     allocated to address the unintended consequences of change in 
     medicare program policy made by the Balanced Budget Act, 
     including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, to 
     ensure fair and equitable access to al items and services 
     under the program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 217

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the budget process 
 should require truth-in-budgeting with respect to the on-budget trust 
                                 funds)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. HONEST REPORTING OF THE DEFICIT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume the following:
       (1) In general.--Effective for fiscal year 2001, the 
     President's budget and the budget report of CBO required 
     under section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     and the concurrent resolution on the budget should include--
       (A) the receipts and disbursements totals of the on-budget 
     trust funds, including the

[[Page 5816]]

     projected levels for at least the next 5 fiscal years; and
       (B) the deficit or surplus excluding the on-budget trust 
     funds, including the projected levels for at least the next 5 
     fiscal years.
       (2) Itemization.--Effective for fiscal year 2001, the 
     President's budget and the budget report of CBO required 
     under section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     should include an itemization of the on-budget trust funds 
     for the budget year, including receipts, outlays, and 
     balances.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 218

        (Purpose: Relating to the international affairs budget)

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

     SEC. __. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Administration has attacked the Senate budget 
     resolution which stays within the caps set in the Balanced 
     Budget Agreement reached with the President in 1997. The 
     Administration accuses the Senate of taking a ``meat axe'' to 
     American leadership, and placing a ``foreign policy 
     straitjacket'' on the United States. In fact, the fiscal year 
     2000 budget continues to fund programs and projects that 
     advance United States interests, while eliminating funding 
     for wasteful or duplicative programs and activities.
       (2) The Administration claims that the Senate resolution 
     would cut funds for international affairs in fiscal year 2000 
     by 15.3 percent. The reality is that the reduction is a five 
     percent decrease from spending in fiscal year 1999. Much of 
     the decrease is a result of savings from reductions assumed 
     by the President in his budget: the President assumes savings 
     from ``one time costs'' in the fiscal year 1999 budget, as 
     well as fiscal year 2000 budget reductions for OPIC, P.L. 480 
     Programs, and historic levels of foreign assistance to Israel 
     and Egypt . When adjusted for arrearages, the Senate 
     Resolution is only a decrease of $.9 billion in budget 
     authority and $.02 billion in outlays from the fiscal year 
     1999 levels.
       (3) The Administration threatens the budget will hinder 
     consular services and abandon our citizens who travel abroad 
     and leave them to fend for themselves. The reality is that 
     most consular services today are supplemented heavily by 
     machine readable visa, expedited passport, and other fees. 
     The State Department is able to retain these fees due to 
     congressional authorization for the retention of these fees 
     rather then returning them to the general fund of the 
     Treasury. Due to this authority, in fiscal year 2000, the 
     State Department expects to have at least $374,000,000 to 
     expend from fee collections. These funds are in addition to 
     the budget authority provided by the Senate budget 
     resolution.
       (4) The Administration argues that this budget will pull 
     the plug on U.S. contributions to UNICEF and Child Survival. 
     In fact, the United States provided more than $122,000,000 or 
     27 percent of all UNICEF funding in 1997, according to the 
     State Department's most recent statistics (of course, this 
     does not include private donations of United States 
     citizens). At the same time, the United States Agency for 
     International Development is requesting a funding increase of 
     $119,000,000 for development assistance and $15,000,000 for 
     operating expenses even as the General Accounting Office 
     reports that the Agency for International Development cannot 
     explain how its programs are performing or whether they are 
     achieving their intended goals.
       (5) The Administration argues that this budget will reduce 
     the United States commitment to the war on drugs. In fiscal 
     year 1999, Congress appropriated funds for drug interdiction 
     programs far exceeding the Administration's request; 
     moreover, the comprehensive Western Hemisphere Drug 
     Elimination Act enacted in October 1998 authorizes nearly 
     $1,000,000,000 in new funds, equipment, and technology to 
     correct the dangerous imbalance in the Administration's anti-
     drug strategy that has underfunded and continues to underfund 
     interdiction programs. (The President's fiscal year 2000 
     budget continues to short-change anti-drug activities by the 
     Customs Service and the Coast Guard.)
       (6) The Administration argues that this budget will erode 
     support for peace in the Middle East, Bosnia, and Northern 
     Ireland. However, funding for peacekeeping continues to 
     skyrocket. However, the cost of peacekeeping has become a 
     burden on the 050 defense budget rather than the 150 foreign 
     affairs budget since the failure of the United Nations 
     mission in Bosnia. Last year, the United States expended 
     $4,277,500,000 on peacekeeping and related activities in 
     Bosnia, Iraq, other Middle East peacekeeping, and in Africa. 
     This amount does not include funds for humanitarian and 
     development activities.
       (7) The Administration argues that this budget will force 
     the United States to close its embassies and turn its back on 
     American interests. The budget will instead force the 
     Executive branch to take on greater cost-based 
     decisionmaking. According to the General Accounting Office, 
     ``more needs to be done to create a well-tuned platform for 
     conducting foreign affairs. Achieving this goal will require 
     the State Department to make a strong commitment to 
     management improvement, modernization, and `cost-based' 
     decisionmaking.'' The General Accounting Office reports that 
     ``one of State's long-standing shortcomings has been the 
     absence of an effective financial management system that can 
     assist managers in making `cost-based' decisions.''
       (8) Prior to the start of fiscal year 2000, the United 
     States Information Agency and the Arms Control and 
     Disarmament Agency will be integrated into the State 
     Department. In addition the Secretary of State will have more 
     direct oversight over the Agency for International 
     Development, and certain functions of that agency will be 
     merged into the State Department. To date, no savings have 
     been identified as a result of this merger. The General 
     Accounting Office identifies potential areas for reduction of 
     duplication as a result of integration in the areas of legal 
     affairs, congressional liaison, press and public affairs, and 
     management. In addition the General Accounting Office notes 
     that in the State Department strategic plan, it has not 
     adequately reviewed overlapping issues performed by State 
     Department functional bureaus and other United States 
     agencies.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the budget levels of this resolution assume that enactment of 
     the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 
     provides a unique opportunity for the State Department to 
     achieve management improvements and cost reductions, and 
     that:
       (1) The Senate believes that savings can be achieved by 
     simply eliminating wasteful and duplicative programs, not the 
     programs cited by the Administration, which generally receive 
     broad bipartisan support. Just a few abuses that could be 
     eliminated to achieve reductions include the following:
       (A) $25,000,000 for UNFPA while UNFPA works hand-in-glove 
     with the brutal Communist Chinese dictators to abuse women 
     and children under the coercive one-child-per-family 
     population control policy.
       (B) $35,000,000 for the Inter-American Foundation, which 
     funded groups in Ecuador clearly identified by the State 
     Department as terrorist organizations that kidnaped Americans 
     and threatened their lives, as well as the lives and safety 
     of other United States citizens, while extorting money from 
     them.
       (C) $105,000,000 proposed for Haiti, which has abandoned 
     democracy in favor of dictatorship and where United States 
     taxpayer funds have been used, according to the International 
     Planned Parenthood Federation's annual report, for ``a 
     campaign to reach voodoo followers with sexual and 
     reproductive health information, by performing short song-
     prayers about STDs [sexually transmitted diseases] and the 
     benefits of family planning during voodoo ceremonies''.
       (D) $60,000,000 over ten years to the American Center for 
     International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), which is AFL-CIOs 
     international nongovernment division. 100% of ACILS's funding 
     is from taxpayers while AFL-CIO contributed $40,956,828 
     exclusively to Democratic candidates in the 1998 Federal 
     election cycle.
       (E) In fiscal year 1999, $200,000 in foreign aid to Canada 
     to underwrite seminars on gender sensitivity for 
     peacekeepers.
       (F) In fiscal year 1999, the United States provided the 
     International Labor Organization with $54,774,408. Work 
     produced by that organization included a report advocating 
     recognition of the sex trade as a flourishing economic 
     enterprise and called for recognition of the trade in 
     official statistics.
       (G) According to the General Accounting Office, ``USAID has 
     spent, by its own account, $92,000,000 to develop and 
     maintain the NMS [new management system], the system does not 
     work as intended and has created problems in mission 
     operations and morale.''
       (H) In fiscal year 1999, the State Department is attempting 
     to send $28,000,000 to fund the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
     Organization, which is an organization established by a 
     treaty the United States has not ratified.
       (I) Despite sensitive deadlines in the Middle East Peace 
     Process looming, the United Nations is calling for a 
     conference under the auspices of the Fourth Geneva 
     Convention. No conference has been held under that Convention 
     since its inception in 1947. The topic for discussion is 
     Israeli Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The United 
     States opposes this conference yet contributes 25 percent of 
     the United Nations budget.
       (J) The United States has spent more than $3,000,000,000 to 
     ``restore democracy in Haiti.'' The reality is that there has 
     been no Prime Minister or Cabinet in Haiti for 19 months; the 
     Parliament has been effectively dissolved; local officials 
     serve at the whim of President Preval; the privatization 
     process is stalled; political murders remain unsolved; drug 
     trafficking is rampant. In short, billions of dollars in 
     foreign aid have bought us no leverage with the Haitians.
       (K) As a result of consolidation of United States foreign 
     affairs agencies, 1,943 personnel will be transferred into 
     the State Department prior to the start of fiscal year 2000. 
     The fiscal year 2000 budget does not identify a reduction in 
     a single staff position.
       (2) Additional funds that may become available from 
     elimination of some foreign

[[Page 5817]]

     assistance programs, management efficiencies as a result of 
     reorganization of the foreign affairs agencies, and new 
     estimates on the size of the budget surplus should be 
     designated for United States embassy upgrades.


                           amendment no. 219

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that $50 million will be 
provided in fiscal year 2000 to conduct intensive firearms prosecution 
projects to combat violence in the twenty-five American cities with the 
                          highest crime rates)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR INTENSIVE 
                   FIREARMS PROSECUTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) gun violence in America, while declining somewhat in 
     recent years, is still unacceptably high;
       (2) keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals can 
     dramatically reduce gun violence in America;
       (3) States and localities often do not have the 
     investigative or prosecutorial resources to locate and 
     convict individuals who violate their firearms laws. Even 
     when they do win convictions, states and localities often 
     lack the jail space to hold such convicts for their full 
     terms;
       (4) there are a number of federal laws on the books which 
     are designed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. 
     These laws impose mandatory minimum sentences upon 
     individuals who use firearms to commit crimes of violence and 
     convicted felons caught in possession of a firearm;
       (5) the federal government does have the resources to 
     investigate and prosecute violations of these federal 
     firearms laws. The federal government also has enough jail 
     space to hold individuals for the length of their mandatory 
     minimum sentences;
       (6) an effort to aggressively and consistently apply these 
     federal firearms laws in Richmond, Virginia, has cut violent 
     crime in that city. This program, called Project Exile, has 
     produced 288 indictments during its first two years of 
     operation and has been credited with contributing to a 15% 
     decrease in violent crimes in Richmond during the same 
     period. In the first three-quarters of 1998, homicides with a 
     firearm in Richmond were down 55% compared to 1997;
       (7) the Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce-State-Justice 
     Appropriations Act provided $1.5 million to hire additional 
     federal prosecutors and investigators to enforce federal 
     firearms laws in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia project--
     called Operation Cease Fire--started on January 1, 1999. 
     Since it began, the project has resulted in 31 indictments of 
     52 defendants on firearms violations. The project has 
     benefited from help from the Philadelphia Police Department 
     and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which was not 
     paid for out of the $1.5 million grant;
       (8) Senator Hatch has introduced legislation to authorize 
     Project CUFF, a federal firearms prosecution program;
       (9) the Administration has requested $5 million to conduct 
     intensive firearms prosecution projects on a national level;
       (10) given that at least $1.5 million is needed to run an 
     effective program in one American city--Philadelphia--$5 
     million is far from enough funding to conduct such programs 
     nationally.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Function 750 in the budget resolution assumes that 
     $50,000,000 will be provided in fiscal year 2000 to conduct 
     intensive firearms prosecution projects to combat violence in 
     the twenty-five American cities with the highest crime rates.


                           amendment no. 221

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning fostering the 
     employment and independence of individuals with disabilities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FOSTERING THE 
                   EMPLOYMENT AND INDEPENDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Health care is important to all Americans.
       (2) Health care is particularly important to individuals 
     with disabilities and special health care needs who often 
     cannot afford the insurance available to them through the 
     private market, are uninsurable by the plans available in the 
     private sector, or are at great risk of incurring very high 
     and economically devastating health care costs.
       (3) Americans with significant disabilities often are 
     unable to obtain health care insurance that provides coverage 
     of the services and supports that enable them to live 
     independently and enter or rejoin the workforce. Coverage for 
     personal assistance services, prescription drugs, durable 
     medical equipment, and basic health care are powerful and 
     proven tools for individuals with significant disabilities to 
     obtain and retain employment.
       (4) For individuals with disabilities, the fear of losing 
     health care and related services is one of the greatest 
     barriers keeping the individuals from maximizing their 
     employment, earning potential, and independence.
       (5) Individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries 
     under title II or XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     401 et seq., 1381 et seq.) risk losing medicare or medicaid 
     coverage that is linked to their cash benefits, a risk that 
     is an equal, or greater, work disincentive than the loss of 
     cash benefits associated with working.
       (6) Currently, less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of social 
     security disability insurance (SSDI) and supplemental 
     security income (SSI) beneficiaries cease to receive benefits 
     as a result of employment.
       (7) Beneficiaries have cited the lack of adequate 
     employment training and placement services as an additional 
     barrier to employment.
       (8) If an additional \1/2\ of 1 percent of the current 
     social security disability insurance (SSDI) and supplemental 
     security income (SSI) recipients were to cease receiving 
     benefits as a result of employment, the savings to the Social 
     Security Trust Funds in cash assistance would total 
     $3,500,000,000 over the worklife of the individuals.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that the Work 
     Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (S. 331, 106th Congress) 
     will be passed by the Senate and enacted early this year, and 
     thereby provide individuals with disabilities with the health 
     care and employment preparation and placement services that 
     will enable those individuals to reduce their dependency on 
     cash benefit programs.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the amendment that I offer with my 
colleagues Senators Kennedy, Roth, Moynihan, and Chafee, states that 
the Senate budget resolution assumes that the Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999, S. 331, will pass the Senate and be enacted 
early this year.
  S. 331 helps people with disabilities remain or become taxpayers. It 
has 70 co-sponsors. It gives people with disabilities, who are on the 
Social Security rolls, a reason to work.
  If they work and forego cash payments, they will have access to 
health care. They will contribute to the cost of that health care. 
Right now the federal government disburses $1.21 billion each week in 
cash payments--a real budget buster that S. 331 would fix.
  Mr. President, we have one broad, bipartisan initiative on health 
care reform, that we should take up and enact quickly. Along with my 
colleagues Senators Kennedy, Roth and Moynihan, I have introduced S. 
331, legislation that would help individuals with disabilities go to 
work without being forced to sacrifice vital health care benefits. 70 
Senators have joined us as co-sponsors of the Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999, S. 331.
  I have heard many compelling stories from individuals with 
disabilities. Some sit at home waiting for S. 331 to become law, so 
they can go to work. Some work part time being careful not to exceed 
the $500 per month threshold which would trigger cut off of their 
health care. Yesterday I received a letter from a young man, Don, 30-
years of age, who told me he has mild mental retardation, mild cerebral 
palsy, a seizure disorder, and a visual impairment. Don works, but only 
part time.
  At the end of his letter he wrote,

       The Work Incentives Improvement Act will help my friends 
     become independent too. Then they can pay taxes too. But most 
     of all they will have a life in the community. We are adults. 
     We want to work. We don't need a hand out . . . we just need 
     a hand up.

  Well, we want to help people such as Don have a hand up. Not just for 
him, but out of self-interest as well. The hard facts make a compelling 
case for enacting S. 331 quickly.
  The rate in growth in these programs between 1989 and 1997 was 64 
percent. Thus, it is not surprising that SSI and SSDI disbursements 
went from $34.4 billion in 1989 to $62.9 billion in 1997. For 1997, GAO 
estimated weekly disbursements to be $1.21 billion.
  Surplus or no surplus, we cannot afford these escalating costs. By 
adopting our resolution, the Senate sends an important message, we want 
individuals with disabilities to have an opportunity to contribute--to 
their own well-being, to that of their families, and to that of their 
communities. The 57,000 beneficiaries in Vermont are waiting for S. 
331. A vote in favor of our Sense of the Senate amendment will send 
these beneficiaries and those in every State a clear, concrete signal. 
S. 331 will be enacted this year, and soon.

[[Page 5818]]




                           amendment no. 222

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to 
maintaining at least current expenditures (including emergency funding) 
for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for FY 2000)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LIHEAP.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
       (1) Home energy assistance for working and low-income 
     families with children, the elderly on fixed incomes, the 
     disabled, and others who need such aid is a critical part of 
     the social safety net in cold-weather areas during the 
     winter, and a source of necessary cooling aid during the 
     summer;
       (2) LIHEAP is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 
     millions of low-income Americans pay their home energy bills. 
     More than two-thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have 
     annual incomes of less than $8,000, approximately one-half 
     have annual incomes below $6,000; and
       (3) LIHEAP funding has been substantially reduced in recent 
     years, and cannot sustain further spending cuts if the 
     program is to remain a viable means of meeting the home 
     heating and other energy-related needs of low-income 
     families, especially those in cold-weather states.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--The assumptions underlying this 
     budget resolution assume that it is the sense of the Senate 
     that the funds made available for LIHEAP in Fiscal Year 2000 
     will not be less than the current services for LIHEAP in 
     Fiscal Year 1999.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is strong bipartisan support for 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Last year, Congress 
unanimously passed a five-year reauthorization of LIHEAP. In addition, 
52 Senators signed a letter in support of $1.2 billion in funding for 
LIHEAP. This year, the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition is 
circulating a similar letter, which has already garnered the support of 
30 Senators.
  Support has not waned for the LIHEAP program since the May 1996 Sense 
of the Senate on LIHEAP. Eighty-eight Senators voted to maintain 
current expenditure levels for LIHEAP. Nevertheless, it appears time to 
re-confirm the Senate's commitment to LIHEAP. Last year, there was a 
failed attempt to zero out funding for LIHEAP. The threat looms again 
this year.
  I, along with my colleagues from the Northeast-Midwest Senate 
Coalition, offer this Sense of the Senate to demonstrate the broad, 
bipartisan support for the LIHEAP program. The amendment is simple. It 
maintains LIHEAP funding at a minimum of current levels, which is $1.1 
billion. This is still 50% lower than LIHEAP funding was in 1985.
  I recognize that these are difficult budgetary times; however, LIHEAP 
is an effective tool for maintaining the basic needs of low-income 
households. It promotes self-sufficiency, something our welfare-to-work 
laws advocate; and it ensures that our nation's children, elderly and 
disabled never go to sleep in a freezing cold farmhouse or a stifling 
hot apartment.
  Some would argue that energy costs are low and winter temperatures 
have been milder. My response is that the need for LIHEAP has never 
been greater. The eligible population has grown; eligibility has been 
restricted; benefit levels have been reduced; and welfare rolls have 
been shrinking. LIHEAP provides a critical safety net to the working 
poor, the elderly and families with children.
  The statistics demonstrate the need for LIHEAP best. More than two-
thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have annual incomes of less than 
$8000, approximately one-half have annual incomes below $6000. It has 
been estimated that low-income households typically spend four times 
what middle-income households spend on utility services. Middle-income 
households spend about 4 percent of their income for energy purposes, 
whereas low-income households spend between 14% and 16%, and in many 
instances up to 25% for utility costs.
  The other argument I hear against LIHEAP is that only cold weather 
states reap its benefits. Wrong again. In 1998, eleven southern states 
received $150 million in emergency LIHEAP funding alone. I have seen 
news articles from Oregon, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kansas discussing 
the importance of LIHEAP. This is an important national program.


                           amendment no. 223

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Congress should 
provide the maximum funding envisioned in law for Southwest Border law 
 enforcement programs to stop the flow of drugs into the United States)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOUTHWEST BORDER LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) The Federal Government has not effectively secured the 
     Southwest Border of the United States. According to the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration, 50 to 70 percent of illegal drugs 
     enter the United States through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, 
     and California. According to the State Department's 1999 
     International Narcotics Strategy Report, 60 percent of the 
     Columbian cocaine sold in the United States passes through 
     Mexico before entering the United States.
       (2) General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy, has stated that 20,000 Border 
     Patrol agents are needed to secure the United States' 
     southern and northern borders. Currently, the Border Patrol 
     has approximately 8,000 agents.
       (3) The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996, requires the Attorney General to 
     increase by not less than 1,000 the number of positions for 
     full-time, active duty Border Patrol agents in fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001. The Administration's fiscal year 
     2000 budget provides no funding to hire additional full-time 
     Border Patrol agents.
       (4) The U.S. Customs Service plays an integral role in the 
     detection, deterrence, disruption and seizure of illegal 
     drugs as well as the facilitation of trade across the 
     Southwest Border of the United States. Customs requested 506 
     additional inspectors in its fiscal year 2000 budget 
     submission to the Office of Management and Budget. In their 
     fiscal year 2000 budget request to Congress, however, the 
     Administration provides no funding to hire additional, full-
     time Customs Service inspectors.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this budget resolution assume 
     full funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     to hire 1,000 full-time, active-duty Border Patrol agents in 
     fiscal year 2000, as authorized by the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Further, it 
     is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels in this 
     budget resolution assume funding for the Customs Service to 
     hire necessary staff and purchase equipment for drug 
     interdiction and traffic facilitation at United States land 
     border crossings, including 506 full-time, active-duty 
     Customs inspectors.


                           amendment no. 224

(Purpose: to express the sense of Congress that South Korea must abide 
        by its international trade commitments on pork and beef)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING SOUTH KOREA'S 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE PRACTICES ON PORK AND BEEF.

       Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       Asia is the largest regional export market for America's 
     farmers and ranchers, traditionally purchasing approximately 
     40 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports;
       The Department of Agriculture forecasts that over the next 
     year American agricultural exports to Asian countries will 
     decline by several billion dollars due to the Asian financial 
     crisis;
       The United States is the producer of the safest 
     agricultural products from farm to table, customizing goods 
     to meet the needs of customers worldwide, and has established 
     the image and reputation as the world's best provider of 
     agricultural products;
       American farmers and ranchers, and more specifically, 
     American pork and beef producers, are dependent on secure, 
     open, and competitive Asian export markets for their product;
       United States pork and beef producers not only have faced 
     the adverse effects of depreciated and unstable currencies 
     and lowered demand due to the Asian financial crisis, but 
     also have been confronted with South Korea's pork subsidies 
     and its failure to keep commitments on market access for 
     beef;
       It is the policy of the United States to prohibit South 
     Korea from using United States and International Monetary 
     Fund assistance to subsidize targeted industries and compete 
     unfairly for market share against U.S. products;
       The South Korea Government has been subsidizing its pork 
     exports to Japan, resulting in a 973 percent increase in its 
     exports to Japan since 1992, and a 71 percent increase in the 
     last year;
       Pork already comprises 70 percent of South Korea's 
     agriculture exports to Japan, yet the South Korean Government 
     has announced plans to invest 100,000,000,000 won in its 
     agricultural sector in order to flood the Japanese market 
     with even more South Korean pork;
       The South Korean Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 
     reportedly has earmarked

[[Page 5819]]

     25,000,000,000 won for loans to Korea's pork processors in 
     order for them to purchase more Korean pork and to increase 
     exports to Japan;
       Any export subsidies on pork, including those on exports 
     from South Korea to Japan, would violate South Korea's 
     international trade agreements and may be actionable under 
     the World Trade Organization;
       South Korea's subsidies are hindering U.S. pork and beef 
     producers from capturing their full potential in the Japanese 
     market, which is the largest export market for U.S. pork and 
     beef, importing nearly $700,000,000 of U.S. pork and over 
     $1,500,000,000 of U.S. beef last year alone;
       Under the United States-Korea 1993 Record of Understanding 
     on Market Access for Beef, which was negotiated pursuant to a 
     1989 GATT Panel decision against Korea, South Korea was 
     allowed to delay full liberation of its beef market (in an 
     exception to WTO rules) if it would agree to import 
     increasing minimum quantities of beef each year until the 
     year 2001;
       South Korea fell woefully short of its beef market access 
     commitment for 1998; and,
       United States pork and beef producers are not able to 
     compete fairly with Korean livestock producers, who have a 
     high cost of production, because South Korea has violated 
     trade agreements and implemented protectionist policies: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress:
       (1) Believes strongly that while a stable global 
     marketplace is in the best interest of America's farmers and 
     ranchers, the United States should seek a mutually beneficial 
     relationship without hindering the competitiveness of 
     American agriculture;
       (2) Calls on South Korea to abide by its trade commitments;
       (3) Calls on the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the 
     United States Executive Director of the International 
     Monetary Fund to promote vigorously policies that encourage 
     the opening of markets for beef and pork products by 
     requiring South Korea to abide by its existing international 
     trade commitments and to reduce trade barriers, tariffs, and 
     export subsidies;
       (4) Calls on the President and the Secretaries of Treasury 
     and Agriculture to monitor and report to Congress that 
     resources will not be used to stabilize the South Korean 
     market at the expense of U.S. agricultural goods or services; 
     and
       (5) Requests the United States Trade Representative and the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture to pursue the settlement of 
     disputes with the Government of South Korea on its failure to 
     abide by its international trade commitments on beef market 
     access, to consider whether Korea's reported plans for 
     subsidizing its pork industry would violate any of its 
     international trade commitments, and to determine what impact 
     Korea's subsidy plans would have on U.S. agricultural 
     interests, especially in Japan.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 225

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that no additional 
       firewalls should be enacted for transportation activities)

         At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TRANSPORTATION FIREWALLS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) domestic firewalls greatly limit funding flexibility as 
     Congress manages budget priorities in a fiscally constrained 
     budget;
       (2) domestic firewalls inhibit congressional oversight of 
     programs and organizations under such artificial protections;
       (3) domestic firewalls mask mandatory spending under the 
     guise of discretionary spending, thereby presenting a 
     distorted picture of overall discretionary spending;
       (4) domestic firewalls impede the ability of Congress to 
     react to changing circumstances or to fund other equally 
     important programs;
       (5) the Congress implemented ``domestic discretionary 
     budget firewalls'' for approximately 70 percent of function 
     400 spending in the 105th Congress;
       (6) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating in the 
     House of Representatives were to be enacted, over 100 percent 
     of function 400 spending would be firewalled; and
       (7) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating in the 
     House of Representatives were to be enacted, drug 
     interdiction activities by the Coast Guard, National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration activities, rail safety 
     inspections, Federal support for Amtrak, all National 
     Transportation Safety Board activities, Pipeline and 
     Hazardous materials safety programs, and Coast Guard search 
     and rescue activities would be drastically cut or eliminated 
     from function 400.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that no additional 
     firewalls should be enacted for function 400 transportation 
     activities.


                           Amendment No. 226

  (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that new public health 
  programs should not be established to the detriment of funding for 
existing, effective programs, such as the Preventive Health and Health 
                         Services Block Grant)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. 316.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING EXISTING, 
                   EFFECTIVE PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS BEFORE 
                   CREATING NEW PROGRAMS.

       (a) Fundings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the establishment of new categorical funding programs 
     has led to proposed cuts in the Preventive Health and Health 
     Services Block Grant to states for broad, public health 
     missions;
       (2) Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant 
     dollars fill gaps in the otherwise-categorical funding states 
     and localities receive, funding such major public health 
     threats as cardiovascular disease, injuries, emergency 
     medical services and poor diet, for which there is often no 
     other source of funding;
       (3) in 1981, Congress consolidated a number of programs, 
     including certain public health programs, into block grants 
     for the purpose of best advancing the health, economics and 
     well-being of communities across the country;
       (4) The Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant 
     can be used for programs for screening, outreach, health 
     education and laboratory services.
       (5) The Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant 
     gives states the flexibility to determine how funding 
     available for this purpose can be used to meet each state's 
     preventive health priorities;
       (6) The establishment of new public health programs that 
     compete for funding with the Preventive Health and Health 
     Services Block Grant could result in the elimination of 
     effective, localized public health programs in every state.
       (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 there shall be a 
     continuation of the level of funding support for existing 
     public health programs, specifically the Prevention Block 
     Grant, prior to the funding of new public health programs.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
budget resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that we should 
continue to support our successful existing public health programs, 
before diverting limited dollars to the creation of new programs.
  The President's budget proposed a $30 million cut to the Preventive 
Health and Health Services Block Grant, which is funded through the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's a 20 percent cut. 
For Wyoming, that means the loss of an entire public health program. 
How can I ask them to decide between the heart disease prevention 
program and emergency medical services? I sure know that I can't tell 
my constituents we were able to find funding for new, narrowly focused 
categorical programs that they may or may not be eligible for.
  Mr. President, I believe we all share the same goal of getting the 
most out of money in the interest of public health. That was exactly 
Congress' thinking when they consolidated a variety of programs and 
established instead block grants to states. The intent was clear. 
States and localities need the flexibility to determine the best way to 
meet the public health needs of their residents. I believe we can 
address national health priorities without discarding the needs of 
local communities.
  Congress has already drawn the correct conclusion. A significant 
portion of the public health battle is wages on the front lines back in 
the states. In the name of advancing public health, we should not be 
proposing cuts to our front line infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I ask for my colleagues support for this amendment and 
request its immediate adoption.


