CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
(Senate - March 25, 1999)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S3385-S3432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.


                           Amendment No. 212

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), proposes an 
     amendment numbered 212, as previously reported.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, I ask that Senator Torricelli be added as cosponsor to the 
resolution.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate to 
extend reauthorization for the Farm Preservation Program. Senator Boxer 
and I were able to put in an amendment for $35 billion for farmland 
preservation in the Freedom to Farm bill 3 years ago. That 
authorization of $35 billion was supposed to last 5 years. It lasted 3. 
There is no more money for this program, and there is a tremendous 
need. The backlog of applications is immense. Nineteen States have 
participated in this. We have saved over 123,000 acres of farmland.
  We have so much debate about urban sprawl. This is an amendment to do 
something in a responsible way by preserving farmland and preserving 
agriculture communities that are under stress from urban sprawl and 
development.
  I hope we will have a resounding favorable vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for offering this amendment.
  We are ready to accept it here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Pennsylvania. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
was necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from 
Indiana (Mr. Lugar), was absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott

[[Page S3386]]


     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

      
     Kyl
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lugar
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 212) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 162

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Could we have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is still not in order.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  Among the first casualties of this proposed budget will be the cities 
and rural communities of America. This budget would cut upwards to 78 
percent of money devoted to community and regional development over the 
next 10 years.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It would restore $88.7 billion 
over 10 years to bring up funding to the level proposed by the 
President. It would do so by taking a small portion of the projected 
tax cuts that are included in this budget. Without my amendment, we 
will see extreme reductions in community development block grants, the 
Economic Development Administration, the lead paint abatement program, 
the brownfields program, those programs that are essential to the 
cities and rural areas of this country.
  We cannot abandon these communities. In fact, we cannot throw them, 
as this budget would, into financial chaos as they try to make up the 
difference with the property tax. The irony here is that these tax cuts 
in the budget will mean tax increases for many communities. It is 
supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of 
Cities. I hope Senators will support this measure and not abandon the 
cities and rural communities of America.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not think I am going to argue the 
substance, other than to say this amendment increases taxes by $64 
billion. This amendment increases taxes by $64 billion, relative to the 
committee bill before us. It suggests it be spent for community and 
regional development.
  Frankly, it would not have to be. The appropriators have their own 
judgment. They can do what they want with it. Essentially, I do not 
believe we ought to be raising taxes to pay for programs like this.
  In addition, this is not germane and is subject to a point of order, 
which I now make under the Budget Act. It would exceed the caps that we 
have agreed to and that are written into statutory law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                     Motion to Waive the Budget Act

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote now occurs on the motion to waive the 
budget point of order.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question occurs on 
agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas an nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     McCain
      
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49 and the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 146

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I remind Senators we have 10 minutes on the next vote. 
We intend to have regular order so we can finish at a reasonable time. 
Ten minutes is what we are allowed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, 
and I have joined together in our effort to control the overall growth 
of government. We are asking that the Senate apply a 60-vote 
requirement to any new entitlement program--not new spending in 
existing entitlement programs, but new entitlement programs--exactly as 
we treat any growth in discretionary spending. It would take a 60-vote 
point of order for us to add new entitlement programs and spend new 
money.
  I think it is a requirement that this Senate should have. Last year, 
54 Senators voted for it. It is bipartisan in its character to control 
the overall growth of government. We think it is appropriate that it be 
spent that way.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am opposing this amendment. It would 
prohibit using revenues to offset new mandatory spending and instead 
require all new spending to be offset with other mandatory cuts. It 
would give special protection to special interest tax loopholes at the 
expense of programs like Social Security or Medicare.
  I understand the Senator said ``new programs.'' It would prevent us 
from using the onbudget surplus for prescription drugs, new benefits, 
or any new mandatory spending. The onbudget surplus could be used only 
for tax breaks.
  Also, the amendment would prevent us from using the user fees, such 
as gas tax, to pay for new highways. If we are looking for a way to pay 
for a new benefit, why would we say that cutting Social Security is OK 
but closing a wasteful tax loophole is not? Why would we say that 
cutting Medicare is OK but eliminating a corporate tax subsidy is not?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, Mr. President, and I 
make the budget point of order. I think this is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has already been made.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask Senators to vote for the waiving of the budget point 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to

[[Page S3387]]

the Craig amendment No. 146. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 175

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee and my ranking member for agreeing to this. Of course, 
Senator Lautenberg was very supportive in committee, and Senator 
Domenici tonight has said he will go along with this amendment.
  It is very simple and clear. It says if there should be a tax cut, we 
want to see the substantial benefit go to the first 90 percent of wage 
earners, rather than the top 10 percent.
  I think this is good for the people of the country.
  I want to thank, again, Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there will be no rollcall vote on this 
amendment. I agree to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 175) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next amendment 
is offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator would yield for some housekeeping, we 
are having a degree of success with the list of amendments. If your 
name is not on this list, then it means you are insisting on a rollcall 
vote. That means there are still about 15 or 20 of you we are looking 
for to sit down and talk, so we will not have to have so many rollcall 
votes. These are all generous Senators on this list. They have 
decided--and the other side has agreed--to accept them. We will do that 
right now, en bloc.
  So that Members might be thinking about this, maybe we ought to find 
a new way to take care of sense-of-the-Senate amendments that show up 
on a budget resolution. I had an idea that maybe we should change the 
law and have a second budget resolution after we have done the real 
one, and anybody that has a sense of the Senate can offer them to the 
second budget bill and ask the leader to set this up in a recess 
period, and people can file these. When we return from the recess, we 
will vote on them en bloc.
  I think that would be an excellent solution. The leader and I will be 
talking about it soon.
  In the meantime, we thank you for great cooperation.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding, having spoken to you and the 
Democratic manager and the two leaders, we will try to wrap this thing 
up tonight; is that true?
  Mr. DOMENICI. If we get this kind of cooperation, we can do it; if we 
don't get cooperation, a few Senators will keep us over until tomorrow.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Late at night, too.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senators on the list that the Democratic and 
Republican staff worked on that and it still might require votes. We 
have had great cooperation and a number of amendments have already 
dropped off.


                     Amendment No. 225, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk of 
amendment No. 225 from Senator Shelby. This modification has been 
approved by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 225), as modified, is 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 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, firewalled 
     spread would exceed 100 percent of total function 400 
     spending called for under this resolution; 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 of 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.
       (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.


       Unanimous Consent Agreement--Amendments Agreed To En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the following amendments have been 
cleared on both sides: Shelby, 209; Sessions, 210; Santorum, 211; 
Roberts, 216; Gorton, 215; Specter, 220; Jeffords, 222; Shelby, 225, as 
modified; 226, Enzi; Collins, 229; Chafee, 237; Specter, 219; 
Fitzgerald, 217; and Jeffords, 221.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, our amendments that have been cleared 
which we can consider en bloc, are as follows: 197, Lieberman; 186, 
Durbin; 187, Durbin; 188, Dorgan; 189, Dorgan; 199, Bingaman; 191, 
Torricelli; 244, Moynihan; 169, Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 209, 210, 211, 216, 215, 220, 222, 225, as 
modified; 226, 229, 237, 219, 217, 221, 197, 186, 187, 188, 189, 199, 
191, 244, 169) were agreed to, en bloc.


          Amendment Nos. 234, 239, 235, 241 and 193 Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. The following amendments, and I am very appreciative of 
this, have been withdrawn: 234, 239, 235, 241 and 193.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are withdrawn.
  The amendments (Nos. 234, 239, 235, 241 and 193) were withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have only 13 amendments remaining on our side. I 
hope Members or their staffs will please sit down with our staff and 
see if we can resolve some of these and give us some idea whether we 
can finish tonight. I very much appreciate it.
  Thank you for yielding, Senator. I am sorry for using your time.

[[Page S3388]]

                           amendment no. 161

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment of the 
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 161, as previously offered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the 
distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee for offering a budget 
resolution that stays within the spending caps and--for the first 
time--protects Social Security surpluses.
  I also want to thank him for setting aside $131 billion in what I 
like to call a ``rainy day fund.'' This money can be used for possible 
contingencies in Medicare or agriculture, emergency spending, or debt 
reduction.
  I respect the view of my colleagues who want to use on-budget 
surpluses to give the American people a tax cut. But before we give a 
tax cut, I believe we should pay down our massive national debt first.
  My amendment would take out the tax cuts in the budget resolution and 
use that money to pay down the debt.
  If my amendment is adopted, and if the projected surpluses 
materialize, then we will slash the publicly-held debt from $3.6 
trillion today to $960 billion in 2009.
  Paying down the debt is the right thing to do--it will reduce our net 
interest payments, expand the economy, lower interest rates for 
families, and reduce the need for future tax increases.
  Has there been a request for the yeas and nays on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio knows of the great respect I have for him. Over the years, I have 
worked with him when he was Governor. But I just can't agree with this 
amendment, and I hope the Senate doesn't.
  This amendment says that the American taxpayer deserves no tax relief 
and, yet, we can spend the money that is in surplus, but we can't give 
the American people any tax relief. This strikes the entire tax relief 
program that we have planned in this budget resolution. We have heard 
some say that we should have only half. We have heard others say we 
should only have two-thirds of it. This one says none. While in the 
budget we spend money for Medicare, we spend money out of the surplus 
for other programs. But now it is being said that we cannot spend any 
of it on tax cuts. I don't believe this is good policy, and I don't 
think that is where we ought to end up this year. We will spend and 
spend and spend that surplus, and there won't be any left for the 
American people in the not-too-distant future.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is there any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table the 
amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
      McCain
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 161) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.


        Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Amendment Nos. 173 and 218

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Murray's amendment numbered 173 has 
disappeared, and No. 218 by Senator Helms has been withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico make a 
unanimous consent request with respect to those amendments?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No. 173 must be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is agreed to.
  The other amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 173) is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 218) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 192

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the budget there is $778 billion for 
10 years for the reduction in taxes. The amendment offered by myself 
and Senator Dodd is very simple. Effectively, it takes $156 billion of 
that, first, to fully fund IDEA; to fully fund the smaller classrooms; 
and to take the remaining funds, which is $43 billion that can be used 
for afterschool programs, for technology, for Pell grants, for Work-
Study Programs, and for other education programs.
  Effectively, we are saying this is the best opportunity that we have 
had in a generation to continue a partnership between local, State and 
the Federal Government in the areas of education. We have a real 
opportunity to do so. We believe that we can still leave 80 percent of 
the tax cut. We are taking 20 percent of the tax cut to fully fund 
IDEA, to meet our commitments, and to also fully fund the smaller 
classroom.
  This is supported by school board associations, the school 
administrators, parent/teachers, the disability rights, the Consortium 
of Citizens with Disabilities, and the Federation of Children with 
Special Needs. It is supported by all of those groups in the best 
interests of the future of our country. I hope it is accepted.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 1 minute. I yield 40 seconds to 
the Senator from New Hampshire, and I will take the other 20 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico will suspend.
  The Senator from New Mexico has yielded time.
  To whom does the Senator yield his time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire 40 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, essentially, no one in this Senate has 
worked harder--many have worked as hard, but I think I have worked as 
hard as anyone else to try to get funding for IDEA programs. What this 
amendment is essentially is a ``don't worry, be happy'' amendment. It 
is an amendment which doesn't address the underlying problem, which is 
that this Congress and, unfortunately, some people on the other side of 
the aisle in this Congress are not willing to set priorities in the 
area of education.
  We have in the law, on the books a law that says we should fund IDEA. 
The only people who have been trying to do that have been on this side 
of the aisle. In the last 3 years, we have increased funding for IDEA 
by 85 percent from this side of the aisle. In the Domenici budget, we 
have increased it by another $2.5 billion.

[[Page S3389]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Let's do it the right way. Let's do it the way it is done 
in this budget.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been telling you all, Democrat 
and Republican alike, that what is going to happen with this surplus is 
we are going to spend it all. I have made a preliminary analysis of 
this week's Democratic amendments that use the surplus. They have now 
used $430 billion of the surplus for new programs. This one is in this 
430. Some others aren't. I merely ask that we not do this and save some 
of the money for the American taxpayers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 192) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from New Mexico.


