[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5996-6015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

                                 ______
                                 

        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                  ROTH (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 176

  Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Gramm, 
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
Jeffords, Mr. Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Ashcroft) 
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 20) 
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal years 2000 through 2009; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage provided under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial 
     security for retired and disabled individuals, as such 
     coverage protects those individuals against the financially 
     ruinous costs of a major illness.
       (2) Expenditures under the medicare program for hospital, 
     physician, and other essential health care services that are 
     provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired and disabled 
     individuals will be $232,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
       (3) During the nearly 35 years since the medicare program 
     was established, the Nation's health care delivery and 
     financing system has undergone major transformations. 
     However, the medicare program has not kept pace with such 
     transformations.
       (4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert 
     Reischauer has described the medicare program as it exists 
     today as failing on the following 4 key dimensions (known as 
     the ``Four I's''):
       (A) The program is inefficient.
       (B) The program is inequitable.
       (C) The program is inadequate.
       (D) The program is insolvent.
       (5) The President's budget framework does not devote 15 
     percent of the budget surpluses to the medicare program. The 
     federal budget process does not provide a mechanism for 
     setting aside current surpluses for future obligations. As a 
     result, the notion of saving 15 percent of the surplus for 
     the medicare program cannot practically be carried out.
       (6) The President's budget framework would transfer to the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund more than 
     $900,000,000,000 over 15 years in new IOUs that must be 
     redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public, and these new 
     IOUs would increase the gross debt of the Federal Government 
     by the amounts transferred.
       (7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the 
     transfers described in paragraph (6), which are strictly 
     intragovernmental, have no effect on the unified budget 
     surpluses or the on-budget surpluses and therefore have no 
     effect on the debt held by the public.

[[Page 5997]]

       (8) The President's budget framework does not provide 
     access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.
       (9) The Comptroller General of the United States has stated 
     that the President's medicare proposal does not constitute 
     reform of the program and ``is likely to create a public 
     misperception that something meaningful is being done to 
     reform the Medicare program''.
       (10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted changes to the 
     medicare program which strengthen and extend the solvency of 
     that program.
       (11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that 
     without the changes made to the medicare program by the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the depletion of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would now be imminent.
       (12) The President's budget proposes to cut medicare 
     program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, primarily 
     through reductions in payments to providers under that 
     program.
       (13) While the recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
     Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
     of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on the Future of Medicare, all of the President's 
     appointees to that commission opposed the bipartisan reform 
     plan.
       (14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new 
     prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries 
     within a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the 
     medicare program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the 
     public.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions contained in this budget resolution 
     assume the following:
       (1) This resolution does not adopt the President's 
     proposals to reduce medicare program spending by 
     $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, nor does this resolution adopt 
     the President's proposal to spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare 
     program funds on unrelated programs.
       (2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or 
     borrowing more from the public.
       (3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend 
     the solvency of the medicare program and to ensure that 
     benefits under that program will be available to 
     beneficiaries in the future.
       (4) The American public will be well and fairly served in 
     this undertaking if the medicare program reform proposals are 
     considered within a framework that is based on the following 
     5 key principles offered in testimony to the Senate Committee 
     on Finance by the Comptroller General of the United States:
       (A) Affordability.
       (B) Equity.
       (C) Adequacy.
       (D) Feasibility.
       (E) Public acceptance.
       (5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman 
     Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for the 
     neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially 
     improves the solvency of the medicare program without 
     transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new 
     IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public.
       (6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen of the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (7) Congress should continue to work with the President as 
     he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the 
     medicare program.
                                 ______
                                 

                       KENNEDY AMENDMENT NO. 177

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

       Increase the levels of Federal revenues in section 
     101(1)(A) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $25,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $13,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $18,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $31,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $57,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $58,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $59,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $56,000,000,000.
       Change the levels of Federal revenues in section 101(1)(B) 
     by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $25,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $13,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $18,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $31,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $57,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $58,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $59,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $56,000,000,000.
       Reduce the levels of total budget authority and outlays in 
     section 101(2) and section 101(3) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0;
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $0;
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $1,000,000,000;
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000,000;
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $3,000,000,000;
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $4,000,000,000;
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $6,000,000,000;
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $10,000,000,000;
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $13,000,000,000; and
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $17,000,000,000.
       Increase the levels of surpluses in section 101(4) by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of public debt in section 101(5) by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of debt held by the public in section 
     101(6) by the following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $3,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $26,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $15,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $21,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $35,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $63,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $68,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $72,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $73,000,000,000.
       Decrease the levels of budget authority and outlays in 
     section 103(18) for function 900, Net Interest, by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       (2) Fiscal year 2001: $0.
       (3) Fiscal year 2002: $1,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2003: $2,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2004: $3,000,000,000.
       (6) Fiscal year 2005: $4,000,000,000.
       (7) Fiscal year 2006: $6,000,000,000.
       (8) Fiscal year 2007: $10,000,000,000.
       (9) Fiscal year 2008: $13,000,000,000.
       (10) Fiscal year 2009: $17,000,000,000.
       Reduce the levels in section 104(1) by which the Senate 
     Committee on Finance is instructed to reduce revenues by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) $0 in fiscal year 2000.
       (2) $59,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004.
       (3) $320,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2009.
       On page 46, strike section 204.
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EXTENDING THE SOLVENCY OF 
                   MEDICARE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that the savings from the amendment 
     reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers should be 
     reserved to strengthen and extend the solvency of the 
     Medicare program.
                                 ______
                                 