                           amendment no. 227

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PRESIDENT'S FY 
                   2000 BUDGET PROPOSAL TO TAX ASSOCIATION 
                   INVESTMENT INCOME.

       (a) The Congress finds that--
       (1) The President's fiscal year 2000 federal budget 
     proposal to impose a tax on the interest, dividends, capital 
     gains, rents, and royalties in excess of $10,000 of trade 
     associations and professional societies exempt under sec. 
     501(c)(6) of the IRC of 1986 represents an unjust and 
     unnecessary penalty on legitimate association activities.
       (2) At a time when the government is projecting on-budget 
     surpluses of more than $800,000,000,000 over the next ten 
     years, the President proposes to increase the tax burden on 
     trade and professional association by $1,440,000,000 over the 
     next five years.
       (3) The Presidents association tax increase proposal will 
     impose a tremendous burden on thousands of small and mid-
     sized trade associations and professional societies.
       (4) Under the President's association tax increase 
     proposal, most associations with annual operating budgets of 
     as low $200,000 or

[[Page 5820]]

     more will be taxed on investment income and as many as 70,000 
     associations nationwide could be affected by this proposal.
       (5) Associations rely on this targeted investment income to 
     carry out tax-exempt status related activities, such as 
     training individuals to adapt to the changing workplace, 
     improving industry safety, providing statistical data, and 
     providing community services.
       (6) Keeping investment income free from tax encourages 
     associations to maintain modest surplus funds that cushion 
     against economic and fiscal downturns.
       (7) Corporations can increase prices to cover increased 
     costs, while small and medium sized local, regional, and 
     State-based associations do not have such an option, and thus 
     increased costs imposed by the President's association tax 
     increase would reduce resources available for the important 
     standard setting, educational training, and professionalism 
     training performed by association.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals 
     in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that 
     Congress shall reject the President's proposed tax increase 
     on investment income of associations as defined under section 
     501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Crapo, 
Santorum, Hagel, Inhofe and Collins in introducing a sense of the 
Senate amendment to the budget resolution rejecting the President's 
proposed tax, as part of his fiscal year 2000 budget proposal, on the 
investment income earned by nonprofit trade associations and 
professional societies.
  This proposal would tax any income in excess of $10,000 earned 
through the non-competitive activities of nonprofit associations, such 
as interest, dividends, capital gains, rents and royalties, posing a 
tremendous burden on an estimated 70,000 registered trade associations 
and professional societies.
  Mostly operating on a state and local level, these organizations 
depend on this income to perform such vital community services as 
education, training, standard setting, industry safety, and community 
outreach. Faced with an additional increase in taxes of $1.4 billion 
over the next five years, many associations will be forced to cut back 
or eliminate these important services, forcing the government to step 
in, increasing expenditures and creating additional programs.
  During a time when the government is projecting on-budget surpluses 
of more than $800 billion over the next 10 years, it is unconscionable 
that we would allow the administration to levy a new tax on these 
nonprofit organizations.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the resolution be 
printed in the Record immediately following my statement.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, 
Senator Abraham of Michigan, in offering this amendment.
  This amendment is being offered in reaction to a provision in the 
President's FY 2000 budget that would impose a new tax on the 
investment income of nonprofit trade and professional associations. 
These trade and professional associations are currently exempt from 
taxes under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code.
  The administration's proposal would tax the investment income--
interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, and royalties--of 501(c)(6) 
associations. Associations currently rely on this investment income to 
carry out exempt-status related activities such as education, training, 
standard-setting, research, and community outreach.
  Under the President's proposal, the first $10,000 an association 
earns from investments would not be taxed. However, all income earned 
over $10,000 would be subject to the unrelated business income tax 
under the Internal Revenue Code. It is estimated that this new tax, 
which can be as high as 35 percent, will increase the tax burden on the 
nation's nonprofit trade and professional associations by $1.4 billion 
over the next 5 years.
  Contrary to assertions made by the administration, this proposal will 
affect thousands of small and mid-sized trade associations and 
professional societies. According to the American Society of 
Association Executives' Operating Ratio Report, most associations with 
annual operating budgets as low as $200,000 would be subject to a new 
tax under this proposal.
  As many as 70,000 associations nationwide could be affected by this 
new tax, including the American Youth Soccer Organization, American 
Nurses Association, the National Education Association, National 
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and many others. 
Important trade associations in my home state that could be affected by 
the new tax include the Idaho Association of School Administrators, 
Idaho Credit Union League, Idaho Mining Association, the Idaho Cattle 
Association and others.
  This amendment is supported by the American Society of Association 
Executives (ASAE), the trade organization that represents our Nation's 
trade and professional associations.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this new tax and 
support the amendment.


                           amendment no. 228

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. XX. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE USE OF FEDERAL 
                   FUNDS FOR NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS.

       (a) The Congress finds that--
       (1) Deaths from drug overdoses have increased over five 
     times since 1988.
       (2) A Montreal study published in the American Journal of 
     Epidemiology, found that IV addicts who used a needle 
     exchange program were over twice as likely to become infected 
     with HIV as those who did not.
       (3) A Vancouver study published in the Journal of AIDS, 
     showed a stunning increase in HIV in drug addicts, from 1 to 
     2 percent to 23 percent, since that city's needle exchange 
     program was begun in 1988. Deaths from drug overdoses have 
     increased over five times since 1988 and Vancouver now has 
     the highest death rate from heroin in North America.
       (4) In November of 1995 the Manhattan Lower East Side 
     Community Board #3 passed a resolution to terminate their 
     needle exchange program due to the fact that ``the community 
     has been inundated with drug dealers. . . . Law-abiding 
     businesses are being abandoned; and much needed law 
     enforcement is being withheld by the police.''
       (5) The New York Times Magazine in 1997 reported that one 
     New York City needle exchange program gave out 60 syringes to 
     a single person, little pans to ``cook'' the heroin, 
     instructions on how to inject the drug and a card exempting 
     the user from arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia.
       (6) Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly reports that heroin 
     use by American teenagers has doubled in the last five years.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals 
     in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that 
     Congress shall continue the statutory ban on the use of 
     federal funds to implement or support any needle exchange 
     program for drug addicts.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Coverdell, 
Ashcroft, and Hutchinson in introducing a sense of the Senate amendment 
to the budget resolution rejecting the use of federal funds for needle 
exchange programs.
  Deaths resulting from drug overdoses have increased five times since 
1988. According to Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, the number of 
American teenagers using heroin, once considered a drug used primarily 
by hard-core drug addicts, has doubled in the past five years.
  Last year, the Clinton administration attempted to lift the ongoing 
ban on federal funds for needle exchange programs as a solution to 
reducing the rate HIV infection among intravenous (IV) drug use without 
increasing the use of drugs like heroin. Needle exchange programs are 
not the answer--giving an addict a clean needle is equivalent to giving 
an alcoholic a clean glass--both do a more sanitary job of delivering 
the poison that is killing our kids.
  A Montreal study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, 
found that IV addicts who used a needle exchange program were over 
twice as likely to become infected with HIV as those who did not. The 
New York Times magazine reported that one New York City needle program 
gave a single individual 60 syringes, little pans to ``cook'' the 
heroin, instructions for usage, and a card amounting to a ``get out of 
jail free'' pass for possession of drug paraphernalia.
  At a time when heroin use is skyrocketing among our youth, the last 
thing we need is for Washington to send the message that drug use is 
okay, and that we are not serious about the war on drugs. Join with us 
in finding that Congress shall continue

[[Page 5821]]

the statutory ban on the use of federal funds to implement or support 
any needle exchange program for drug addicts.


                           amendment no. 229

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning funding for 
                           special education)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR SPECIAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) (referred to in this resolution as the 
     ``Act''), Congress found that improving educational results 
     for children with disabilities is an essential element of our 
     national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full 
     participation, independent living, and economic self-
     sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.
       (2) In the Act, the Secretary of Education is instructed to 
     make grants to States to assist them in providing special 
     education and related services to children with disabilities.
       (3) The Act represents a commitment by the Federal 
     Government to fund 40 percent of the average per-pupil 
     expenditure in public elementary and secondary schools in the 
     United States.
       (4) The budget submitted by the President for fiscal year 
     2000 ignores the commitment by the Federal Government under 
     the Act to fund special education and instead proposes the 
     creation of new programs that limit the manner in which 
     States may spend the limited Federal education dollars 
     received.
       (5) The budget submitted by the President for fiscal year 
     2000 fails to increase funding for special education, and 
     leaves States and localities with an enormous unfunded 
     mandate to pay for growing special education costs.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that part 
     B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et 
     seq.) should be fully funded at the originally promised level 
     before any funds are appropriated for new education programs.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Maine, 
Senator Collins, in offering this important amendment to express the 
Sense of the Senate that funding for need-based student financial aid 
programs should be increased.
  The Republican budget proposal provides some welcome news when 
compared with past Republican budget proposals because it at least 
includes increased funding for elementary and secondary education. 
Indeed, it can be called much improved in contrast with past Republican 
proposals to eliminate the Department of Education.
  However, I am deeply concerned that this funding increase may be 
financed by cutting critical programs like Head Start, Summer Jobs for 
Youth, and job training by up to 10% in FY2000, and 20% in the 
following years.
  Moreover, this budget proposal assumes an increase for elementary and 
secondary education programs of $2.6 billion over a freeze. However, it 
only assumes a $2.4 billion overall increase for all education programs 
in fiscal year 2000, which means other vital education programs, like 
student financial aid programs, would have to be deeply cut or frozen 
in order to meet these assumptions.
  It would be a shame to limit our ability to realize the reforms we 
just recently enacted as part of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 
1998 to enhance federal assistance to college students. That is why I 
have joined Senator Collins and others in offering this amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment simply urges increases in funding for 
need-based student financial aid programs. These programs include Pell 
Grants, the Federal Work Study Program, the Leveraging Educational 
Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program, and TRIO.
  I strongly support a greater investment in all of these important 
programs than is provided by the budget resolution. And, in particular, 
I have long been a champion of more robust funding for the LEAP 
program, a federal-state partnership that is essential to our efforts 
to help needy students attend and graduate from college.
  I worked closely with Senator Collins on a successful amendment two 
years ago to save LEAP from elimination and on legislation to reform 
this program, which was included in the Higher Education Act Amendments 
of 1998. These reforms seek to encourage states to increase their 
commitments to need-based student grant aid in exchange for increased 
flexibility to provide a broader array of higher education assistance 
to needy students.
  We are currently working together to secure $75 million for LEAP in 
the Fiscal Year 2000 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations bill to trigger these reforms, and I urge my colleagues 
to join us in this important effort.
  LEAP and the rest of the federal financial aid programs are critical 
to helping students achieve their higher education goals.
  All higher education and student groups endorse the effort to 
increase funding for need-based student financial aid programs, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support our amendment in order to meet 
the commitment to higher education that we reaffirmed last fall by 
passing the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998.


                           amendment no. 230

   (Purpose: To provide an exception for emergency defense spending)

       At the end of section 205 of the resolution, add the 
     following:
       (f) Exception for Defense Spending.--This section shall not 
     apply to a provision making discretionary appropriations in 
     the defense category.''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment modifies section 205 of 
the resolution, which creates a 60 vote point of order against 
emergency appropriations. The modification establishes an exception 
from the 60 vote point of order for national security emergency 
appropriations. Given the on-going operations in the Balkans, the need 
for this exception is clear.
  Much like the vote to authorize the Persian Gulf war, where only 52 
members of the Senate voted in support of that action, the current 
military operations in Kosovo and Serbia gained the support of only 58 
Senators. I opposed that resolution. That doesn't change the fact that 
the men and women of the Armed Forces mut be properly supplied, 
equipped and supported when they are sent to combat. That is our job, 
irrespective of whether each of us agrees with the specific policy that 
led to the deployment of U.S. forces.
  Earlier this month, the Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 
93, which established new procedures for the consideration of emergency 
appropriations. That bill creates a point of order that requires 51 
votes to waive. That bill has been referred to the Budget Committee, 
and will probably come before the Senate after the Easter recess. I 
urge the adoption of the amendment.


                           amendment no. 231

(Purpose: Sense of the Senate on providing tax relief to all Americans 
       by returning the non-Social Security surplus to taxpayers)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO ALL 
                   AMERICANS BY RETURNING NON-SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   SURPLUS TO TAXPAYERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Every cent of Social Security surplus should be 
     reserved to pay Social Security benefits, for Social Security 
     reform, or to pay down the debt held by the public and not be 
     used for other purposes.
       (2) Medicare should be fully funded.
       (3) Even after safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, a 
     recent Congressional Research Service study found that an 
     average American family will pay $5,307 more in taxes over 
     the next 10 years than the government needs to operate.
       (4) The Administration's budget returns none of the excess 
     surplus back to the taxpayers and instead increases net taxes 
     and fees by $96,000,000,000 over 10 years.
       (5) The burden of the Administration's tax increases falls 
     disproportionately on low- and middle-income taxpayers. A 
     recent Tax Foundation study found that individuals with 
     incomes of less than $25,000 would bear 38.5 percent of the 
     increased tax burden, while taxpayers with incomes between 
     $25,000 and $50,000 would pay 22.4 percent of the new taxes.
       (6) The budget resolution returns most of the non-Social 
     Security surplus to those who worked so hard to produce it by 
     providing $142,000,000,000 in real tax relief over 5 years 
     and almost $800,000,000,000 in tax relief over 10 years.
       (7) The budget resolution builds on the following tax 
     relief that Republicans have provided since 1995:
       (A) In 1995, Republicans proposed the Balanced Budget Act 
     of 1995 which included tax relief for families, savings and 
     investment incentives, health care-related tax relief, and

[[Page 5822]]

     relief for small business--tax relief that was vetoed by 
     President Clinton.
       (B) In 1996, Republicans provided, and the President 
     signed, tax relief for small business and health care-related 
     tax relief.
       (C) In 1997, Republicans once again pushed for tax relief 
     in the context of a balanced budget, and this time President 
     Clinton signed into law a $500 per child tax credit, expanded 
     individual retirement accounts and the new Roth IRA, a cut in 
     the capital gains tax rate, education tax relief, and estate 
     tax relief.
       (D) In 1998, Republicans (initially opposed by the 
     Administration) pushed for reform of the Internal Revenue 
     Service, and provided tax relief for America's farmers.
       (8) Americans deserve further tax relief because they are 
     still overpaying. They deserve a refund. Federal taxes 
     currently consume nearly 21 percent of national income, the 
     highest percentage since World War II. Families are paying 
     more in Federal, State, and local taxes than for food, 
     clothing, and shelter combined.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the levels in this resolution assume that the Senate 
     not only puts a priority on protecting Social Security and 
     Medicare and reducing the Federal debt, but also on middle-
     class tax relief by returning some of the non-Social Security 
     surplus to those from whom it was taken; and
       (2) such middle-class tax relief could include broad-based 
     tax relief, marriage penalty relief, retirement savings 
     incentives, death tax relief, savings and investment 
     incentives, health care-related tax relief, education-related 
     tax relief, and tax simplification proposals.


                           amendment no. 232

  (Purpose: To allow increased tobacco tax revenues to be used as an 
   offset for the Medicare prescription drug benefit provided for in 
                              section 209)

       On page 53, line 4, after ``may change committee 
     allocations'' insert ``, revenue aggregates for legislation 
     that increases taxes on tobacco or tobacco products 
     (only).''.


                           amendment No. 233

(Purpose: To protect taxpayers from retro-active income and estate tax 
              rate increases by creating a point of order)

       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.


                           amendment no. 234

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regardng the need for 
incentives for low- and middle-income savers and investors and the need 
  for such incentives to be accompanied by an expansion of the lowest 
                      personal income tax bracket)

       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 affords 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 saving 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.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 235

              (Purpose: To reduce the size of the tax cut)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $3,717,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $26,559,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $16,152,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $24,590,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $31,319,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $54,638,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $67,877,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $75,346,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $88,598,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $3,717,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $26,559,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $16,152,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $24,590,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $31,319,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $54,638,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $67,877,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $75,346,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $88,598,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $83,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,946,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $3,057,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $4,616,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $6,966,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $10,401,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $14,557,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $19,436,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $83,000,000.

[[Page 5823]]

       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $1,946,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $3,057,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $4,616,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $6,966,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $10,401,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $14,557,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $19,436,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $27,342,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $18,098,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $27,647,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $35,935,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $61,604,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $78,278,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $89,903,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $108,034,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $31,142,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $49,240,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $76,887,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $112,822,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $174,426,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $252,704,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $342,607,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $450,641,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $31,142,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $49,240,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $76,887,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $112,822,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $174,426,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $252,704,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $342,607,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $450,641,000,000.
       On page 37, line 2, decrease the amount by $83,000,000.
       On page 37, line 3, decrease the amount by $83,000,000.
       On page 37, line 6, decrease the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 37, line 7, decrease the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 37, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,946,000,000.
       On page 37, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,946,000,000.
       On page 37, line 14, decrease the amount by $3,057,000,000.
       On page 37, line 15, decrease the amount by $3,057,000,000.
       On page 37, line 18, decrease the amount by $4,616,000,000.
       On page 37, line 19, decrease the amount by $4,616,000,000.
       On page 37, line 22, decrease the amount by $6,966,000,000.
       On page 37, line 23, decrease the amount by $6,966,000,000.
       On page 38, line 2, decrease the amount by $10,401,000,000.
       On page 38, line 3, decrease the amount by $10,401,000,000.
       On page 38, line 6, decrease the amount by $14,557,000,000.
       On page 38, line 7, decrease the amount by $14,557,000,000.
       On page 38, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $19,436,000,000.
       On page 38, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $19,436,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, strike the amount and insert 
     ``$71,016,000,000''.
       On page 42, line 4, strike the amount and insert 
     ``$388,791,000,000''.
       On page 42, line 16, strike the amount and insert 
     ``$71,016,000,000''.
       On page 42, line 18, strike the amount and insert 
     ``$388,791,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 236

                    (Purpose: To strike section 201)

       Strike section 201.


                           amendment no. 237

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the importance of 
          social security for individuals who become disabled)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO BECOME DISABLED.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in addition to providing retirement income, Social 
     Security also protects individuals from the loss of income 
     due to disability;
       (2) according to the most recent report from the Social 
     Security Board of Trustees nearly 1 in 7 Social Security 
     beneficiaries, 6,000,000 individuals in total, were receiving 
     benefits as a result of disability;
       (3) more than 60 percent of workers have no long-term 
     disability insurance protection other than that provided by 
     Social Security;
       (4) according to statistics from the Society of Actuaries, 
     the odds of a long-term disability versus death are 2.7 to 1 
     at age 27, 3.5 to 1 at age 42, and 2.2 to 1 at age 52; and
       (5) in 1998, the average monthly benefit for a disabled 
     worker was $722.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that levels in the resolution assume that--
       (1) Social Security plays a vital role in providing 
     adequate income for individuals who become disabled;
       (2) individuals who become disabled face circumstances much 
     different than those who rely on Social Security for 
     retirement income;
       (3) Social Security reform proposals that focus too heavily 
     on retirement income may adversely affect the income 
     protection provided to individuals with disabilities; and
       (4) Congress and the President should take these factors 
     into account when considering proposals to reform the Social 
     Security program.


                           amendment no. 238

  (Purpose: To provide $200,000,000 for the State-side program of the 
                   land and water conservation fund)

       On page 15, line 8, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 15, line 9, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 18, line 15, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR THE LAND 
                   AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) amounts in the land and water conservation fund finance 
     the primary Federal program for acquiring land for 
     conservation and recreation and for supporting State and 
     local efforts for conservation and recreation;
       (2) Congress has appropriated only $10,000,000,000 out of 
     the more than $21,000,000,000 covered into the fund from 
     revenues payable to the United States under the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.); and
       (3) 38 Senators cosigned 2 letters to the Chairman and 
     Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget urging that the 
     land and water conservation fund be fully funded.
       (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 Congress should 
     appropriate $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 to provide 
     financial assistance to the States under section 6 of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C 460l-
     8), in addition to such amounts as are made available for 
     Federal land acquisition under that Act for fiscal year 2000.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
restore funding to a program that has been dormant for too long, a 
program that could provide vital funding to assist small municipalities 
in conserving their resources. I rise today to offer an amendment to 
provide $200 million for funding the State-side program of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Bob Smith, Feingold, Leahy, Jeffords, Moynihan, Roth, Allard, Collins, 
and Snowe in sponsoring this amendment.
  The LWCF was started in 1964 to provide funds for land and water 
conservation through two programs: Federal land acquisitions, and 
Federal cost-sharing of State conservation and recreation projects. 
Moneys for the LWCF are derived from revenues obtained through oil and 
gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. These revenues amount to 
$4 billion to $5 billion annually, which go into the General Treasury. 
Of this amount, $900 million is authorized to go specifically to LWCF. 
However, in recent years, only about $300 million to $350 million has 
been appropriated for LWCF, and since 1995, funding for the State-side 
program has been entirely eliminated.
  The principle behind the LWCF is a simple but noble one: to reinvest 
the revenues earned from the depletion of offshore oil and gas 
resources to the conservation of other natural resources. 
Unfortunately, the promise of the LWCF has never been fully realized 
because of sporadic funding. Many opportunities to conserve precious 
lands

[[Page 5824]]

and to work with our State and local partners have been lost.
  People across the country are realizing that they cannot afford to 
lose more opportunities to protect the lands they consider important. 
The elections of November 1998 underscored the groundswell of support 
for these efforts. Voters approved more than 200 State and local ballot 
initiatives--70 percent of the total initiatives offered--to commit $7 
billion for conservation and related activities.
  Congress should play a role in supporting these efforts, and the LWCF 
was created 35 years ago precisely for this purpose. The two components 
of the Fund--Federal acquisitions and State-side conservation--provide 
a perfect complement to one another in a comprehensive package. Just 
two weeks ago, I spearheaded efforts to encourage 37 of my Senate 
colleagues to cosign a letter to the Budget Committee supporting full 
funding for the LWCF.
  The State-side program, however, deserves specific attention. It is a 
grants program, that requires States to contribute 50 percent of the 
total cost of projects they wish to fund. The Federal Government 
matches the other 50 percent. States must prepare a comprehensive plan 
in order to be eligible for the funding, and they receive funds through 
an allocation formula. In short, the State-side program is a cost-
sharing grants program, based on sound planning, with an apolitical 
distribution formula. What could be better? And yet Congress has not 
funded it since 1995.
  One reason it has not been funded has been a question of priorities 
among a long list of conservation needs. Federal land acquisition; 
operations and maintenance of Federal lands; and assistance to States 
are all important. Indeed, Mr. President, the Budget Committee 
explicitly recognizes this in its report for S. Con. Res. 20. However, 
the State-side program has suffered too long by being completely 
without funds. It is high time we restore some funding to this program, 
while recognizing that other needs still exist. My amendment does just 
that.
  In order to increase the LWCF by $200 million, of course, we need to 
find an offset with equivalent budget authority and outlays. This is 
never an easy task, but my amendment takes the funds from Function 370, 
relating to Commerce and Housing Credit. I believe that there are 
several programs within that function that can be cut to provide $200 
million for LWCF.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. 
President. I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the Chafee amendment that assumes 
funding of $200 million specifically for the stateside program of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund to come out of Function 370. It is my 
understanding that no specific program in Function 370 has been 
designated as an offset for the Chafee amendment, nor do I believe that 
programs such as the Advanced Technology Program be considered as an 
offset. The ultimate funding decision of course rests with the 
appropriators, but I wanted to take this opportunity to cast my support 
for funds for the LWCF stateside program, which has not received any 
funding since 1995.
  Up until 1995, LWCF stateside program funds were used in my state to 
assist communities for planning, acquiring and developing outdoor 
recreation facilities that would not otherwise have been affordable, 
especially in the smaller communities in Maine.
  The LWCF stateside program has funded such local projects in Maine as 
the community playground in Durham, the Mt. Apatite trails in Auburn, 
the Dionne Park Playground in Madawaska, the East-West Aroostook Valley 
trail in Caribou, the Williams Wading Pool in Augusta, multi-purpose 
fields in St. George, Hampden, Buxton, Calais, and Bradford, the 
skating rink in Bucksport, and wharf rehabilitation in Greenville.
  By leveraging state dollars with critical LWCF stateside funds, 
Maine's communities have been able to enjoy recreational facilities 
such as neighborhood parks, swimming pools, and ball fields, and also 
have had the opportunity to conserve certain highly valued lands that 
the citizens of the state wish to save for outdoor recreational 
activities for themselves and for generations to come.


                           amendment no. 239

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Social Security 
Trust Fund shall be managed in the best interest of current and future 
                             beneficiaries)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST 
                   FUND SHALL BE MANAGED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF 
                   CURRENT AND FUTURE BENEFICIARIES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Social Security 
     Trust Fund surplus shall be invested in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States in a manner consistent with 
     the best interest of, and payment of benefits to, current and 
     future Social Security beneficiaries.


                           amendment no. 240

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning Federal tax 
                                relief)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FEDERAL TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Congressional Budget Office has reported that 
     payroll taxes will exceed income taxes for 74 percent of all 
     taxpayers in 1999.
       (2) The Federal Government will collect nearly $50 billion 
     in income taxes this year through its practice of taxing the 
     income Americans sacrifice to the government in the form of 
     Social Security payroll taxes.
       (3) American taxpayers are currently shouldering the 
     heaviest tax burden since 1944.
       (4) According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, the 
     median dual-income family sacrificed a record 37.6 percent of 
     its income to the government in 1997.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that a significant portion of the tax 
     relief will be devoted to working families who are double-
     taxed by--
       (1) Providing taxpayers with an above-the-line income tax 
     deduction for the Social Security payroll taxes they pay so 
     that they no longer pay income taxes on such payroll taxes, 
     and/or
       (2) gradually reducing the lowest marginal income tax rate 
     from 15 percent to 10 percent, and/or
       (3) other tax reductions that do not reduce the tax revenue 
     devoted to the Social Security Trust Fund.


                           amendment no. 241

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CLOSURE OF HOWARD 
                   AIR FORCE BASE AND REPOSITIONING OF ASSETS AND 
                   OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES IN FORWARD OPERATING 
                   LOCATIONS.

       (A) Findings.--The Senate finds the following--
       (1) at noon on the last day of 1999, the Panama Canal and 
     its adjacent lands will revert from U.S. control to that of 
     the government of Panama, as prescribed by the Carter-
     Torrijos treaties concluded in 1978.
       (2) with this act, nearly ninety years of American presence 
     in the Central American isthmus will come to an end.
       (3) on September 25, 1998, the United States and Panama 
     announced that talks aimed at establishing a Multinational 
     counter-narcotics Center (MCC) were ended through mutual 
     agreement. The two countries had been engaged in discussions 
     for two years.
       (4) plans to meet the deadline are going forward and the 
     U.S. is withdrawing all forces and proceeding with the return 
     of all military installations to Panamanian control.
       (5) Howard Air Force Base is scheduled to return to 
     Panamanian control by May 1, 1999. Howard AFB provides a 
     secure staging for detection, monitoring and intelligence 
     collecting assets on counter-narcotics drug trafficking. 
     Howard Air Force Base was the proposed location for the 
     Multinational Counter-narcotics Center.
       (6) AWACS (E-3) aircraft used for counter-drug surveillance 
     is scheduled for relocation from Howard AFB to MacDill AFB in 
     April. The E3's are scheduled to resume this mission in May 
     from MacDill.
       (7) USSOUTHCOM and the Department of State have been 
     examining the potential for alternative forward operating 
     locations (FOLs). A potential location would require the 
     operational capacity to house E-3 AWACS KC-135 tankers, Night 
     Hawk F-16s/F-15s, Navy P-3s, U.S. Customs P-3s and Citations, 
     Army Airborne Reconnaissance Low, and Senior Scout C-130s. No 
     agreement has been reached regarding the number of FOLs 
     required, cost of relocating these assets, time to build 
     ensuing facilities, or plans for housing these assets for 
     long-term stays.
       (B) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) the United States is obligated to protect its citizens 
     from the threats posed by illegal drugs crossing our borders. 
     Interdiction

[[Page 5825]]

     in the transit and arrival zones disrupt the drug flow, 
     increases risk to traffickers, drives them to less efficient 
     routes and methods, and prevents significant amounts of drugs 
     from reaching the United States.
       (2) there has been an inordinate delay in identifying and 
     securing appropriate alternate sites.
       (3) the Senate must pursue every effort to explore, urge 
     the President to arrange long-term agreements with countries 
     that support reducing the flow of drugs, and fully fund 
     forward operating locations so that we continue our balanced 
     strategy of attacking drug smugglers before their deadly 
     cargos reach our borders.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 242

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that increased funding for 
  elementary and secondary education should be directed to States and 
                        local school districts)

       On page 73, after line 10, insert the following:
       (c) Additional Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Children should be the primary beneficiaries of 
     education spending, not bureaucrats.
       (2) Parents have the primary responsibility for their 
     children's education. Parents are the first and best 
     educators of their children. Our Nation trusts parents along 
     with teachers and State and local school officials to make 
     the best decisions about the education of our Nation's 
     children.
       (3) Congress supports the goal of ensuring that the maximum 
     amount of Federal education dollars are spent directly in the 
     classrooms.
       (4) Education initiatives should boost academic achievement 
     for all students. Excellence in American classrooms means 
     having high expectations for all students, teachers, and 
     administrators, and holding schools accountable to the 
     children and parents served by such schools.
       (5) Successful schools and school systems are characterized 
     by parental involvement in the education of their children, 
     local control, emphasis on basic academics, emphasis on 
     fundamental skills, and exceptional teachers in the 
     classroom.
       (6) Congress rejects a one-size-fits-all approach to 
     education which often creates barriers to innovation and 
     reform initiatives at the local level. America's rural 
     schools face challenges quite different from their urban 
     counterparts. Parents, teachers, and State and local school 
     officials should have the freedom to tailor their education 
     plans and reforms according to the unique educational needs 
     of their children.
       (7) The funding levels in this resolution assume that 
     Congress will provide an additional $2,800,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2000 and an additional $33,000,000,000 for the period 
     beginning with fiscal year 2000 and ending with fiscal year 
     2005 for elementary and secondary education.
       (d) Additional Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the 
     Senate that the levels in this resolution assume that--
       (1) increased Federal funding for elementary and secondary 
     education should be directed to States and local school 
     districts; and
       (2) decisionmaking authority should be placed in the hands 
     of States, localities, and families to implement innovative 
     solutions to local educational challenges and to increase the 
     performance of all students, unencumbered by unnecessary 
     Federal rules and regulations.