                     Amendment No. 219, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have heretofore adopted a Specter 
amendment. We should have sent a modification to the desk to Amendment 
No. 219. I send the modification to the desk and ask the amendment, 
which was adopted, be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 219), previously agreed to, as modified is 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 firearm 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) In 1993, the office of the U.S. Attorney for the 
     Western District of New York teamed up with the Monroe County 
     District Attorney's Office, the Monroe County Sheriff's 
     Department, the Rochester Police Department, and others to 
     form a Violent Crimes Task Force. In 1997, the Task Force 
     created an Illegal Firearms Suppression Unit, whose mission 
     is to use prosecutorial discretion to bring firearms cases in 
     the judicial forum where penalties for gun violations would 
     be the strictest. The Suppression Unit has been involved in 
     three major prosecutions of interstate gun-purchasing 
     activities and currently has 30 to 40 open single-defendant 
     felony gun cases;
       (9) Senator Hatch has introduced legislation to authorize 
     Project CUFF, a federal firearms prosecution program;
       (10) the Administration has requested $5 million to conduct 
     intensive firearms prosecution projects on a national level;
       (11) given that at least $1.5 million is needed to run an 
     effective program in one American city--Philadelphia--$5 
     million is far from enough funding to conduct such programs 
     nationally.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Function 750 in the budget resolution assumes that 
     $50,000,000 will be provided in fiscal year 2000 to conduct 
     intensive firearms prosecution projects to combat violence in 
     the twenty-five American cities with the highest crime rates.


                           Amendment No. 224

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have an Ashcroft amendment, amendment 
No. 224, which is ready to be accepted. The Democratic leader accepts 
it also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 224) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 163

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment is a very straightforward 
amendment. It seeks to deal with the excess surplus we expect to be 
projected this July. We are now working on a budget that will be saving 
Social Security, for tax relief, and for the necessary investments we 
must make in our military, education, Medicare, and other needed 
programs the Federal Government must pay attention to.
  After this budget is put together and we have made those adjustments, 
we expect the July reports will say we have an even larger surplus than 
is now expected.
  This amendment says, if a larger surplus develops, that surplus 
should be set aside in a lockbox for either tax relief or debt 
retirement. It is very straightforward, to say after we have met the 
needs in negotiating this budget, we then apply any future increases in 
the surplus to debt retirement or tax relief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Crapo 
amendment. As the Senator said, it creates a reserve fund to lock in 
any additional onbudget surplus in the outyears to be used exclusively 
for tax breaks and debt reduction.
  Mr. President, Democrats welcome the opportunity to lock away a 
portion of the surplus for debt reduction. We have offered amendments 
that would do just that. But this amendment would limit the use of 
future surpluses to debt reduction or tax breaks only.
  So I have to ask a question here. Why is it all right to set aside 
the surplus to

[[Page S3390]]

create a new special interest tax loophole, but not OK to use the 
surplus for an increase in military pay?
  Why is it OK to set aside the surplus to give more tax breaks to the 
well off but not OK to use the surplus to hire more teachers and reduce 
class size?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Will the Senators 
take their conferences off the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It would be nice to have order.
  Mr. President, this amendment is not about fiscal responsibility. It 
is not about saving Social Security or Medicare. It is about setting 
aside the surplus to give tax breaks to a select few, including the 
wealthiest among us. I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment.


                           amendment no. 165

  Mr. KOHL. I would like to take a moment to explain my opposition to 
the amendment by the gentleman from Idaho, Senator Crapo. This 
amendment would set aside all on-budget surpluses above those estimated 
in the Republican Budget Resolution. These funds would then be used for 
either tax cuts or debt reduction. While I agree with his goals of 
reducing taxes and eliminating the debt, I believe that this is the 
wrong way to go about it.
  I am committed to reserving 77 percent of the total, unified, surplus 
to increase the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. I do not 
believe that we should bind ourselves to the estimates of surpluses in 
this bill. If higher than anticipated surpluses come into the Treasury 
then I believe that we should still put 77 percent of those new, 
unexpected funds into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
  The Democratic plan leaves 23 percent of the unified surplus for tax 
cuts, debt reduction and domestic priorities. This leaves room for a 
tax cut regardless of future surpluses, and is not dependent on the 
estimates in this bill. Committing ourselves to reserving 77 percent of 
the unified surplus for Medicare and Social Security will keep these 
programs solvent longer than the proposal from the Senator for Idaho, 
and therefore I cannot support his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the point of order. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.}

                                YEAS--42

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith NH
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith OR
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 42, the nays are 57. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Connecticut has 1 minute.


                     Amendment No. 160, As Modified

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the 
desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 3, strike beginning with line 5 through page 5, 
     line 14, and insert the following:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,585,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,649,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,682,788,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,737,451,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,807,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,870,513,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$6,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$52,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$31,305,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$48,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$61,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$107,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$133,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$148,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$175,197,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,457,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,488,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,561,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,613,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,666,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,698,902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,754,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,815,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,875,969,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,639,428,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,667,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,717,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,782,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,842,697,000,000.
       On page 28, strike beginning with line 13 through page 31, 
     line 19, and insert the following:
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $299,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $312,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,102,000,000.
       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, $138,485,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004, and $765,985,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009; and

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have the right to 
modify my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It takes unanimous consent, which has been 
granted.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this modification reduces the amount from 
$7.5 billion over 5 years to $5 billion on a child care block grant 
amendment. It is very simple. It is designed to help working families. 
The amendment increases the mandatory spending by $5 billion over 5 
years. The offset comes from a reduction of the $800 billion tax bill 
by that amount.
  This amendment also asserts in nonbinding language that if child care 
tax credits are expanded in future legislation, that they would be for 
stay-at-

[[Page S3391]]

home parents as well as working parents, and that there would be a tax 
refundability so the poorer families would be able to take advantage of 
it.
  The reason why this amendment on this concurrent resolution is so 
important is that if we do not provide additionally to the child care 
needs in the budget resolution, then there is no other opportunity for 
us to do it in the 106th Congress.
  So this modest amount over 5 years, given the huge waiting lists that 
exist, the difficulty that working families have in meeting these 
costs, and providing that incentive as well for stay-at-home parents so 
they can get the benefit of it, I think justifies the adoption of it.
  I am delighted to have as my cosponsors, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, 
Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and others. I thank some of my Republican 
colleagues on the other side for their indication of support for this 
amendment as well.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment. I think it is a good 
one. I think it will help working families and their children get good 
and decent child care.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know how interested my friend from 
Connecticut is in this, and that he has lowered the amount. But I 
really think that we ought to stick with the format that we have been 
following here, and we ought not start taking money out of the tax cut 
to put into new programs.
  I yield back my time and move to table the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--57

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hutchinson
     McCain
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 160), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for that vote 
being open as long as it was. We can't do that anymore if we are going 
to have any hope of finishing this.
  I would like to ask all Senators to stay in the Chamber. We have 
reached an hour where I don't think it would be necessary to go back to 
your office or go to receptions. We still have a number of amendments 
that are pending. I know the whip is working those amendments on the 
Democratic side. We are working them over here.
  I ask unanimous consent that for the next block of amendments--I 
think there are five of them in this block--the time for the votes be 6 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. There will need to be the 2 minutes equally divided between 
the amendments. If the Senators will stay in the Chamber, we can clear 
a number of amendments. Hopefully, we can move through this quickly. We 
will see if there is any chance to wrap this up tonight. We will not 
hold the votes open on this next block of votes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. Leader, is there any requirement that the clerk read 
back every vote? That would save considerable time. Is there any need 
for that?
  Mr. LOTT. Does the Senator mean the results of the vote?
  Mr. REID. What happens is, midway through the votes they go over who 
voted for and against. Is there some requirement for that to be 
necessary?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, that has been done since the beginning of 
time. (Laughter.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That takes care of that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I think it is going to continue, Mr. President.
  Mr. BYRD. By unanimous consent--may I say with great respect to the 
Senate--by unanimous consent you can avoid the recapitulation, if you 
want to do that.
  Mr. LOTT. Rather than changing the precedent, Mr. President, let me 
work with the leadership on both sides to see if we can't in some way 
expedite this as quickly as possible, maybe without calling the names. 
We will work on that.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the majority leader yield to me?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. I will tell you how the leader can stop me from keeping 
everybody else here waiting. He can tell them up there to call the 
roll, and announce the results. And if he catches me off the floor 
once, I will take my lumps. I ought to be here, and not keep everybody 
else waiting. I have a wife who is 81 years old. I am 81 years old. She 
is there waiting on me. I am here. I think Senators ought to have a 
little compassion and respect for one another. If the leader will just 
teach us one time, for those who are not here when that announcement is 
made, they are going to show up as absent, that will break Senators 
from imposing on other Senators by being late for votes.
  Mr. LOTT. We just did that. Two Senators just missed that last vote.
  Stay in the Chamber. We are calling those votes after 6 minutes. Stay 
on the floor so we can begin the debate and voting.


                     Amendment No. 213, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have had a little bit of success in 
getting rid of some other amendments.
  Amendment No. 213 needs a modification. Then it is ready. This has 
been approved on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 213), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) as national crime rates are beginning to fall as a 
     result of State and local efforts, with Federal support, it 
     is important for the Federal Government to continue its 
     support for State and local law enforcement;
       (2) Federal support is crucial to the provision of critical 
     crime fighting programs;
       (3) Federal support is also essential to the provision of 
     critical crime fighting services and the effective 
     administration of justice in the States, such as State and 
     local crime laboratories and medical examiners' offices;
       (4) Current needs exceed 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;

[[Page S3392]]

       (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 developing and integrating their anticrime 
     technology systems, 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 maintaining Federal funding for 
     State and local law enforcement, and wisely targeting these 
     resources.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) The amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 to 
     assist State and local law enforcement efforts should be 
     comparable to or greater than 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 213), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 207, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Amendment No. 207, which I tendered a while ago, has 
now been OK'd by the minority. I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 207), as modified, is as follows:

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

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

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

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment will put the Senate on 
record in two important areas.
  The first is that, notwithstanding assumptions to the contrary, the 
Antitrust Division needs and should have adequate resources to enable 
it to meet its statutory requirements, including those related to 
reviewing and investigating increasingly numerous and complex mergers.
  The second, is that Congress needs to review and pursue adjustments 
to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. This 
second point, Mr. President, is an important one and one whose time is 
long overdue. The threshold values in this Act which trigger the 
requirement for businesses to file premerger notifications with 
government antitrust enforcers have not been changed, even for 
inflation, since 1976--23 years ago.
  The overall purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Antitrust 
Division's resources are focused on matters and transactions most 
deserving of the Division's attention, and to remove unnecessary 
regulatory and financial burdens on small businesses.
  Mr. President, few would disagree that it is important to adequately 
fund the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. They are 
charged with the civil and criminal enforcement of the antitrust laws, 
including review of corporate mergers, in order to ensure that the 
consumer benefits from lower prices and better goods that come with 
vigorous competition in the marketplace. The interests of consumers 
must prevail over the political interests of some companies.
  At our oversight hearing of the Justice Department several weeks ago, 
I asked Attorney General Reno whether she would work with us to review 
the value thresholds of the Hart-Scott-Rodino. It is my belief that 
adjustments to the value thresholds of Hart-Scott-Rodino are needed. 
They are needed to ensure that the Department's merger reviews take 
into account inflation and the true economic impact of mergers in 
today's economy--not in the economy of 1976. The Attorney General, and 
the Federal Trade Commission have pledged to work with us, and I look 
forward with working with the Administration to come up with a rational 
proposal that is a win-win for both the Department and small business.
  Mr. President, let me just add that this amendment is not about one 
company, or one issue. It is about providing rational relief for some 
small businesses and supporting the enforcement of our laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 207), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 243, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has Senator Lautenberg cleared amendment 
No. 243 of Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. That is fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send it to the desk. It is acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 243), as modified, is as follows:

                     Amendment No. 243, As Modified

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

       At the appropriate place, insert:

       It is the Sense of the Senate that a task force be created 
     for the purpose of studying the possibility of 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 243), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 178

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment we will consider next is an 
amendment which provides an opportunity to address the dire emergency 
that exists on American farms. All of us in this Chamber know that farm 
prices have collapsed. We also know that we face the prospect of losing 
tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands perhaps, of family farmers 
unless something is done to restore some price protection during this 
time.
  The amendment I have offered is the only opportunity to do that. It 
provides room in this Budget Act for a $6-billion-per-year price 
protection opportunity.