                 DORGAN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 178

  Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
Baucus, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerrey, Mrs. 
Lincoln, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Leahy) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as 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 2000 through 2004 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 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 on-budget surplus for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004 estimated in the report 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and in the following 
     order in each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004--
       (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;

[[Page 5998]]

       (2) reduce the on-budget revenue aggregate by that amount 
     for fiscal year 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 that amount for fiscal year 2000; and
       (4) adjust the instruction in sections 104(1) and 105(1) of 
     this resolution to--
       (A) reduce revenues by that amount 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                     McCAIN AMENDMENTS NOS. 179-181

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

                           Amendment No. 179

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS 
                   TEST.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Social Security Earnings Test is unfair and 
     discriminates against America's senior citizens;
       (2) low-income senior citizens who do not have significant 
     savings or a private pension plan are hit hardest by the 
     Social Security earnings test while wealthier senior citizens 
     are not affected by this unfair penalty;
       (3) according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``retaining 
     older workers is a priority in labor intensive industries, 
     and will become even more critical as we approach the year 
     2000'' and yet our Nation foolishly prevents diligent, 
     knowledgeable and experienced workers out of the American 
     work force just because they are 65 years old;
       (4) our laws should encourage work, not discourage 
     individual productivity; and
       (5) eliminating the earnings test and permitting our 
     Nation's elderly to work and improve their standard of living 
     will also help increase our national prosperity.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that--
       (1) the Social Security earnings test should be repealed 
     immediately; and
       (2) the Senate Finance Committee should include a full 
     repeal of the Social Security Earnings Test in any Social 
     Security reform legislation.

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to 
the Budget Resolution which would help our nation's senior citizens by 
requiring the repeal of the Social Security earnings test.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Social Security earnings test 
penalizes Americans between the ages of 65 and 70 for working and 
remaining productive after retirement. Under this unfair law, a senior 
citizen loses $1 of Social Security benefits for every $3 earned over 
the established limit, which is $15,500 in 1999.
  Due to this cap on earnings, our senior citizens are burdened with a 
33.3 percent tax on their earned income. Combined with Federal, State, 
local and other Social Security taxes, this amounts to an outrageous 55 
to 65 percent tax bite, and sometimes it can be even higher.
  What is most disturbing about the earnings test is the tremendous 
burden it places upon our low-income senior citizens. Most of the older 
Americans penalized by the earnings test need to work in order to cover 
basic expenses: food, housing and health care. Our nation's low-income 
seniors are hit hardest by the earnings test, while most wealthy 
seniors escape unscathed. This is because supplemental ``unearned'' 
income from stocks, investments and savings is not affected by the 
earnings test.
  This is simply wrong and must be stopped.
  In 1996, Congress took a step in the right direction when we passed 
the ``Senior Citizens Right to Work Act'' increasing the earnings 
threshold for senior citizens from $11,520 to $30,000 by the year 2002. 
I was proud to be the sponsor of this legislation which helped 
alleviate the unfair economic penalties placed on hard working senior 
citizens.
  While raising the limit was important it is time that we finally 
eliminate the Social Security earnings test and permit our nation's 
elderly to work and improve their standard of living while increasing 
our national prosperity.