                           Amendment No. 243

  (Purpose: Sense of the Senate to create a task force to pursue the 
              creation of a natural disaster reserve fund)

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       It is the sense of the senate that a task force be created 
     for the purpose of creating a reserve fund for natural 
     disasters. The task force should be composed of three 
     Senators appointed by the majority lender, and two Senators 
     appointed by the minority leader. The task force should also 
     be composed of three members appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House, and two members appointed by minority leader in the 
     House. It is the sense of the Senate that the task force make 
     a report to the appropriate committees in Congress within 90 
     days of being convened. The report should be available for 
     the purposes of consideration during comprehensive overhaul 
     of budget procedures.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I now yield to Senator Robb from Virginia so that he 
may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 182

(Purpose: To ensure fiscal discipline by requiring that any tax relief 
 be offset in accordance with current budget rules and practices, and 
  that any surpluses be used for debt reduction, until Congress saves 
Social Security and strengthens Medicare and pays off the publicly held 
                                 debt)

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
that the clerk report the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], for himself and Mr. 
     Graham of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 182.

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

       On page 46, strike section 204.
       On page 42, strike lines 1 through 5, and strike lines 15 
     through 19. Insert at the appropriate place the following:
       ``Sec.  . Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the 
     Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that the 
     savings from this amendment shall be used to reduce publicly 
     held debt and to strengthen and extend the solvency of the 
     Medicare program.


                     amendment no. 178, as modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a modification to amendment No. 
178 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be accepted.
  The amendment (No. 178), as modified, follows:

       On page 43, strike beginning with line 3 through line 6, 
     page 45, and insert the following:

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR AN UPDATED BUDGET FORECAST.

       (a) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Years 2000-2004.--Pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget 
     Office shall update its economic and budget forecast for 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2009 by July 15, 1999.
       (b) Reporting a Surplus.--If the report provided pursuant 
     to subsection (a) estimates an on-budget surplus for fiscal 
     year 2000 or results in additional surpluses beyond those 
     assumed in this resolution in following fiscal years, the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the 
     appropriate adjustments to revenue and spending as provided 
     in subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget shall take the amount of the additional on-budget 
     surplus for fiscal years 2000 through 2009 estimated in the 
     report submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and in the 
     following order in each of the fiscal years 2000 through 
     2009--
       (1) increase the allocation to the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry by $6,000,000,000 in 
     budget authority and outlays in each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004;
       (2) reduce the on-budget revenue aggregate by any remaining 
     amounts for fiscal years 2000;
       (3) provide for or increase the on-budget surplus levels 
     used for determining compliance with the pay-as-you-go 
     requirements of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th 
     Congress) by those amounts for fiscal year 2000 and all 
     subsequent years; and
       (4) adjust the instruction in sections 104(1) and 105(1) of 
     this resolution to--
       (A) reduce revenues by amounts in section (c)(2) for fiscal 
     year 2000; and
       (B) increase the reduction in revenues for the period of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009 by that amount.
       (d) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised aggregates and other 
     levels under subsection (c) shall be considered for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     aggregates and other levels contained in this resolution.

     SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Adjustment.--If legislation is reported by the Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry that 
     provides risk management and income assistance for 
     agriculture producers, the Chairman of the Senate Committee 
     on the Budget may increase the allocation of budget authority 
     and outlays to that Committee by an amount that does not 
     exceed--
       (1) $6,500,000,000 in budget authority and in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $36,000,000,000 in budget authority and $35,165,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; 
     and
       (3) $36,000,000,000 in budget authority and in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the next amendment will be an amendment 
offered by Senator Ashcroft on education. Frankly, I am wondering, with 
such a short period of time before the vote must occur, whether we 
should just go ahead and ask him to delay and start with that amendment 
after the vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would be pleased to operate in a way 
consistent with your wishes. I will begin debate now, or we can defer 
it until after the vote.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
occur

[[Page 5826]]

on the first of the stacked amendments, and that the first vote be a 
20-minute vote instead of 15, thus making up for the 5 minutes we might 
have misled people on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 157

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the pending amendment, No. 157, offered 
by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, proposes to create a 
new entitlement for the NIH funded with increased taxes. This language 
is not germane to the budget resolution before us; therefore, I raise a 
point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.


                     motion to waive the budget act

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Specter is not here. I know he 
would move to waive the point of order. So in his behalf, I move to 
waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), is 
absent because of a death in family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith Gordon H
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith Bob
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lugar
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before you call up the vote, I remind 
Senators that vote was supposed to be over 15 minutes ago. It is almost 
30 minutes. This one is supposed to be 10 minutes under the unanimous 
consent agreement. I am going to work very hard to see that we stick to 
10. The next one right after it is 10 minutes. If we are here in 10, we 
will get two of them done in 20 minutes. So if we call the regular 
order, don't be surprised if you miss a vote.


                     amendment no. 176, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Roth has 1 minute and the other side has 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment does not endorse any one 
course of action. It calls upon the Finance Committee to develop 
bipartisan legislation to reform the Medicare program. 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. Congress should move 
expeditiously to consider the bipartisan recommendations of the 
chairman of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of 
Medicare. It urges the President to work with the Congress in fixing 
the problems in the Medicare program.
  I thank my colleagues Senator Breaux, Senator Frist, Senator Kerrey, 
Senator Domenici, Senator Thompson, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Abraham 
as well as Senators Phil Gramm, Nickles, Grassley, Murkowski, and 
Ashcroft for cosponsoring this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. May we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will use my minute in response to 
simply say this is not a ``bipartisan'' Commission. The Finance 
Committee may very well take it up. But people, before they praise what 
the Bipartisan Commission has done, should understand the sick and 
disabled are going to have to pay the most. Mr. President, 71 percent 
of all counties in this country have no HMOs whatsoever. The costs of 
beneficiaries are going to go up. Medicare prescription drugs are not 
in any way, shape, or form universal.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order? We cannot hear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will 
take their conferences off the floor. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will continue by saying rural 
seniors and urban seniors are going to be hurt in this process because 
there will be fewer physicians who are trained because the training of 
doctors is completely removed from Medicare. It was turned over to the 
appropriators. I think you will see a diminution of personnel.
  The numbers of uninsured seniors are going to be increased, some 
estimate by 1.4 million. Medicare was begun because the private sector 
was not able to handle the insurance, was not willing to handle it. I 
hope Members will vote against this nonbipartisan Commission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel

[[Page 5827]]


     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Lugar
      
  The amendment (No. 176), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 177

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes on the Kennedy amendment, 
equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ashcroft be made a 
cosponsor of the Abraham amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the course of the past 2 days of 
debate, we have seen that there really are no additional funds in this 
budget proposal before the Senate for the preservation of the financial 
security of Medicare. But there are proposals for a tax cut of $778 
billion over the period of the next 10 years.
  This amendment says we will take $320 billion of the amount that is 
reserved for the tax cut and use it for the financial security of 
Medicare. Effectively, we are saying, with the surplus, which 
represents the pay-ins by hard-working Americans--hard-working 
Americans--that we are going to use that money for the preservation of 
Medicare, and then we can move ahead and really reform Medicare, and 
give that a priority over tax cuts which are currently in the budget.
  It is a simple question. Are we going to favor financial stability 
and security of Medicare or are we going to favor tax cuts? I say we 
can do both, but let us do the financial security of the Medicare 
system first. That is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, this is an anti-tax-relief 
amendment. Secondly, compared to the resolution, we increase taxes $320 
billion. And there is absolutely no relationship between this amendment 
and Medicare, no matter how much the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts wants to say that there is. There is no relationship. 
This money sits around, can be spent. It is applied to the debt. We 
already apply more of the surplus to the debt than the President did 
with the Kennedy amendment. And last, we have already voted on it. We 
voted on Conrad. It is almost identical.
  Having said that, I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Lugar
      
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 177) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        privileges of the floor

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that full floor 
privileges be granted to the following staff persons for the duration 
of the budget resolution debate: Mark Prater, Brig Pari, Tom Roesser, 
Bill Sweetnam, Jeff Kupfer, Ed McClellan, Alec Vachon, Kathy Means, 
DeDe Spitznagel, Monica Tencate, Marc Hahn, and Jennifer Baxendell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 242

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe it is now in order to consider 
an amendment previously offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], for himself, and 
     Mr. Gorton, proposes an amendment numbered 242, as previously 
     offered.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the education 
funding included in this budget proposal. I have joined with other 
Republican Senators in calling for an increase in Federal spending for 
education and urging that those additional dollars go directly to the 
classroom. This is a proposed sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and I am 
offering this measure with Senator Gorton. It is a measure which 
already is at the desk.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, this budget is very generous 
in terms of education, providing additional resources for the purpose 
of enhancing the capacity of our students to perform.
  This budget provides, for instance, for my own State--I think if the 
money were to be divided equally between the States, Missouri would get 
$56 million next year, more than it gets now. Over the next 5 years, it 
would get about $660 million more. So that is a substantial increase in 
the resource.
  I have joined with Senator Gorton of Washington to say that when we 
have that kind of resource flowing to the States, it is important for 
us that this increased resource in Federal education dollars be 
directed to the States and local schools out of the Federal budget and 
not to the Federal bureaucracy.
  You see, our intention with this resource is to elevate the capacity 
of students to perform, not to elevate the capacity or the propensity 
of the bureaucracy to intermeddle in directing, and sometimes 
misdirecting, the resources that would otherwise be best directed at 
the local level.
  Our hope is that this additional resource will give States and local 
communities, will give teachers and principals, and will give people at 
the

[[Page 5828]]

classroom level--places where decisions can be made effectively about 
allocation of the resources--the maximum flexibility to design and run 
education programs that will literally elevate performance of our 
students.
  One of our Nation's highest priorities is that every child would have 
the opportunity to receive the kind of challenging, rigorous education 
that would prepare them for not only success personally, but would also 
prepare them as team members of Team U.S.A. to keep America where it 
ought to be--leading the world.
  Congress should develop and support Federal policy that will best 
promote education practices that succeed in our States and schools. 
Sometimes those practices are different in one State than they would be 
in other States. So we really want to invite the States, the school 
boards, the parents, and the teachers, those whose children are in the 
schools, to participate in developing the right deployment of these 
resources--spending the money wisely in ways that will help the 
students.
  Successful school systems are characterized by parental involvement, 
where parents really care, where parents get involved with the school 
system, where they energize their children, where they assign a high 
value to achievement in education. That is where our children soar. We 
should have Federal policy that gives the parents, the schools, the 
school boards, the school districts, the local governments, and the 
States the right to tailor the expenditure of resources so as to meet 
the needs of our children. Successful schools are also characterized by 
fundamental skills, excellent teachers, dollars spent in the classroom, 
and not dollars wasted in the bureaucracy. So many of our current 
Federal educational resources are misspent. They drive a demand for 
paperwork. They don't drive a demand for performance. They don't 
contain elements that further our goal of giving our children a world-
class education. A number of our Federal education programs contain 
these mountainous paperwork burdens--regulations and restrictions that 
hinder States' and local schools' ability to design programs.
  Here are a couple of examples about the bureaucracy. Listen to these 
numbers. They are almost mind staggering.
  In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 billion in State funds. So it 
takes 374 to administer the $8 billion in State funds. However, there 
are 297 State employees needed to oversee only $1 billion in Federal 
funds, six times as many employees, six times as much bureaucracy, six 
times as much administration per dollar of funds spent in Federal 
dollars as there are for State dollars.
  I think if we want to avoid that kind of overlay of inefficiency, if 
we want to avoid the weight of paper that is weighing down the 
educational system that keeps teachers writing reports to bureaucrats 
instead of teaching our students, we ought to be working for this 
amendment which says that resources should go to State and local 
efforts; they should be tailored to meet the needs of the schools and 
to elevate student performance. The enhanced resources in this bill 
should not be devoted to the Federal bureaucracy where we have that 6-
to-1 ratio demonstrated in the Florida experience where there are six 
times as many administrators for federal dollars as there are for State 
dollars.
  The Federal Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours 
of paperwork each year just to receive the Federal dollars. That 
translates into the equivalent of 25,000 full-time employees every year 
just doing the paperwork. This bureaucratic maze for Federal education 
bureaucracy takes up to 35 percent of Federal education dollars.
  If I were to hand my son $1 and before it got from my hand to his it 
changed from $1 to 65 cents, I would hear about it. I would hear about 
it with justification--``You say you are giving me a dollar. You are 
only giving me 65 cents.'' That is what has been happening with Federal 
education dollars.
  The Governors of the country know about it. That is why they were so 
adamant in unanimously supporting the Ed-Flex bill which we passed in 
the Senate. Flexibility is important. That is what we would be 
providing to support student achievement if we are able to support this 
amendment.
  A recent example of inflexible Federal funding is the $1.2 billion 
earmarked exclusively for classroom size reduction for early elementary 
grades. It may have been a noble aspiration, but it may not be what 
some schools need.
  Listen to what Gov. Gray Davis, a Democratic Governor of California, 
recently said. He said it this way. His State had already achieved 
smaller classroom sizes in the early grades and needed to use the new 
Federal funds for reducing class size in 10th grade math and English 
classes. But no. The Federal bureaucrats and we, in conjunction with 
them, said no; this is only to be used in another specific arena.
  Let's give the flexibility to a school district, to the Governors, to 
teachers, to principals, to people at the local level. Let's give them 
the flexibility to meet student needs instead of to satisfy the 
bureaucratic demand. Why should we handcuff States and local schools 
from using money in the way they best see fit?
  According to the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress 
Reading Report Card, nearly 40 percent of our fourth grade students 
cannot even read at a basic level. United States 12th graders 
outperformed only 2 out of 21 nations in mathematics on a recent Third 
International Math and Science Study Test.
  The Brookings Institution has reported that public institutions of 
higher education have to spend $1 billion each year on remedial 
education for students who want to go to college. They have to have 
remedial work because it didn't happen at the elementary and secondary 
level.
  Let's not continue to spend money, Federal funds, in the old way of 
running it through the bureaucracy, first shrinking it and then 
allowing it to go from the bureaucracy forward in ways that aren't 
serving students. We should direct any new and existing Federal 
education resources to States and local schools to design and implement 
education programs that work, and that they know can work, because they 
are working with the program. And they also know what programs they 
need for their students.
  When Governor Gray Davis said he didn't need the money for smaller 
class sizes in early grades, he wasn't saying the program wouldn't 
work. He is just saying we already did that; we need to use the 
resource for something else.
  We cannot afford to keep spending our dollars in the same way that we 
have been doing for years. A profound friend of mine said, ``Your 
system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting. If you 
do not like what you are getting, you had better change your system.''
  We can't do it the same way. It has been giving us the wrong results. 
Let's let States and local communities decide how to spend dollars to 
improve performance--not give us the same result but give us an 
elevated outcome.
  I think we should give States and local schools the kind of 
flexibility they need to spend Federal dollars on programs that are 
needed at the local level rather than programs that are mandated from 
the bureaucracy. I think we need programs that boost student 
achievement, and that somehow foster academic excellence, giving local 
individuals the right to deploy the resources to do that.
  Under this approach, schools will be able to deploy resources to hire 
new teachers and to raise teachers' salaries. They could buy textbooks, 
or new computers, enhance the library, or even build--do all kinds of 
things, whatever they believe is most important in order to achieve 
that fundamental goal that we will all agree we want to pursue: that 
is, elevated student performance.
  That is what education is for--not for the bureaucracy in Washington. 
It is not really even for the bureaucracies at the State level, or the 
school boards, or even for the teachers. Our education effort is 
designed to elevate the performance and capacity to build the future of 
the United States by enhancing the future of individual students.

[[Page 5829]]

  In conclusion, parents, teachers, school boards, and administrators 
are in the best position to say what is needed. You wouldn't think of 
going to a doctor who is 1,000 miles away who is prescribing only one 
thing for all the people in the country regardless of their symptoms. 
We would say that is the most foolish thing of all. Yet we go to the 
bureaucracy in Washington, have them prescribe what we are going to do 
with our educational resources, no matter what the situation is in the 
State, or the school, or the local school area, or in the classroom. We 
need the capacity to say, here is what is wrong. Let's make the 
diagnosis at the local level, and then let's get at the problem at the 
local level.
  We can provide those resources. The resources in this budget should 
be devoted to that. Senator Gorton of Washington has been a champion of 
this idea. Several years ago, really in a breakthrough in the Senate, 
we voted for this concept, and it was on his motion that we did so. I 
am pleased to join with him in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Sessions as a cosponsor of 
this amendment. There may be others as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
join my colleague from Washington State, Slade Gorton, in making sure 
that we give the Senate an opportunity to express itself clearly in 
favor of the kind of funding for schools that boosts student 
achievement.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is almost 35 years since Congress 
passed the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That marked a 
fundamental change in the relationship between the Federal Government 
and local school districts in the management of education policy. That 
act in 1965 was 30 pages long. Today the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act takes up 400 pages of our statute books. The regulations 
passed pursuant to that act and other education acts literally occupy 
thousands of pages of the Federal regulations.
  For a third of a century, Washington, DC--often Congress but most 
particularly the people who work in the Department of Education--has 
been dominated by the thought that centralized decisions and 
centralized control exercised here in Washington, DC, was the best way 
to solve problems relating to the education of our young people.
  Mr. President, 35 years of that experience has been demonstrably 
shown not to work. Test scores have not improved anything like the 
degree that centralized control has been imposed from Washington, DC. 
In addition, of course, the Congress has not really kept its promise 
with respect to education. Only 7 or 8 percent of the money that our 
schools spend comes from appropriations from the Congress of the United 
States, but a good 50 percent of the rules and regulations do. A failed 
experiment should be abandoned, and we should try something else.
  To focus on a particular incident in my own State of Washington, a 
team of researchers at the University of Washington found that it 
wasn't more money that improved test scores in 26 elementary schools in 
Seattle. It was better people and more freedom. The schools that showed 
the greatest improvements had principals who motivated teachers to work 
together, parents who cared and were involved, and the flexibility to 
do things differently among these various schools. Those principals had 
more control over the moneys that their schools spent, and it allowed 
them to custom build programs tailored to their particular school's 
needs.
  The idea has caught on in my State to the point at which our Governor 
has proposed the creation of ``opportunity schools,'' school districts 
that would choose to send their funding directly to the schoolhouse and 
thus free themselves from many regulations at the State level.
  This amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, suggests that we 
here in Washington, DC, abandon the failed pattern of more and more 
Federal rules and regulations and repose more trust in parents, in 
teachers, in principals, and in elected school board members all across 
the United States.
  My friend, the Senator from Missouri, dramatically illustrated how 
much more money goes into administration when you deal with Federal 
dollars than is the case with State dollars. He talked about the 
thousands of school employees throughout the United States who must 
occupy their time filling out Federal forms. We believe that we should 
provide more in the way of dollars to our students across the United 
States, and in fact, this budget resolution is far more generous than 
the budget proposed by the President of the United States, but we 
believe that we should impose far fewer controls with those dollars and 
impose more trust in those people who spend their full time caring 
about the education of our children.
  In the Presiding Officer's State of Ohio and in mine, Washington 
State, and the State represented by the Senator from Missouri, the 
electors who were wise enough to elect us to this position are 
certainly wise enough to elect school board members who care 
passionately about the kids in their school districts and about the 
success of their education.
  Later in this year, we will deal with the renewal of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. Then our voices and our votes will carry 
even more weight because we will be voting on real policies. In this 
budget resolution, however, we are making a promise of more resources 
for our schools and for our schoolchildren, and we should accompany 
that promise with the promise to trust our parents and teachers and 
principals and school board members to spend that money wisely.
  The Senator from Missouri was very complimentary with respect to my 
efforts in this regard. Twice in the last 2 years the Senate has voted 
to move in exactly that direction. We have not yet been successful. We 
have not gotten this all the way through Congress and past the 
President of the United States. In fact, the President's budget 
underfunds the programs that we have already established without 
removing the regulations that accompany those programs and establishes 
a whole new series of categorical programs in which we tell the schools 
what their priorities ought to be and how they ought to spend their 
money.
  What does that do in the real world? The Seattle Times recently 
reported remarks by the superintendent of the Snoqualmie Valley School 
District, Rich McCullough, who said:

       It's a little discouraging, but I think there is a lack of 
     trust implicit in almost all Federal funding programs we deal 
     with. They don't trust us to spend the money right, so they 
     force us to do whatever they think is best. It's not always 
     best for every school.

  I think that Mr. McCullough knows more about what the students in the 
Snoqualmie Valley School District in Washington need and how the money 
he has should be spent on their education than does any Member of 
Congress, myself included, or any bureaucrat in the Department of 
Education in downtown Washington, DC.
  Dwayne Slate, the executive director of the Washington State School 
Board, made a similar point in a recent letter that he wrote to me:

       At some point elected officials in Washington, DC simply 
     must trust local education officials to do what's in the best 
     interests of kids in their communities. We all have their 
     best interests at heart.

  Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution will follow that 
advice and will allow these superintendents, these teachers, these 
parents, more in the way of decisionmaking authority as to the kids to 
whom they are devoting their lives and their careers.

  I have every hope that the Senate will accept this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page 5830]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  As has been pointed out by our friends and colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, the importance of providing resources and help and 
assistance to local communities and then having a degree of flexibility 
within those communities is basically a concept which this body has 
gone on record supporting as long as we have some accountability for 
those funds. That is incorporated in the amendments which I cosponsored 
with Senator Hatfield in 1994, providing States with flexibility, and 
now we see that legislation is in conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  We did not have the resolution of our friends until just a few 
moments ago, but after a quick look at the sense-of-the-Senate, I urge 
our colleagues on this side to support it. The point that I think is 
always well worth understanding is that education is basically a local 
responsibility as has been pointed out by the two speakers on the other 
side of the aisle. Only about 5 to 6 cents out of every dollar that is 
spent locally comes from the Federal Government. The rest is raised 
locally and by the States. So whatever success or failure we have out 
there in local communities obviously is attributable to the local 
communities.
  We have had some success. We have other challenges. What I think the 
American people want today is a partnership between the local community 
and the State and the Feds to try to enhance academic achievement. What 
we have heard from those schoolteachers and what we have heard from 
parents and what we have heard from students is a series of 
recommendations. They had talked about smaller class size, better 
trained teachers, afterschool programs. They talked about technology in 
the classroom and some other recommendations--literacy programs as 
well. That is what they have been telling us, and we have developed 
legislative proposals to respond to those ideas.
  I point out for the benefit of the Record that currently, according 
to the Department of Education--and I will include their study in the 
Record--95 cents of every dollar is actually appropriated for local 
schools, 95.5 percent of the Federal funds actually go to local 
districts; a half of 1 percent stays at the Federal level, 4 percent 
stays at the State level.
  So, this is a pretty good indication that whatever we do--and it is 
very modest when you look at the Nation--it is getting to the 
community. We can always do better with what we are providing there, 
but we are, at least with regard to getting the funds into the local 
communities, doing pretty well, I think. It is certainly better than 
the kind of bureaucracy that exists at the State level.
  Having said that, we will have an opportunity this afternoon to do 
something which I consider to be very significant in the area of 
education--a real choice. The proposal we have today indicates the 
importance of supporting local desires and local interest in the 
community, and I am certainly going to recommend we all support that. 
But, later on this afternoon, we will have a measure which the Senator 
from Connecticut and I will send to the desk, and which we will vote 
on, which will say: Let's really do something, provide some additional 
resources to help assist those local communities.
  It is all nice and well to agree to a resolution that, as this 
resolution does, encourages further flexibility at the local level. We 
are going to embrace and support that. But we will have an opportunity 
this afternoon to say the following: Before we have the tax breaks for 
the wealthiest individuals, let us go ahead and fully fund the IDEA 
program at 40 percent.
  We heard a great deal of debate about that in the earlier debate on 
education. Now, this afternoon, we will have an opportunity to fully 
fund, at 40 percent, the IDEA program--the special needs programs of 
help and assistance for the local communities that have special needs 
children--and meet for the first time our responsibility of funding it 
at 40 percent, prior to the time we have tax breaks for the wealthy. 
That will be the significance of the vote on our amendment this 
afternoon. We will say that we will support a program for smaller class 
size from K-3, we will support the afterschool programs, we will as a 
result of this particular amendment see an expansion of the Pell grants 
and an expansion of the work/study programs, and we will see an 
expansion of the Head Start programs.
  We are effectively saying, instead of $778 billion in tax breaks, we 
are going to take $156 billion of that over the next 10 years and put 
it where it will make a difference for children in our country at the 
local level, in the local community--in smaller class sizes, in helping 
and assisting in modernizing buildings, in upgrading the skills of our 
teachers, in effective afterschool programs, in additional technology, 
in helping and assisting in bringing the Pell Program up to date in a 
more effective way, and in work/study programs which in many instances 
are used to expand literacy training and fund the literacy program.
  It will be very easy later on this afternoon when we vote on this; 
the choice will be very clear. After all the pronouncements, all the 
speeches, all the declarations, all the press releases, this afternoon 
this Senate will have an opportunity to say we are, over the next 10 
years, going to have the most serious support for local improvement, 
raising the standards of education, that we will have had in the last 
35 years. That will be before the Senate this afternoon in our 
amendment.
  There still will be ample resources, over $500 billion, that will be 
available for the tax breaks.
  So I hope when the time comes we will have the support of those who 
have been speaking in support of local schools and districts involving 
parents, involving local decisions. I hope we are going to have their 
help and their support. Do they want to really put their vote where 
their voice has been and where their press releases have been in 
supporting education? Or are they going to vote and say: We will do 
that at another day, but I am going to vote for tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals? That is the choice. That will be the choice when the 
Senate considers the amendment that Senator Dodd and I will introduce 
at the first available opportunity.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, they are not here on the floor at this 
moment, but let me say to my colleagues from Missouri and Washington, 
that I appreciate the sense-of-the-Senate resolution in which they 
called for increased Federal funding for elementary and secondary 
education to be directed to the States and local school districts, 
granting decisionmaking authority in the hands of the States. I have no 
difficulty with that assertion. But, as my colleague from Massachusetts 
has just pointed out, there is not a single dime that flows to the 
States as a result of this amendment.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici, and the members of the committee, both Democrats and 
Republicans, for earmarking additional funds for education. This was a 
long overdue but welcome addition to the budget process. But, as the 
Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out, there are some significant 
differences in what we should do with those dollars because we are 
competing within the educational function, in effect, on some very 
critical needs.
  Many times Members stand on the floor of the Senate and tell you what 
message the American public may be sending. Two Senators can get up on 
the same subject matter, take entirely different positions, and tell 
you they are speaking on behalf of the American people. On education, 
Mr. President, we hear one message. We hear, I think, very loudly and 
very clearly, regardless of geography, economics, ethnicity,