[[Page S3393]]

  In 1995, the budget resolution that we considered was the start of 
the change of farm programs to the new Freedom to Farm bill. In this 
budget resolution, we are trying to provide an opportunity to repair 
the deficiencies in that bill that stripped away much of the needed 
price protection.
  This amendment I hope will be supported by my colleagues and give us 
the opportunity this year, after a midyear correction by the 
Congressional Budget Office, to use needed resources to help family 
farmers during their dire emergency.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been keeping track on how much of 
the surplus we have spent. We spent $430 billion. If we adopt the 
Democratic amendment, this is $30 billion more. So the surplus would 
have had $460 billion already spent, if this amendment were adopted. We 
will increase the mandatory expenditures under agriculture from about 
$39 billion, to $40 billion, to $75 billion. That will be fixed and 
permanent, because it is an entitlement. And actually there are many 
who say this agriculture economy will recover in a couple of years. 
Yet, we have this built in for 5 years.
  I don't think we ought to do this tonight. There is ample time to 
consider.
  I remind you that the President didn't ask for one nickel. We put $6 
billion new money in, and now this is $30 billion more.
  I move to table the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from North Dakota. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Thomas
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 178) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that vote took 10\1/2\ minutes, but I know 
there were some Senators who were not aware we got consent to limit 
these votes to 6 minutes. Again, I urge all Senators to remain in the 
Chamber or in the Cloakroom at the furthest distance. The next vote 
will cut off after 6 minutes.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 240

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the Ashcroft amendment, No. 
240, has been cleared on the other side. It is at the desk. I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 240) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Snowe's amendment is next.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Snowe's amendment No. 242 is the one that is 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on its own motion, observes the 
absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.


                      Amendment No. 166 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Lautenberg 
amendment, No. 166.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am withdrawing amendment No. 166.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 166) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 232

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Snowe amendment, No. 
232. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in contrast to the President's budget, we 
do have a means by which to create a provision for a prescription drug 
benefit program in the budget resolution. We created a reserve fund in 
the Budget Committee that was supported by an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
vote, 21 to 1.
  Mr. President, the reserve fund that is included in the budget 
resolution for the purposes of financing a prescription drug benefit 
program was supported overwhelmingly by the members of the committee on 
a bipartisan basis, a 21-to-1 vote.
  The amendment I am offering, along with Senator Wyden, as well as 
cosponsor Senator Smith of Oregon, is to expand and create a funding 
mechanism that will ensure and guarantee the funding of a prescription 
drug benefit program. We think it is important to ensure that we have 
this benefit program for our Nation's senior citizens. It is contingent 
upon a reform package being reported out of the Senate Finance 
Committee to extend the solvency of the Medicare program. The funding 
mechanism would be an increase in the tobacco taxes.
  I think it is an appropriate linkage between Medicare and tobacco 
taxes. A recent study shows, in fact, that $25 billion was the cost to 
the Medicare program as a result of tobacco-related illnesses.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering along with my good friends 
and colleagues from Oregon, Senators Wyden and Gordon Smith, would 
expand the reserve fund that is found in section 209 of the budget 
resolution. Specifically, our amendment would allow new tobacco taxes 
to be used as an offset for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit 
that this reserve fund would create.
  Mr. President, as I stated on the floor yesterday, I believe that one 
of the most critical items included in this year's Senate budget 
resolution is the reserve fund for Medicare and prescription drugs.
  Put simply, this reserve fund--that was adopted with the support of 
all 10 Democratic members on the Budget Committee--will provide the 
Congress with a critically needed opportunity to address an issue that 
has been highlighted repeatedly of late: the long-term solvency of 
Medicare and a means to fund a new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  In light of the recent disappointing conclusion of deliberations by 
the Bipartisan Commission on Medicare--where the final vote for a 
recommendation failed by a singe vote--I can think

[[Page S3394]]

of no provision more critical to moving these issues forward in the 
aftermath of that Commission's work than the reserve fund contained in 
the Senate budget resolution.
  Specifically, the reserve fund already contained in the budget 
resolution will allow for the creation of a new Medicare prescription 
drug benefit. This reserve fund will be available for any Medicare 
legislation reported from the Senate Finance Committee that 
significantly extends the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund in a 
meaningful and legitimate manner beyond its current insolvency date of 
2008.
  However, to ensure our ability to tap the reserve fund is not unduly 
restricted or that legislation is not stalled in the Finance Committee 
due to a particular solvency date not being achieved, the reserve fund 
intentionally provides no specific target date for extending the 
program's solvency. Rather, it simply requires that the added solvency 
be ``significant'' with no gimmicks to simply increase the ``paper 
balance'' of the trust fund. Specifically, the President's proposal to 
artificially increase the number of IOUs held by the Medicare Trust 
Fund would be precluded.
  Also of critical importance, the reserve fund explicitly provides for 
the funding of a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that could be 
funded with a portion of on-budget surpluses that have been set-aside 
in the Chairman's budget. The on-budget surplus currently set-aside in 
the budget totals $132 billion over the coming 10 years, so up to this 
amount of monies could be utilized for the prescription drug benefit.
  Given the fact that prescription drug coverage proved to be one of 
the most divisive issues during the Bipartisan Commission's 
deliberations, this reserve fund will ensure that this critically 
needed addition to the Medicare program is not blocked from 
consideration when legislation to strengthen Medicare is considered on 
the floor. Furthermore, it serves as a much needed ``carrot-and-stick'' 
for getting Congress and the President to develop a comprehensive plan 
to strengthen Medicare soon--not put it off until the day of reckoning 
in 2008 is nearly upon us.
  Mr. President, there are many issues where members of the Senate may 
disagree, but there is one stark fact--the fact that the Medicare Part 
A Trust Fund will be broke within 10 years--which everyone in this room 
must accept. Therefore, since solutions will likely become draconian 
the longer we wait to take meaningful steps to strengthen the program, 
we must not wait any longer to take action to credibly extend the 
solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and improve the Medicare program 
overall.
  As my colleagues are aware, we didn't get a proposal out of the 
Bipartisan Medicare Commission despite the best efforts of several 
members of this body. But that ``hung jury'' decision does not mean we 
can simply ignore the fact that the Medicare program--which is the 
program more then 38 million elderly Americans rely on for their health 
care--is going broke.
  Fortunately, the Senate Finance Committee is already taking action, 
beginning with a series of hearings that began last week on the 
Commission's majority-supported proposal, and speculation that a markup 
of Medicare-related legislation could occur in the not-too-distant 
future. In addition, the President--who was accused of preventing the 
Commission from getting the final, crucial vote necessary to report a 
recommendation--has now said that he will send us his own proposal 
soon.
  Mr. President, the reserve fund already included in the Senate budget 
resolution will facilitate this process by allowing the Congress to 
take up the President's forthcoming proposal or any other proposal 
reported by the Senate Finance Committee that credibly addresses 
Medicare's needs. That, alone, is a critical step forward since we can 
no longer leave our seniors worrying that our failure to take action 
will leave them without access to health care. Because when the Trust 
Fund runs dry there is no health care--none--for many of our nation's 
senior citizens.
  Even as the reserve fund will help spur action on legislation to 
credibly extend the solvency of the Medicare program, it will also 
allow us to take a critical step in improving and updating the Medicare 
system: the addition of a meaningful Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. I believe this addition is, unquestionably, the most 
significant we could make to Medicare as we seek to strengthen the 
system.
  Mr. President, the need for this new benefit could not be more clear. 
When Medicare was created in 1965 it followed the private health 
insurance model of the time--inpatient health care. Today, thirty-four 
years later, it is sadly out of date and it is time to bring Medicare 
``back to the future'' by providing our seniors with prescription drug 
coverage.
  The lack of a prescription drug coverage benefit is the biggest 
hole--a black hole really--in the Medicare system. HCFA will tell you 
that up to 65 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have drug coverage from 
other sources. But that number simply doesn't tell the whole story.
  Specifically, fourteen percent of Medicare beneficiaries get drug 
coverage from one of the three Medigap policies that cover drugs. Two 
of these policies require a $250 deductible and then only cover 50 
percent of the cost of the drug with a $1,250 cap. Needless to say, you 
can run up against that cap pretty fast with today's drug prices.
  The third policy provides a cap of $3,000 but the premium ranges 
anywhere from $1,699 to $3,171 depending on where you live. That is a 
lot of money for someone living on a fixed income.
  An estimated 8 percent get drug coverage from participating in 
Medicare HMOs and another 16 percent receive coverage from Medicaid. Of 
course to do that, they must be very low-income to begin with and may 
have to spend a great deal out of pocket for their drugs--what we 
commonly refer to as spending down--before they are eligible in a given 
year for coverage. Finally there are those lucky enough--29 percent--to 
have employer sponsored drug coverage through their retiree program.
  Mr. President, drug coverage should be part and parcel of the 
Medicare system, not a patchwork system where some get coverage and 
some don't. Prescription drug coverage shouldn't be a ``fringe 
benefit'' available only to those wealthy enough or poor enough to 
obtain coverage--it should be part and parcel of the Medicare system 
that will see today's seniors, and tomorrow's into the 21st Century.
  In light of this glaring need for prescription drug coverage, I will 
be working with senior citizens groups and health care experts over the 
coming weeks to develop bipartisan legislation with Senator Wyden and 
others that will provide Medicare recipients with a comprehensive 
Medicare prescription drug coverage benefit that could be included in 
any forthcoming package to strengthen Medicare.
  The focus of my proposal will be to provide senior citizens with 
actual coverage for prescription drugs. Put simply, even if we attempt 
to control the prices of drugs that are needed by senior citizens, that 
does not guarantee many of these individuals will be able to afford 
those prices. That's why a new benefit is so critical.
  Although the details of my prescription drug coverage proposal will 
be developed over the coming weeks, there are several broad principles 
that I anticipate will be included in the Snowe-Wyden package:
  First, this package will not be part of Medicare Part A, and 
therefore will have no direct impact on the solvency of the Medicare 
Trust Fund. Like my colleagues, I am gravely concerned about the 
solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and believe that issue must be 
addressed in a comprehensive, bipartisan manner. Therefore, I believe 
it would be irresponsible to propose a new benefit in the Trust Fund 
that would further jeopardize its solvency in future years, and will 
propose that my new benefit package be outside the Trust Fund 
accordingly.
  Second, while the details of our legislation will ultimately be 
crafted during bipartisan negotiations with interested groups and 
health care experts, the drug benefit package will be comprehensive and 
ensure that all seniors have prescription drug coverage.
  Third, while the cost of this proposal will ultimately be determined 
by the benefit package that is crafted, our proposal will be fully-
offset. While my colleagues are aware that the cost of