                           Amendment No. 180

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS 
                   TEST.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Social Security Earnings Test is unfair and 
     discriminates against America's senior citizens;
       (2) low-income senior citizens who do not have significant 
     savings or a private pension plan are hit hardest by the 
     Social Security earnings test while wealthier senior citizens 
     are not affected by this unfair penalty;
       (3) according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``retaining 
     older workers is a priority in labor intensive industries, 
     and will become even more critical as we approach the year 
     2000'' and yet our Nation foolishly prevents diligent, 
     knowledgeable and experienced workers out of the American 
     work force just because they are 65 years old;
       (4) our laws should encourage work, not discourage 
     individual productivity; and
       (5) eliminating the earnings test and permitting our 
     Nation's elderly to work and improve their standard of living 
     will also help increase our national prosperity.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that--
       (1) the Social Security earnings test should be repealed 
     immediately; and
       (2) the Senate Finance Committee should include a full 
     repeal of the Social Security Earnings Test in any Social 
     Security reform legislation.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 181

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. BUDGET FOR EMBASSY SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) terrorism, both foreign and domestic, poses a grave 
     threat to United States interests abroad and to the well-
     being of United States citizens at home;
       (2) since the bombing of United States Embassies in Lebanon 
     and Kuwait in 1983 and the truck bomb destruction of the 
     United States facility in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the issue of 
     physical security of United States diplomatic missions and 
     military facilities abroad has been a growing concern to the 
     United States Government and to the public it represents;
       (3) the August 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies 
     in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, further 
     illuminated the vulnerability of United States diplomatic 
     missions to acts of terrorism directed against the United 
     States;
       (4) the report of the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel 
     on Overseas Security of June 1985 specified certain measures 
     that the United States should take to reduce the prospects of 
     repeated bombings of United States Embassies abroad such as 
     occurred in Lebanon and Kuwait in 1983;
       (5) the Accountability Review Boards chaired by Admiral 
     William J. Crowe, Jr. warned of continuing vulnerabilities to 
     United States diplomatic missions cause by the failure of the 
     United States Government to take necessary actions to reduce 
     that vulnerability;
       (6) the Accountability Review Boards recommended that the 
     United States Government allocate the sum of $15,000,000,000 
     be spent over 10 years to address the vulnerabilities of 
     United States diplomatic missions abroad; and
       (7) the Administration has budgeted less than half the 
     amount recommended by the Accountability Review Boards for 
     improving the security of United States diplomatic missions 
     abroad.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     budget levels in this concurrent resolution assume that--
       (1) the President should propose a budget for embassy 
     security consistent with the recommendations set forth by the 
     Accountability Review Boards and including measures 
     recommended by the 1985 Advisory Panel on Overseas Security; 
     and
       (2) the Secretary of State should provide Congress within 
     60 days of adoption of this concurrent resolution a 
     comprehensive report on the Secretary's plans for 
     implementing the recommendations of the Accountability Review 
     Boards and the 1985 Advisory Panel on Overseas Security.

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment 
to the Budget Resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the 
President should propose a budget for embassy

[[Page 5999]]

security consistent with the recommendations set forth by the 
Accountability Review Boards, otherwise known as the Crowe Commission, 
and include measures recommended by the 1985 Advisory Panel on Overseas 
Security, also known as the Inman Commission. It further directs the 
Secretary of State to provide to Congress within 60 days of passage of 
the resolution a comprehensive report on its plans for implementing the 
recommendations of these two commissions.
  Our embassies and consulates abroad are sovereign United States 
territory, representing our country's presence around the world, 
advancing our foreign policy interests, and protecting American 
citizens traveling overseas on business and pleasure. The people who 
work in and visit our embassies deserve a level of physical security 
commensurate with the threat they face from terrorist organizations and 
individuals seeking to express their hostility to the United States 
through destruction of the most visible symbol of U.S. global presence. 
Their destruction, as occurred in Beirut and Kuwait City in 1983 and in 
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, as well as the targeting of other 
U.S. military and diplomatic facilities overseas, is a direct attack on 
the United States.
  It is for this reason that the Administration's five-year budget 
proposal for embassy security is so disappointing and irresponsible. 
Representing less than one-half the amount recommended by the Crowe 
Commission, it sends a worrisome signal to our representatives around 
the world about how we view their physical well-being, and invites 
further attacks on soft targets. The threat of terrorist attack on our 
embassies is very real. Such attacks not only result in the death of 
U.S. and host country citizens, but also carry with them the potential 
for destabilization of countries in which the attack occurs. My 
amendment seeks to address the large disparity between what is required 
and what is provided. I urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.
                                 ______
                                 

                  ROBB (AND GRAHAM) AMENDMENT NO. 182

  Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. Graham) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; 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.
                                 ______
                                 

               LAUTENBERG (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 183

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Levin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
Landrieu, and Mr. Reid) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                      LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT NO. 184

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

       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 that 
     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.