[[Page 5831]]

gender, or age, that education is a major concern of the American 
people. There has been a deep and abiding appreciation throughout the 
long history of our Nation for the importance of education, the 
fundamental understanding that the subtleties of our democracy and our 
Constitution can only be perpetuated in time because each succeeding 
generation is an educated generation. We prosper economically, we grow 
culturally and intellectually, because we are an educated people. That 
has been ingrained from the founding days of this Republic.
  Earlier today I heard our new colleague from Indiana give his maiden 
speech on the floor of the Senate. It was a fine speech in which he 
talked about this being the last budget of the 20th century. I would 
like to take that in a different direction, in a sense, and remind our 
colleagues, that this is the first budget of the 21st century. What we 
are adopting here today, tonight, or tomorrow by noon will be the first 
budget that will apply to the first year of the coming millennium.
  I suppose historians looking back, as they are apt to, will want to 
know what we were saying about our society as we left the 20th century 
and began this new millennium. Where were our priorities? What was our 
agenda? What did we want to see envisioned for our country? Again, I 
think the voice of the American public is pretty loud and clear and 
pretty uniform on the issue that education ought to be paramount on our 
agenda.
  For those reasons, the Senator from Massachusetts and I will offer an 
amendment later today--we will not be able to debate it so we are doing 
it now--which will say that 80 percent of the tax cut that we are 
talking debating today will stay in place, if, in fact, that is the 
will of the majority. Twenty percent of that proposed tax cut we would 
like to take and deal with the educational needs of America over the 
next 10 years.
  We would like to do something about the commitment we made almost a 
generation ago, when it came to the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. I do not know of a mayor, Mr. President, or a Governor, 
I say to the Presiding Officer, who knows what I am talking about, in 
my State or across the country, who has not begged me to do something 
about us living up to that 40-percent level that we said we would 
fulfill when it came to the educational needs of special needs 
children.
  We have gone from 8 to about 11 percent of special education funding. 
I offered an amendment 5 or 6 years ago, Mr. President, in the Budget 
Committee, which I lost on a tie vote on the IDEA budget that would 
have increased our commitment to special education.
  What Senator Kennedy and I are offering this afternoon is an 
opportunity for us to do that over the next 10 years and fulfill that 
commitment by merely saying, let's slightly modify the tax cut 
proposal. We are also proposing to take some of those funds, and apply 
them to deal with the issue of class size--again, a subject matter that 
I think all Americans agree is important--to have an additional 100,000 
teachers, to reduce the ratio of student to teachers in our classrooms; 
thus, obviously, as I think we all appreciate, increasing the 
opportunity for learning. Those are the two things we do in this 
amendment we plan to offer.
  There are other questions, obviously, including both school 
construction and student loans. The Senator from Massachusetts made 
reference to Pell grants. Does anyone doubt in the 21st century that 
there is going to be an increasing cost in higher education for 
families? What a signal to send on the first budget of the 21st century 
that we recognize that need and that growing cost, and we are going to 
commit some resources to provide for the higher educational cost needs 
of average American working families.
  School construction: Again, it is incredible to me that in the most 
affluent nation in the world, we have school buildings that are falling 
down within blocks of this building. Within blocks of where we are 
speaking today, there are school buildings that were built in the early 
part of the 20th century, facilities in which we are training and 
educating young people who will be the leaders of the 21st century. We 
somehow have not yet been able to find the resources to make sure those 
schools are going to be well constructed, are going to be wired with 
the technology that they need.
  The problem with the budget resolution that our good friend from New 
Mexico and others have crafted is that while it increases spending for 
education, it does so at the expense of the very programs I have just 
identified, and others.
  It says, in order to do that, we are going to take it from Head Start 
and higher education, and we are going to take it from other areas. 
Further, it says we are not going to do something about special 
education costs at the local community level.
  So on the one hand, I commend my colleagues for raising the ante, if 
you will, on education. Simultaneously, they are squeezing the other 
programs that are absolutely critical, so that we can attempt to 
provide for the educational needs of the Americans of the 21st century.
  We have a way of paying for this. Again, I think our colleagues 
earlier today talked about a balance in this budget. There is a need 
for tax cuts. I am looking forward to supporting some good tax cut 
proposals--child care, the marriage penalty tax, investment in small 
business, innovation and technology, housing. I can think of a dozen 
areas where good, strong tax cuts make sense.
  But that is not the only need in this country. There is a need to do 
something about the educational improvement of American schools. There 
is something valuable in assisting our communities and local 
governments with the cost of special education. What we will offer in 
our amendment will do that.
  New school construction, classroom size, special education: why not 
also provide for that and simultaneously provide the resources for some 
of the tax cuts people are proposing?
  The resolution before us, the sense of the Senate which says we ought 
to do more about elementary and secondary education, if Senators vote 
for that, and I hope they will, then they are going to get a chance 
momentarily, right after that, to fulfill that commitment. Rarely do we 
get to do that. We make a promise with one resolution, and within 
minutes we will be given a chance to actually fulfill that commitment 
and that promise with the amendment that we will offer.
  We hope, Mr. President, that our colleagues will support the 
resolution by the Senator from Missouri. In doing so, we also hope that 
when the amendment is offered by the Senator from Massachusetts and 
myself, to fulfill our commitment on IDEA and do something about 
classroom size by reducing marginally the tax cut proposal, that we 
will also put real dollars and real meaning behind the commitments made 
in the resolution before us.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor of the amendment has 10 minutes 5 
seconds, and the opponents, 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will take the remaining 10 minutes.
  First of all, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today, all 
remaining debate time on the budget resolution be considered yielded 
back and, further, that the Senate proceed to a stacked series of votes 
on the remaining pending amendments.
  I further ask that the first vote be 15 minutes in length, with the 
remaining votes in the sequence limited to 10 minutes in length, with 2 
minutes equally divided between each vote for brief explanations of the 
amendments.
  Finally, I ask that the votes alternate between Republican and 
Democrat amendments.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I 
understood that correctly, Mr. President. Was that request, again, as 
of 4 to begin the process of serial votes?

[[Page 5832]]


  Ms. SNOWE. That is correct.
  Mr. DODD. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. President--
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I wanted to make a few comments on an amendment that the Senator from 
Oregon and I have introduced already. It has already been brought up.
  I wanted to offer a few words of explanation, because we think this 
is a very important amendment that would expand the reserve fund in the 
budget resolution for Medicare and the prescription drug benefit 
program. Specifically, our amendment would allow for new tobacco taxes 
to be used as an offset for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit 
that this reserve fund would create.
  As I stated on the floor yesterday, I believe that one of the most 
critical items included in this year's Senate budget resolution is the 
reserve fund for Medicare and prescription drugs. This reserve fund 
received support from virtually all the members of the committee, both 
Democrats and most Republicans, which would address the prescription 
drug benefit program by allowing the use of onbudget surpluses.
  We know that the Bipartisan Commission did not report out a majority 
report, but we do know that the Senate Finance Committee will be 
considering the Commission's recommendations nevertheless. So in this 
proposal, in the bipartisan resolution, it does include, in the reserve 
fund in the budget resolution, language that in the event that the 
Senate Finance Committee reports out a reform package of the Medicare 
program that extends the solvency of the program, then we would also 
include a prescription drug benefit program.
  To the credit of the chairman of the Budget Committee, he proposed, 
when we were trying to work out exactly how this would be funded, 
whether or not to use tobacco taxes or other sources of revenue, we 
decided that the onbudget surplus was one means of supporting a 
prescription drug benefit program. But we also know that could also be 
tenuous depending on the surpluses that develop over the next 5 to 10 
years. We want to provide certainty to the funding of this prescription 
drug benefit program.
  So the Senator from Oregon and I have proposed an amendment that 
would provide an additional means of funding for this prescription drug 
benefit program so that we provide the continuity and the stability for 
funding by raising tobacco taxes in order to fund the program.
  In fact, the President includes a 55-cent tax increase in his own 
budget for a tobacco tax increase. He talks about a prescription drug 
benefit program but does not provide a plan nor does he provide any 
sources for funding. We think this is an important step forward.
  I appreciate being able to work with the Senator from Oregon in a 
bipartisan fashion to address this most critical issue, critical 
problem that is facing our Nation's senior citizens. Twelve percent of 
our Nation's elderly account for more than a third of the drug 
expenditures that occur in this country. Clearly, it is a real problem 
for seniors. It certainly is the black hole in the Medicare program 
because of the absence of support for a drug benefit program.
  We want to provide the means by which it can happen and can happen 
this year. So the reserve fund in the budget resolution, contrary to 
what has been said, does provide the means for a prescription drug 
benefit program. If that reserve fund and that line item was not in the 
budget resolution, we would have a 60-vote hurdle to bring it to the 
floor.
  So it guarantees the prospects of having a prescription drug benefit 
program with use of onbudget surpluses. We are just adding another 
option to the funding of that program because we think it is so 
important.
  HCFA will say 65 percent of the Nation's elderly who are on Medicare 
have support of prescription drug benefits through other insurance 
policies. Well, not exactly. When you start to look at the Medigap 
policies, the cost of the deductibles and the caps, it is a very 
expensive proposition, and very few seniors have the option of using it 
in a way that can help them given the enormous costs that prescription 
drugs represent to their families.
  So we realize this is a necessity. That is why we wanted to develop 
this bipartisan approach on funding, and ultimately the Senator from 
Oregon and I are going to develop bipartisan legislation to move this 
process forward.
  I want to yield to the Senator from Oregon, because I know there is 
very little time left, to be able to address this issue as well. I 
think it is important. It makes sense to use tobacco taxes. The 
Columbia University did a study on this issue.
  And there is no question that tobacco-related illnesses has cost the 
Medicare program to a tremendous extent, in fact, more than $34 
billion. And 80 percent of the $32 billion in total substance abuse 
costs in 1994 were as a result of tobacco-related illnesses, as this 
chart will illustrate right here. So $25 billion alone in 1994.
  So Mr. President, there is no question that it makes sense to link a 
tobacco tax increase to financing a prescription drug program when you 
consider the costs and the impact of tobacco-related illnesses on the 
Medicare program. And that is only going to get worse in the future.
  Now I would like to yield to the Senator from Oregon for any comments 
he would like to make on our amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague from Maine. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, whose time is being used now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senators have submitted an amendment, 
they have 30 minutes as proponents on the amendment. The Chair has 
accepted the proposition that an amendment has been accepted.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, parliamentary point of inquiry. Which 
amendment is, in fact, the amendment that is currently under controlled 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are more than 80 amendments.
  Mr. KERRY. No. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the 
Ashcroft amendment is the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the last amendment that was proposed.
  Mr. KERRY. The Ashcroft amendment is being debated under controlled 
time; is that correct? There is a unanimous consent request as to the 
order of amendments. Excuse me. There is a unanimous consent order that 
has set up the order of amendments now. So the order is the Ashcroft 
amendment. Subsequent to the Ashcroft amendment, there is an additional 
Daschle amendment, and then it is going back and forth. So we are on 
the Ashcroft amendment. If debate on that is finished, under the 
consent order, we would move to a separate order. This amendment, if it 
is separate, would not be in order at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If you will give me a moment, I have an inquiry. I 
ask the Parliamentarian, is there a UC now that lists amendments in 
order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, there is not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We did not get a UC.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Point of inquiry. Can I try to clarify this issue? If I 
could have the attention of the Parliamentarian. As I understood, we 
had the Ashcroft amendment. And then we had 12 minutes left on our 
side; 12 minutes on the other side. And as someone who was interested 
in our side, the Democratic side, I thought the Senator from Maine 
asked to take the 10 minutes--it was on the other side--to talk about 
an amendment that was going to come up, just as we talked about an 
amendment we hoped would be considered later in the afternoon. I do not 
remember a consent request that we set that aside. I have been sitting 
here, Senator Dodd has been sitting here, ready to debate the Ashcroft 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Further inquiry, Mr. President. Last night I stood here in 
this very chair when the distinguished manager----

[[Page 5833]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. I was not here.
  Mr. REID. I was here.
  Mr. KERRY. Senator Reid. And we propounded a unanimous consent 
request at that time which the Chair, in fact, did rule on, saying 
there would be six amendments, three on each side; and the three on our 
side were specifically listed at that point in time. And I think the 
distinguished minority whip will confirm what I am saying.
  Mr. REID. There was an order entered last night with names of 
Senators on this side mentioned. Senator Domenici indicated he would 
fill in the names of the Republican Senators, for the three amendments 
to be offered on their side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and Senators, I was not here, but I do 
not challenge what anybody has said. Somebody else was here in my 
stead. I think it was--no. Was I here?
  Mr. REID. You were here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK. My recollection is getting weaker by the hour here.
  Mr. DODD. Join the club.
  Mr. DOMENICI. But if you let me try to fix it, just give me a moment.
  How much time is left on the amendment that is known as the Ashcroft-
Gorton?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes to the sponsors and 11\1/
2\ minutes to the opponents----
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the argument?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Ashcroft amendment. So we are still on 
Ashcroft.
  Mr. DOMENICI. They are supposed to have that time. Why not give them 
that time? What is wrong with that?
  Mr. KERRY. The Snowe amendment is a separate amendment, and not in 
order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could you clarify, what is the status of Senator 
Snowe's amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There have been submitted in excess of 80 
amendments. Under the Senate's precedents, each of those amendments can 
be brought up on the call of the regular order.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again----
  Mr. DOMENICI. She did not ask for regular order. Her amendment isn't 
pending. Is it pending or not?
  Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is what we are trying to get to right 
now.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we ask Senator Snowe, what do you desire to do? 
Do you want to talk about your amendment?
  Ms. SNOWE. That is correct. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about 
my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How long would you like to talk about your amendment?
  Ms. SNOWE. Not too much longer, perhaps another 10 minutes. The 
Senator from Oregon could finish up his remarks and then any concluding 
remarks.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Ten minutes between the two Senators?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think we can be finished with this in 
probably 15 minutes.
  The Senator from Maine and I, as well as our colleague from 
Massachusetts, have been here for the last few hours. If I had 10 
minutes and Senator Snowe could wrap up briefly, we could be done.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will make time for you.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am absolutely confident that we can work 
this out appropriately with the help of the distinguished manager. I 
make it clear that no call for regular order was made. We were in the 
middle of the process of debating the Ashcroft amendment which is under 
controlled time. In the course of that debate of controlled time, the 
Senator from Maine--and I have no objection to this--stood up to speak 
on a separate amendment without calling for regular order.
  So that is not the pending business before the Senate.
  Now, I am delighted to have the Senator from Maine and the Senator 
from Oregon be able to debate their amendment, but there is, in fact, 
an order setting up a line of amendments here.
  I am happy to enter into a new unanimous consent agreement that 
adequately protects those people in line and the time of the Senator 
from Maine's, and then we can proceed. I would be willing to lift my 
objection to having the serial votes follow at that point in time. I do 
think we ought to follow the procedures of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Snowe and Wyden be permitted to speak without calling up their 
amendment for 15 minutes, after which time the regular order will be 
the Ashcroft amendment, which will then vest in the respective Senators 
the remaining time under the hour that they had. As soon as that is 
over, we will proceed with the Daschle-Dorgan amendment, and they will 
have 1 hour equally divided, after which we will move to a Republican 
amendment for Grams-Roth, which will be one half-hour equally divided. 
Then we will have Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts to follow that 
with one half-hour equally divided.
  We can stay on that path for just a while and then we will do 
something else.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time on the pending Ashcroft amendment?
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we just entered into a unanimous consent 
agreement. What do we need the Parliamentarian for? He can sit there. 
Senators Snowe and Wyden are to proceed under the UC now for 15 
minutes, and we just stated what is to follow.
  You don't have to ask the Parliamentarian anything; just call on 
Senator Snowe.
  You are the Parliamentarian; you run the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that we will have 15 minutes 
divided between the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Oregon.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from Maine 
and say that the reason we have come to the floor at this time is there 
would be an opportunity today for the Senate, after all of the 
frustrations surrounding the Medicare Commission, to take a major step 
forward in the cause of Medicare reform, and finance it in a 
responsible way.
  What the Senator from Maine and I have done, both in the Budget 
Committee and with this amendment, is sought to ensure that the Senate 
would have an opportunity in this bipartisan amendment to ensure for 
the first time in this session the Senate could make a significant 
addition to the Medicare program: Start covering prescription drugs for 
vulnerable older people and pay for it in a responsible fashion.
  More than 20 percent of the Nation's elderly spend over $1,000 a year 
out of pocket on their prescription medicine. These are older folks who 
are walking on an economic tightrope. They balance their food bills 
against their medical bills, their medical bills against their housing 
expenses, and many of these older people end up with a prescription 
that would involve their taking three pills a day which they cannot 
afford. So they end up taking two pills at the beginning and then maybe 
they take one. They get sicker. As a result, this country's inability 
to finance prescription drug coverage for older people under Medicare, 
this results in a lot of those older folks having to face 
hospitalizations, unnecessary surgeries, institutional health care.
  The reason Senator Snowe and I have acted as we have: First, to 
ensure that part of the onbudget surplus could be used for this 
additional benefit; and, second, to raise the opportunity for 
additional revenue through new tobacco taxes. We believe that a 
significant portion of Medicare expenses are due to tobacco-related 
illnesses. In fact, the evidence shows that perhaps 15 percent of all 
Medicare costs are tobacco related.
  In this amendment we have provided a two-step process for ensuring 
that we will have the opportunity to finance a decent pharmaceutical 
benefit for low-income older people. The first is the

[[Page 5834]]

proposition that many Democrats have felt strongly about, and that is 
to ensure that a portion of the onbudget surplus could be used for this 
benefit. Second, we have felt that it may take additional funds, which 
is why we are saying that the Senate Finance Committee would have the 
opportunity, should they choose to do so, to add to the reserve fund 
money that would come from a new tobacco tax.
  I believe, having seen the frustrations of the Medicare Commission 
and their inability to come up with a bipartisan agreement, the Snowe-
Wyden amendment, the amendment that we will vote on today, is a major 
step forward.
  When we talk with our older constituents, they tell us that the great 
gap today in Medicare is prescription drugs. More than 37 percent of 
older people are responsible for their prescription drug bill. On 
average, they pay twice as much as those without coverage. The AARP has 
estimated that fee-for-service beneficiaries with annual incomes below 
$10,000 are estimated to be spending about 10 percent of their entire 
income on prescription drugs.
  I am very pleased to have a chance, after some of the bickering that 
has surrounded this Medicare issue, to come to the floor of the Senate 
today and say that with the Snowe-Wyden amendment we are in a position 
to add coverage for the vulnerable older people of this country and to 
pay for it in a responsible way.
  Many of our colleagues know that Medicare offers very little in the 
way of preventive benefits. We have finally been able to add some 
mammography coverage, some coverage for those with diabetes. But the 
fact of the matter is, this drug coverage benefit is perhaps the next 
best step we can take in terms of preventive health care.
  What we are seeing with these new drugs and new therapies, they are 
absolutely key to keeping older people out of the hospital, to making 
sure we are avoiding unnecessary surgeries. I submit that this 
legislation, which meets an enormous need in our country, is also a 
major step forward in terms of preventive health services.
  I know that there are going to be some on the Republican side and 
some on the Democratic side who will say that this is not perfection in 
terms of Medicare reform. Well, I would agree with that. But I also say 
that the opportunity to take a major step now to helping those 20 
percent of the Nation's senior citizens who pay more than $1,000 out of 
pocket for their prescription drugs is certainly an opportunity that 
the Senate should move to take advantage of.
  It isn't a perfect amendment. The Senate Finance Committee is going 
to have an opportunity to make refinements in it. But for the 
vulnerable older people, 37 percent of the Nation's elderly that are 
responsible for their prescription drug bill, this is going to mean 
that some of those folks are actually going to be able to pay for three 
pills a day when the doctor tells them that is needed.
  I want to wrap up by thanking my colleague from Maine. She, like 
myself, has worked on this issue for many years--really, since our 
House days. I am so pleased that now we can, after there have been the 
frustrations surrounding the Medicare Commission, come to the floor of 
the Senate with a significant Medicare reform that is responsibly 
financed. We got a 21-1 vote in the Senate Budget Committee, and the 
addition that we have made today, with the opportunity for additional 
revenue to be generated for this program with any new tobacco tax, is 
another step forward.
  I thank my colleague from Maine for this time. I know she would like 
to wrap up, and I tell her I very much appreciate the opportunity to, 
with her, address Medicare reform now in a bipartisan fashion and to 
meet the needs of some of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens, our 
elderly. I thank her for this time to speak.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague, Senator 
Wyden, for his leadership on this issue, not only here in the Senate, 
but as he referred to, during our days in the House of Representatives. 
I know he has worked considerably on the issues of senior citizens in 
this country, and in his service on the Aging Committee as well in the 
House of Representatives.
  I want to also commend the chairman of the Budget Committee because 
at a time when I was discussing the idea of creating a reserve fund for 
the prescription drug benefit program, Senator Domenici came up with 
the idea of including onbudget surpluses of which there is probably 
more than $132 billion estimated over the next 5 years, and that that 
could be a potential source for funding for the prescription drug 
management program.
  So this amendment is to build on that leadership, to ensure that 
there will be continuity and funding in the event that those surpluses 
do not materialize. Also, this is a carrot-and-stick approach because 
the reserve fund in the budget resolution includes a prescription drug 
benefit program contingent on a reform package being passed out by the 
Senate Finance Committee that extends the solvency of the Medicare 
program.
  We think that is important, but we don't want to overlook the 
significance of providing this benefit to senior citizens because it 
has constituted a crisis in this country for our Nation's elderly, 
without a doubt. As Senator Wyden has indicated, it has consumed most 
of their income when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs. We 
think it is an appropriate linkage between a tobacco tax increase and 
the impact on the Medicare program. Again, if you look at this chart, 
$25 billion is the cost to the Medicare program in 1995 as a result of 
tobacco-related illnesses. Well, if you take that even further, it 
represents 14 percent of Medicare costs in that year alone. That is all 
going to grow exponentially. It will get worse. It could be more than a 
$400 billion problem over the next 10 to 15 years.
  So that is why it is important, I think, to look at the source of 
revenue through a tobacco tax increase, in the event the surpluses 
don't materialize, but that we have a permanency in terms of coverage. 
That is what we are attempting to do in this amendment. That is why we 
think it is so important because to do otherwise is failing to 
acknowledge the reality of the impact of not having this kind of 
benefit program currently in the Medicare system.
  Finally, I should say, Mr. President, that in the reserve fund in the 
budget resolution we prohibit any transfer of IOUs to the Medicare 
program. We do not artificially address the Medicare program. We are 
doing it in a real way, and that is also the case with the prescription 
drug benefit program.
  I might also just mention, in talking about Medicare, as one quote 
that came out of the President's book--the OMB fiscal year 2000 
budget--what it said with respect to the President's Medicare proposal 
is:

       Trust fund balances are available to finance future benefit 
     payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a 
     bookkeeping sense. . . . They do not consist of real economic 
     assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. 
     Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, 
     will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the 
     public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The 
     existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, 
     by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay 
     benefits.

  What that means, in a nutshell, is that the President's proposal, 
contrary to what is suggested on the floor, isn't putting a penny of 
real money into these programs, and the same is true for the 
prescription drug benefit program. They talk about the State of the 
Union Address, but did not propose a plan, did not provide one penny 
for a prescription drug benefit program. The budget resolution, on a 
bipartisan basis--21-1--supported the reserve fund I offered with the 
onbudget surpluses to pay for it. That is a step in the right direction 
that is going to ensure that the Nation's senior citizens have that 
benefit. In addition, on this amendment offered by the Senator from 
Oregon and myself, I should also mention that Senator Smith from Oregon 
is a cosponsor.

[[Page 5835]]


  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for yielding. I want to come back to 
how bipartisan this amendment has been----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. In a moment, I will. In the Budget Committee, this 
received a 21-1 vote. Suffice it to say, for an issue that has been 
this controversial, which generated so much discussion in the Medicare 
Commission, to be able to come to the Senate today with a 21-1 vote 
from the Senate Budget Committee and then to take the additional step 
that the Senator from Maine and I and many of our other colleagues have 
taken, like Senator Kennedy who has fought this battle valiantly for so 
many years--we have now taken the additional step of saying that any 
new tobacco tax money could be used for this program, and that strikes 
me as the kind of bipartisan work that the Senate ought to be doing. It 
would be one thing if this was a narrowly fought battle in the Senate 
Budget Committee. Instead, we got a 21-1 vote.
  Now we come to the Senate floor and say that onbudget surpluses could 
be used to finance this program for the vulnerable, No. 1. The second 
is to say that any new tobacco tax revenue could be generated for this 
program. That is the kind of bipartisan approach we ought to be taking. 
I thank my colleague from Maine. I know my friend from Massachusetts 
wants to speak.
  Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask a question, please? On this trust fund, the 
reserve fund, on page 90, which describes the fund, there are also the 
words that the committee report would not allow the reserve to be 
funded by the intergovernmental transfers. That would be the part that 
the President talked about--any of the funding from the surpluses. And 
then, on page 90, it indicates that you can't have the funds from other 
revenues, as it talks about being adjusted for legislation that extends 
the solvency of the fund.
  How are we going to extend the solvency without additional funds in 
order to trigger this program? You have the solvency mentioned, and 9 
years and 12 years. We don't want to create a program that says we are 
going to do something on prescription drugs and then, on the other 
hand, which says we are only going to do it if we extend solvency, and 
then we don't have additional funds to extend solvency. I am interested 
in what kind of a commitment or promise this is really going to be.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the answer to the Senator's question is, 
that is occurring through the Part A program of Medicare. The 
prescription drug benefit will be in Part B of the program.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The provision here talks about now allowing transfer of 
new subsidies from the general fund. That is not applicable to Part B. 
It says right here on page 90. That is prohibited without the use of 
transfers of new subsidies from the general fund. And it also talks 
about prohibition of intergovernmental transfers.
  Can the Senator tell us how she foresees the solvency being worked 
out, if it isn't going to be higher premiums, or reduced benefits?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time that has been allocated to the 
Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask for a minute so the Senator can respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if I may respond, I would be glad to 
respond. We are not proposing any reforms to solvency. That will be 
determined by the Senate Finance Committee with respect to Part A. With 
respect to the prescription drug benefit program, that would come under 
Part B. And that is why we will be using onbudget surpluses, plus the 
tobacco tax increase, if it is necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, Mr. President, to the Parliamentarian, I 
apologize for my statements a while ago. I guess I have been here too 
long.
  Anyhow, let me see who is under the order. Is not the Daschle 
amendment up? We understand there is time remaining on other 
amendments. That is bothering you. So why don't we just say whatever 
time remains on amendments that have been set aside, or otherwise are 
not disturbed, by unanimous consent will not be changed or altered by 
setting them aside, reserving that time, and going to the Daschle 
amendment as ordered a few moments ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Daschle-Dorgan. There was a unanimous consent 
on three amendments that are going to be made, and this is the 
beginning of that with the Daschle amendment. The clerk will report 
that amendment.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry: After the amendments are called up, 
are you going to ask unanimous consent that they be entered?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have just been back here now 
distracted. Are we going to just finish up now the amendment? We have 
been here with Senator Dodd all during the lunch hour since 1 o'clock, 
which I am glad to do to accommodate others. And the chairman has been 
enormously accommodating. But I thought we would have Senator Dodd 
next. Senator Murray is here and wanted to speak. Senators Harkin and 
Dodd wanted to speak on it and to do the last 10 minutes. The chairman 
has been extremely courteous in accommodating everyone's interest. Both 
of them are here. What I would like to do is to have some idea.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What amendments are they speaking to?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Ashcroft. We have 10 minutes remaining on the Ashcroft 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair's recollection is that there was a 
unanimous consent ordered to give the Senator from Maine and the 
Senator from Oregon 15 minutes, and then we would proceed under an 
order in regard to specific amendments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Regular order is the Ashcroft amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Ashcroft is pending.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is the pending amendment. I think the 
Parliamentarian will agree.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if there is any confusion, might I 
modify the previous unanimous consent request and say that there are 10 
minutes remaining on each side on the Ashcroft amendment, 10 under the 
control of Senator Kennedy, 10 under the control of Senator Ashcroft, 
and that we proceed to do that now, and then follow the sequence that 
we just agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. We will 
proceed. There being no objection, the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, before the body at this time is an amendment on 
education. We have heard from this floor many times over the course of 
this Congress that education is a priority. And that is a fact; it is a 
priority here in the Senate. I am delighted to say that. It is 
certainly a priority for thousands of families across the country who 
have children in school who want them to get a good education. But it 
is also a priority for many businesses who want to make sure that we 
are educating young people today in order to give them the skills they 
need to be able to hire them. It is a priority for our police officers 
and the community leaders, because they know that investing in 
education and making sure that young people get what they need in our 
schools means the safety, the health, and the viability of our country 
for many years to come.
  The pending amendment talks about education. But talking about 
education is not what our constituents are asking for. They are asking 
for us to invest in education. We can all talk about quality, but 
unless we provide the resources for those schools out there, we will 
not be providing them with the kind of education they have to have in 
order

[[Page 5836]]

for our country to be strong in the future. The amendment that my 
colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd, have introduced offers us 
a way to do that.
  Too often on this floor we have set up challenges between different 
funding. We can either support IDEA funding for special education, or 
we can support teacher quality, or class size. The amendment that 
Senator Kennedy will offer at a later time provides us with the 
alternative to make sure that we do provide the funds for special 
education under IDEA and complete the promise we have made to young 
students and teachers and communities to reduce class size. It simply 
says that this is an investment we are going to make.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will make a 
difference in our classrooms across this country.
  Mr. President, too often we are told that we are providing a tax cut 
and returning money to the people. I can think of no better way to 
return money to our constituents than by investing it in education so 
that our young people get the skills they need, so they can get jobs 
and become a viable part of our economy in the future. A budget is not 
just about putting dollars out there today, it is making good 
investment so that our budgets will be strong in the future.
  That is why I am going to support the Kennedy amendment, which gives 
actual real resources to our students, and not just another empty 
promise and another way of moving bureaucratic paper around.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield my time back to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I want to just mention to the Members again what we 
are basically talking about is funding, meeting our responsibility 
under IDEA, which this Nation is committed to offer the next 10 years, 
and also funding the smaller class program and providing a significant 
increase in the Head Start Program, the Pell grants, the work/study 
programs, afterschool programs, school dropout programs.
  These are the groups that support our program: American Association 
of School Administrators, the National Education Association, Parent-
Teachers, Council of Greater City Schools, Chief of State School 
Offices, Federation of Teachers, Committee on Education Funding, the 
National Parent Network on Disabilities, the Disability Rights 
Education Fund, Easter Seals, Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, 
National Federation of Children with Special Needs.
  Virtually every children's group and every education group 
understands that this is our best opportunity in this Congress to 
really make a downpayment in terms of the partnership among local, 
State, and Federal in terms of enhancing academic achievement and 
accomplishment in the schools across our country.
  We have a chance now to fulfill our commitments that we have all made 
in statements and speeches and press releases to do something now. That 
is what this vote is about. It says we will fund these programs before 
we go for tax breaks for wealthy individuals. That is the choice. It is 
as clear as can be. That is what the issue is. We are hopeful that we 
will get strong support for that program.
  Mr. President, I yield what time remains to my colleague and 
cosponsor, Senator Dodd.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is a letter that I think the Presiding 
Officer will be very familiar with. This is a letter from the National 
Governors' Association.
  Let me quote this letter, if I may. So my colleagues will be aware, 
this is signed by Michael Leavitt, Republican Governor of Utah; Mike 
Huckabee, Republican Governor of Arkansas; Tom Carper, Democratic 
Governor of Delaware; and Jim Hunt, Democratic Governor of North 
Carolina. They say in their letter to us, to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, ``Governors urge Congress to live up to the agreements 
already made to meet current funding commitments'' regarding education 
before adopting ``new initiatives or tax cuts in the Federal budget.''
  It goes on in the letter to say that they are already cutting 
existing funds locally to provide for special needs students. They are 
asking unanimously, Democratic and Republican Governors across this 
country, to do exactly what Senator Kennedy and I will be asking our 
colleagues to do in the amendment when we vote on it, and that is to 
place the special education needs of children ahead of a tax cuts. Our 
commitment to special education ought to come before tax cuts. There 
will still be plenty of room financially for the tax cuts. But here is 
Mike Leavitt, Mike Huckabee, Tom Carper, and Jim Hunt speaking on 
behalf of the National Governors' Association telling us to fund IDEA 
before enact tax cuts. What clearer message could we have?
  I hope our colleagues today, after they vote on the Ashcroft 
amendment and say that we ought to provide more for education, and then 
quickly thereafter have a chance to vote on the Kennedy-Dodd amendment, 
will remind themselves--and I will see that each Member gets a copy of 
the NGA letter regarding IDEA funding--to live up to the commitment in 
the Ashcroft amendment by fulfilling the request of the National 
Governors' Association to support this program as crafted by this 
amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 5 seconds to the opponents and 
10 minutes to the proponents.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not know if there are--Senator Harkin 
of Iowa wanted to be heard, but I don't see him in the Chamber at this 
time. I don't know, are there any further requests for time on this 
side?
  We reserve the remainder of our time, unless the distinguished 
chairman of the committee wants to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to argue for 2 minutes and yield back the 
remainder of my time so we can get going. If Senator Harkin isn't here, 
I hope Senators will cooperate with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that a Governor 
occupies the Chair while I make this statement.
  Those Governors are friends of ours. The Republicans have been 
increasing the funding for special education. We do not need a lecture 
from the Governors about it. What we need is help from the Democrats 
who have resisted it every time. The President didn't even put an 
increase in his budget last year. We put the whole increase in. I don't 
remember if he did much this year, but it is mighty small. It is 
Senator Judd Gregg and others who have been leading the parade around 
here on IDEA.
  Now, frankly, we would like to ask those Governors who signed that 
letter, would you like us to cut the extra $3 billion in this budget 
that we put in and the extra $27 billion that we put in here? If you 
would like that cut, we will make room for more IDEA money for you. 
That is an increase in education, and it is left up to the committees 
to do what they would like, except we would like to make a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution binding, adopted by us, that says, let's reform 
the Federal program and let's make sure that they are more responsive 
by focusing them in at the local level with local control.
  Now, we ought to pass that, because it is time we reform it. There is 
no IDEA issue in this amendment. They are going to raise IDEA in a 
later amendment. They are going to raise something on special 
education.
  So with that, I wish their amendment well when they bring it up. It 
is high time that they are for significantly increasing funding under 
special education, but for now we have raised it and we ask that the 
local control be attached to that with one of the qualities being that 
it be accountable, that there be accountability in those laws.
  I yield back the remainder of time so we can move on.