[[Page S3395]]

this coverage varies widely depending on the size and scope of the 
benefit, I believe it would be irresponsible to create any new benefit 
without paying for it. Accordingly, the primary offset for our package 
will be an increase in the tobacco tax.
  As my colleagues are aware, President Clinton's FY 2000 budget 
proposal included a 55-cent per pack increase in the cost of cigarettes 
and an acceleration of the 15-cent per pack increase contained in the 
1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that 
the combined revenues of these two proposals would be $36 billion over 
5 years, and $70 billion over 10 years.
  Interestingly, instead of applying these new revenues to Medicare or 
a new prescription drug benefit, the President proposes that these 
tobacco tax revenues be used to offset increases in discretionary 
spending. Because tax increases are not allowed to offset discretionary 
spending under the Budget Act, these improper offsets contribute to the 
President's budget being in violation of the spending limits agreed to 
just two years ago by $30 billion in FY 2000.
  At the same time, the President's budget also fails to provide a 
single penny for a prescription drug benefit--or even a mechanism to 
provide monies for such a benefit--after touting the need for 
prescription drug coverage in the State of the Union address.
  In light of this deficiency in the President's budget, the bipartisan 
proposal I will be crafting with Senator Wyden will not only create a 
fully-funded prescription drug benefit, but it will also utilize the 
proposed tax increase for tobacco contained in the President's budget. 
Ultimately, it is my hope that the President will recognize that these 
monies would be best spent on Medicare, and will support our effort 
accordingly.
  Mr. President, the rationale for linking tobacco taxes and Medicare 
is clear. As outlined in a study by Columbia University, smoking-
related illnesses cost the Medicare program $25.5 billion in 1994 
alone--a full 14 percent of Medicare's costs in that year.
  In fact, as the chart behind me indicates, of the various forms of 
substance abuse that affect the Medicare program, tobacco-related 
illnesses accounted for 80% of the $32 billion in total substance abuse 
costs in 1994. Therefore, dedicating tobacco revenues to Medicare will 
allow the program to recapture some of the monies it is losing to 
tobacco.
  In particular, the proposal I will be developing with Senator Wyden 
will demonstrate how new tobacco monies could be shifted to Medicare 
and then targeted to the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.
  To accommodate the proposal we will be crafting--and the tobacco 
offset it will contain in particular--the amendment I am offering today 
will ensure that tobacco tax revenues are among the funding options 
provided for in the new reserve fund for prescription drugs.
  While I am pleased that remaining on-budget surpluses are already an 
allowable offset in the reserve fund, I believe it is only appropriate 
that tobacco taxes also be an allowed offset. Not only because this 
offset be used in the prescription drug package I will be developing 
with Senator Wyden, but because of the direct link between tobacco and 
the Medicare program.
  As mentioned, a study by the National Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that the cost of tobacco-
related illnesses on the Medicare program totaled $25.5 billion in 
1994, or 14% of the total expenditures of the Medicare program.
  Assuming this percent holds as true today as it did five years ago--
and there is no reason to assume otherwise--the impact of tobacco on 
Medicare is astounding. With CBO projecting Medicare expenditures of 
$220 billion in the current fiscal year, tobacco-related health care 
expenses would total upward of $30.8 billion in 1999 alone using the 14 
percent assumption. Over the coming years, these numbers will only 
escalate:
  $32.5 billion in 2000.
  $34.7 billion in 2001.
  $36 billion in 2002.
  And $39.5 billion in 2003.
  In fact, if tobacco-related illnesses continue to cost the Medicare 
program 14 percent of its total expenditures, these expenses will total 
$62.6 billion in the year 2009. All told, tobacco-related illnesses 
would cost the Medicare program $486 billion from 1999 to 2009!
  Mr. President, in light of the impact of tobacco on the Medicare 
program, I can think of no reason why new tobacco revenues should not 
be returned to the Medicare program and used to fund a new prescription 
drug benefit. Along with our efforts to keep the program solvent well 
beyond 2008, this new benefit is arguably the most pressing need of our 
nation's senior citizens in the Medicare program. By linking the two 
issues in the reserve fund I have created, we can and should do both.
  Mr. President, while I know that many of my colleagues may not 
support a tobacco tax increase, I urge that they seriously consider the 
impact of tobacco-related illnesses on Medicare. My amendment is not an 
effort to simply pass a tobacco tax for the sake of doing it. Rather, 
it's about recouping a limited portion of the monies tobacco costs the 
Medicare program every year, and devoting these monies to a program 
within Medicare that benefits senior citizens.
  The bottom line is that the reserve fund already included in the 
budget will help facilitate the consideration of Medicare legislation 
by laying the groundwork for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit 
that may not otherwise be available. While it would already allow 
remaining on-budget surpluses to be used for this new benefit, the 
amendment I am offering today will ensure that another funding source 
is also available.
  Ultimately, the true benefit of adopting my amendment is that it will 
ensure a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that utilizes tobacco 
revenues can be offered with only a simple majority vote being required 
for its adoption. Without this provision, a point of order would lie 
against such a proposal, and 60 votes would be required to waive the 
point of order. While not an impossible hurdle, it nevertheless raises 
the bar on an offset that I believe is wholly appropriate for the issue 
at hand.
  Again, I do not expect that all of my colleagues will support the 
prescription drug benefit bill that Senator Wyden and I will be 
crafting. But I would hope that my colleagues would see the legitimate 
link between Medicare and tobacco, and will at least vote today to 
allow this offset to be considered without a supermajority vote in the 
future.
  The reserve fund already contained in the budget resolution is a 
critical step in the right direction that may ultimately ensure 
legislation to genuinely strengthen Medicare will move in the Congress. 
And the amendment we are offering will simply bring one more 
legitimate, related offset into the mix of available options as that 
package is crafted in the Congress.
  Mr. President, I believe the cost of Medicare prescription drugs 
constitutes a crisis for our senior citizens. While the President 
expressed support for such a benefit in the State of the Union, he 
failed to deliver anything for it in his budget proposal, just as he 
seemingly failed to assist the Commission in doing their job: sending 
this Congress a bipartisan Medicare reform proposal.
  Despite the President's lack of courage on these issues--or 
willingness to put substance behind his State of the Union rhetoric--I 
believe it is critical that we make it possible to strengthen and 
improve Medicare in the Congress. The reserve fund already contained in 
the budget may be our best hope to repair and improve the Medicare 
program. It will allow it to be one of our finest accomplishments in 
the 106th Congress--not a political punching bag that delivers nothing 
of value to our deliberations or to our nation's elderly. And the 
amendment we are offering today will only make the reserve fund better.
  Therefore, I urge that my colleagues support our amendment, and work 
to improve the Medicare ``enabling'' reserve fund already contained in 
the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
pending amendment, No. 232, offered by Senator Snowe. The language is 
not germane to the budget resolution before us.

[[Page S3396]]

  Therefore, I raise the point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.


                     Motion to Waive the Budget Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, can we waive it at this time? I move to 
waive it at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has moved to waive the 
budget point of order. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the budget point of order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is a 6-minute rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senate this is a 6-
minute rollcall.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the budget point 
of order in relation to the Snowe amendment No. 232.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Thomas
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 54, the nays are 44. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 195

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate that we 
ought to go on record for an increase in the minimum wage. This Nation 
is having unprecedented prosperity. We have the lowest unemployment 
that we have had in 30 years, the lowest rates of inflation. Still, we 
have 11 million minimum-wage workers. And a minimum-wage working family 
of three is still $3,000 less than the poverty income for a family of 
three.
  This is an issue that affects women. It is an issue that affects 
children. It is an issue that affects families. No one in the United 
States of America who works for a living ought to live in poverty.
  We hope now to have a sense of the Senate that we will increase the 
minimum wage 50 cents this year and 50 cents next year. That is what 
the Daschle amendment does, and this is a sense of the Senate to 
support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is not germane under the 
budget. I make a point of order that it is not germane.


                     Motion to Waive The Budget Act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that Act for the consideration of the pending amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the 
vote is on the motion to waive.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I ask the Parliamentarian, an ``aye'' vote would 
be to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An ``aye'' vote would be to waive the budget 
point of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Congressional Budget Act in relation to the Kennedy amendment 
No. 195. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce the Senator from Arizona Mr. McCain and the 
Senator from Wyoming Mr. Thomas are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Thomas
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 45, the nays are 53. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                     Amendment No. 208, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment I now send to the desk for Senator Enzi, numbered 208, be 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 208), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

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

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


                     amendment no. 205, as modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I send to 
the desk for Senator Landrieu, numbered 205, be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 205) as modified, is as follows:


[[Page S3397]]


       On page 46, after line 10, add a new subsection (c) that 
     reads as follows:
       (c) Limitation.--This reserve fund will give priority to 
     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;
       (6) Tax incentives to help small businesses; and
       (7) Tax relief provided by accelerating the increase in the 
     deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-
     employed.


  Amendment Nos. 208, As Modified; 205, As Modified; 202, And 171, En 
                                  Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to clear some amendments for immediate 
consideration: Senator Enzi, 208, as modified; 205, Senator Landrieu, 
as modified; 202, Senator Biden; and 171, Senator Boxer. These have 
been cleared with the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 208, as modified; 205, as modified; 202 and 171) 
were agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 202

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer to the budget 
resolution would express the Senate's intention to give high priority 
to embassy security.
  As was underscored by the tragic embassy bombings in East Africa last 
August, our embassies overseas are highly vulnerable to terrorist 
attack. Following the bombings, the Secretary of State ordered a 
worldwide review of the current security situation.
  According to testimony provided by the Department of State to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations, over 80 percent of U.S. embassies and 
consulates have less than the required 100-foot setback from the 
street, and many missions are in desperate need of greater security 
improvements.
  As required by law, the Secretary also convened ``Accountability 
Review Boards'' to examine the bombings. The Boards, chaired by retired 
Admiral William Crowe, concluded that the United States must--

     undertake a comprehensive and long-term strategy for 
     protecting American officials overseas, including sustained 
     funding for enhanced security measures, for long-term costs 
     for increased security personnel, and for a capital building 
     program based on an assessment of requirements to meet the 
     new range of global terrorist threats. This must include 
     substantial budgetary appropriations of approximately $1.4 
     billion per year maintained over a ten-year period. . 
     .Additional funds for security must be obtained without 
     diverting funds from our major foreign affairs programs.

  Last fall, Congress provided $1.4 billion in supplemental 
appropriations to address the security situation.
  But as the conclusions of the Crowe panels underscored, this was just 
a down payment.
  In his budget request, the President requested an additional $300 
million in security enhancements in Fiscal Year 2000, and advance 
appropriations totaling $3 billion from Fiscal 2001 to 2005 for an 
embassy construction program. I believe this amount is insufficient, a 
concern echoed by many members of the Committee on Foreign Relations 
during a hearing held on March 11.
  We must recognize, as the Crowe panels did, that the kind of money 
required to enhance embassy security cannot be borne within the current 
State Department budget.
  For example, the $1.4 billion in annual spending recommended by the 
Crowe panels amounts to more than one-third of the operating budget of 
the Department requested for Fiscal 2000. We are kidding ourselves to 
suggest that these resources can be found within the existing State 
Department budget.
  It should be emphasized that funding for embassy security benefits 
the entire federal government. Embassies are not merely foreign 
outposts of the Department of State. They are platforms for the 
representation of American interests.
  Everyone should recognize this essential fact: nearly two-thirds of 
the personnel in our embassies are from departments other than the 
State Department. They are from all over the government--the Commerce 
Department, the Agriculture Department, the Department of Defense, even 
the Federal Aviation Administration. In sum, embassy security is a 
government-wide imperative, for which the State Department should not 
bear an undue funding burden.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is this: security costs money, and we 
cannot pinch pennies. We send our people overseas to do a job. They are 
on the front lines of our national defense, representing our interests.
  It is our duty to do that all that we reasonably can to protect them. 
And if we fail to protect our embassies, the costs will be not just in 
lives lost. They will be in wars not prevented, in narcotics 
trafficking unchecked, and in American jobs lost due to trade 
opportunities unattained.
  So I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of embassy 
security as a high priority and support my amendment.


                      Amendment No. 204 Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are withdrawing an amendment of 
Senator Biden numbered 204.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 204) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how long did the last vote take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last vote took about 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will have some additional votes. I ask unanimous 
consent that the following amendments be the next amendments to be 
debated and voted on as provided for under the previous agreement: 
Senator Hollings 174, current services; Senator Robb 181, strike pay-
go; Senator Lautenberg 183, school modernization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 174

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this continues current policy and uses 
the surplus moneys to pay down the debt. This amendment by Senator Bob 
Kerrey and myself uses what surplus there is over the budget period to 
pay down the debt.
  Members might say, Was this not the amendment of Senator Voinovich 
which we voted on? Senator Voinovich uses Chairman Domenici's mark; I 
use the mark of the Congressional Budget Office.
  We call this the Greenspan amendment because Senator Sarbanes was 
questioning the record of the Federal Reserve. He said, How do you save 
that surplus? How do you keep it from getting spent? Mr. Greenspan 
said, ``What happens is, you do nothing.'' In other words, you take 
this year's budget, we are doing fine. We have growth, low 
unemployment, low inflation rate, and truly pay down the debt.
  All of these others talk about it, but there is so much spending and 
tax cuts, you will never get any debt paid down. This, when it is paid 
down, will lower the interest costs which will get everybody a real tax 
cut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment wipes out the tax cut in 
its entirety, wipes out the $6 billion we added for the agricultural 
community, establishes a freeze, and then after that, it goes up to 
current services. The first two points are the most important.
  I don't believe we ought to adopt this amendment, after all we have 
gone through in trying to provide some tax cuts for the American 
people.
  I yield back any time I might have.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield back my time, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from South Carolina.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and

[[Page S3398]]

the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Reid
     Robb
     Specter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--74

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith(NH)
     Smith(OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Thomas
       