[[Page 6000]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 DURBIN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 185

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

       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.
                                 ______
                                 

                     DURBIN AMENDMENTS NOS. 186-187

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

                           Amendment No. 186

       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 IS 
                   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

       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 deficit reduction) the deficit in this 
     resolution 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.''
                                 ______
                                 

                        DORGAN AMENDMENT NO. 188

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

       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

[[Page 6001]]

     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.
                                 ______
                                 

                        DORGAN AMENDMENT NO. 189

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                  KERRY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 190

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Kerry for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reed, 
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Conrad) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as 
follows:

       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).
                                 ______
                                 

               TORRICELLI (AND DURBIN) AMENDMENT NO. 191

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

       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 
     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.).
                                 ______
                                 

                 KENNEDY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 192

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Kennedy for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Murray, 
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
Feingold, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Levin) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, 
     line 14, and insert the following:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,108,000,000.
       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.

[[Page 6002]]

       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

                                 ______
                                 

                       KENNEDY AMENDMENT NO. 193

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

       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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 KENNEDY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 194

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Kennedy for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, 
Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Reed, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
Lieberman, and Mr. Levin) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, 
     line 14, and insert the following:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,108,000,000.
       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
                                 ______
                                 

                 KENNEDY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 195

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING 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.
                                 ______
                                 

              KENNEDY (AND ROCKEFELLER) AMENDMENT NO. 196

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

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND 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.

[[Page 6003]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                LIEBERMAN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 197

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                FEINSTEIN (AND BOXER) AMENDMENT NO. 198

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                BINGAMAN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 199

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Bingaman for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
Kennedy, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Graham, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
Chafee, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Lieberman) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       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.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                        WYDEN AMENDMENT NO. 200

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

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

                  DODD (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 201

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Mr. Dodd, for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kennedy, 
and Mr. Reed) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 20, surpa; as follows:

       On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, 
     line 14, and insert the following:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,033,000,000.
       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.

[[Page 6004]]

       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
                                 ______
                                 

                        BIDEN AMENDMENT NO. 202

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

       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.
                                 ______
                                 
      HARKIN (AND SPECTER) AMENDMENT NO. 203
  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for Harkin for himself and Mr. Specter) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as 
follows:

       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 by -$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 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                  BIDEN (AND HATCH) AMENDMENT NO. 204

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

       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

[[Page 6005]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                       LANDRIEU AMENDMENT NO. 205

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

       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.''
                                 ______
                                 

                  HATCH (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 206

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Hatch for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy, and 
Mr. Thurmond) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE 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.''
                                 ______
                                 

                        HATCH AMENDMENT NO. 207

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

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

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress find 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, 
     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 threshold 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 levels in this resolution assume that the Antitrust 
     Division will have adequate resources to enable it to meet 
     its statutory requirements, including those related to 
     reviewing and investigating increasingly numerous and complex 
     mergers, but that Congress should make 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                         ENZI AMENDMENT NO. 208

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The institution of marriage is the cornerstone of the 
     family and civil society;
       (2) Strengthening of the marriage commitment and the family 
     is an indispensable step in the renewal of America's culture;
       (3) The Federal income tax punishes marriage by imposing a 
     greater tax burden on married couples than on their single 
     counterparts;
       (4) America's tax code should give each married couple the 
     choice to be treated as one economic unit, regardless of 
     which spouse earns the income; and
       (5) All American taxpayers are responsible for any budget 
     surplus and deserve broad-based tax relief after the Social 
     Security Trust fund has been protected.

[[Page 6006]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                        SHELBY AMENDMENT NO. 209

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                SESSIONS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 210

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                       SANTORUM AMENDMENT NO. 211

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

       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.
                                 ______
                                 

                SANTORUM (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 212

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

       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) Sense 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 DeWINE (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 213

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. DeWine for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
Sessions, and Mr. Abraham) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE 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

[[Page 6007]]

     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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 DeWINE (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 214

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. DeWine for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Coverdell, 
Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Grams, Mr. Burns, and Mr. 
Hutchinson) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                        GORTON AMENDMENT NO. 215

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 ROBERTS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 216

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Roberts for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and 
Mr. Santorum) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. 
Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE 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

[[Page 6008]]

     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 all items and services 
     under the program.
                                 ______
                                 

                      FITZGERALD AMENDMENT NO. 217

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

       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 projected levels for at least the 
     next 5 fiscal year; 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                        HELMS AMENDMENT NO. 218

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

       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.

[[Page 6009]]

       (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 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 SPECTER (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 219

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Specter for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Hatch, 
Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Ashcroft) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE 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 
     prison 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 SPECTER (AND GRAHAM) AMENDMENT NO. 220

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

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON WOMEN'S ACCESS TO OBSTETRIC 
                   AND GYNECOLOGICAL SERVICES.