[[Page 5837]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have 30 seconds?
  Mr. DODD. We have more time remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Ashcroft amendment is a sense-of-the-
Senate. Our amendment is real dollars, real dollars. We are saying fund 
the education programs before the tax cut. That is what the issue is. I 
am interested in what the Governors say, but I care most about those 
parents who are supporting this program. Every child group, every 
education group supports it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in response to my good friend from New 
Mexico, I served on the Budget Committee for a number of years. Back in 
1992 or 1993, I offered the IDEA amendment. I lost on a tie vote. I 
must say, the majority leader, Trent Lott, a member of the Budget 
Committee, voted with me. That was the only vote I got on the other 
side, so I lost on the tie vote. The amendment failed. I commend the 
chairman and others who have wanted to increase this. We have funded 
IDEA at about $500 million a year. I think there is $500 million this 
year, I say to the chairman of the committee, on the IDEA funding. They 
deserve credit for doing that.
  What we are saying here is that we have all tried different ways over 
the last number of years. I don't think you necessarily want to turn 
around and say to Head Start or to Pell grants or to school 
construction, fine, you can do IDEA but we are going to cut your 
budget.
  We are not saying that. We are saying, look, with an $800 billion tax 
cut, that is a big tax cut, keep 80 to 85 percent of the tax cut; how 
about 10 or 15 percent of that to do what the Governors have asked us 
to do here? That is specifically what we have said. Do this before you 
do the tax cut.
  All we are suggesting is their request is well founded. When 
Republican and Democratic Governors ask the Congress to set some 
priorities so they can have the resources to do the job, I think we in 
this body ought to take note of it. That is the reason I offer the 
argument.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
National Governors' Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1999.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you prepare the budget resolution for 
     the coming fiscal year, the nation's Governors urge Congress 
     to live up to agreements already made to meet current funding 
     commitments to states before funding new initiatives or tax 
     cuts in the federal budget.
       The federal government committed to fully fund--defined as 
     40 percent of the costs--the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (IDEA) when the law, formerly known as 
     Education of the Handicapped Act, was passed in 1975. 
     Currently, the federal government's contribution amounts to 
     only 11 percent, and states are funding the balance to assist 
     school districts in providing special education and related 
     services. Although we strongly support providing the 
     necessary services and support to help all students succeed, 
     the costs associated with implementing IDEA are placing an 
     increased burden on states.
       We are currently reallocating existing state funds from 
     other programs or committing new funds to ensure that 
     students with disabilities are provided a ``fee and 
     appropriate public education.'' In some cases, we are taking 
     funds from existing education programs to pay for the costs 
     of educating our students with disabilities because we 
     believe that all students deserve an equal opportunity to 
     learn. Therefore, Governors urge Congress to honor its 
     original commitment and fully fund 40 percent of Part B 
     services as authorized by IDEA so the goals of the act can be 
     achieved.
       This is such a high priority for Governors, that at the 
     recent National Governors' Association Winter Meeting, it was 
     a topic of discussion with the President as well as the 
     subject of an adopted, revised policy attached. Many thanks 
     for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Thomas R. Carper.
     Gov. James B. Hunt, Jr.,
                              Chair, Committee on Human Resources.
     Gov. Michael O. Leavitt.
     Gov. Mike Huckabee,
                         Vice Chair, Committee on Human Resources.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield back the remainder 
of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.


                     Amendment No. 178, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Daschle amendment?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 1 hour 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. That amendment is an amendment that I have introduced 
with a number of my colleagues, including Mr. Daschle. So let me begin 
by describing the amendment and the reason that we are here. I will 
then call on my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, Senator 
Daschle, and others.
  Mr. President, first, let me tell you that I am offering an amendment 
for my colleagues to try to strengthen rural America, and to try to 
provide some better price supports for family farmers.
  I want to tell you about a 90-year-old woman I talked to this 
morning. Her name is Margaret Hansen. A few weeks ago, Margaret, age 
90, got in her car in the rural part of North Dakota and got stuck in a 
snow bank. This 90-year-old lady got out of her car and began to walk. 
She walked a mile and a half when her legs gave out. Then this 90-year-
old woman began to crawl on this gravel road. She crawled for a half 
mile, and then she couldn't crawl any longer. She laid there huddled on 
that road apparently for about 8 hours before someone came along in a 
pickup truck and stopped to wonder what was lying on the road. He found 
this 90-year-old woman. She wasn't dead. They took her to a hospital.
  I am happy to report that Margaret is doing quite well. She said to 
me, yeah, I am doing fine, but my legs aren't so good. She was 
remarkably upbeat.
  Why would it take 7 or 8 hours before a 90-year-old woman is found 
lying on a gravel road in the middle of winter? That's because there 
aren't many people living in rural America anymore.
  I want to show you a chart. This chart shows, blocked out in red, the 
counties in this country that are losing population. If you look at the 
farm belt in the Great Plains, up and down the middle part of America, 
you will see a part of our country that is being depopulated. And some 
of these counties have lost half their population in a relatively short 
period of time.
  Now, why is that? The overriding reason is we have a farm program 
that doesn't work. We have a farm program that doesn't allow family 
farmers to stay on the land and work the land. We have a miserable farm 
program that pulls the rug out from under family farmers.
  Let me show you a chart that shows what has happened to the price of 
wheat. The price of wheat has dropped 53 percent since the passage of 
the farm law. It was $5.75 a bushel. Last, month prices received by 
farmers nationwide average $2.72. Now, ask yourself, if instead of the 
price of wheat it were your salary or your profit, your wages, your 
minimum wage, your Social Security check, were cut in half? If this was 
your income, how do you think you would be doing?
  We have folks in the Senate who said some years ago within budget 
debate that we are going to change the farm program. In making those 
changes, in essence they told rural America that they were going to 
pull the rug out from underneath family farmers. They were going to 
have farmers operate in the marketplace and, when prices collapse, the 
nation won't care. If farmers go out of business, they wouldn't care. 
They basically said they don't care whether there are family farmers in 
this country's future. Boy, you talk about a wrongheaded public policy 
for America. That was it.

[[Page 5838]]

  What my colleagues and I are suggesting today is that it is time to 
decide that family farmers matter in this country. It is time to 
provide the resources to get some price protection so that when 
commodity prices collapse, those folks operating out on America's farms 
have the underpinnings so that they are going to be able to get across 
those price valleys. That way, they will be able to continue working 
the land, continue a rural lifestyle. Other countries do it. But, our 
country has decided that, gee, if things are fine on Wall Street, they 
are fine everywhere.
  That is not true. This country has a very strong economy. Things are 
going well in this country. But our family farmers face a very serious 
crisis. This is a serious emergency on the family farm, and we must do 
something to respond to it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask my friend if he will yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I might say to Senators, we have been working on this 
for a long time. We will see if we can't put ourselves in a position 
where we might finish a little earlier, perhaps even tonight. I am not 
sure. This has been worked out by the majority leader, minority leader, 
and those of us on the floor. I assume there has been consultation 
elsewhere.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader I ask unanimous 
consent that following the previously allotted debate times, the 
following debate times be in order: Hollings amendment on debt 
reduction; Craig amendment No. 146; Durbin amendment, emergencies; 
Crapo amendment No. 163; Boxer amendment No. 175; Sessions amendment 
No. 210--I ask each of the above-listed amendments be limited to 7\1/2\ 
minutes equally divided in the usual form. I ask unanimous consent 
that, following the conclusion of those debates, I be recognized in 
order to yield back all remaining debate time on the budget resolution.
  Therefore, the Senate will then proceed to a stacked series of votes 
on the remaining pending amendments. I further ask that the first vote 
be 15 minutes in length, with remaining votes in sequence limited to 10 
minutes each, with 2 minutes equally divided between each vote for 
brief explanations of the amendments.
  Finally, I ask the votes alternate between Republicans and Democrat 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank all Senators.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 11 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me continue briefly and then call on 
my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and I believe the 
Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, will be here as well.
  Imagine for a moment that corporate profits were cut by 50 percent, 
or 75 percent, or 90 percent, as farm income was cut one year recently 
in my State. Imagine what would happen in this country if that were the 
case, and corporate profits were slashed. We would have an apoplectic 
seizure here in Congress trying to figure out what happened and what 
can we do about it.
  The question is what do we do about the economic all-stars, the 
families out there on our family farms that produce, raise crops, and 
take the risks? What about when their income collapses? Again, we have 
people here who say that doesn't matter and that corporations can farm 
America from the California coast to Maine. It doesn't matter, they 
say. I cannot describe how wrong they are. So we come to the floor to 
say we propose this amendment to add $6 billion a year, which would 
provide the opportunity for real, significant price support increases 
when commodity prices collapse for family farmers. Is that a lot to 
ask?
  We hear folks come to the floor and say defense needs more. So, we 
stick in money for defense. We want to build a missile system. You put 
$1 billion in for a missile system last fall that the Defense 
Department said it did not want and could not use. Money for tax cuts? 
There's plenty of money for that. But what about money for mom and pop 
out there on the family farm who are ravaged by collapsed prices? No, 
they say, we are out of money.
  I would say this. This Congress is out of ideas when it comes to 
family farming, if it believes the current farm program is the road to 
prosperity for these producers who are this country's real economic 
all-stars. We need to backtrack just a bit and decide that family 
farmers matter to this country's future. We need to say to them that we 
are going to reconnect a reasonable price protection program. So, when 
prices collapse our country will say to farmers that we will give them 
a chance to make it across those price valleys.
  I started by talking about Margaret Hansen, the 90-year-old woman 
from North Dakota. We are a sparsely populated State. Half of our 
economy is agriculture. But that is also true with respect to a major 
part of this farm belt. This Congress should understand that America's 
economy is never going to be doing well in the long term if the middle 
part of its farm belt is being depopulated. Food production is 
important to this country's future and the health of family farming is 
important in producing America's food.
  Let me call on my colleague from North Dakota and allocate 7 minutes 
to my colleague, Senator Conrad.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dorgan and I thank our 
colleagues. This is a matter of sheer survival. I want to say to my 
colleagues, we are on the brink of a depression in farm country in this 
Nation. If you come to North Dakota today and go with me to community 
farms, what you find people want to talk about is the collapse of farm 
income because it is threatening the survival of literally tens of 
thousands of family farmers just in our State of North Dakota. In fact, 
this year, unless something happens and happens quickly, we anticipate 
we will lose one-third of all the farmers in the State.
  The reason that is occurring is really very simple. This chart shows 
what happened from 1996 to 1997, as farm income was washed away: In 1 
year, a 98 percent reduction in farm income in our State. The reason we 
have seen this collapsing income is really three factors: Bad prices, 
bad weather, and bad policy.
  The bad prices are stunning. This shows what has happened to farm 
prices over a 52-year period. We now have the lowest prices for our 
major commodities in 52 years. We have wheat selling for $2.60 a 
bushel. Mr. President, $2.60 a bushel. That is 5 cents a pound. There 
is no way anybody can make it at those prices. The cost of production 
is about double that. So what we have is a hemorrhaging, a loss of 
income, and farmers' livelihoods being threatened. That is what we are 
faced with.
  When I talk about bad policy, when we passed the last farm bill--
which is, frankly, a disaster itself--the support for farmers was cut 
in half. Under the previous legislation we averaged $10 billion a year. 
Under the new legislation, $5 billion a year. This makes it virtually 
impossible to write any kind of decent farm legislation. The current 
farm legislation cuts support for farmers each and every year and cuts 
it sharply, without regard to what happens to prices. In previous 
legislation we used to make an adjustment. When prices fell there was 
more assistance.
  But look what our major competitors are doing. It is very 
interesting, because if we look at what they are doing we see that they 
are spending almost 10 times as much as we are to support their 
producers. In Europe, they are spending nearly $50 billion a year to 
support their farmers. We are spending $5 billion. This is not a fair 
fight. This is unilateral disarmament in a trade confrontation. We 
would never do it in a military confrontation. Why ever are we doing it 
in a trade confrontation? This says to our farmers: You go out there 
and compete against the French farmer and the German farmer. And, oh, 
while you are at it, you take on the

[[Page 5839]]

French Government and the German Government as well. That is not a fair 
fight. You have to say to our farmers it is pretty amazing you are able 
to survive in a circumstance like this one, when our major competitors 
are spending 10 times as much to support them.
  When we look at what they are doing for support of exports, it is 
even more dramatic. Instead of a factor of 10 to 1, they are 
outspending us by a factor of more than 100 to 1. In fact, it is about 
130-to-1 to support their farm exports versus what we are doing. Then 
some say just leave it to the market. That is not what our competitors 
are doing. If that is what we do, we are going to consign our farmers 
to a life of economic hardship and economic collapse. That is what is 
happening in farm country today. That is why it is absolutely critical 
that an amendment like this one pass to help farmers through this 
period of collapsed commodity values. If we do not do it, we will see 
literally thousands of farm families forced off the land. The stakes 
are high. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I start, I ask unanimous consent 
that Jodi Niehoff, who works in my office, be granted the privilege of 
the floor during the duration of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I make this appeal to my colleagues as a Senator from 
Minnesota: First of all, please get this disaster relief bill through, 
at least get the agricultural part of it through.
  If we don't get that, our FSA offices run out of loan money. They 
will have to let people go, and we will not be able to provide people 
with the loan money that they need and they are going to go under. 
Please make that happen. We should not go home without that happening.
  Second of all, I rise to support this amendment. Time is not neutral. 
It rushes on. It is not on the side of family farmers in our States. I 
have never seen it this bad in all the years we have lived in 
Minnesota. People are in real economic pain.
  It was the wheat farmers in the northwest. Now it is the other grain 
farmers. It is the dairy farmers in southern Minnesota. The hog 
producers are facing extinction while the packers are in hog heaven. We 
have to get the price up. We have to get farm income up.
  I think this amendment, which speaks to taking the cap off the loan 
rate, is the right thing to do. Price, price, price. Get farm income up 
and get it up now.
  This is a critically important crisis amendment. If Senators are on 
the side of family farmers and a family farm structure of agriculture, 
which is good for farmers and rural America and consumers, they will 
vote for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues being on the floor today to 
talk about this important issue. I am pleased to be here in support, 
and I am pleased to see these Senators helping to educate our other 
colleagues in this body about the importance of this issue.
  It is not just to educate. It is also to impress upon them the 
urgency of this issue. I come from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm 
family. We are in dire straits. All farmers across this Nation are in 
dire straits. It is so very important for us to act in this body and in 
this Congress in a timely fashion.
  I believe my colleagues have expressed it, but it is so absolutely 
critical. Our farmers have been in dire straits for the past year, with 
bad weather, bad prices, and bad markets. This is the last straw. It is 
absolutely essential that we do something before we go home for this 
recess.
  Our farmers right now are looking at the equivalent of 1970 prices. 
What industry could make it with the increase in production costs, the 
increase of keeping the business going, surviving on what people were 
making in the 1970s? It is absolutely impossible to survive in today's 
agriculture economic climate.
  We produce the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply 
in the world. It is not going to be there for the future of this Nation 
and for the world if we do not support our farmers at this critical 
time. It is simply a desperate time.
  I spent the last recess looking at the worry on the faces of Arkansas 
farmers as they have talked about this crisis. These farmers are ready 
to throw in the towel; many of them already have. I applaud Senator 
Dorgan's efforts and hope my colleagues will join him in addressing the 
needs of our agricultural community.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time. I thank 
him for his leadership on this amendment, and I thank our Democratic 
leader also for his leadership.
  Mr. President, last Saturday was National Agriculture Day. Each year 
on the first day of spring, we celebrate the success and the 
accomplishment of American agriculture. U.S. consumers today spend less 
than any country in the world, as a percent of their disposable income, 
on food. Nine cents out of a dollar, that is all. Think about this, the 
productivity of American farmers, what it has done for us. In the 
1960s, one farmer in America supplied food for 25 people. Now they 
supply food for over 130 people. Tremendous.
  Isn't it a cruel irony that we set aside the first day of spring 
every year to recognize agriculture and the American farmer, yet tens 
of thousands of American farm families are going under right now? They 
are on the verge of losing their livelihoods and their life savings. It 
is devastation in the agricultural sector.
  What this amendment basically says is that with the expected budget 
surplus for fiscal year 2000 and greater surpluses in years to follow, 
we will apply $6 billion of that extra surplus to putting a safety net 
underneath agriculture. In other words, if we have extra money in the 
years 2000 to 2004, that money will be made available to agriculture. 
Of course, if the farm economy improved, then it wouldn't be needed.
  This chart here kind of tells it all. People say, why do you need $6 
billion? Here is last year, 1998. This is all of the farm income; that 
is, the crop receipts, their AMTA payments, their aid, their loan 
deficiency payments--$69.5 billion. Expected this year, $64 billion. 
That is about a $5 billion, $5.5 to $6 billion decrease. But last year 
this was 17 percent lower than the average 5 years before. This year it 
is expected to be 27 percent less in income for farmers. That is why 
this amendment is sorely needed. Those who have much in our society, to 
whom the Republicans want to give these tax breaks, they are doing 
well. They are doing well on Wall Street. They are doing well in Palm 
Beach. They are doing well on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. In the farm 
sector of America, our families are struggling to survive. All we are 
asking for is a decent safety net. That is why this amendment is sorely 
needed.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Democratic 
leader, Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota for 
his leadership on this matter.
  Let me say, you can't say it better than what the ranking member of 
our committee, Senator Harkin, has just said. The fact is that you can 
look at virtually any commodity in agriculture today, and the situation 
continues to worsen. Whether it is in livestock or in grain, the 
commodity doesn't matter.
  The fact is, our circumstances are so dire that in spite of all the 
help we have attempted to provide through disaster assistance over the 
last 6 months,

[[Page 5840]]

we are still going to lose millions of farmers and millions of rural 
Americans in the next couple of years. That is fact.
  All we are simply saying is this: If we are going to be of any 
assistance as we go through this extraordinary transition, we need to 
recreate the safety net that we once had. We need to recognize that 
farmers and ranchers cannot do it alone. We need to recognize that if 
there is going to be a surplus, one of the single best investments we 
can make is to ensure that those farmers and ranchers can survive with 
what meager tools they are going to have to manage their risks more 
effectively.
  That is what the Senator from North Dakota is saying. We are not 
going to specify and delineate each and every tool today. We will work 
that out. But we have got to set the parameters. We have got to send 
the message. We have to ensure that the priority is there.
  I have to say, Mr. President, this is a very important amendment. I 
applaud the Senator from North Dakota for his willingness to take the 
leadership in ensuring that we are at this point. I am hopeful that we 
can get a broad bipartisan consensus in passing it. It sends as clear a 
message as we can send out to agriculture across this country: We hear 
you. We are as concerned as you are, and we want to do something about 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have a copy, please?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask that the time be charged to me for the next 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise with great empathy and sympathy 
and heartfelt concern about the farmers of the United States. That is 
why in the budget before you we put $6 billion of new money for crop 
insurance and other things which was, indeed, modified in the committee 
so as to accommodate farm Senators by even making sure it was available 
this coming year.
  Now, I guess there is an adage around that it is harder to manage the 
surplus than it was a deficit. I agree with that statement without a 
question. And here today it is very, very interesting. My wonderful 
friends on the other side of the aisle, I am sure joined by some on my 
side of the aisle, are here on the floor about 2\1/2\ months after the 
President of the United States sends his budget to us, and they are 
lamenting the terrible state of economics for the farmers of America.
  I did not ask any of them, as they spoke--and I do not know that I 
will--but frankly, the President of the United States knew about all 
this. Isn't it interesting he asked for not one red cent for the 
farmers--zero. Typical. Typical. There is a crisis prevailing. If there 
is one, the President ought to know about it. He puts nothing in the 
budget. We put $6 billion in thinking we are being helpful. The 
President claims he lives within the caps, he isn't breaking any 
budget. Of course he is not. He did not even provide the $6 billion we 
did in our budget resolution.
  Now, $6 billion isn't enough. Hold on, everybody. This is $6 billion 
a year. This is $30 billion. When is enough enough? So $30 billion of 
new money on top of the $6 billion we put in is $36 billion in 5 years 
in new money for agriculture.
  Frankly, I am fully aware that there is a problem. There are some 
other sectors of America with problems, big problems--steel, oil and 
gas. All kinds of pieces of the American economy are having trouble 
because of the world economy. We are doing a little bit here and there, 
but we cannot go in and make everybody whole everywhere in America when 
we are having a downturn that adversely affects their business.
  If the Senators proposing this want to spend more money because they 
want a new agriculture program, then I submit they ought to go to the 
Agriculture Committee and get a new agriculture program written into 
the laws of this land. I believe they would not get it done. I believe 
that is why they did not do it.
  So each year they come along and add a few more billions, and while 
saying we still have a law around they, little by little, destroy it. 
If that is what they want, they ought to say it. If they think this 
amendment is repealing the law we have on the books, let them say it, 
so then we can at least add this as an amendment to repeal the 
competitive agricultural reforms that we put in place not too many 
years ago.
  Frankly, it will be difficult for some not to vote for $30 billion 
more in support money for farmers when there is already $6 billion in 
the bill and when the President of the United States asks for none--
zero--zip. No. It is kind of interesting. When is enough enough? It 
seems to me that this amendment is an indication that for some it does 
not matter what you put in a budget resolution because it will not be 
enough.
  I believe $6 billion in new money for agriculture, addressing the 
most significant issue they have, crop insurance, is sufficient at this 
point. Maybe we have an emergency, maybe the President should have 
looked at the emergency before he sends us a budget with nothing in it 
for farmers so we have to come along and put it in, cut other programs 
in our arsenal, or in this case reduce the tax cuts that we planned for 
the American people.
  I just do not think that is right. I would hope some would listen 
today. I am not sure how many. Normally I try to accommodate, but I 
don't think, as one trying to write budgets, that I can accommodate 
today. Either they win or my position prevails. If I could find another 
way, I would try it. I just do not think there is one.
  Either we decide that in an era of surpluses the American taxpayer 
does not matter a bit--you remember what some of us said, why it would 
be difficult to manage a surplus. You remember? Because we will spend 
it all; we will spend it all. Why did the Senator from New Mexico say, 
``Yes, you can claim you put it all on the surplus and it's sitting 
there to get rid of the debt.'' Why did I say, I do not choose that 
method. I choose it for all the Social Security money, but I do not 
choose it for everything. I said, ``Because you know what, we'll spend 
it. Then we'll have bigger Government, the public will be paying for 
bigger Government, and they'll be paying more and more taxes.'' And 
that isn't the right kind of America.
  So, Mr. President, I have some additional time, and depending upon 
what is said in the remaining 5 minutes that they have on the other 
side, that the proponents have, I may yield back the remainder of my 
time. But for now I reserve it.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from South Dakota, 
Senator Johnson.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I thank my 
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, for his great work on 
this amendment.
  What we have here is a very fundamental priority decision that this 
Congress needs to make. The question is not whether we will have tax 
relief or not. Certainly we will have tax relief. The question is 
whether we have a commonsense kind of budget that also allows for some 
key investments, in this case in agriculture. Are we going to preserve 
the strongest agricultural system in the world that provides the 
highest quality, most affordable food in the world or not?
  To say that we have an $800 billion tax relief package and there is 
no room for $6 billion of investment in our ag sector simply makes no 
sense. The American people see through the budget resolution on the 
floor. They know that they want some tax relief, especially if it is 
targeted to middle-class