  The amendment (No. 174) was rejected.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the Fiscal Year 
2000 Budget Resolution, I believe it is important that we keep in mind 
the statement by General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, at the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29, 1999.
  ``It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets the U.S. 
military apart from all potential adversaries. These talented people 
are the ones who won the Cold War and ensured our victory in Operation 
Desert Storm. These dedicated professionals make it possible for the 
United States to accomplish the many missions we are called on to 
perform around the world every single day.''
  Although we have the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, all 
their professionalism is for naught if they do not have the equipment, 
weapons and supplies to carry out their mission. Since the end of 
Operation Desert Storm, which reflected both the professionalism and 
material quality of our Armed Forces, the defense budget has declined 
by $80 billion. Yet the pace of the military operations has not 
declined, in fact the pace of operations exceeds that of the Cold War 
era. Not only are the men and women of our military stretched to the 
limits, but also their equipment. The Air Force Chief of Staff 
testified that ``Next year, the average age of our aircraft will be 20 
years old . . .'' General Reimer, the Chief of Staff of the Army, 
stated: ``Mortgaging our modernization accounts did not come without 
cost. By FY98, Army procurement had declined 73 percent, reaching its 
lowest level since 1959.'' Mr. President, each of the other service 
chiefs had similar quotations. These quotes paint a dismal picture of 
our Armed Forces' readiness and are the challenge to the Congress to 
increase funding for the Department of Defense.
  The Fiscal Year 2000 Budget resolution proposed by the able Chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, increases the budget 
authority for defense by $8.3 billion over the Administration's 
request. I congratulate the Budget Committee on this decisive 
demonstration of support for our Armed Forces. However, this show of 
support is diminished by the fact that the Budget Committee reduced the 
outlays for fiscal year 2000 by $8.7 billion. This reduction coupled 
with the already existing outlay problem, will result in a reduction to 
the budget authority levels in the $280.5 billion budget request.
  Mr. President, I want to urge Senator Domenici, to work with Chairman 
Warner and Chairman Stevens, to resolve this outlay problem before we 
act on this Resolution. We must not leave the false impression that the 
increase in the budget authority proposed in this resolution will 
result in increased security for our Nation. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the report accompanying the budget 
resolution now before the Senate (Senate Report 106-27), the first 
paragraph on page seven contains this statement:

       A budget resolution is a fiscal blueprint, a guide, a 
     roadmap, that the Congress develops to direct the course of 
     federal tax and spending legislation. It is a set of 
     aggregate spending and revenue numbers covering the twenty 
     broad functional areas of the government, over a long-term 
     fiscal horizon. It is less than substantive law, but is much 
     more than a sense of the Congress resolution.

  Unfortunately, this budget resolution, this guide, this blueprint, is 
a roadmap which, if followed for the next ten years, will wreak untold 
devastation. Having just achieved the first year with a unified budget 
surplus ($70 billion) in thirty years, last September 30--the end of 
Fiscal Year 1998--and having been unable to pass a congressional budget 
resolution for this fiscal year, fiscal year 1999, at all, we now have 
before the Senate not the usual five-year budget resolution, but a much 
more ambitious ten-year budget to carry us for the period fiscal years 
2000-2009. Over that period, we are told by the Congressional Budget 
Office that unified budget surpluses will total just over $2.5 
trillion. Of that amount, Social Security surpluses make up some $1.8 
trillion, or 72 percent. Non-Social Security surpluses, according to 
CBO, will total $787 billion over that period. For fiscal year 2000, 
there is, in fact, a non-social security deficit of some $7 billion. 
That is, there would be no surplus at all in Fiscal Year 2000 except in 
the Social Security Trust Fund.
  What does the blueprint now before the Senate, the Republican budget 
resolution, propose that we do with these multi-trillion-dollar 
surpluses? Keep in mind that these are only projections; they are not 
real, and we will not know until after the fact as to whether any of 
the surpluses projected for any of these 10 years will come to pass. No 
human being can ever project accurately what Federal revenues or 
Federal spending will be. No one can know what interest rates will be, 
or unemployment, or GDP growth. We have had tremendous variances 
historically with CBO projections, even within one year. To count on 
their projections for not one, not five, but for 10 years is extremely 
unwise.
  But, let us look at the budget resolution now before the Senate. This 
budget resolution proposes a Federal tax cut which, according to the 
committee's report, will approximate $142 billion over the next five 
years, and $778 billion over the next 10 years. The resolution includes 
a reconciliation instruction to the tax writing committees instructing 
them to report out these huge tax cuts in a reconciliation bill. 
Pursuant to that reconciliation instruction, a tax bill of the 
magnitude contained in the resolution, some $800 billion, will be 
before the Senate later this year. If enacted and signed by the 
President, those tax cuts will go into effect regardless of whether any 
of the projected surpluses take place.
  This is the height of irresponsibility. Just when we have succeeded 
in turning the corner on the multi-hundred-billion-dollar annual 
deficits of the 1980's, here comes the Republican budget resolution 
saying let us take the as-yet, unachieved future budget surpluses and 
cut Federal revenues now, whether or not those surpluses ever occur.
  On that basis alone, if for no other reason, I urge Senators to 
oppose this budget resolution.
  But, that is not the only problem we find in this blueprint. There is 
the question of the levels of discretionary spending that will be made 
available over the next 10 years if we follow this budget resolution.
  It is well known that the 1997 Balanced Budget Act placed severe 
constraints on discretionary spending for the period 1998-2002. Those 
caps were considered necessary in order to help rid ourselves of the 
annual Federal budget deficits and achieve surpluses. Nevertheless, it 
is my view that the discretionary caps for 2000, as well as for the 
following two years--2001 and 2002--are too tight and will require

[[Page S3399]]

massive cuts which should not be undertaken at the same time we are 
providing the huge tax cuts which I have just described.
  This resolution calls for funding non-defense discretionary programs 
in Fiscal Year 2000 at a level of $246 billion, a cut of more than $20 
billion, or 7.5 percent, below the present year. To make matters worse, 
the pending budget resolution would provide increases for a handful of 
favored programs, such as health, education, and other popular 
priorities. These plus-ups would mean that other vital, yet unprotected 
programs, would face cuts of more than 11 percent in Fiscal Year 2000. 
Cuts of that magnitude, according to the Office of Management and 
Budget, would affect vital programs such as the following: food safety 
would be undermined with the lay-off of an estimated 1,000 meat and 
poultry inspectors; Head Start funding would be cut in excess of $1 
billion--cutting services to as many as 100,000 children; the FBI would 
be cut $337 million, which could result in a reduction of 2,700 FBI 
agents and support personnel; more than 2,200 air traffic controller 
positions would be cut; IRS Customer Service would suffer a reduction 
of 5,000 employees; the number of students in the Work Study Program 
would decrease by 112,000; and the list goes on and on throughout the 
entire Federal government.

  While making these cuts in vital human and physical infrastructure 
programs across the nation, this budget resolution would increase 
defense by $18 billion above a freeze in Fiscal Year 2000. Yet, even 
with this large increase in budget authority, the resolution comes 
nowhere near covering the outlays that would be necessary to fund the 
reently-passed pay increase for the military.
  Mr. President, we are on a collision course, once again, when it 
comes to passing the thirteen annual appropriation bills. If you liked 
the omnibus appropriations monstrosity that was necessary to complete 
action on Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation bills, wait until you see the 
super-monstrosity that I believe will be necessary for Fiscal Year 
2000, if we fail to provide relief from the massive cuts that I have 
just described.
  You ain't seen nothin' yet!
  And, as if Fiscal Year 2000 were not enough, the problems only worsen 
in the subsequent years. By 2004, OMB projects that this budget 
resolution would require cuts in non-defense discretionary programs of 
as much as 27 percent below a freeze. Furthermore, the current 
statutory discretionary spending caps expire in 2002 but, under this 
budget resolution, the cuts to non-defense discretionary programs would 
deepen to 29 percent by 2009, as non-defense discretionary spending 
would remain substantially below inflation each year through 2009.
  In conclusion, while I appreciate the difficulties faced by the 
Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Domenici, for whom I have great respect, 
in crafting this budget resolution, I nevertheless have concluded that 
it is a roadmap leading us back to the 1980's--a period when we saw 
trillions of dollars of tax cuts enacted by the Reagan administration, 
based on faulty projections of budget surpluses which never came to 
pass, as well as spending cuts which were too extreme and likwise never 
occurred. Consequently, once those tax cuts were enacted, we entered a 
period of unprecedented budget deficits with their accompanying 
tripling of the national debt and the interest on that debt rose to 
where it is today--a level of almost $1 billion per day. We have turned 
the corner after many years of hard work and a number of deficit 
reduction packages. We appear to be headed to a time of budget 
surpluses which should be used for reducing the debt and providing 
necessary increases in our national physical and human infrastructure 
that are so vital to the 21st Century.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-conceived 
journey along the road back to a repeat of the budgetary disasters of 
the 1980's. Surely we can do better than this.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, since taking control of Congress in the 
1994 elections, the Republican majority has delivered on their promise 
to balance the federal budget. The Congressional Budget Office says 
that this year the unified federal budget will have a surplus of $111 
billion. Over the next 5 years, these surpluses will total nearly $912 
billion. Of the total surplus, $768 billion is attributable to Social 
Security, and $144 billion in attributable to the rest of the 
government.
  The Republican majority has also delivered the tax relief we 
promised. In 1997, we passed the largest tax cut in 16 years, which is 
bringing significant relief to taxpayers this year, including a $400 
per child tax credit (rising to $500 next year), a 20% capital gains 
rate, expanded IRAs, and tax credits and savings incentives for 
education. We also enacted a landmark IRS reform bill, eliminated 
President's Clinton's 18-month holding period on capital gains, and 
passed an expansion of Education Savings Accounts.
  The fiscal year 2000 budget we are now considering will build upon 
these successes. Our budget is based on three principles:
  1. Devote the entire Social Security surplus ($768 billion over 5 
years) to debt reduction, thus saving it for Social Security reform,
  2. Maintain the fiscal discipline of the 1997 Bipartisan Balanced 
Budget Agreement by sticking to the discretionary spending caps, and
  3. Return the ``rest of government'' surplus ($144 billion over 5 
years) to working Americans in tax cuts.
  Mr. President, our budget is radically different from the one 
proposed last month by President Clinton.
  In his 1998 State of the Union address, the President said, ``Tonight 
I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus, that is every 
penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary measures to 
strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century.''
  However, according to CBO, the President's budget spends $58 billion 
of the Social Security surplus this year, and $253 billion over the 
next five years. Even if you ``credit'' the President's proposal to 
purchase equities for the Social Security trust fund, he still spends 
$40 billion of the Social Security surplus this year, and $158 billion 
over the next five years.
  President Clinton's proposal to save Social Security by ``devoting'' 
62 percent of the budget surplus to it is a scam. The President would 
deposit $446 billion in IOU's into the Social Security trust fund, on 
top of the $768 billion that would be deposited there anyway. White 
House officials admit the President's plan does not extend by one day 
the year (2013) when Social Security benefits will begin to exceed 
payroll taxes.
  Additionally, the President's budget includes a Medicare scam based 
on the same faulty logic as the Social Security scam. The President 
would transfer $123 billion of the surplus to the Medicare trust fund 
over the next five years. Again, the practical effect of this transfer 
is nothing more than more IOU's in the trust fund. And the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, a huge applause line in the State of the 
Union, is nowhere to be found in the budget.
  Other new programs touted in the President's State of the Union 
address, such as the promise for Universal Savings Accounts, are also 
nowhere to be found in his budget. The Secretary of the Treasury has 
said that the USA accounts are a tax cut, but it is becoming clear that 
the program will involve a progressive, refundable income tax credit 
totaling $96 billion over 5 years, $272 billion over 10 years. This 
massive welfare expansion will nearly double what we will already spend 
on the EIC program, $139 billion over 5 years, and $293 billion over 10 
years. Secretary Rubin has also hinted that USA accounts will likely be 
limited to persons without employer-provided pension programs, and that 
anyone making over $100,000 will not be able to participate.
  Further, despite claims of ``enormous debt reduction'', CBO says the 
debt held by the public will be $432 billion higher under the Clinton 
plan after five years than under current law. Gross public debt will be 
$973 billion higher.
  The President's budget also breaks the discretionary spending caps by 
$33 billion in fiscal year 2000, and $434 billion over five years.
  Finally, despite an estimated $20 trillion in tax revenues over the 
next 10 years, the President's budget contains no tax cut. In fact, the 
President's budget includes a gross tax increase of $165 billion over 
ten years, and a net tax increase of $89 billion.