       (A) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       In the 105th Congress, the House of Representatives acted 
     favorably on The Patient Protection Act (H.R. 4250), which 
     included provisions which required health plans to allow 
     women direct access to a participating physician who 
     specializes in obstetrics and gynecological services.
       Women's health historically has received little attention.
       Access to an obstetrician-gynecologist improves the health 
     care of a woman by providing routine and preventive health 
     care throughout the women's lifetime, encompassing care of 
     the whole patient, while also focusing on the female 
     reproductive system.
       60 percent of all office visits to obstetrician-
     gynecologists are for preventive care.
       Obstetrician-gynecologists are uniquely qualified on the 
     basis of education and experience to provide basic women's 
     health care services.
       While more than 36 States have acted to promote residents' 
     access to obstetrician-gynecologists, patients in other 
     States or in Federally-governed health plans are not 
     protected from access restrictions or limitations.
       (B) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions in this concurrent resolution on the 
     budget assume that the Congress shall enact legislation that 
     requires health plans to provide women with direct access to 
     a participating provider who specializes in obstetrics and 
     gynecological services.
                                 ______
                                 

                JEFFORDS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 221

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Jeffords for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Roth, 
Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Grams) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING 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.

[[Page 6010]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 JEFFORDS (AND OTHER) AMENDMENT NO. 222

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Jeffords for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, 
Ms. Collins, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Levin, Mr. Reid, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Bingaman) proposed 
an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as 
follows:

       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 for Fiscal Year 2000 
     will not be less than the current services for LIHEAP in 
     Fiscal Year 1999.
                                 ______
                                 

                HUTCHISON (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 223

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mrs. Hutchison for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Gramm) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON 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, 1999, 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                ASHCROFT (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 224

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Bond) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as 
follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE 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 
     products;
       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 failures 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 Korean 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 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 subsidiaries 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 liberalization 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

[[Page 6011]]

     of its international trade commitments, and to determine what 
     impact Korea's subsidy plans would have on U.S. agricultural 
     interests, especially in Japan.
                                 ______
                                 

                SHELBY (AND DOMENICI) AMENDMENT NO. 225

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                         ENZI AMENDMENT NO. 226

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

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Sec. 316.   . Sense of the Senate on funding existing, 
     effective public health programs before creating new 
     programs.
       (a) Findings.--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 program 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 ABRAHAM (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 227

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Abraham for himself and Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hagel, 
Mr. Santorum, Mr. Inhofe, and Ms. Collins) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:
       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 President's 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 as $200,000 or 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 ABRAHAM (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 228

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . 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 had 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 COLLINS (AND GREGG) AMENDMENT NO. 229

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING 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

[[Page 6012]]

     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.
                                 ______
                                 

                       STEVENS AMENDMENT NO. 230

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

       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.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                  GRAMS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 231

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Grams for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
Abraham, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Burns, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Craig) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; 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 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 
     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.
                                 ______
                                 

                  SNOWE (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 232

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Ms. Snowe for herself, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Smith of 
Oregon) proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 20, supra; as follows:

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

                COVERDELL (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 233

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

                COVERDELL (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 234

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ___. SENSE OF THE SENATE 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;

[[Page 6013]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                     CHAFEE AMENDMENTS NOS. 235-237

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Chafee) proposed three amendments to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 235

       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 $6,699,000,000.
       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.
       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

       Strike section 201.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 237

       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;

[[Page 6014]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                 CHAFEE (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 238

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Chafee for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
Allard, Ms. Collins, and Ms. Snowe) proposed an amendment to the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as follows:

       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.
                                 ______
                                 

                       ASHCROFT AMENDMENT NO. 239

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                       ASHCROFT AMENDMENT NO. 240

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                       GRASSLEY AMENDMENT NO. 241

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

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     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 Cater-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 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.
                                 ______
                                 

                ASHCROFT (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 242

  Mr. DOMENICI (for Mr. Ashcroft for himself, Mr. Sessions,  Mr. 
Gorton, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Helms) proposed an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 20, supra; as 
follows:

       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.

[[Page 6015]]

       (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.
                                 ______
                                 

                      HUTCHISON AMENDMENT NO. 243

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

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       It is the sense of the Senate that a task force be created 
     for the purpose creating a reserve fund for natural 
     disasters. The Task Force should be composed of three 
     Senators appointed by the majority leader, 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
                                 ______
                                 

                       MOYNIHAN AMENDMENT NO. 244

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

       On page 71, strike lines 3 through 7.

                          ____________________