[[Page 5841]]

and working families. But they also know that we need to make some key 
strategic investments in important sectors of our economy. Nothing is 
more important than agriculture as we craft ways to get a better price 
out of the market, as we craft ways to keep a fine meshed system of 
family farms and ranches all across America. But as things are going 
right now, we are headed for a catastrophic train wreck in agriculture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I yield such time as I have back to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Would the Presiding Officer notify me when I have 1 
minute remaining?
  Mr. President, this is about priorities. We just heard my colleague 
say: ``Well, this isn't a priority. We don't have resources for this.'' 
Gosh, we have resources for some very large tax cuts. If that is their 
priority, then there is money for that. Or, what about the $1 billion 
for national missile defense which the Department of Defense says it 
does not want, does not need, and cannot spend. They have money for 
that. And, then there is $110 billion or so for readiness in defense. 
They have money for that.
  The question is, What is a priority? We do have a surplus of empathy 
and sympathy. I do not disagree with that. Everybody empathizes and 
sympathizes.
  The fact is, we have farmers going broke in record numbers.
  How would you feel I would ask if any of you listening or watching or 
participating had your income cut by 98 percent? All of a sudden you 
have 98 percent less income. Would that be a catastrophe? I think it 
would. That is what happened to our farmers. I had a fellow at a forum, 
a big, husky guy with a beard. He said, ``My dad farmed, my granddad 
farmed on the same place. I farmed for 23 years.'' Then he got tears in 
his eyes and his chin began to quiver. He said, ``I am quitting, I 
can't continue. I am being forced off the farm.''
  That is what this amendment is about. We need to consider the human 
toll of farm failures all across this country. What will be left when 
only the corporate agrifactories are producing America's food. Some 
people think that would be great because they love big corporations--
the bigger the better. Of course, there will be no yardlights lighting 
farmsteads. There will be nobody living in the country, because all the 
farmers who risked their money will have found that the auction block 
served as the final resting place for their dreams and their hopes.
  We can do something about that if we decide it is a priority.
  I say to my colleague from New Mexico, this is where the current farm 
bill started in 1995. It started right here in the budget. It is where 
it ought to stop. It is where we ought to make the modifications and 
changes. It is where we, as a Congress, ought to say this is a 
priority, and that family farmers are a priority. But, it is not just 
about farm families. It is also about Main Streets and small towns. It 
is about the economic and social fabric in a part of our country that 
is now being depopulated.
  Let me again refer to this chart. The red on the chart shows the 
middle part of the country, which is full of rural counties that are 
losing population. This little place right here is where I grew up in 
Hettinger County, North Dakota. When I left, there were 5,000 people in 
that county. Today, there are 3,000 people. That county is symbolic of 
so much of the farm belt that is now being depopulated because we have 
a farm program that doesn't work.
  There is a whole range of other programs that we must address. It is 
not enough to say that things will work out, or that this doesn't 
matter. This matters very much to a significant part of America. We 
have a right to be standing here on the floor of the Senate saying, 
this too is a priority. This is a priority for us, for our part of the 
country, and for family farmers.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 21\1/2\ 
minutes and the sponsor has 3 minutes 24 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the Senator is right, that this 
is a question of priority.
  The Senator mentioned missile defense. He said it will cost $1.5 
billion. We don't need it; we shouldn't pay for it. What would be 
prioritizing would be if he would move to strike the missile defense 
system. The problem is, if he did that, he would find that not only the 
American people would say no, but 65 or 70 Senators would say no. He 
picked the wrong program, because most Americans think we have a 
missile defense system. They think if a rogue country or North Korea or 
China sent a missile to the United States that we could destroy it. The 
truth of the matter is, whoever thinks that is wrong. We don't.
  Republicans have been saying, and now we are joined by Democrats, use 
every single technological achievable end to get a missile defense 
system started. That is a high priority, too.
  I don't know what else the Senator mentioned, but whatever he 
mentioned, the truth of the matter is he could come to the floor and 
say farmers have a higher priority than this whole list of things in 
the Government. That is not what is being done; it is just making the 
Government bigger.
  In fact, it is very interesting. It is a tax-and-spend proposal. It 
is increasing the taxes on the people of this country because we intend 
to give them back some to pay for more Government. I think Government 
is about as big as it ought to be. I remind everyone, the President put 
nothing in for the state of emergency. For a President who is worried 
about Main Street, and everything else alluded to on the floor, isn't 
that interesting?
  We did what we thought was right and put in $6 billion. The first 
amendment that was sent to the desk would have cost $60 billion. I was 
in error--now it is $30, it has been modified. The price is cut in half 
in about 26 minutes. I laud the Senator for modifying it. I wish it 
were still at 60--we could argue about 60. That sounded like a good, 
round number.
  Having said that, I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I prefer to close for a minute, but if the 
Senator wishes to keep it open I assume he will want to move along here 
and be able to get as much done as is possible.
  Let me have the attention of the Senator from New Mexico. If I finish 
our time, would the Senator then yield back his time so we can proceed?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to do that.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me respond to a couple points.
  First, let's talk about national missile defense. He makes an 
interesting argument, but the Senator misunderstood what I said. I 
talked about the $1 billion last fall that was stuck into the omnibus 
appropriations bill. No one asked for it and the Defense Department 
said they couldn't use it. Go track the money and find out what 
happened to it. They didn't want it, but Congress said, ``We demand you 
take it.'' My point is, if it is a priority, then the sky is the limit. 
It doesn't matter that it is not needed. That is the point I was 
making.
  The tax-and-spend cliche is such an old argument it is calcified. I 
thought I heard the last of that some years ago. This debate is about 
what is important and what are our priorities.
  I want to talk about the big print and the little print which got us 
to this mess. Some years ago, we had people in Congress who said we 
should change the farm program. In the big print in the 1996 farm law 
it says that we will provide a marketing loan and it will be at 85 
percent of the Olympic average of the prices received by farmers in the 
previous five years. That was the big print. Then they put the little 
print in the bill. It said, by the way, although we promised you that 
marketing loan

[[Page 5842]]

at 85 percent, we are going to cap it at $2.58 a bushel for wheat. What 
the big print giveth, the little print taketh away.
  Does it matter? Does it cost? Of course. It matters in terms of the 
failure of hopes and dreams for family farmers who are bankrupted by 
these little print policies. These little print policies really say 
that family farming doesn't matter too much to this country anymore. It 
says that we would rather have big corporate agrifactories. It says we 
like corporate agriculture. and corporate farming. It says that mom and 
pop don't have to live out there so the yardlights don't have to be on. 
It says we can mechanically milk all the cows and have 3,000-head dairy 
herds. That is a very different version of America than I have and a 
different sense of priorities than I think should exist for this 
country.
  That is what this debate is about. The Senator from New Mexico says 
this should go to the Agriculture Committee. This started in 1995 in 
the Budget Committee. That is where it started. The budget resolution 
prescribed the Freedom to Farm bill. If you can start the farm bill in 
1995 in the Budget Committee, we can, it seems to me, debate it in 1999 
as we debate the budget resolution.
  Today, we face depression-era prices on the farm. Family farmers are 
going belly up on a wholesale basis out there in the country and this 
Congress must do something about it.
  Did the President's budget address this? No. Does this budget 
resolution address it in an appropriate way? No. Do I appreciate that 
the Budget Committee put in $6 billion over 6 years or so for crop 
insurance? Of course I do. I appreciate that. But it is so far short of 
what is needed. We are about $5 billion a year short of what we used to 
do to provide to fund price protection for family farmers.
  Today we need to repair that by deciding our priority in this budget 
resolution is to stand up and help family farmers during this time of 
trouble.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from North Dakota has 
expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have.


                 Amendment No. 178, As Further Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Previously, the Senator sought modification.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 178), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 43, strike beginning with line 3 through line 15, 
     page 44, and insert the following:

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR AN UPDATED BUDGET FORECAST.

       (a) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Years 2000-2004.--Pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget 
     Office shall update its economic and budget forecast for 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2009 by July 15, 1999.
       (b) Reporting a Surplus.--If the report provided pursuant 
     to subsection (a) estimates an on-budget surplus for fiscal 
     year 2000 or results in additional surpluses beyond those 
     assumed in this resolution in following fiscal years, the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the 
     appropriate adjustments to revenue and spending as provided 
     in subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget shall take the amount of the additional on-budget 
     surplus for fiscal years 2000 through 2009 estimated in the 
     report submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and in the 
     following order in each of the fiscal years 2000 through 
     2009--
       (1) increase the allocation to the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry by $6,000,000,000 in 
     budget authority and outlays in each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004 for legislation that provides risk management 
     and income assistance for agricultural producers;
       (2) reduce the on-budget revenue aggregate by any remaining 
     amounts for fiscal years 2000;
       (3) provide for or increase the on-budget surplus levels 
     used for determining compliance with the pay-as-you-go 
     requirements of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th 
     Congress) by those amounts for fiscal year 2000, and all 
     subsequent years; and
       (4) adjust the instruction in sections 104(1) and 105(1) of 
     this resolution to--
       (A) reduce revenues by amounts in section (c)(2) for fiscal 
     year 2000; and
       (B) increase the reduction in revenues for the period of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009 by that amount.
       (d) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised aggregates and other 
     levels under subsection (c) shall be considered for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     aggregates and other levels contained in this resolution.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 231

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is to be recognized to speak on his amendment.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], for himself, Mr. 
     Roth, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Abraham proposes an amendment 
     numbered 231, as previously offered.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this sense-of-the-
Senate amendment with Senators Roth, Coverdell and Abraham.
  I ask unanimous consent to add the names of Senators Hagel, Burns, 
McCain and Craig as original cosponsors as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, again, what I am talking about is 
supporting the middle-income tax relief included in this budget 
resolution. This is a crucial amendment that we all should support.
  This amendment says that the Senate Budget Resolution places a 
priority not only on protecting Social Security and Medicare and 
reducing the Federal debt, but also on middle-income tax relief by 
returning nearly $800 billion of the non-Social Security surplus to 
those from whom it was taken. It discusses options for middle-income 
tax relief such as broad-based tax relief, marriage penalty relief, 
retirement savings incentives, death tax relief, health care-related 
tax relief, and education-related tax relief.
  This amendment does not put us on record as supporting any one form 
of tax relief, or any particular combination. That is the task of the 
Finance Committee under the able leadership of Senator Roth.
  While many of us will discuss our own preferences for the tax relief, 
our job today is to support the nearly $800 billion total, recognizing 
the need for tax relief, and then to ask the Finance Committee to come 
up with specific tax relief proposals.
  Again, Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to assure the 
American people that we've made a commitment to major tax relief, and 
that there is room in this budget to fulfill this commitment while 
protecting Social Security and Medicare, providing debt relief and 
respecting some new spending priorities.
  I just heard it said in the last debate on the farm issues, ``if 
there is something for a tax cut,'' or ``if that is a priority''--it 
should be a priority. There would not be a surplus if American 
taxpayers had not been overcharged and paid more in taxes than they 
should have. What they are doing is fighting over how can they spend 
those dollars, rather than trying to find a way to give those 
overcharges back to the people who paid them.
   Mr. President, let me highlight a few points as to why we must 
provide a major tax relief this year.
  Polls showed many Americans were skeptical about whether they would 
ever get meaningful tax relief this year. They have good reason to be 
skeptical about President Clinton's rhetoric on tax relief.
  Despite a huge on-budget surplus over the next 10 years, President 
Clinton has failed to secure a single significant tax cut for working 
Americans. Instead, he has proposed to increase our taxes by at least 
$50 billion in his budget over the next five years and $90 billion over 
10 years. He also spends $158 billion right out of the Social Security 
surplus he claims to protect. President Clinton talks about helping the 
American people build retirement security but to offset his new 
spending, he has proposed many new taxes including taxing life 
insurance products, which will hurt the retirement annuities of 
millions of Americans. The

[[Page 5843]]

President talked about helping small business, but he has proposed to 
tax the income of non-profit trade associations and change the tax 
treatment for ESOPs, which will adversely affect millions of small 
businesses. These are just some of his new taxes that will hurt hard-
working Americans.
  Unlike President Clinton, our budget resolution has reserved nearly 
$800 billion of the non-Social Security budget surplus over the next 10 
years for tax relief. This is in fact the largest tax relief since 
President Reagan's. This amendment has once again proved the Republican 
majority is committed to providing meaningful tax relief in 1999 as 
well as protecting Social Security, Medicare, reducing the debt, and 
funding important priorities.
   Mr. President, with more middle-income workers being thrown into 
higher tax brackets, the ``middle class tax squeeze'' is devastating. 
There are over 20 million workers today with annual earnings between 
$20,000 and $50,000. Before 1993, they paid income tax at the 15 
percent rate. But most of them have now been pushed into the 28 percent 
tax bracket due to inflation and economic growth. Worse still, they 
have to pay the 28 percent federal income tax rate on top of a 15.3 
percent payroll tax. This adds up to a tax rate of 43 percent, without 
counting state, local tax, and other taxes. So any gains they made in 
wages have been taken by Washington. The bigger tax bite continues to 
eat up more of their wages.
  Again, my point, Mr. President, is that this non-Social Security 
surplus is nothing but tax overpayments, and it should be returned to 
the taxpayers, not spent, as you are going to hear argued here on the 
floor day after day, hour after hour--``let's spend it.'' It should be 
given back to the taxpayers.
  How to use the remaining surplus once we wall off Social Security has 
been the central focus of this year's budget debate. The Democrats want 
Washington to spend it because they don't believe the American people 
can be trusted to use it responsibly. We're heard it before, but let me 
remind you what the President said about the surplus during a speech in 
Buffalo in January: ``We could give it all back to you and hope you 
spend it right, [but] if you don't * * *.'' You are smart enough to 
earn the money, but you are not quite smart enought to know how to 
spend it.
  A top aide to the President, Paul Begala, said, ``We could squander 
the surplus by giving a tax cut.''
  So, in other words, we have overcharged you and taken more money from 
you than we should have, or you have paid more in, but to give it back 
would be squandering it. Washington thinks they should spend it.
  Republicans want to give the surplus back to working Americans--those 
who paid too much taxes in the first place.
  We've recently heard some claims on the Senate floor that the 
American people today aren't interested in tax relief. That's not what 
I'm seeing and hearing. Those who don't care about tax relief are a 
minority, especially in my state. Tax relief continues to be a major 
interest of Minnesotans.
  Mr. President, let me read to you letters from just three of the many 
Minnesotans who have taken time to contact me: Ken Ebensteiner from 
Audubon, Minnesota wrote: ``* * * please understand that the silent 
majority are sick and tired of all the taxes and regulations. We're 
just too busy working to voice our opinions.'' Taxpayers are working, 
and don't have the time to come to Washington. They can't afford to 
defend themselves because the government takes so much of their income. 
Washington's philosophy is apparently, ``Keep them poor, keep them 
quiet, keep them home.''
  Rev. Craig Palach of Fergus Falls wrote: ``With four children--two 
soon to be in college, one beginning to think about college, and one in 
a parochial school--I could sure use some of the money that goes to 
taxes.'' But again, the President says Rev. Craig Palach wouldn't spend 
it right.
  The third letter, this one by Alicia Jones of White Bear Lake, is 
right on target with the story she shared. She wrote:

       Last year, both my husband and I had graduated from college 
     and had just begun working full time. I have never written a 
     letter like this before, but after completing my taxes for 
     1998, I felt that this was my only option.
       I can't do anything about the amount of money my husband 
     and I will have to pay to both the federal and state 
     governments, but I hope that you can be active in making 
     changes for next year.
       During 1998, my husband and I both worked full time in 
     professional careers. We have no children and we are renting 
     an apartment, saving to buy a house. Based on the fact that 
     we both work, we are married, we have no children, and that 
     we do not own a house--when we filed our taxes this year we 
     owed approximately $700 more in federal income taxes, on top 
     of the over $10,000 that we have already had taken out of our 
     paychecks * * *.
       I am frustrated by this, I'm frustrated for the future--how 
     do we get ahead, when each year we have to take money from 
     our savings to pay more for our taxes. I hope that you will 
     remember my concern.

  But again, presidential aide Paul Begala says Alicia would 
``squander'' any tax cut.
  Working people have good reason to ask for a tax cut. Since 1993, 
Federal taxes have increased by 50 percent--50 percent. That is a tax 
increase of nearly $4,000 a year for Alicia and her husband--50 
percent; $4,000 more in the last 6 years. As a result, Americans today 
have the largest tax burden since World War II, and it is still 
growing.
  Federal taxes consume now 21 percent of the total national income. A 
typical American family pays nearly 40 percent in total taxes. And that 
is more than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined.
  People should go home and look at their pay stubs and find out 
exactly how much of their money is going to support Government, and how 
much they have left. And then figure out whether they should have a tax 
cut.
  Mr. President, why should we continue taxing middle-class Americans 
at such a high rate? Who can rightfully argue that they don't need a 
tax cut? Who can argue that it is fair to take more than 40 percent of 
a person's income so Government can spend it?
  That is why I, along with Senator Roth and others, introduced bill 
No. S. 3, the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act. Our bill calls for a 10-
percent across-the-board income tax for working Americans.
  It is simple, fair, profamily, and progrowth. It will help millions 
of middle-income families to avoid the middle-income ``real income 
bracket creep'' that they have been subjected to since 1993.
  Although I prefer broad-based tax relief, I understand this is just 
one of many tax relief proposals that are on the table. Again, there is 
nothing in this budget that endorses one proposal over the others. All 
we have done is to reserve some of the non-Social Security surplus for 
tax relief.
  The Finance Committee will consider all tax relief proposals and 
decide how this reserved onbudget surplus should be distributed.
  It is my hope that we can use the surplus to provide broad-based tax 
relief as well as other tax relief I support which would give families 
a break, and encourage savings, encourage investment, and provide 
incentives for higher education.
  I remember vividly when I first proposed the $500-per-child tax 
credit back in 1993. The naysayers called it bad policy, even 
dangerous. Democrats accused us of cutting taxes for the rich. That 
sounds familiar, doesn't it? Every time it is a tax cut, it is for 
somebody else.
  Some in Congress contended it was too costly, and others argued that 
we should balance the budget first. I argued then repeatedly that we 
could, and should, do both. And we did. As a result, we now have a 
balanced budget, and the largest non-Social Security surplus in U.S. 
history.
  Cutting taxes, reducing the national debt, and reforming and 
protecting Social Security and Medicare at the same time are all 
possible. We can do it again. Mr. President, we must do it again.
  That is what this budget is about, and that is what this amendment is 
about. I urge my colleagues to strongly support reserving this money 
for tax relief for working Americans.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page 5844]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the time situation on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a total of a half hour equally 
divided. The sponsor has 3 minutes remaining. There are 15 minutes in 
opposition.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I stand here, and I request 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I was, obviously, very much interested--I will not say 
moved--by the discussion that I just heard on this amendment, because 
the drill is a familiar one. The drill is the people who earned it want 
it back; and, why not give it to them? Of course, we want to give it to 
them. But whether you give it to them in direct tax cuts or you shore 
up Social Security, you say that no matter when you retire, for the 
next 75 years, you will know that the retirement program is going to be 
there for you. Or you say, ``Well, we are going to take the Medicare 
fund, and we are going to increase its solvency from 2008 to 2020, 12 
years more, during which time, or during this time, because we are 
looking at something 21 years away. We want to institute the reforms 
that are so often talked about so that health care can be provided in a 
reasonable fashion with longevity, with the solvency that is required.
  I heard the distinguished Senator from Minnesota in our Budget 
Committee the other day presenting a poll in which he said 63 percent 
of the people--I think I have it accurately and fairly--polled wanted a 
tax cut. I read a newspaper story about that poll. Once the question 
was put as to whether you would rather have a tax cut, or pay down the 
debt, or make sure that Social Security is there for you, or make sure 
that Medicare is there when you need it, the numbers changed radically. 
The numbers that said pay down the debt, increase the longevity for 
Social Security, increase the longevity and solvency of Medicare, and, 
boy, they went the other way.
  When I hear that the typical American family pays 40 percent in 
taxes--I don't know what the income is for the typical American family, 
but I can tell you that almost 60 percent of the people are in the 
$38,000 or below income strata. They are not paying 40 percent taxes. 
Come on. Let's be reasonably direct and accurate about these things.
  Look at what happened. If we use the GOP tax program as outlined by 
the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the Finance Committee, he 
says that if you are in the top 1 percent of the income, over $300,000 
or more, an average of $800,000 a year, you get a $20,000 tax cut. But 
if you make $38,000, which is the bottom 60 percent of the people in 
this country, $38,000, you save $99. The guy on the top who gets a 
$20,000 refund could buy another car for that, or add a wing to his 
house. But the family that is earning $38,000 is not going to do a lot 
with 100 bucks--$99 to be precise.
  I think we ought to be fairly clear when we have this debate. Yes, 
everyone is entitled to offer amendments they think are appropriate, 
but we ought not to color the facts such that we ignore the reality of 
what it is we are talking about.
  Mr. President, I think that it is quite obvious that this gets back 
to the essential dispute between the parties with the Republicans 
wanting tax breaks primarily for the wealthy, ignoring the fact that 
they can improve the condition of Medicare.
  We on this side want to have as our principal programs: save Social 
Security; extend the life of Medicare; make sure there are targeted tax 
breaks so that families who have an elderly parent can take care of 
that parent and get a tax deduction, a tax break for that 
responsibility; or who needs day care for their children, and get a tax 
break so that mama can work. That is what we are talking about. We are 
talking about things that pertain to the average American.
  I am one of the people lucky enough to be in the top 1 percent. I was 
in business before I was here. I will tell you something. I am so happy 
every time I have the ability to earn that kind of money to pay my 
taxes, because I belong to the best club in the whole world, the club 
called ``America,'' where everything is available to you. Opportunity 
should be--education should be--everything should be available for 
those who want to climb the ladder and who are clever enough to do it.
  That is what I am paying for when I send in my tax bill. I don't 
think it is being squandered by a bunch of bureaucrats. Some, maybe. 
That happens in corporate life. I ran a big corporation. I can tell 
you. What I want is a secure country. I want a country where people 
feel good about themselves and aren't looking at the guys on top and 
saying they are getting all the breaks. That is not a stable society. 
The stable society says, I want a chance to educate my children, I want 
a chance to have a roof over my head, and I want a chance to have a 
job. That is what I want. I want to know that when I am of retirement 
age that Social Security is going to be there for me. And I am happy to 
pay my dues. That is what it is--dues. We are so lucky to be here. 
People are willing to die, and are fleeing in inner tubes across the 
straits near Cuba, near Florida, to get to this country, and risk death 
coming out of ships' holds and things such as that to get to this 
country. We are not talking about squandering money and throwing away 
the citizens' dollars.
  I think we ought to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator 
Roth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as we turn our attention to the Budget 
Resolution, pondering the course government is going to take--the 
philosophy and policies that are going to lead us into a new 
millennium--I want my colleagues to consider that rather than a time 
for acrimony and partisan politics, this is a time of great 
opportunity.
  In fact, few times in history have been so rich with the 
opportunities that are before us--opportunities to set a future where 
the needs of taxpayers, families, students, and communities come before 
the insatiable appetite of the federal government. Because of policies 
we began to implement in the early 1980s, we are the beneficiaries of 
the longest peacetime economic expansion in history.
  Our efforts to support the home--to provide incentives to save and 
invest--as well as our work to encourage risk-taking businessmen and -
women, researchers and developers, our agricultural and educational 
communities--these efforts have paid tremendous dividends.
  Now the question, as we face the final hours of the 20th century, is 
simple: Do we move forward, embracing economic policies that are proven 
to increase prosperity and economic opportunity for all Americans, or 
do we abandon them for proposals that will raise taxes on the most 
vulnerable among us, proposals that will fill government coffers, swell 
federal programs, and risk shutting down the tremendous engine of 
growth that we have successfully created?
  It seems that the answer to this question is clear, and therefore I 
rise today to support a Sense of the Senate amendment to the Budget 
Resolution--a Sense of the Senate amendment that is bipartisan in 
nature--one that makes it clear that in the choice between a tax cut, 
as authorized in the resolution, or a tax increase, as provided in the 
Administration's budget, we are resolved and choose to be consistent as 
to the direction we want to go.
  Today the federal government is collecting more taxes than ever 
before. Because of our entrepreneurs, our farmers, laborers, and 
families preparing for the future, we are witnessing strong economic 
growth, and this has

[[Page 5845]]

been very beneficial for the government's income. These individuals 
have been encouraged by our efforts to dramatically cut taxes in the 
1980s, to create incentives for saving and investing in the 1990s, and 
by our work to reduce government interference in their lives.
  Unfortunately, and despite the fact that government is collecting 
more revenue than ever, the Administration's budget reverses this 
important trend. It represents another in a series of large tax 
increases this Administration has tried to impose on Americans. In 
fact, this proposal is a net tax increase of $50 billion over five 
years and $90 billion over ten years. It is not a targeted tax cut as 
its proponents claim. Rather, it is a tax increase that dramatically 
hits lower-income Americans the hardest. For example, under the 
Administration's budget, taxpayers with incomes of $25,000 and under 
will bear almost 40 percent of the net tax increase. Taxpayers with 
incomes of $75,000 and under will bear over 75 percent of the burden.
  One might ask, with all the talk about targeted tax breaks in the 
Administration's budget, how can it be a tax increase on America's most 
vulnerable. The simple answer is that the Administration's budget 
relies to a great degree on a 55 cents per pack cigarette tax increase. 
That tax increase, which largely goes for new spending, far outweighs 
any tax cutting provisions in the budget, and it hits lower-income 
Americans the hardest.
  On the other hand, Mr. President, the budget resolution proposed by 
Senator Domenici does not unfairly penalize one group of Americans. In 
fact it does not penalize any group. Rather, it provides the Senate 
Finance Committee with the authority to cut taxes, not increase them. 
And it allows us to cut taxes in a way that will continue to energize 
the economic growth our nation is enjoying. This is what America needs 
as we look to the opportunities before us.
  I reject any argument that tries to raise the old worn-out issue of 
class warfare--those who might try to suggest that this resolution will 
provide tax cuts for the rich. First, I reject it because this 
resolution does not actually cut taxes, but only authorizes the Finance 
Committee to proceed to cut taxes. And second, I reject it because the 
kind of across-the-board tax cuts that are being discussed are just 
that --fairly applied across-the-board tax cuts that go to everyone. 
They are just like the tax cuts that President Kennedy implemented in 
the 1960s and the tax cuts that President Reagan implemented in the 
1980s. On both occasions these bipartisan tax cuts led to record-
setting economic growth, so not only were they fairly applied, but they 
benefitted everyone.
  Mr. President, I also reject the argument that the federal revenue 
windfall, or budget surplus, will be used by the Administration to 
retire the debt. For years, there were many among us who argued that 
tax increases were needed to reduce deficit spending and retire the 
debt. On occasion, they prevailed and taxes were raised, but then 
something interesting happened. Deficit spending did not stop, the debt 
was not retired. The increased taxes actually placed a damper on the 
economy, and the government spent more than $1.50 for every $1.00 it 
increased taxes. In other words, the government actually taxed itself 
into higher deficit spending. It wasn't until Congress insisted on 
holding the line on spending that the growing economy actually brought 
about a balanced budget.
  According to a new study by the Joint Economic Committee, in the 
post-war period, sixty cents of every dollar of surplus taken into 
government coffers has been spent by government within a year. Does 
anyone doubt the taxpayer overpayments that are now contributing to 
surplus revenue will not be spent by future Congresses? Of course they 
will. The way to reduce the debt is to keep the economy growing--to 
keep an environment of opportunity available to all Americans. And the 
way to keep the economy growing is to cut taxes and minimize government 
interference in the lives of Americans. This is the message of the 
Grams Sense of the Senate amendment. It reaffirms support for the tax 
cut authorized under the resolution offered by Senator Domenici. The 
tax cut provided in that resolution is $142 billion over five years and 
$778 billion over ten.
  This resolution will empower the Finance Committee, Republicans and 
Democrats, to work together and provide comprehensive tax relief. The 
Finance Committee can provide across-the-board tax relief, over the 
long-term--relief that is simple, fair, and meaningful to all 
taxpayers. With the authority given us by this resolution, the Finance 
Committee can provide tax relief in the short term for many good 
purposes--purposes supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.
  For example, we could enhance retirement security. By this I mean 
improving small business pension plans, making IRAs more accessible, 
and simplifying employer 401(k) plans. Also, we should address the 
needs of women returning to the workforce. Every worker has a stake in 
a better retirement that these incentives could provide.
  Second, we could enhance family tax relief. For instance, we could 
ensure that the $500 per child tax credit, dependent care tax credit, 
and education credits are available to middle income families by 
exempting these credits from the alternative minimum tax (``AMT''). If 
we do not provide these exemptions, millions of families could be 
adversely affected. In addition, the Budget Committee, on a bipartisan 
basis, has emphasized the importance of providing marriage penalty 
relief.
  Third, we could do more to correct our abysmal national savings rate. 
Chairman Alan Greenspan says this is the number one economic problem 
confronting America. To this end, in addition to the retirement plan 
and IRA expansion mentioned above, we could do something for small 
savers. For instance, we could simplify the tax system by providing an 
exclusion for small savers of $200 for singles and $400 for married 
couples.
  This bipartisan tax cut would benefit more than 60 million taxpayers. 
It would also allow up to 11 million Americans to file the 1040 EZ--
which is the simpliest federal tax form there is.
  Fourth, we could provide greater tax relief to improve educational 
opportunities for students and their families. We could provide 
incentives for families and students to seek higher education and avoid 
large debt burdens. For instance, nearly every state has a prepaid 
college tuition plan, and those plans could be made tax-free under a 
bipartisan proposal.
  Fifth, we could address the expiring provisions in the current tax 
code, and we could look at real tax code simplification. The Finance 
Committee could eliminate needless complexity that results from income 
limits, phaseouts, and the alternative minimum tax. Again, these are 
bipartisan objectives.
  And finally, Mr. President, we could continue to push for proper 
taxpayer protections. Reform of the IRS is in its infant stages. 
Elimination of unjust penalties and interest scores as revenue loss. In 
order to continue meaningful reform of the Internal Revenue Service, we 
must realize that our efforts will be scored as revenue losses and we 
must consequently address them in the context of tax cuts.
  This Sense of the Senate amendment makes clear that without the 
authority provided in the budget resolution, the Finance Committee will 
not be able to provide significant tax relief--we will not be able to 
address these important bi-partisan issues and fix problems in the 
current code.
  The resolution will allow us to move forward. And let me conclude by 
explaining how important it is that we move forward.
  Working together, we have delivered on a bold promise to the American 
people--the promise of a balanced budget and a dynamic economy where 
jobs, opportunity, and growth are available to all. Since 1995, we have 
worked for tax relief for families, savings and investment incentives, 
health care-related tax relief, relief for small business, and tax 
simplification. As we moved forward in these areas, not everyone was 
supportive at first, but they were eventually adopted by Congress and 
signed

[[Page 5846]]

into law by the President. Among the items enacted were tax deductible 
treatment for long-term care insurance and raising the deductible 
portion of health insurance for self-employed small businesses and 
farmers. In addition, pension plan reforms, especially for small 
business, were enacted.
  In 1997, we pushed for tax relief in the context of a balanced 
budget. The President agreed to tax relief he had previously vetoed. 
Among the tax relief proposals enacted was a $500 per child tax credit 
that is now providing relief to millions of taxpaying families. We also 
expanded individual retirement accounts and created the new Roth IRA. 
Millions of taxpayers now have tax-favored savings vehicles open to 
them. We reduced the top capital gains rate from 28% to 20%. This 
provision helped unlock investment dollars for the economy and provided 
relief to farmers and small business.
  Beyond this, Mr. President, we have worked together to offer 
education-related tax relief, including educational IRAs, prepaid 
college tuition plans, an extension of the tax-free treatment of 
employer-provided educational assistance, and a revival of the student 
loan interest deduction.
  We have passed estate tax relief, including relief for small 
businesses and farmers. And we have succeeded with historic reform of 
the Internal Revenue Service, including new taxpayer protections 
regarding the collection activities of the IRS.
  The Grams Sense of the Senate amendment makes clear that once again, 
we are at the crossroads on the question of tax relief or tax 
increases. The Sense of the Senate clarifies that the resolution 
continues Congress on the same tax relief path begun in 1995. It can be 
summarized into three points:
  First, the Administration's budget, though described by its 
supporters as targeted tax cuts, is a tax increase.
  Second, if you are serious about tax relief, it must be accommodated 
in the resolution. The Finance Committee must have the tools to provide 
meaningful relief. To oppose the tax cut in the resolution is to deny 
the Finance Committee the tools to do the job.
  Third, a vote for the tax cut in the resolution is a vote for tax 
relief that is consistent with tax cuts that have been enacted over the 
past four years.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Grams Sense of the 
Senate amendment and I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record 
a copy of the Tax Foundation's analysis of the Administration's budget, 
as well as a copy of a revenue table, prepared by the Joint Committee 
on Taxation, which scores the Administration's budget.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Tax Foundation Special Report, March 1999]

   The President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget-- Low- and Middle-Income 
  Taxpayers to Pay Lion's Share of New Revenue Despite Record Surplus

                          (By Patrick Fleenor)

       President Clinton's newly proposed budget plans on a 
     steadily growing series of budget surpluses over at least the 
     next ten years. To ensure the surpluses, the Administration 
     plans to hold the line on most types of federal spending 
     while increasing the current record peace-time level of 
     federal taxation.
       Ostensibly to bolster the failing Social Security and 
     Medicare programs, the Clinton plan would use more than three 
     quarters of the projected surplus to reduce federal debt. 
     Another 12 percent would be used to fund private savings 
     accounts, and the balance would fund new spending 
     initiatives.
       Some programs would see an increase over the next five 
     years, notably education and training programs as well as 
     funding for roads and other transportation projects. The 
     budget also calls for additional spending for more teachers, 
     after-school programs, and Head Start. The Administration's 
     plan to use surplus funds to pay down the national debt would 
     significantly lower interest expenses while entitlement 
     spending remains essentially unchanged under the plan.
       On the revenue side of the ledger the Clinton plan contains 
     a mix of tax and fee increases as well as a host of tax 
     credits. These would, on net, boost federal revenues by $45.8 
     billion over the next five years. Revenue raisers include a 
     55-cent-per-pack hike in the federal cigarette tax and higher 
     corporate income taxes. The revenue reducers are a myriad of 
     tax credits that would subsidize activities ranging from 
     long-term medical care to first-time home purchases in the 
     District of Columbia.