[[Page S3400]]

  I would like to include for the Record a couple of tables and a chart 
which compares the Republican budget with President Clinton's budget.
  Mr. President, I congratulate the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici, and his staff for their fine work in 
developing this budget. I think it sets us on the right path to reduce 
the debt, cut taxes, and reform Social Security and Medicare.

                                       COMPARING BUDGETS--GOP `vs' CLINTON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Issue                         GOP                        Clinton                   Bottom line
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security............  The GOP budget dedicates     The Clinton budget spends   Neither the GOP budget,
                              the entire $1.8 trillion     $58 billion of the Social   nor the Clinton budget,
                              Social Security surplus to   Security surplus this       change the fact that
                              debt reduction, saving it    year, and $253 billion      Social Security benefits
                              for our nation's elderly.    over the next five years.   exceed taxes in the year
                                                          Even if the Social           2013.
                                                           Security trust fund is     However, the GOP budget
                                                           ``credited'' for proposed   saves more of the Social
                                                           equity purchases, the       Security surplus so it
                                                           Clinton budget still        will be available for
                                                           spends $40 billion of the   real reform.
                                                           Social Security surplus
                                                           this year, and $158
                                                           billion over the next
                                                           five years.
Medicare...................  The GOP budget assumes no    The Clinton budget          Neither the GOP budget,
                              reductions in Medicare       includes $20.2 billion in   nor the Clinton budget,
                              spending.                    provider cuts over ten      change the fact that
                             The GOP budget establishes    years.                      Medicare is currently
                              a procedure for             The Clinton budget does      running a cash deficit
                              considering a prescription   not provide for a           which will bankrupt the
                              drug benefit for seniors     prescription drug           program by 2008.
                              if it is part of a REAL      benefit.                   However, the GOP budget
                              Medicare reform package.                                 would allow real,
                                                                                       bipartisan Medicare
                                                                                       reform to be considered.
Taxes......................  The GOP budget cuts taxes    The Clinton budget          Despite $20 trillion in
                              by $142 billion over five    increases taxes by $49      tax revenues and $2.6
                              years, $778 billion over     billion over five years,    trillion in budget
                              ten years.                   $89 billion over ten        surpluses over the next
                                                           years.                      ten years, the Clinton
                                                                                       budget RAISES taxes.
Public Debt................  The GOP budget reduces the   The Clinton budget reduces  The GOP budget reduces
                              debt held by the public by   debt held by the public     debt held by the public
                              $1.767 trillion over ten     by $1.305 trillion over     $463 billion more than
                              years.                       ten years.                  the Clinton budget.
Education..................  The GOP budget increases     The Clinton budget          Over the next five years,
                              Elementary & Secondary       increases Elementary &      the GOP budget provides
                              Education by $7.3 billion    Secondary Education by $4   $27.5 billion more for
                              over last year.              billion over last year,     education than Clinton
                             The GOP budget provides       $3.3 billion less than      and gives local schools
                              this increased funding       the GOP budget.             the flexibility to
                              under the assumption that   The Clinton budget           determine where they want
                              ESEA reauthorization will    requires increased          to spend the money.
                              provide greater              funding to be spent on
                              flexibility to state &       federally-mandated
                              local governments.           priorities like 100,000
                                                           federal teachers.
Defense....................  The GOP budget increases     The Clinton budget          The GOP budget provides
                              defense by $18.1 billion     increases defense by $9.8   $8.3 billion more for
                              over last year, excluding    billion over last year,     defense than the Clinton
                              FY99 emergencies.            excluding FY99              budget.
                             Compared to FY 99 funding     emergencies.
                              levels including            Compared to FY99 funding
                              emergencies, the GOP         levels including
                              budget provides a $9.9       emergencies, the Clinton
                              billion increase.            budget provides a $1.6
                                                           billion increase.
Spending Caps..............  The GOP budget complies      The Clinton budget exceeds  In 1997, every Senator
                              with the discretionary       the discretionary           except for Wellstone &
                              spending caps for FY 2000,   spending caps by $22        Bumpers voted for the
                              2001, and 2002.              billion in budget           discretionary spending
                                                           authority and $30 billion   caps.
                                                           in outlays in FY 2000.     If the President's
                                                                                       appropriations proposals
                                                                                       were enacted, they would
                                                                                       result in an 8% sequester
                                                                                       of all appropriations
                                                                                       accounts.
Total Spending.............  The GOP budget spends        The Clinton budget spends   The Clinton budget uses
                              $9.165 trillion over the     $9.533 trillion over the    the Social Security
                              next five years, $19.918     next five years, $20.99     surplus and a tax hike to
                              trillion over the next ten   trillion over the next      grow government.
                              years, with an average       ten years, with an
                              growth rate of 3%.           average growth rate of
                                                           3.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     HOW PRESIDENT CLINTON SPENDS THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS CBO ESTIMATES
                                            [In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2000         2001         2002         2003         2004      2000-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unified budget surplus............         133          156          212          213          239          952
Social Security surplus...........         137          145          153          162          171          767
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Rest of Government surplus..          (5)          11           59           51           68          184
                                   =============================================================================
CBO re-estimate of President's tax/        (20)          (7)         (14)         (17)         (15)         (73)
 spending proposals...............
Additional discretionary spending.           0          (26)         (41)         (36)         (34)        (137)
Purchase of stock by Social                (18)         (15)         (19)         (19)         (23)         (93)
 Security.........................
USA accounts......................         (14)         (16)         (22)         (21)         (24)         (96)
Net interest......................          (1)          (3)          (6)         (11)         (15)         (36)
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Clinton spending proposals..         (53)         (67)        (102)        (104)        (111)        (436)
                                   =============================================================================
Social Security surplus spent.....         (58)         (56)         (43)         (53)         (43)        (253)
Social Security surplus spent if           (40)         (41)         (24)         (34)         (20)        (158)
 you credit Social Security equity
 purchases........................
                                   =============================================================================
General fund transfer to Social             85           70           92           90          109          445
 Secrurity........................
General fund transfer to Medicare.          18           20           28           27           30          123
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Transfers which don't change         103           90          120          117          139          568
       the surplus................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          CLINTON TAX PROPOSALS
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2000     2000-2004    2000-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term care tax credit...........      (59)      (5,971)     (14,939)
Dependent child care tax credit.....     (244)      (5,414)     (12,447)
School construction tax-exempt bonds      (85)      (3,094)      (8,431)
Puerto Rico tax credit..............      (99)        (664)      (6,371)
Low income housing tax credit.......      (16)      (1,091)       5,583)
Electric vehicle tax credit.........        0         (756)      (5,453)
Better America tax-exempt bonds.....       (6)        (487)      (2,160)
R tax credit......................     (967)      (2,060)      (2,080)
Simplified small business pension         (18)        (688)      (1,901)
 plans..............................
AMT relief through 2000.............     (979)      (1,721)      (1,721)
New Markets tax credit..............        0         (465)      (1,593)
Disabled workers tax credit.........      (18)        (611)      (1,544)
Other targeted tax cuts.............   (1,324)      (6,911)     (10,772)
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total targeted tax cuts.......   (3,815)     (29,935)     (74,995)
                                     ===================================
Tobacco tax increase................    8,352       36,448       69,888
Sales source rule...................      908        8,771       21,433
Superfund taxes.....................    1,641        6,828       14,002
DAC tax on insurance products.......      294        3,730        9,480
Airport and airway user taxes.......    1,122        5,314        8,009
Non-business valuation discounts....      246        2,365        5,901
COLI modifications..................      230        1,803        4,365
Corporate tax shelters..............      150        1,350        2,850
Oil spill liability trust fund......      247        1,258        2,572
Start up & organizational                 (71)         534        2,414
 expenditures.......................
Foreign oil & gas extraction income.      188        1,001        2,172
Installment method accounting repeal      562        1,989        2,172
Other tax increases.................    1,039        8,531       19,749
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total tax increases...........   14,908       79,921      165,003
                                     ===================================
      Net tax increase..............   11,093       49,369       89,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                            HOW PRESIDENT CLINTON INCREASES THE DEBT
                                                                                    [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                       Change,
                  Debt held by the public                      1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009     1999-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Budget............................................      3,630      3,565      3,491      3,396      3,302      3,189      3,055      2,891      2,710      2,522      2,324      (1,306)
Senate Budget Resolution..................................      3,628      3,510      3,378      3,237      3,088      2,926      2,743      2,544      2,329      2,100      1,861      (1,767)
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Higher debt due to Clinton policies.................          2         55        113        159        214        263        312        347        381        422        463  ...........
================================================================================================================================================================================================
                   Debt subject to limit                         1999     2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       Change
                                                                                                                                                                                      1999-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Budget............................................      5,546      5,779      6,000      6,243      6,498      6,765      7,043      7,338      7,661      8,019      8,406       2,860
Senate Budget Resolution..................................      5,545      5,651      5,739      5,792      5,832      5,833      5,804      5,713      5,579      5,406      5,185        (360)
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Higher debt due to Clinton policies.................          1        128        261        451        666        932      1,239      1,625      2,082      2,613      3,221  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S3401]]

                           Amendment No. 145

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, some people have mischaracterized the 
vote yesterday in favor of an amendment by the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) as a vote against the President's plan for 
investing a portion of the Social Security surplus in private equities. 
Such investments have been proposed by the President and many others as 
a way to boost the return on investment of the Social Security trust 
fund's reserves. Clearly, the amendment did not reflect the President's 
plan.
  Democrats and Republicans alike are opposed to direct investment by 
the federal government in private financial markets. That is why the 
President and other proponents of diversifying the investment of the 
trust fund have suggested that firewalls be constructed to insulate 
such investments from direct government control, or any interference by 
the federal government.
  As the Administration has made clear, such investments would be made 
by private-sector professional fund managers, overseen by a board with 
the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. The members of the board 
would not be able to pick and choose which stocks or industries to 
invest in, nor exercise the voting rights associated with those shares. 
Instead, investments would be limited by law to stock index funds 
broadly representative of the entire market.
  Many Senators, including me, drew a very significant distinction 
between the government investment and investment by non-governmental 
entity on behalf of the Social Security Administration. There's a big 
difference. Democrats and Republicans agreed that we cannot support 
direct government investment. But many of us believe we should have 
professional managers oversee a certain portion of the portfolio, which 
is something altogether different. This senator supports that idea, and 
many senators wanted to leave that option open so we could revisit it 
later on.
  The vote on the Ashcroft amendment was not a vote on the President's 
plan. I look forward to full consideration and debate of responsible 
proposals for investing a portion of the surplus in equities in order 
to increase the earnings on the reserves of the Social Security trust 
fund.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the budget resolution before us today 
provides the first major increase in defense spending since 1985.
  And I voted for it. I support the increase for National defense. In 
the past, I have opposed increases in the defense budget. Now, I don't. 
My colleagues must be wondering why. My colleagues may be thinking that 
the Senator from Iowa has flip-flopped on defense.
  I would like to explain my position.
  I support this year's defense increase for one reason and one reason 
only.
  The Budget Committee is calling for financial management reforms at 
the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee is telling DOD to bring 
its accounting practices up to accepted standards, so it can produce 
``auditable'' financial statements within two years.
  In a nutshell, the Committee is telling DOD to do what DOD is already 
required to do under the law.
  If those words were not in the Committee report, I would be standing 
here with an amendment in my hand to cut the DOD budget.
  Fortunately, that's not necessary.
  I would like to thank my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici--
the Committee Chairman--for placing those important words in the 
report.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the language entitled 
``The Need for DOD Financial Reforms'' printed in the Record. It 
appears on pages 25 to 29 of the report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                        A. Spending by Function