               Which Income Groups Will Pay the New Taxes

       Figure 1 shows the net distributional effects of the 
     Clinton plan. Individuals with adjusted gross incomes of less 
     than $25,000 would bear 38.5 percent of the increased tax 
     burden, or $17.7 billion. People in the $25,000-$50,000 range 
     would pay 22.4 percent of the new revenue, or $10.2 billion. 
     Taxpayers making $50,000-$75,000 would pay $6.7 billion in 
     additional taxes, or approximately 14.6 percent of the total. 
     In sum, then, over 75 percent of the President's new tax 
     revenue would be paid by people whose tax returns report less 
     than $75,000.
       Upper-income taxpayers would not escape entirely, but as 
     Figure 1 illustrates, their share of the increased tax burden 
     is much smaller. Cumulatively, individuals in these three 
     categories would bear only 24.5 percent of the increased tax 
     burden. This regressive slant against low- and middle-income 
     taxpayers results largely from the Administration's proposal 
     to boost the federal cigarette tax. Probably the most 
     regressive of all federal taxes, the cigarette tax would be 
     the largest revenue raiser in the President's budget 
     proposal.


                           The Budget Outlook

       Figure 2 illustrates federal receipts and outlays as a 
     percentage of GDP under the Clinton plan, given in historical 
     context.
       Federal receipts would grow 4.2 percent from $1,806.3 
     billion in 1999 to $1,883.0 billion in 2000. That is an 
     uptick from 20.6 percent to 20.7 percent of GDP. By 2004, 
     federal receipts would grow to $2,165.5 billion, or 20.0 
     percent of GDP. By 2009, federal receipts would rise to 
     $2,707.7 billion, or 20.1 percent of GDP.
       Only twice in American history--during the two closing 
     years of World War II--did federal receipts ever exceed 20 
     percent of GDP. From this perspective, the Clinton proposal 
     is truly historic in that it would fix federal receipts at 
     this extraordinary level.
       Federal outlays would rise from $1,727.1 billion in FY 1999 
     to $1,765.7 billion in FY 2000. They would rise to $1,992.0 
     billion in 2004. As a percentage of GDP, however, federal 
     outlays would fall steadily from 19.4 percent in FY 2000 to 
     18.4 percent in 2004, then even further to around 17 percent 
     in FY 2009.


                          federal expenditures

       The budget shares of the major categories of federal 
     spending under the Clinton plan are illustrated by the five 
     columns of Figure 3 corresponding with fiscal years 2000-
     2004. Historical data is provided for context. (See also 
     Tables 1 and 2.)
       Federal outlays are divided into two broad categories, 
     discretionary and mandatory/net interest. Discretionary 
     spending is determined by the annual appropriations process, 
     while so-called mandatory outlays are predetermined by 
     statute. To alter mandatory spending levels, the program's 
     authorizing legislation must be amended.

     _______

     * Illustrations not reproducible in the Record.

                                                                                TABLE 1.--FEDERAL OUTLAYS BY TYPE
                                                                       [Fiscal Years 1962-99; dollar amounts in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Discretionary                                           Mandatory
                                                                 Total   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Year                                Outlays                              Non-                   Social                                            Net      Memo: GDP
                                                                             Total      Defense     Defense      Total     Security    Medicare    Medicaid      Other     interest
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1962........................................................      $106.8       $72.1       $52.6       $19.5       $27.9       $14.0        $0.0        $0.1       $13.8        $6.9      $567.5
1963........................................................       111.3        75.3        53.7        21.5        28.3        15.5         0.0         0.2        12.6         7.7       598.3
1964........................................................       118.5        79.1        55.0        24.1        31.2        16.2         0.0         0.2        14.8         8.2       640.0
1965........................................................       118.2        77.8        51.0        26.8        31.8        17.1         0.0         0.3        14.4         8.6       686.7
1966........................................................       134.5        90.1        59.0        31.2        35.0        20.3         0.0         0.8        13.9         9.4       752.8
1967........................................................       157.5       106.4        72.0        34.4        40.7        21.3         2.5         1.2        15.7        10.3       811.9
1968........................................................       178.1       117.9        82.2        35.8        49.1        23.3         4.4         1.8        19.6        11.1       868.1
1969........................................................       183.6       117.3        82.7        34.6        53.7        26.7         5.4         2.3        19.3        12.7       947.9
1970........................................................       195.6       120.2        81.9        38.3        61.1        29.6         5.8         2.7        22.9        14.4     1,009.0
1971........................................................       210.2       122.5        79.0        43.5        72.9        35.1         6.2         3.4        28.2        14.8     1,077.7
1972........................................................       230.7       128.4        79.3        49.1        86.8        39.4         7.0         4.6        35.8        15.5     1,176.9
1973........................................................       245.7       130.2        77.1        53.1        98.1        48.2         7.6         4.6        37.7        17.3     1,306.8
1974........................................................       269.4       138.1        80.7        57.3       109.8        55.0         9.0         5.8        40.0        21.4     1,438.1

[[Page 5847]]

 
1975........................................................       332.3       157.8        87.6        70.2       151.3        63.6        12.2         6.8        68.6        23.2     1,554.5
1976........................................................       371.8       175.3        89.9        85.4       169.8        72.7        15.0         8.6        73.5        26.7     1,730.4
1977........................................................       409.2       196.8        97.5        99.3       182.5        83.7        18.6         9.9        70.3        29.9     1,971.4
1978........................................................       458.7       218.5       104.6       113.8       204.8        92.4        21.8        10.7        79.9        35.5     2,212.6
1979........................................................       504.0       239.7       116.8       122.9       221.7       102.6        25.5        12.4        81.2        42.6     2,495.9
1980........................................................       590.9       276.1       134.6       141.5       262.3       117.1        31.0        14.0       100.2        52.5     2,718.9
1981........................................................       678.2       307.8       158.0       149.7       301.7       137.9        37.9        16.8       109.0        68.8     3,049.1
1982........................................................       745.8       325.8       185.9       139.9       334.9       153.9        45.3        17.4       118.3        85.0     3,211.3
1983........................................................       808.4       353.1       209.9       143.3       365.4       168.5        51.2        19.0       126.7        89.8     3,421.9
1984........................................................       851.9       379.2       228.0       151.2       361.5       176.1        56.0        20.1       109.3       111.1     3,812.0
1985........................................................       946.4       415.7       253.1       162.6       401.3       186.4        64.1        22.7       128.2       129.5     4,102.1
1986........................................................       990.5       438.3       273.8       164.5       416.1       196.5        68.4        25.0       126.2       136.0     4,374.3
1987........................................................     1,004.1       444.0       282.5       161.4       421.5       205.1        73.4        27.4       115.6       138.7     4,605.1
1988........................................................     1,064.5       464.2       290.9       173.2       448.5       216.8        76.9        30.5       124.3       151.8     4,953.5
1989........................................................     1,143.7       488.6       304.0       184.5       485.9       230.4        82.7        34.6       138.2       169.3     5,351.8
1990........................................................     1,253.2       500.3       300.1       200.2       568.7       246.5        95.8        41.1       185.3       184.2     5,684.5
1991........................................................     1,324.4       533.0       319.7       213.3       596.8       266.8       102.0        52.5       175.4       194.5     5,858.8
1992........................................................     1,381.7       534.3       302.6       231.7       648.0       285.2       116.2        67.8       178.8       199.4     6,143.2
1993........................................................     1,409.4       540.7       292.4       248.3       669.9       302.0       127.9        75.8       164.2       198.8     6,475.1
1994........................................................     1,461.7       543.6       282.3       261.3       715.2       316.9       141.8        82.0       174.4       203.0     6,845.7
1995........................................................     1,515.7       545.4       273.6       271.8       738.2       333.3       156.9        89.1       158.9       232.2     7,197.7
1996........................................................     1,560.5       534.2       266.0       268.2       785.3       347.1       171.3        92.0       174.9       241.1     7,549.2
1997........................................................     1,601.2       548.6       271.7       276.9       808.6       362.3       187.4        95.6       163.3       244.0     7,996.5
1998........................................................     1,652.6       554.7       270.2       284.4       854.5       376.1       190.2       101.2       186.9       243.4     8,404.5
1999e.......................................................     1,727.1       581.2       277.5       303.6       918.6       389.2       202.0       108.5       218.8       227.2     8,747.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tax Foundation, Office of Management and Budget.


                                  ____
         [From the Committee on Ways and Means, Mar. 22, 1999]

    New Study: Average Household Will Pay $5,307 More in Taxes Than 
   Needed--CRS Estimates 10-Year Tax Overpayment for U.S. Households

       Washington.--With no changes to current law, the average 
     American household will pay $5,307 more in taxes than the 
     government needs to operate over the next ten years, 
     according to a new study by the non-partisan Congressional 
     Research Service (CRS) released today by Ways and Means 
     Committee Chairman Bill Archer (R-TX). Of particular 
     importance is that CRS calculated the tax overpayment using 
     the non-Social Security budget surplus. The CRS study follows 
     this release.
       ``After we reserve Social Security dollars for Social 
     Security, Americans will still overpay their taxes. There are 
     a lot of politicans in Washington who want to keep this money 
     and spend it on more government programs, but I think 
     Americans should keep it for themselves and their families. 
     Five thousand dollars is a lot of money for hardworking 
     taxpayers who deserve to keep more of what they earn,'' said 
     Chairman Archer.
       CRS calculated the annual overpayment per household based 
     on the non-Social Security budget surplus as follows:
Fiscal year:                                                     Amount
  2000.................................................................
  2001..............................................................$42
  2002..............................................................385
  2003..............................................................331
  2004..............................................................432
  2005..............................................................486
  2006..............................................................758
  2007..............................................................867
  2008..............................................................941
  2009............................................................1,065
                                                               ________
                                                               
5,307al..............................................................
                                  ____


    [Memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, Library of 
                        Congress, Mar. 16, 1999]

     To: Committee on Ways and Means, Attention: Trent Duffy.
     From: Gregg A. Esenwein, Specialist in Public Finance, 
         Government and Finance.
     Subject: Per household tax cut financed by the on-budget 
         surplus.
       The following table has been prepared in response to your 
     recent request concerning the effects of a federal tax cut 
     using only the non-social security budget surplus. It is 
     intended to provide only a rough estimate of the per 
     household in federal income taxes that could be funded using 
     only the on-budget surplus.
       The first column of the table shows fiscal years, the 
     second column shows the baseline unified total budget 
     surplus, the third column shows the on-budget deficit/surplus 
     (the budget deficit/surplus excluding social security and the 
     Postal Service), the fourth column shows the projected number 
     of households for each year, and the fifth column is the 
     dollar amount of tax cut per filing unit (column three 
     divided by column four).
       I hope this information meets your needs in this matter. If 
     you have any questions or need further assistance, please let 
     me know (7-7812).

       AVERAGE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CUT PER HOUSEHOLD THAT COULD BE FUNDED USING ONLY THE ON-BUDGET SURPLUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Surplus/deficit in
                                                            billions of dollars\1\
                                                          --------------------------
                                                                         On-budget     Projected
                                                                         (excludes     number of     Average tax
                       Fiscal year                                         Social      households      cut per
                                                             Unified      Security     (millions)     household
                                                              Budget      and the         \2\            \3\
                                                                           Postal
                                                                          Service)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.....................................................         $107         -$19  .............  ............
2000.....................................................          131           -7  .............  ............
2001.....................................................          151            6           142            $42
2002.....................................................          209           55           143            385
2003.....................................................          209           48           145            331
2004.....................................................          234           63           146            432
2005.....................................................          256           72           148            486
2006.....................................................          306          113           149            758
2007.....................................................          333          130           150            867
2008.....................................................          355          143           152            941
2009.....................................................          381          164           154          1,065
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Congressional Budget Office. The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 2000-2009, January 1999.
  Page 33.
\2\ Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.
\3\ Column 3 divided by column 4.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask Senator Lautenberg if he would give me 2 minutes 
of his time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He said he will yield me 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just say that I believe, after talking to 
Senator Lautenberg, the staffs can work together on this and that the 
sense-of-the-Senate part of this amendment, advocating the kind of tax 
cuts that were referred to by the Senator in his sense-of-the-Senate 
paragraph, might be acceptable to Senator Lautenberg, and we can then 
accept it without a vote. But I would just like to make an observation 
while we wait to see whether that will happen. I hope it doesn't make 
the Senator from New Jersey change his mind. I don't think it will.
  Frankly, I said a while ago it is easier to manage a budget when we 
are not in surplus. I am almost prepared to say it is easier for the 
taxpayer to get a tax cut when we do not have a surplus than when we 
do.
  Now, I haven't checked the history of the last six or seven tax cut 
bills, but obviously we were not in balance because we just got in 
balance. We gave tax cuts because we thought they were necessary, 
prudent. To the American people, our businesses, large and small, 
others--maybe those who have their businesses at home--ought to be able 
to deduct their health care like everyone else. We come around and say 
those things ought to be done.
  Now we have a surplus, and I will be darned; it is tougher to get 
concurrence that we ought to give some of it

[[Page 5848]]

back to the people than when we borrowed it to give it back to them. So 
I was thinking as the debate occurred, who has been forgotten by this 
Government? Who is looked upon as sort of a silent partner in all this 
but shouldn't be terribly worried about it? It seems to me it is the 
taxpayer.
  Asked on our side, we would say reducing taxes, making sure Social 
Security is fixed--and we have done that. Everybody is now joining us 
on 100 percent of the surplus when held for that --Medicare; we have 
had a bipartisan approach here saying let's get it done--and that 
leaves the taxpayer. I kind of say, poor taxpayers. We ought to put 
them right up at the top, and that is sort of what the intention of my 
friend from Minnesota was. Whatever the language, laudatory or, as 
Senator Nickles said the other day, precatory--if you want to look it 
up in the dictionary, it is pretty much like laudatory. And if you 
don't know what that means, I don't know what to tell you. But there is 
a lot of that. In any event, the sense of the Senate at the bottom says 
we recognize the taxpayers are very important and we ought to look at 
them just as we look at new programs. I certainly say it is important 
that we do that.
  I yield back whatever of the 2 minutes I did not use.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I just heard, I think I will call it 
the chairman's lament, and that is here we have all this money and we 
can't give tax breaks. But I see the tax breaks as having a funny shape 
to them. They are big for the guy at the top and they are little for 
the people who need it most. But I would say this, that the only people 
who can add a new room to the house, get a child some special 
assistance with education, prepare retirement, ensure health care is 
available are those who have some surplus. That is when you do the good 
things. And the good things to me are not to take care of the guys at 
the top, who would get another 20 grand, to use the expression, on top 
of the $800,000 they make. I don't think they need help. But the person 
who is making $38,000, a family of four, they are struggling. They are 
struggling. They are trying to find a way to take care of all the needs 
as the kids grow, and it is a difficult, difficult problem.
  So I do not object to appropriate tax breaks. I don't object to tax 
breaks for long-term health care. I don't object to tax breaks for 
child care so that mom can go to work and help dad support the family, 
or vice versa. I don't object to any of those things.
  So with that I think we have probably heard each other enough. Can we 
yield back all the time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't think they have any time left.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No. I have some time on my side, I think.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I feel benevolent, and I am going to yield back my 
time and we will try to resolve our problem so that we can accept the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.


                     Amendment No. 231, As Modified

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to 
the desk. With a few changes, hopefully, it has been accepted on both 
sides. We submit this amendment and hope to get it approved.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection and we have no time remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are all set.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the proposed 
modification? Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 231), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO ALL 
                   AMERICANS BY RETURNING NON-SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   SURPLUS TO TAXPAYERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Every cent of Social Security surplus should be 
     reserved to pay Social Security benefits, for Social Security 
     reform, or to pay down the debt held by the public and not be 
     used for other purposes.
       (2) Medicare should be fully funded.
       (3) Even after safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, a 
     recent Congressional Research Service study found that an 
     average American family will pay $5,307 more in taxes over 
     the next 10 years than the government needs to operate.
       (4) The Administration's budget returns none of the excess 
     surplus back to the taxpayers and instead increases net taxes 
     and fees by $96,000,000,000 over 10 years.
       (5) The burden of the Administration's tax increases falls 
     disproportionately on low- and middle-income taxpayers. A 
     recent Tax Foundation study found that individuals with 
     incomes of less than $25,000 would bear 38.5 percent of the 
     increased tax burden, while taxpayers with incomes between 
     $25,000 and $50,000 would pay 22.4 percent of the new taxes.
       (6) The budget resolution returns most of the non-Social 
     Security surplus to those who worked so hard to produce it by 
     providing $142,000,000,000 in real tax relief over 5 years 
     and almost $800,000,000,000 in tax relief over 10 years.
       (7) The budget resolution builds on the following tax 
     relief since 1995:
       (B) In 1996, Congress provided, and the President signed, 
     tax relief for small business and health care-related tax 
     relief.
       (C) In 1997, Congress once again pushed for tax relief in 
     the context of a balanced budget, and President Clinton 
     signed into law a $500 per child tax credit, expanded 
     individual retirement accounts and the new Roth IRA, a cut in 
     the capital gains tax rate, education tax relief, and estate 
     tax relief.
       (D) In 1998, Congress pushed for reform of the Internal 
     Revenue Service, and provided tax relief for America's 
     farmers.
       (8) Americans deserve further tax relief because they are 
     still overpaying. They deserve a refund. Federal taxes 
     currently consume nearly 21 percent of national income, the 
     highest percentage since World War II. Families are paying 
     more in Federal, State, and local taxes than for food, 
     clothing, and shelter combined.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the levels in this resolution assume that the Senate 
     not only puts a priority on protecting Social Security and 
     Medicare and reducing the Federal debt, but also on middle-
     class tax relief by returning some of the non-Social Security 
     surplus to those from whom it was taken; and
       (2) such middle-class tax relief could include broad-based 
     tax relief, marriage penalty relief, retirement savings 
     incentives, estate tax relief, savings and investment 
     incentives, health care-related tax relief, education-related 
     tax relief, and tax simplification proposals.

  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. And approved?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And it is accepted.
  They can urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time left on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 231), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe the regular order is to proceed 
now to my amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 190

  Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 190.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I add as original 
cosponsors Senator Lautenberg, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator 
Johnson, Senator Hollings, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and Senator 
Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment, really, of common 
sense and I think fiscal responsibility. It is a very simple amendment 
that I believe is a safeguard, an important safeguard, against our 
returning to an era of deficit spending. This amendment includes no new 
spending, no new programs, it does not touch the budget authority, it 
does not touch outlays as proposed in the budget resolution. Neither 
does it affect in any way whatsoever the Social Security trust funds.
  Perhaps most important to many Members on the other side of the 
aisle, this amendment does not eliminate any of the tax relief that is 
provided in the budget resolution. Indeed, Congress

[[Page 5849]]

can and Congress should consider sensible tax cuts which are targeted 
towards helping working families to meet their growing needs, whether 
it is health care or child care or buying a first home or any number of 
other things--saving to send a child to college--there are a number of 
tax cuts I think all of us can agree on. Those tax incentives will help 
Americans to plan and to save for retirement and to build the economy 
of the country.
  My amendment simply directs that the tax cuts we authorize, that we 
pass today in the budget resolution, will not rely on deficit spending 
to fund them. That is it. It is a very simple proposition: We should 
not pass a tax cut that will rely on deficit spending in order to fund 
it.
  In the Budget Committee's report accompanying this resolution, 
Chairman Domenici and his colleagues say the following, and I quote 
Chairman Domenici:

       The whole premise of this resolution is to ensure that the 
     onbudget deficit is eliminated and to prohibit consideration 
     of legislation resulting in an on-budget deficit in the 
     future.
  So the chairman and his colleagues who have voted for this budget 
have brought it to the floor of the Senate with the statement that it 
is their purpose to prevent a future onbudget deficit by having any 
legislation that would create that deficit. I applaud the chairman and 
his colleagues for that effort to maintain the course of fiscal 
discipline which we began in 1993 with the Deficit Reduction Act, which 
has put us on this path. To keep on that path is both progrowth and 
fiscally responsible. I am offering my amendment to ensure this year's 
tax provisions cannot and will not result in deficit spending.
  Under my amendment, if the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
determines that the tax cut passed in this year's reconciliation bill 
would result in an onbudget deficit in the future, under the scoring 
periods we are currently applying for budget purposes, then all I would 
do is simply delay that tax cut for 1 year. We do not repeal it. We do 
not end it. We do not take it away. We simply delay it for the purposes 
of not being confronted with deficit spending in order to fund it.
  The amendment itself would not affect the tax cuts once they become 
effective.
  The budget we have before us sets aside the Social Security surplus 
for debt reduction, but, as every single one of my colleagues knows, 
the Social Security surplus is only one portion of the projected 
surplus over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office 
projects an onbudget, obviously non-Social Security, surplus that will 
be more than $800 billion over the next 10 years. That is the 
projection.
  If the Finance Committee reports out a tax bill later this year, 
those tax provisions will become law, and they become law not just for 
this year but they become law for the next year and the next year and 
the outyears. They will take effect regardless of what happens to the 
current projections on the economy. But most of them will not be 
effective until the year 2005.
  All of us in this institution understand that our predictive 
capacities are not so honed that we are going to guarantee we have the 
revenues in the year 2005 in order to pay for the new tax breaks while 
still doing the other things the budget requires. So the last thing I 
think any of us would want to do is set up an equation where we put 
into law today $800 billion worth of projected surplus, therefore tax 
cuts, but, lo and behold, the surplus is not there but the tax cuts are 
still in law. The question then will be, How do we fund them?
  It seems to me there ought to be precautions taken against this kind 
of fiscal irresponsibility. If the projected onbudget surplus suddenly 
disappears during the intervening years, we want to avoid the crisis 
that will occur when those tax provisions are in law. If we were to 
create an automatic push onto the next year, we would wind up in a 
situation where we have not promised a tax cut that cannot be 
delivered, we have not promised a tax cut that is going to force us 
into deficit spending or into other choices that are similarly 
unpalatable.
  That is the simplicity of this budget amendment. Under this 
amendment, we can guarantee if the surplus actually materializes, tax 
cuts passed this year will not be affected, they will go into effect. 
But if the current economic projections change for the worse and the 
surplus turns out to be considerably smaller or nonexistent, we will 
delay the effect of the tax cuts and avoid the crisis of that moment. I 
think it is common sense. It is a sound way to budget. It is an 
appropriate way to make a determination instead of promising a tax cut 
that can either never materialize or that takes you into a position of 
fiscal irresponsibility.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Kerry have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And 15?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to use very much time.
  Mr. President, first of all, as I read the amendment, I wondered, I 
could not quite figure out what was going wrong. Essentially this 
amendment is subject to a point of order, because we do not have 
authority to tell the Finance Committee in a reconciliation instruction 
to do this. The law says what we can do in a reconciliation bill, and 
it does not include ordering them to trigger taxes. It says reduce 
taxes by a given amount over the period of time reflected in the 
reconciliation agreement. So it is subject to a point of order which I 
will raise when we come around to voting.
  But aside from that, it seems to me if you write a tax law for the 
Nation, that any tax law you write is an ongoing tax law. Once you put 
it in, it is ongoing, at least the general tax provisions, unless you 
want to sunset it or the like. Frankly, I do not believe it would be 
appropriate to trigger a tax on and off depending upon what the 
onbudget surplus is.
  In addition, I do not want to say too much about this, but our 
lockbox is a pretty good safeguard that we will not be spending Social 
Security surpluses in the future, because if you have to borrow any 
extra money, then you need a 60-vote point of order. So I think the 
Senator can rest assured if we vote for the lockbox as contemplated 
wherein the debt limit is going to be affected and you will have to 
raise it, I think it will be a pretty good indication we cannot go 
significantly in the red in future years, even with a tax cut that 
occurs in years prior to that. Something will have to be done.
  I compliment the Senator for his concern about fiscal responsibility. 
I am sure inherent in this is his concurrence we ought to have some tax 
cuts. I am not sure which of the various amendments he has agreed to 
heretofore on how much. But I compliment him for being concerned, but I 
could not accept it and I do not think it would be valid if we did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute and then I will 
yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. President, let me say to my colleague who really understands 
budget well and understands fiscal matters well, this is not about 
Social Security. Indeed, the lockbox will protect Social Security. I am 
not here in this amendment worried about Social Security. I am talking 
about the onbudget surplus predicted today. That onbudget surplus could 
disappear. Indeed, the budget resolution claims to save $133 billion of 
the onbudget surplus over 10 years, but only $14 billion is saved in 
the first 5 years.
  They are going to write in some $600 billion of tax cuts in the 
outyears without any capacity to predict that this country will have a 
surplus or have the capacity to support that.
  What happens when that is in the law, the chairman sits down in 5 
years, if he is still chairman, and he says, oh, we have these big tax 
cuts we have to fund, but we don't have the money for it? Where will it 
come from? That is when we are going to have a battle

[[Page 5850]]

over every other program, or the tax cuts are phony.
  I am not taking the tax cut away. I am simply saying, if CBO tells us 
in that year there is no money to fund it, you delay it a year. That 
seems to be the most fundamental common sense of how most Americans 
would decide to handle their budgets. If you cannot afford it, you 
don't do it. That is what we are trying to ask for, fiscal 
responsibility, not a flimflam show.
  Mr. President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I support Senator Kerry's amendment to delay new tax 
cuts if projected surpluses do not materialize. Medicare has a 
compelling need for revenues in the future that should not be 
jeopardized by tax cuts, especially knowing that these costs for tax 
cuts would explode substantially in the outyears.
  I want to mention for my colleagues some history. The fiscal year 
1982 budget projected surpluses were just around the corner. We all 
know what happened to those projected surpluses after the massive 1982 
tax cut. We have also seen in recent years how wrong both CBO and OMB 
estimates have been as the economy has consistently outperformed all 
projections. Projecting long-term budget results is really an art, not 
a science.
  This budget resolution relies heavily on estimates of surpluses going 
so far out as to adjust them during the summer. If such short-term 
estimates are being taken into account, we also ought to take into 
account the long-term realities. If the surpluses do not materialize, 
the tax cuts they are based on should be delayed until the surpluses 
are there.
  We just heard the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee talk 
about tax cuts being permanently in law. We still do not fully 
understand why the commonly referred to ``revenue surprise'' has 
occurred, and we don't know honestly how long it is going to last.
  My Republican colleagues often say, we are returning excess revenues 
to the taxpayers. I put it to them, if the tax revenues are not there 
in the future, should we drain away resources from Medicare to provide 
tax cuts?
  Today we are phasing in tax cuts over long periods to obscure their 
revenue effects. If we implement tax breaks which create huge outyear 
revenue losses and the economy fails to perform as well as predicted, 
we could return to the world of deficits as far as the eye can see, 
just in time for the baby boomers to begin retiring.
  Very simply, Mr. President, I think this is a sound amendment. It 
says, don't give it away unless you know very well that you are on 
target.
  I think it is a reasonable position. I think it is fiscally sound. I 
hope that our colleagues will vote for the Kerry amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will use 1 minute and yield back my 
time so the Senator can have the rest of the time.
  Frankly, many years ago I came to the floor--Senator Nunn helped me; 
he wasn't even on the Budget Committee--and I did something like this 
for entitlement programs.
  I said, if the projections in the outyears are that it is going up so 
high that it creates a bigger deficit, then maybe we ought not spend 
the money, having programs that we spend money on automatic pilot. 
Maybe when we come around and say we are going to do that to taxes, we 
are going to do that to entitlements, we are going to do that to 
everything we spend on, we are going to trigger them all and, if we get 
a deficit, we cut them all so we are right back down to zero and 
incurring no debt.
  Why should we do this to the taxpayer on the most important thing 
they can ask of their Government, and that is that they not be taxed 
too much? That is what they are looking up here asking us for. The big 
broad base that keeps America going and pays for all these programs, 
they would like some tax relief. We say, we will trigger you, we will 
give you some, but in case the deficit goes up, we will take it away 
from you, or at least it won't continue to grow, even though we passed 
it and it is in the law.
  I think maybe that would be a great idea so we could stay in balance 
forever. Let's apply that to everything. Just think of that. We are in 
balance. Nothing could ever grow, if it puts us in the red again. 
Everything would get stopped that year. No entitlements could grow, 
nothing could. That would be treating everybody kind of fairly.
  We would never do that. We shouldn't do that to the taxpayer.
  Mr. President, I yield my time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 23 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say quickly to my colleague 
from New Mexico, he has been a real deficit hawk, and I admire the way 
in which he has fought it over the years he has been here. But he knows 
as well as I do that we have actually changed significantly our 
attitude and our approach towards entitlements. We have changed 
significantly the entire budget structure from those years when he 
tried to do that with Senator Nunn.
  The fact is, we now operate under very strict caps. I think for the 
last 10 or 12 years of the 15 I have been here, we have been cutting in 
most places, except a couple of areas where, in order to hold Social 
Security whole, we made some changes in the revenue stream.
  The fact is, we have made significant reductions. All I am asking for 
here is--in 1993, we had the biggest turnaround of all. I remember my 
colleagues arguing that you had to have a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. If you didn't do that, you 
couldn't change the economy of this country or our budgeting practice. 
Well, the fact is, we proved them wrong. In 1993, we changed the entire 
budgeting process and turned it around so that we now have the balanced 
budget and the surplus that we are talking about.
  The American people would like us to apply the same discipline now 
going forward that we applied to get to this position. The fact is that 
Americans do not want us to create a deficit to give them a tax cut. 
Ask any American: Do you want me to add to the debt of the country so I 
can give you back some money today? They would say: That is absurd. Why 
would you add to the debt of the country in order to put a few dollars 
into my pocket?
  Americans overwhelmingly want the surplus applied to debt reduction. 
That is what they say. All I am doing in this amendment is asking my 
colleagues to exercise the same responsibility about tax cuts that they 
have asked everybody to exercise about every other part of the budget.
  This is about deficit spending to support a tax cut. The vast 
majority of Americans would say, don't be so crazy, don't promise me 
some great big tax cut that actually adds to the debt of the country 
and maybe even deprives my mother or father of Medicare payments and 
maybe even deprives my kid of a loan to go to college or a number of 
other things.
  There is no way in that balance that that is the choice Americans 
would make. I ask my colleagues today to join in making a responsible 
vote on the issue of this budget. We should not fund a tax cut we can't 
afford down the road. Nothing in my amendment would deny us the ability 
to have a tax cut if the surplus is there. If you have a surplus, you 
will have a tax cut. That is about as decent and fiscally responsible 
an equation as you could ask for.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has all time been yielded back on the 
Kerry amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator still has 14 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yielded back my time.