                     Function 050: National Defense


                            Function Summary

        Approve modifications to existing DoD financial 
     management programs and policies to redress the failure of 
     the Defense Department, as noted by GAO,1 to meet 
     the goals of the Chief Financial Officers Act and, thereby, 
     to produce auditable financial statements for each military 
     service and major DoD component by the year 2000. The 
     Committee's concerns regarding this important issue are 
     stated at greater length at the end of the description of 
     this budget function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ See High Risk Series: An Update, U.S. General Accounting 
     Office, GAO/HR-99-1, January 1999, pp. 82-94, and Major 
     Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 
     Defense, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/OGC-99-5, 
     January, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The need for DoD financial reforms
       The Committee is concerned about the longstanding breakdown 
     of discipline in financial management at the Department of 
     Defense. Reports by the DoD Inspector General and General 
     Accounting Office consistently show that DoD's financial 
     accounts and inventories are vulnerable to theft and abuse. 
     These vulnerabilities persist for two reasons: (1) internal 
     controls are weak or nonexistent; and (2) financial 
     transactions are not accurately recorded in the books of 
     account--as they occur. While some progress has been made to 
     improve the financial accounting systems within DoD, it 
     remains a fact that DoD does not observe the age-old 
     principles of separation of duties and double-entry 
     bookkeeping, and attempts to make critical bookkeeping 
     entries weeks, months, and even years after the fact. These 
     unprofessional practices have produced billions of dollars of 
     unreconciled financial mismatches, leaving the department's 
     books of account inaccurate and unreliable.
       The Committee believes that these deficiencies must be 
     corrected.
       Under the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994, 
     which expanded the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 
     1990, the DoD Inspector General is required to audit DoD's 
     financial statements, and the General Accounting Office is 
     required to audit the government's consolidated financial 
     statements. This is done annually. Unfortunately, each year 
     the DoD audit agencies issue a disclaimer of opinion. In 
     layman's terms, this means they could not audit the books. 
     And there is nothing on the drawing board to suggest that a 
     ``clean'' audit opinion is feasible in the foreseeable 
     future. DoD has lost control of the money at the transaction 
     level. With no control at the transaction level, it is 
     physically impossible to roll up all the numbers into a top-
     line financial statement that can stand up to audit scrutiny. 
     The numbers do not add up. DoD resorts to ``unsupported 
     adjustments'' and multi-billion dollar ``plug'' figures to 
     force the books into balance. The IG and GAO reject these 
     practices as unacceptable.
       Even though DoD's efforts to prepare an auditable financial 
     statement have been unsuccessful so far, the Committee 
     believes that the annual CFO audits constitute a very 
     authoritative and independent assessment of the department's 
     financial management procedures. They function like a 
     critical indicator or barometer. They help to pinpoint the 
     underlying weaknesses in DoD's bookkeeping procedures. The 
     Committee believes that DoD must move in a decisive way to 
     correct these problems. So long as DoD continues to ignore 
     them, the vast audit effort dedicated to the financial 
     statements will continue to result in disclaimers of 
     opinion--an overall indictment of DoD's financial management 
     operations.
       For these reasons, a plan that is designed to bring the 
     Defense Department into compliance with the CFO and GMRA Acts 
     would be supported by the Committee. These reforms would 
     position DoD to prepare auditable financial statements within 
     two years. The main ingredients of such a plan follow:
       (1) Double-entry Bookkeeping: The preparation of reliable 
     financial statements is literally impossible without double-
     entry bookkeeping. A standard accounting procedure in the 
     western world for centuries, double-entry bookkeeping records 
     both the debits and credits appropriate to each transaction. 
     A cash purchase of an asset would add the value of that asset 
     to the inventory balanced by the reduction in cash. If DoD 
     did this for each transaction, the books would ``balance,'' 
     that is, debits would equal credits, the books would 
     accurately reflect the cost of operations, and the taxpayers 
     would be assured that something of value was actually 
     received for the money spent. Under current law, the military 
     services are supposed to have ``asset management systems'' in 
     place today that would provide an accurate and complete 
     accounting for the quantity, cost and location of all 
     inventory items. No such system is in existence, however. DoD 
     must adopt a double-entry bookkeeping system in order to 
     generate reliable financial statements.
       (2) Recording Transactions Promptly: Financial transactions 
     must be accurately recorded in the books of account--as they 
     occur. Under current DoD policies, billions of dollars of 
     transactions are not posted until long after the fact, if 
     ever. In many cases, it takes DoD weeks, months, and even 
     years to make necessary accounting entries. In other 
     documented cases, DoD policies authorize the posting of 
     transactions to the wrong accounts with the idea of avoiding 
     negative liquidated obligations or correcting errors at 
     ``contract close-out'' years later. Attempting to reconcile 
     contracts with payment records years after-the-fact usually 
     proves to be a futile and very costly task. As long as the 
     department's books of account fail to accurately reflect 
     obligations and expenditures, Congress can not be sure that 
     DoD is spending the money as specified in law or that costs 
     reflected in DoD's financial statements are accurate. DoD 
     must record all transactions in the books of account 
     immediately--as they occur.
       (3) Transaction-driven General Ledger: To help ensure 
     reliable financial management

[[Page S3402]]

     information, Congress passed the Federal Financial Management 
     Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA). This law required all 
     federal agencies to activate a Standard General Ledger at the 
     transaction level that complied with accepted accounting 
     standards. According to GAO, DoD's financial systems are non-
     compliant with the FFMIA requirements.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ See GAO-AIMD-98-268, Financial Management: Federal 
     Financial Management Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 
     1997, US General Accounting Office, September 1998, 
     Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Had DoD implemented the required Standard General Ledger 
     chart of accounts, as other agencies have, practiced double-
     entry bookkeeping, and recorded transactions promptly and 
     accurately, all transactions should naturally roll up through 
     subsidiary accounts into general ledger accounts.
       Moreover, if DoD accounting systems were up to accepted 
     standards, auditors could verify the accuracy of the general 
     ledger accounts by tracing the accumulation of costs back 
     down to the original entries for each transaction. This, in 
     turn, should provide a management accounting system that has 
     integrity--one the taxpayers deserve and one that is 
     necessary for completion of reliable financial statements. A 
     transaction-driven general ledger would be a powerful 
     management tool for evaluating DoD's financial performance. 
     While DoD has general ledger accounts, they lack integrity 
     because of massive gaps and the use of ``plug'' figures. 
     Transactions are simply not recorded in the books of account 
     in a timely and accurate manner. Given these continuing 
     shortcomings, it is impossible to follow the audit trail back 
     down to each original transaction. Until this problem is 
     remedied, and DoD develops reliable controls and integrated 
     financial management systems, DoD financial information will 
     be unreliable and its financial statements will be 
     unauditable.
       (4) Separation of Duties: Organizational and functional 
     independence must be achieved at each major step in the cycle 
     of transactions. This key internal control helps to detect 
     and prevent theft, inhibits collusive fraud and offers 
     greater efficiencies in organizations that are large enough 
     to accommodate specialized operations. For instance, if truly 
     independent entities perform the separate functions of store-
     keeping or warehousing and accounting for stores 
     transactions, fraud in either function could be discovered by 
     comparing what the store keepers show as on hand to what 
     accounting records show was purchased, used, and should be on 
     hand. With adequate separation of duties, successful fraud 
     would require collusion by not only the store-keepers and 
     accountants but also by organizationally independent managers 
     of those separate functional areas. IG and GAO reports 
     repeatedly show that DoD does not consistently adhere to the 
     age-old principle of real separation of duties--both 
     organizationally and functionally.
       Last year, the GAO uncovered a prime example of how DoD 
     does not observe the separation of duties doctrine. The 
     Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), which performs 
     disbursing and accounting functions for the entire 
     department, is authorized to routinely alter remit addresses 
     on checks. A remit address is the address to which a check is 
     sent. Allowing DFAS to alter remit addresses is a violation 
     of the separation of duties principle that leaves the door 
     open to fraud. The office that processes bills for payment 
     should never be allowed to change a remit address on a check. 
     Such changes should be made through an independent 
     verification process. Remit addresses should be tightly 
     controlled in a central registry and only altered at request 
     of the vendor--in writing.
       (5) Accountability: The DoD CFO and the Financial Managers 
     (FM's) for each of the three military services have been 
     granted the full spectrum of authority under the law. 
     However, these four officials appear to have delegated much 
     of their authority for payment and accounting to DFAS, which 
     disburses over $22 billion a month and employs about 20,000 
     persons.
       Despite the authority that has been passed down the chain 
     of command to DFAS, this organization does not exist--at 
     least in law. There is no specific provision in the U.S. Code 
     granting such authority to DFAS. The Committee fears that the 
     military services could use DFAS as a bureaucratic mechanism 
     to deflect responsibility for ongoing financial 
     mismanagement. DFAS can be blamed, but there is no 
     accountability. In fact, there is nothing in law that 
     requires personal financial accountability anywhere in DoD--
     from the top CFO down to the lowest technician at DFAS. Even 
     DoD disbursing officials have been exempted from the law that 
     makes all other government disbursing officials ``pecuniarily 
     liable'' for erroneous or fraudulent payments.
       If no one at DoD is held accountable for the continuing 
     pattern of financial mismanagement and ``unclean'' CFO audit 
     opinions, then the department may never succeed in producing 
     reliable financial statements.
       The CFO and service FM's may delegate authority to DFAS but 
     not personal responsibility. The service FM's must police 
     those to whom they have delegated authority, but the final 
     responsibility resides in their offices with them. They alone 
     should be held accountable for the completion of reliable 
     financial statements.
       These goals should be achieved with the financial statement 
     for 2000. The 1998 statements are under review at the present 
     time. If the IG and GAO identify deficiencies that preclude 
     the completion of a satisfactory financial statement for 1998 
     and 1999, then the FM's should be responsible for making the 
     necessary adjustments and corrections.
       The Committee fully supports actions in Congress to achieve 
     these five financial management initiatives because they are 
     specifically designed to bring the department into compliance 
     with the CFO and FFMIA Acts and to lead to the preparation of 
     reliable financial statements. In the months ahead, it is 
     expected that these initiatives will be converted into a 
     legislative reform package and introduced before 
     consideration of the 2000 defense authorization bill or other 
     appropriate legislation. The Committee intends to work 
     closely with the Armed Services Committee and other 
     appropriate committees of Congress to enact legislation that 
     addresses in a meaningful manner the goals articulated here.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take moment to tell my 
colleagues why the language on DOD Financial Reforms is so important.
  I want to help them understand why I am so concerned about the 
breakdown of discipline and control in financial management at the 
Pentagon.
  I have been investigating the problem for six years, now.
  I have come here to the floor of the Senate and spoken about it many 
times.
  I have offered amendments.
  I raised these same concerns during hearings before the Budget 
Committee earlier this year--on February 24 and again on March 2nd.
  My Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight held a hearing 
last September on the lack of effective internal financial controls at 
DOD.
  I am planning another hearing later this year.
  The General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Inspector General (IG) 
have issued report after report after report exposing these problems.
  Every single shred of evidence points to the breakdown of financial 
controls at the Pentagon.
  IG and GAO reports consistently demonstrate that DOD accounts and 
assets are vulnerable to theft and abuse.
  They show that internal controls are weak or nonexistent.
  They show that financial transactions are not recorded in the books 
of accounts--as they occur--promptly and accurately.
  They show that payments are deliberately posted to the wrong 
accounts. Sometimes transactions are not recorded in the books for 
months or even years--and sometimes maybe never.
  DOD has no effective capability for tracking the quantity, value and 
locations of assets and inventory.
  DOD has lost control of the money at the transaction level.
  With no control at the transaction level, it is physically impossible 
to roll up all the numbers into a top-line financial statement that can 
stand up to scrutiny and audit.
  Sloppy accounting procedures generate billions of dollars of 
unreconciled transactions--mismatches between official accounting 
records and inventory and disbursing records.
  Billions and billions of dollars of unreconciled mismatches make it 
impossible to audit DOD's books.
  As a result, DOD gets a failing grade on its annual financial 
statements that are required by law. Each year, the IG has to issue a 
disclaimer of opinion.
  Unfortunately, there is nothing on the drawing board to suggest that 
a ``clean'' audit opinion is feasible in the foreseeable future. DOD 
just doesn't have the accounting tools to get the job done.
  There will be no improvement in this dismal picture without reform--
and some pressure from the Budget Committee and other committees.
  Without reform, the vast effort dedicated to auditing the annual 
financial statements will be wasted effort.
  The report language lays out a general framework for reform.
  These reforms are not new or dramatic.
  The Committee report language just tells DOD to get on the stick and 
do what it is already supposed to be doing--under the law. And it calls 
for some accountability to help get the job done.
  This report language should help to move DOD toward a ``clean'' audit 
opinion within two years.
  And there is another important reason why this language is needed 
today.
  As I stated a moment ago, we are looking at the first big increase in 
defense spending since 1985.