                           Amendment No. 242

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there was an amendment which was known 
as Ashcroft-Gorton, No. 242. We understand that it is acceptable on the 
other

[[Page 5851]]

side. We do not think it ought to be held in the package here. No vote 
is needed.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that the amendment be 
accepted by the Senate without objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The yeas 
and nays are vitiated.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 242) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Lautenberg for clearing the amendment.
  Now we can proceed to the next amendment, Senator Craig's amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire, what are the time 
constraints in relation to the debate on this amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Craig, I made a mistake. Senator 
Hollings was next. It is 3 and a half minutes. Would you let him 
proceed?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes, I will. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He was listed next.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. By unanimous consent, Mr. President, I ask that 
Senator Hollings be given 5 minutes instead of 3 and a half to present 
his case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 174

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I call up amendment No. 174 offered by myself and the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we just heard the word ``surplus.'' We 
have seen a lot of charts. But the truth of the matter is that we are 
spending $100 billion more than we are taking in this year. And the 
Congressional Budget Office projects that we will spend $89.9 billion 
or $90 billion more next year just under current policy, in the face of 
that current policy, taking care of inflation.
  We hear all kinds of ``visions of sugar plums dancing in their 
heads'' on this floor. We have turned the Senate Chamber into a 
recording studio for campaign 2000. And everybody is saying, ``Well, $2 
billion more for the veterans and $8 billion more for the farmers, and 
$15 billion more for the military pay, and so much more for education. 
And, by the way, we ought to have a tax cut. But remember, we have 
spending caps, and we have to stay within the caps.'' They know, of 
course, that we exceeded the caps last year by $12 billion and this 
year by $21 billion. So already we have exceeded the caps by $33 
billion, plus the $18 billion that we voted for the military pay. We 
ought to be looking for $50 billion to make up for this, but we are 
adding on all of these fanciful figures.
  So what we really ought to do is bring a note of reality, a note of 
what the situation actually is, to the debate and get a budget that we 
can vote on.
  Here is the lead editorial of USA Today. And I quote it:

       If your member of Congress comes home this weekend bragging 
     about having adopted a responsible federal budget for the 
     coming year, don't you believe it.
       The $1.7 trillion spending and tax outlines being muscled 
     through the House and Senate this week are little more than 
     the budgetary equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes [or the 
     emperor had no clothes]: Behind the self-congratulatory hype 
     there's a lot of nothing--and the real possibility of another 
     political train wreck later in the year.

  Mr. President, this amendment is offered in order to avoid that train 
wreck. And how do we do it? We do it as Alan Greenspan, the head of the 
Federal Reserve, said: ``Do nothing.''
  I thought it was very interesting: in the Banking and Housing 
Committee we had the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, in a 
discourse with Mr. Greenspan.
  Quoting Senator Sarbanes near the end of the questioning: ``So it 
seems to me for this whole host of reasons I agree with what I 
understand to be your position; that is, of all the alternatives the 
one you rate first and foremost by a significant margin would be to use 
the surplus to pay down the debt.''
  Greenspan: ``That is correct, Senator.''
  Sarbanes: ``Yes, I--how do you save that surplus? You know, how do 
you keep it from getting spent, I guess is the question?''
  Greenspan: ``What happens is that you do nothing.''
  Namely, you freeze this budget with respect to the current policy. 
You take this year's budget for next year, you program it out, and you 
get to a real surplus in the year 2006. Thereupon, Mr. President, that 
is the real surplus; and thereupon, we will direct that surplus--if it 
materializes--to paying down the debt, and we will give everybody a 
real tax cut, because the interest rates will go down. And they will 
save all the mortgage homeowners--the automobile payments, the 
refrigerator payments, the washing machine payments. Everybody in 
credit-card America will get a real tax cut.
  The point is that we have been playing the game of paying down the 
debt that is not understood really by the American people in that we 
have been using Social Security to pay down the debt for the last 15 
years.
  What we do is, we just take the Social Security credit card and look 
over here to what they call public debt or the Wall Street credit card 
and pay off that debt to the payers with the credit from Social 
Security; and you just up the debt on Social Security. You still owe 
the same. It is like taking a Visa card and paying down your 
MasterCard; and, of course, your Visa card goes up. That gamesmanship, 
Mr. President, has been going on, to the point that we have fiscal 
cancer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Could I get a few more minutes? Would you give me 2 
more minutes?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  What has happened really is we have caused the debt in Social 
Security. This minute, Social Security is in the red $730 billion. Next 
year it will be in the red $867 billion. And by the year 2009, we will 
owe $2.6 trillion to Social Security.
  Now, if we hold the line--staying the course; the economy is good; 
inflation is down; unemployment is down--if we stay the course, it is a 
responsible budget and we can maintain the good economy here in 
America.
  I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina does have the virtue of consistency. He was one of three 
members of his party the night before last who voted against 
authorizing a war in Yugoslavia. And this budget resolution, among 
other things, does not raise the caps for national defense--a point 
that most Members feel is necessary after many years of shortchanging 
it. It does not permit any tax relief, it does not permit any change in 
priorities for education, as does the budget that is before us at the 
present time.
  In fact, it is based on the proposition that the country is unchanged 
from where it was when we voted on the budget a year ago. I believe the 
budget that we have here today is preferable to the one we had a year 
ago, partly because for the last year we have been very, very 
successful.
  But, clearly, we are going to need the flexibility to pay for 
something that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the 
Presiding Officer and I voted against the other night which is going to 
have to be paid for at this point. And the only way to do so is to show 
the flexibility that this budget resolution does.
  So I oppose the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina.

[[Page 5852]]

  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig.


                           Amendment No. 146

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time limitations on 
each amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven and one-half minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Three and three-quarters.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  My amendment would require that new mandatory spending programs be 
paid for with savings in existing mandatory programs, and it would 
establish a 60-vote point of order. We have known--since we have had 
limits on discretionary programs as the chart beside me demonstrates--a 
progressive reduction in the overall size of the discretionary spending 
within our budget.
  My amendment does not affect any existing mandatory program. My 
amendment does not impact any current or future beneficiary of existing 
programs. What I am talking about is new mandatory, new direct spending 
programs, and it doesn't eliminate them, either. It simply requires 
that any Senator who brings that kind of program to the floor must 
experience the support of at least 60 of the Members of the Senate to 
be able to withstand this point of order.
  My amendment will not prevent a tax increase and its use of debt and 
deficit reduction. That is simply not the case. It simply puts on equal 
footing new spending in mandatory areas, along with current 
discretionary spending.
  My amendment institutes a milder version of the same spending 
restrictions that have applied to appropriated spending programs since 
1990. I think it is easy to understand. Last year we received 54 votes. 
It is a bipartisan effort. Senator Kerrey will speak to it. Senator 
Robb and Senator Byrd have supported me in this effort, and have 
indicated their continued support in that area. It is that very effort 
that limits the kind of growth in our budget that we have always tried 
to do in creating balance.
  Senator Kerrey has arrived on the floor, and I yield him the 
remainder of our time.
  Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to join the Senator from Idaho. This 
amendment would apply the same budgetary restrictions to mandatory 
programs that we have on discretionary programs. Mandatory programs are 
growing faster than the discretionary programs. We are converting our 
budget from one that used to be almost entirely discretionary, endowing 
our future, into a budget that is largely mandated by law.
  This simply says if we are going to add a new mandatory program, you 
do as you would with the discretionary program: You need to have 60 
votes to get the job done. It doesn't mean you can't; it just raises 
the bar as high as it is on discretionary programs.
  I hope my colleagues see the wisdom of this and will support it.
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 33 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. I reserve that time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it 
will prohibit using revenues to offset new mandatory spending and 
instead will require that all new mandatory spending be offset with 
other mandatory cuts. It is a major change in law. If there is a 
mandatory expenditure, commonly called entitlement, the fact of the 
matter is that we ought not be changing it by restricting funding. We 
ought to change the law. Change the law and you have taken care of the 
problem.
  But I don't think this is an appropriate way to do it. Programs like 
Social Security and Medicare could be affected, and I think it is an 
inappropriate way to do it.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am willing to yield back the reminder.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me conclude using my 30 seconds to say that it does 
not impact, as the Senator has just said, current programs. We are 
talking new creations, new ideas, new entitlement programs--not Social 
Security, not Medicare, not those kinds of critical programs that this 
Congress and this Senate attempt to strengthen and protect.
  I am talking about the new ideas that come along. It doesn't limit 
them, either. It simply says that you have to gain the 60-vote majority 
here in the Senate; you have to find new revenue sources for them or 
pull revenue from existing mandatory areas.
  As the Senator from Nebraska has so clearly spoken, it brings on 
balance in our budget new mandatory programs with current discretionary 
programs.
  Here is the simple relationship: The red on the chart shows the 
progressive decline in discretionary spending since we have had pay-go 
enforcement there. This has been the kind of growth in mandatory when 
we had none of that budget authority, and, therefore, budget 
restriction.
  That is the issue of this amendment. I encourage my colleagues here 
in the Senate to support it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I don't think this amendment is germane and, 
therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for a waiver of the Budget Act.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Are we ordering the yeas and nays now?
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We neglected, when Senator Hollings presented his 
amendment No. 174, to ask for the yeas and nays. We ask for the yeas 
and nays on amendment No. 174.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from North Carolina be given 5 minutes to speak on another subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk for proper referral a 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
  (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 720 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                           Amendment No. 185

  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding, under the 
unanimous consent agreement, that it is my turn to speak for 3\1/2\ 
minutes in support of my amendment. I don't have the number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 185, as previously offered.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a procedural change relating to 
the times when the Senate considers emergency spending. Examples are 
disaster aid, when an area has been hit by a flood, or the need for 
more money in the Department of Defense, for example. We may have 
emergency spending that is necessary because of the Kosovo military 
operation. I don't believe a single Member would stand in the way of 
providing all the resources necessary to bring our men and women home 
safely. Other emergency spending might be something as esoteric as the 
Y2K crisis--whether we are going to be able to respond quickly enough 
so the Government computers will be in line and not cause any problem 
to provide services. Those are examples of emergency spending, and the 
Senate can decide by a majority vote whether to

[[Page 5853]]

change the basic caps or limits on spending because of an emergency.
  Now there is a provision in this budget resolution which changes that 
dramatically and says that any emergency provision is going to require 
a supermajority vote from now on--60 votes. I oppose that. I don't 
believe that is good policy. I think that a majority of the Senators 
should be allowed to decide whether or not this Nation and this Senate 
face an emergency situation that requires a majority vote only to go 
forward and spend the necessary funds. Setting up a supermajority 
allows the minority in this body to become more or less the political 
brokers in an emergency situation.
  I don't want to see that occur. We debated this in the Governmental 
Affairs Committee and reached a bipartisan agreement--involving 
Senators Thompson and Domenici on the Republican side, and involving 
Senator Lieberman, myself, and others on the Democratic side--that we 
would stick with the majority vote. Then I was surprised to see that in 
the budget resolution our bipartisan agreement has been vitiated, and 
now we are dealing with another requirement for supermajority.
  My amendment goes back to the simple majority requirement for 
emergency spending. It is supported by Senator Lieberman from the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the ranking Democrat, as well as 
Senator Robert Byrd, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations 
Committee.
  At this point, I will retain the remainder of my time. I don't know 
if the rules require me to use it in all one fell swoop.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator can spread it around, if he has any time 
left.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there any time left of the 3\1/2\ 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, 1 minute 23 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I retain the remainder of my time. Somebody might wish to 
speak on the other side of this issue.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the provision in this budget resolution 
that the distinguished Senator from Illinois seeks to strike is there 
for one quite simple reason, and that is that while we have created a 
discipline for ourselves through spending caps, and while within those 
spending caps we are able to determine appropriations on the basis of a 
simple majority vote, Members have discovered that all they need to do 
is declare an ``emergency,'' whether one exists or not, and they are 
free from the budget caps, from the very spending discipline that has 
been central to our economic success over the course of the last 3 or 4 
years.
  As a consequence, the requirement that in order to declare an 
emergency, in order to spend money that is outside of the caps, in 
order, essentially, in this fiscal year to invade the Social Security 
surplus will require a modest supermajority.
  Now, under those circumstances, Mr. President, that seems to me to be 
eminently reasonable. If there is a true emergency, won't 60 votes be 
available? The Senator from Illinois refers to our members of our Armed 
Forces in Yugoslavia. Now, Mr. President, it beggars belief to feel 
that 60 votes will not be able to support our Armed Forces when they 
are engaged in conflict. The same thing is going to be true with 
respect to any other emergency. But to allow spending limitations that 
a majority of the Senate has put into effect, spending limitations that 
are so important to our success, to be frivolously overridden and 
ignored simply by a 51-vote majority is not responsible budgeting.
  This provision is there because of our experience in the last couple 
of years with the declaration of emergencies for emergency spending 
purposes. Mr. President, I am sure that, along with the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, we feel the provision in this budget resolution is 
extremely sound, highly responsible, and should be retained.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will yield all of my remaining time 
after making one comment. The Senator from Washington suggests that a 
majority vote is a ``simple thing.'' A majority vote is how we rule in 
the United States of America. It is the exception which requires a 
supermajority.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the Senator 
from Illinois, and I point out that when we are talking about 
emergencies, we are talking about things like a volcanic eruption in 
the State of Washington, Mt. Saint Helens, or we are talking about an 
earthquake in California, or floods down the Mississippi, or storm 
damage in the Northeast. I don't know why it should take 60 votes to 
agree with maybe someone who has taken an unpopular political position 
earlier. I think we ought to let the majority rule. If we need changes 
in the emergency definition, I would certainly go along with that. Make 
sure that it is urgent. Make sure it is an emergency. But to suggest 
that simply because we don't have enough votes that the volcanic damage 
is worth cleaning up immediately, or some oil spill isn't worth dealing 
with immediately, frankly, I think is bad law. I think we ought to 
eliminate it from this budget resolution.
  I hope that the vote on the amendment by the Senator from Illinois 
will prevail.
  I yield the time.
  I ask the Republican leader, is there another amendment to be 
discussed?
  Mr. DOMENICI. On our side Senator Crapo was next. He will be here in 
3 minutes. We can go to Senator Sessions, and then Senator Crapo will 
be last.
  Is Senator Sessions ready? The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                           amendment no. 210

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to rise in support and 
express my support for an amendment called the ``Class Act,'' a sense 
of the Senate.
  The purpose of that Act is to deal with a growing problem in America. 
In the 1990s alone--we are not through the 1990s yet--we have 
accumulated more debt for college and higher education than we have in 
the prior three decades, in the prior 30 years. We have an accelerating 
amount of debt to pay for college education. People are graduating with 
more debt than they have ever graduated with before. And it is a 
disruption to them and their families as they start to build their 
careers.
  So what is the problem? How has this happened? I don't propose the 
``Class Act'' amendment that I have worked to introduce along with 
Senator Bob Graham of Florida will solve that problem, but at least it 
is a significant step in the right direction.
  What we have been doing as a Government is subsidizing debt and 
taxing savings for college. That is the bottom line to it. If you save 
money for college, you pay taxes on it. But the Government will 
subsidize and give you interest rate breaks and delays if you will 
borrow money for your higher education.
  Forty-two States will soon have prepaid college tuition plans. They 
are very popular. They are expanding. Middle-income people are the ones 
that are taking advantage of it. They are putting money in. They are 
locking in college tuition at the paid cost so inflation doesn't hurt 
them on the rising tuition, and then they put the money into those 
accounts. When it is taken out to pay for the tuition, they have to pay 
income tax on what it has accumulated. That is, to me, a shortsighted 
view. It encourages debt and discourages savings.
  So our public policy is actually to tax, to hinder, and to punish 
people who wisely save, but to subsidize people who go further into 
debt.
  It is a nice bill. We believe in it strongly. It has bipartisan 
support. It has the strong support in the House of Representatives. It 
will require, I believe, $197 million in cost; only that much through 
the first 5 years of the program; and $600 million or so over the 10 
years. But it will as a result of that encourage huge amounts of 
savings because, frankly, it is not all that clear, according to a lot 
of money managers, that it is the wisest thing in the world to take 
advantage of these programs, if you have to pay taxes on the increase.

[[Page 5854]]

  If we eliminate that tax on the increase funds, put in prepaid 
college tuition plans, it will be a clear winner. Every financial 
manager will urge their clients to take advantage of this program.
  It will eliminate--which is not considered in the cost analysis of 
this bill--but, in my opinion, it will in fact reduce the amount of 
Government loans and maybe Pell grants that will have to be expended by 
the Government. It will be a good public policy move for our country.
  I appreciate the chairman's support. I appreciate Senator Bob Graham 
from Florida, who is on the Finance Committee, who is a cosponsor to 
this, and a number of other Senators.
  We believe it is good public policy at a reasonable cost, and will 
help produce a significant amount of money for higher education.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do I understand this is a sense of the Senate that we 
add to that list of tax changes that might be used by the Finance 
Committee when they set about to draw the bill, that this is just an 
additional one? There is nothing mandatory about it. It is merely 
suggesting that it is a good one that ought to be there, and they ought 
to look at it.
  Is that it?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is precisely correct. It will be a sense of 
the Senate that that be done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. I 
congratulate the Senator from Alabama for offering it. Therefore, to my 
colleague in the management of the budget, I think we ought to go 
ahead.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can I be added as a cosponsor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be honored.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 210) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Crapo is here. He is 
ready with his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 163

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment 
     number 163, as previously reported.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to 
present this important amendment.
  As we said yesterday when we discussed this amendment preliminarily, 
we have had an opportunity for the last 4 or 5 years to debate the 
concept of a lockbox in one context or another. Originally, in the 
House of Representatives when we presented this idea, it was to address 
deficits. We have had deficits for as long as most of us can remember. 
Yet the budget process did not seem to provide a mechanism by which we 
could lock aside spending that Congress decided to reduce in order to 
make sure that it was used to reduce the debt, or to reduce the 
deficit. Now we are in a surplus environment. We have just done some 
major work on this budget that was spearheaded by Senator Abraham and 
Senator Domenici to create a lockbox for the Social Security surpluses, 
and to assure those surpluses are not spent by Congress. They are 
locked aside to be utilized to either pay down the public debt, or to 
be used to reform Social Security, both of which will strengthen and 
save a lot of the Social Security trust fund.
  I commend our chairman for that tremendous effort and will support 
that effort. This amendment which Senator Grams from Minnesota and I 
have worked on would use the lockbox concept for another part of the 
surplus, that part of the surplus that deals with the potential for an 
increased surplus beyond that which we now have projected.
  In July, we expect that new projections will show an increased 
surplus outside of the Social Security surplus that will be generated 
by taxpayer dollars. This part of the surplus will be a surplus that 
was not contemplated by Congress as we put together this budget. We are 
putting together this budget based on our current projections. And this 
budget will take care of the Social Security surplus. It will protect 
Medicare and education and other needed spending and will find room for 
tax relief. But, if in July the new projections show an enhanced 
surplus, this amendment would say that any new surplus must be locked 
away in a lockbox so that it can be used only for tax relief or 
retirement of the national debt.
  It is critical that we take the tough steps, but the important steps 
to assure that as we now move into a surplus environment with our 
budget that we protect the taxpayer and we protect those of 
particularly our younger generations who face such monumental debt in 
our Federal Government.
  This amendment says any new enhanced surplus that comes from better 
projections that is in excess of what we are projecting in this budget 
that we are working on now will not be used for other spending, but 
will be used to reduce the burden of taxes on Americans, or to reduce 
the national debt, which has been incurred over the last few decades.
  I strongly encourage the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I reluctantly but strongly oppose the 
Crapo amendment. It would create a reserve fund, as I understand, to 
lock in any additional onbudget surplus in the outyears to be used only 
for tax breaks and debt reduction.
  Mr. President, the Democrats welcome the opportunity to lock away a 
portion of the surplus for debt reduction. We have offered amendments 
that would do just that. But this amendment would limit the use of 
future surpluses to debt reduction or tax breaks exclusively--only. So 
I have to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle the following 
question. Why is it OK to set aside the surplus to create a new special 
interest tax loophole but not OK to use the surplus for an increase in 
military pay? Why is it OK to set aside the surplus to give more tax 
breaks to the well off but not OK to use the surplus to hire more 
teachers and reduce class size?
  Mr. President, this amendment is not about fiscal responsibility. It 
is not about saving Social Security or Medicare. But it is about 
setting aside the surplus to give tax breaks particularly to the 
wealthiest among us. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we have the yeas and nays on the 
amendment that was just proffered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I raise a point of order, Mr. President. The 
amendment is not germane, and I raise a point of order that the 
amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.


                     Motion to Waive the Budget Act

  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to waive the Budget Act under the appropriate 
waiver provisions of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays on 
the waiver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  I thank Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. President, we are getting close to what we have nicknamed around 
here votorama. The only thing is that sounds like a movie picture with 
a big screen where everybody can see everything. I am afraid it is 
going to be sort of the opposite because there is going to be 1 minute 
after a while on each amendment, and I don't know how many there is 
going to be yet. But unless and until we change our process, that is 
what we are going to go through for a while.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Pursuant to the previous consent agreement, I ask unanimous consent

[[Page 5855]]

that the first vote in the voting sequence be on the adoption of S. 
Res. 57 regarding Cuba--that is extraneous to our Budget Act, but we 
are getting consent to take care of that very soon--with 10 minutes 
equally divided between Senator Mack and Senator Dodd just prior to the 
vote. I further ask that pursuant to the previous agreement, the 
succeeding votes in the sequence begin with and continue as follows: 
Senator Santorum, amendment No. 212; Senator Reed, amendment No. 162; 
Senator Craig, 146; Boxer, 175; Senator Voinovich, 161; Kennedy, 192; 
Crapo, 163; Dodd, 160; Ashcroft-Gorton, 242; Dorgan, 178, as modified; 
Grams-Roth, 231; Lautenberg, 166; Snowe, 232; Kennedy 195.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, as we understand here, when we start with Santorum 
212, this will mean Senator Santorum should be on the floor if he 
desires to speak to his amendment. And he will get 1 minute, and 
Senator Lautenberg or his designee on the other side, if they oppose 
it, will be given 1 minute, and so on down the line.
  Now, we have already indicated previously that the first vote tonight 
will be a 15-minute vote, and the amendments after that will be 10 
minutes each. I do not know what we are going to do about dinner, but 
perhaps we will reconsider dinner at 6:30 or 7 and see what we do. But 
in the meantime, we are going to proceed with that format, and I urge 
Senators to stay in the Chamber if they have amendments because if we 
want to get out of here at a reasonable time, we can't take 20 minutes 
on each rollcall. We just agreed it would be 10. That is very hard to 
do. We have timed it. Some people say, why don't you make it 7\1/2\? 
Remember last year. You cannot even get it done and get the Senators up 
to vote in 7\1/2\. Ten is the best we can do. But we have to work at 
it. We still don't know whether we can finish tonight, but we are 
working very hard to do it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I can just add a note here, part of 
doing amendments is to fill the amendment tree. So I will say that now 
we want to shake the tree and see if we can drop some of those 
amendments that perhaps on reconsideration by the offeror, maybe there 
would be another time to achieve the goal he or she wants to attain. 
But I want to add this, Mr. President. I think it is an important 
observation. There could be as many as 50 votes.
  Now, if we are exact on the enforcement of the time limit, which I 
would urge we agree to, that 10 minutes is 10 minutes, it is not 11, 
12, 13, that means everybody has to pay attention. If we have a 10-
minute vote and a 2-minute debate, that is 12 minutes. And if you have 
50 of those, we are looking at 600 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Ten hours.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Ten hours. Senator Domenici and I will be here, 
perhaps with a glass of wine, at 3 o'clock in the morning or else we 
will have to go over to the next day.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So I will forgo the glass of wine, but what I hope 
is----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I never was going to have one.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, we weren't going to have it. I was kidding. It is 
for my friends in California I said that. I hope that our colleagues 
will be paying attention to this because a delay by one person is a 
delay for 99 people and we ought not to treat that casually. We are 
going to be here a long time. This could be expedited substantially. We 
hope that any Senators who have an amendment review that which has 
already been discussed and accepted so that we are not being redundant. 
If it has been heard, I would ask colleagues to perhaps rethink whether 
or not they are going to offer their amendment. So I guess we can--I 
don't know what the terminology is for letting the vote roll--let the 
skaters begin, or something of that nature, or let the pitcher pitch.
  Do we have our first?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let's see if we have our first Senator here. We are 
going to do Cuba and that Senator is here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with reference to the matter that is not 
part of our budget resolution, S. Res. 57 regarding Cuba, Senator Dodd, 
is supposed to speak;  Connie Mack on our side, Senator Dodd on your 
side. Mr. President, we are going to wait just a little bit.
  Before Senator Mack and Senator Dodd begin their 10 minutes equally 
divided, might I repeat again, the first Senator up is Senator Santorum 
with amendment No. 212, Senator Reed with No. 162. I have stated the 
rest of them. If anybody needs it, we have the list here. We need the 
Senators to be here and now they are going to have to just as well stay 
because there are going to be 15 or 16 votes in a row. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, just to be clear, the pending 
business is the resolution, is that correct?

                          ____________________