[[Page S3403]]

  I think the Committee needs to be on the record, telling the Pentagon 
to get its financial house in order.
  If the Pentagon wants all this extra money, then the Pentagon needs 
to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to the taxpayers of this 
country.
  First, it needs to regain control of the taxpayers' money it's 
spending right now.
  And second, it needs to provide a full and accurate accounting of how 
all the money gets spent.
  DOD must be able to present an accurate and complete accounting of 
all financial transactions--including all receipts and expenditures. It 
needs to be able to do this once a year.
  The GAO and IG auditors should be able to examine the Department's 
books and its financial statements and render a ``clean'' audit 
opinion.
  That's the goal.
  Mr. President, I would like to extend a special word of thanks to the 
Committee Chairman, my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for 
including this important language in the report.
  I would like to thank him for understanding and accepting the urgent 
need for financial management reform at the Pentagon.
  I would like to thank him for working with me in urging the Pentagon 
to move in the direction of sound financial management.
  Mr. President, in my mind, DOD financial management reform is 
mandatory as we move to larger DOD budgets.
  I understand that the language is not binding.
  It's simply the first step in the effort to bring about financial 
reform and accountability at DOD through legislation later this year.
  In the months ahead, I look forward to working with the Armed 
Services and Appropriations Committees to make it happen.
  The Chairman of the Committee has agreed to help me do it.
  He made a commitment to ``work closely'' with the Armed Services 
Committee to develop a legislative reform package that addresses the 
issues raised in the report.
  I hope the Armed Services Committee will cooperate and find a way to 
address the need for financial reforms in tandem with more defense 
money.
  Higher defense budgets need to be hooked up to financial reforms--
just like a horse and buggy--one behind the other. They need to move 
together.
  And I hope other members of the Budget Committee will join me in that 
effort.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in 1997, we reached an historic agreement on 
the budget. Building upon the budgets of 1990 and 1993, we brought the 
budget into balance for the first time in 30 years. Today, the budget 
before us is equally significant, as it is the first budget of the 21st 
century. It is one that should reflect what we, as the last Senators of 
the 20th century, believe should be the priorities of our country as we 
move into the next millenium.
  As we prepare to enter the next century, we need a budget that will 
protect our senior citizens--the people who have given a lifetime of 
work to their families, communities and country. They need to know that 
they will be secure in their golden years with good health care and a 
decent income. Unfortunately, this budget fails to provide this measure 
of security, as it fails to provide for the continued strength and 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  Although this budget saves projected Social Security surpluses and 
uses those surpluses to retire public debt, it contains no provisions 
to reform the Social Security program and provides no new assets to the 
Social Security trust fund. In this regard, this budget fails to extend 
the solvency of the trust fund. In contrast, the Administration's 
budget proposes specific policies, including transferring publicly held 
debt to the trust fund, which would extend the life of the Social 
Security trust fund until the year 2055.
  In addition, this budget simply ignores Medicare, Part A of which is 
due to be bankrupt by the year 2008. It takes funds needed for Medicare 
and uses them to pay for a tax cut that largely benefits the more well-
to-do in our society. Not a single extra dollar is guaranteed for this 
critical priority and therefore this budget has the potential to 
negatively impact the millions of Americans who will depend on Medicare 
for their health care in the future. The Administration, however, has 
proposed allocating 15 percent of the projected unified budget 
surpluses for Medicare--nearly $700 billion over the next 15 years--
which would extend the solvency of this program for another 12 years, 
to the year 2020.
  Mr. President, we also need a budget that will provide for the 
education needs of our people. Nothing is more critically important 
than to provide every child with a good education so that they can grow 
up to lead productive lives, contributing to the prosperity of their 
families and country. Unfortunately this budget fails to meet this 
priority, as well. Although I applaud the efforts of Chairman Domenici 
to increase funding for elementary and secondary education, this budget 
does so at the expense of equally important education initiatives, like 
Head Start. In fact, under the Republican plan nearly 100,000 children 
would lose Head Start services.
  This budget shortchanges our commitment to many other domestic 
priorities, as well. Under this budget, paying for an $800 billion tax 
cut that would benefit the wealthy would require cuts in non-defense 
discretionary spending of $20 billion in the next year alone, affecting 
our efforts to police our streets, to clean up our air and water, and 
to wage aggressive diplomacy so that we do not have to wage war. More 
specifically, Mr. President, under the Republican plan, more than 1 
million low-income women, infants and children would lose nutrition 
assistance each month and 73,000 summer job opportunities for low-
income youths would be eliminated.
  These cuts are draconian and untenable. Newspapers report that even 
Republican appropriations leaders consider these cuts to be 
unrealistic. They predict that when appropriations bills come to the 
Floor, it is unlikely that they will contain the cuts proposed by this 
budget.
  Finally, we need a budget in the 21st century that is fiscally 
responsible--a budget that sends a message to our trading partners, the 
markets, and future generations that the era of runaway deficits is 
over, and that we will not saddle future generations with a national 
debt that robs them of their ability to make productive investments and 
hurts our nation's ability to grow and prosper. Sadly, this legislation 
is fiscally risky and fails to meet these goals.
  Although this budget calls for a small tax cut in the first couple of 
years, the cost explodes in the future. In fact, by the year 2009, 
these cuts will drain the Treasury by more than $170 billion in that 
year alone. Let me be clear, I am not opposed to tax cuts, but I 
support carefully targeted tax cuts that would provide relief to those 
who most need our help. Regrettably, this budget provides a sweeping 
tax cut for those in our society who need it least, and does so largely 
at the expense of funding for both Medicare and other domestic 
priorities relied on by millions of working Americans.
  In conclusion, I regret for a number of reasons that I am unable to 
support this budget--not least of which is the high regard and esteem 
with which I hold Chairman Domenici. I think all of us in this body 
recognize that the country has been fortunate to have someone of his 
intellect and experience dealing with these extraordinarily complex 
issues. Moreover, while I am grateful that a majority of my colleagues 
accepted the amendment sponsored by my distinguished colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and myself to increase funding for child 
care by $5 billion, the modest improvement that this makes to the bill 
does not change its fundamentally flawed nature.
  Mr. President, we have an opportunity and an obligation to enact a 
budget that meets the test of time. Unfortunately, I believe that the 
resolution before the Senate has failed to meet that objective. I think 
we can do better and I believe we must do better as we move forward in 
the effort to define priorities.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Service Chiefs testified before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29, 1998, and again on 
January 5, 1999, that they require an additional

[[Page S3404]]

$20.0 billion in fiscal year 2000 for defense--over and above the 
amounts contained in the Balanced Budget Agreement--to reverse the 
serious problems they are witnessing in military readiness. During the 
Posture Hearings held by the Armed Services Committee in February and 
March, the Service Secretaries and Service Chiefs confirmed that 
significant funding shortfalls remain--despite the increases contained 
in the budget request. Each service submitted a significant list of 
remaining ``unfunded requirements.''
  While I appreciate the efforts of the Budget Committee to address 
these funding shortfalls with an increase of $14.6 billion in budget 
authority for defense, I am concerned with the serious shortfall in 
outlays. The outlay funding level of $274.6 billion contained in the 
Budget Resolution is insufficient to fund the projected levels of 
budget authority in either the defense budget request or the budget 
resolution. At least $287.3 billion in outlays is needed to fund the 
budget authority levels contained in the Budget Resolution. This is an 
increase of $12.7 billion over the caps listed in the Resolution.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to add to my colleague's 
comments. The budget gimmicks in the defense budget as submitted by the 
Administration create a shortfall of at least $8.3 billion in budget 
authority. Under Senate rules, we cannot pass a defense appropriations 
bill which buys the programs advertised by the Department of Defense as 
being budgeted. We would require at least $10 billion in outlays to 
even fund the Administration's defense request. While the budget 
resolution adds $8.3 billion in budget authority, it cuts outlays by 
$8.7 billion relative to the CBO scoring of the defense budget request. 
Even under OMB scoring, the budget resolution provides only $500 
million in outlays to spend with the $8.3 billion in budget authority. 
This mix of money will not work, and clearly does not even let us erase 
all of the administration's budget gimmicks.
  The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has also held hearings to 
review the readiness requirements of our military forces. If the 
current outlay problem is not resolved satisfactorily, Congress will be 
responsible for failure to provide adequate resources for our 
military's needs as readiness problems become more apparent. With 
military operations currently being conducted in Kosovo, this would be 
the wrong signal to be sending at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I agree with both of my distinguished 
colleagues, the Chairmen of the Appropriations and Armed Services 
Committees, that the Administration's defense budget request is 
inadequate to meet our national security requirements. My intent is 
that this Budget Resolution would fully fund the $17.5 billion 
requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the next five years. This 
additional spending would be devoted to restoring military readiness to 
acceptable levels. it is also my intention that the funding in this 
resolution would also provide money, at least in part, to begin the 
modernization of the currently aging inventory of U.S. weapons, and to 
fund priority quality of life initiatives for the servicemen and women 
in our Armed Forces.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished Chairman of 
the Budget Committee to provide some type of funding relief in the form 
of increased outlay funding.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would join my colleague in seeking 
clarification on what steps the distinguished Chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee is prepared to take to make it possible to pass a 
defense spending bill that preserves our military's readiness and limit 
the erosion of modernization.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my two good friends, I agree 
that there is an outlay mismatch in this resolution for the National 
Defense function and I will work to resolve this problem. Sufficient 
outlays are necessary to execute the level of budget authority for 
National Defense in the Budget Resolution to address the serious 
readiness, recruitment, and retention problems in our military 
services. I intend to review scorekeeping differences between the OMB 
and CBO on outlays prior, outlay rates, and policy to resolve this 
issue. I will consult with the two distinguished Chairmen and keep them 
informed during this process. I assure the Chairmen of the 
Appropriations and Armed Services Committees that this problem will 
receive my full attention until it is resolved to our satisfaction.
  In addition, I know both Chairmen share my concerns about atomic 
energy defense capabilities in an increasingly unstable world.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, in my capacity as Chairman of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to raise an issue of 
critical importance with my friend, the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention 
that there is a substantial difference between the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in terms of 
the estimated outlay costs of the highway and transit firewalls, as 
contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21).
  As the Chairman is aware, TEA-21 effectively established the 
aggregate obligation limitations pertaining to our major federal 
highway and transit programs for the six years covered by TEA-21. 
Despite the fact that the CBO and OMB are required to strive each year 
to minimize differences in their outlay estimates for each program in 
the federal government, we find that there is a dramatic difference 
between the outlay estimates that CBO and OMB attribute to the cost of 
fully funding the firewalls for highways and transit in FY 2000. 
Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the outlays 
associated with the highway firewall is a full $772 million higher than 
the amount estimated by OMB. Similarly, the CBO estimates that the 
outlays associated with the transit firewall is a full $569 million 
higher than the level assumed by OMB. Taken together, there is more 
than a $1.3 billion difference between the two agencies' estimates.
  It is my understanding that, for purposes of developing this budget 
resolution, the Chairman assumed the lower of these outlay figures for 
the highway and transit firewalls. I want to inquire whether the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee intends to score the Transportation 
Appropriations Bill for FY 2000 in an identical fashion when the bill 
is reported by the Appropriations Committee later this year. If the 
Transportation Appropriations bill is scored with the much higher 
outlay estimates associated with the CBO estimate, it is possible that 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee's entire outlay 
allocation could be needed solely to honor the highway and transit 
firewalls leaving little or no other resources for the needs for the 
Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, and the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation.
  This illustrates the danger of firewalls within budget functions. 
They create a perverse incentive for the Administration to 
underestimate the outlay impacts in order to shift budgetary resources 
to other priorities--but when the request comes to Congress it must be 
scored by CBO. Accordingly, the budget resolution and the 
appropriations bill run the risk of substantially higher outlay scoring 
on firewall accounts than the Administration assumed and accordingly 
must cut the firewalled functions or other discretionary programs to 
accommodate the increased outlays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations 
subcommittee is quite correct in his observations and I appreciate his 
raising this issue at this time. Indeed, there are dramatic differences 
in the outlay estimates associated with the highway and transit 
firewalls, as scored by CBO and OMB.
  The Budget Act provides that the budget resolution cannot set outlay 
levels in excess of the amounts set forth in TEA-21 as adjusted by OMB. 
The difference between OMB and CBO outlay estimates presents a problem 
for meeting the highway and transit outlay limits under CBO's 
estimates.
  I thank the Senator for raising this issue. We need to find some way 
to address this issue prior to the Senate taking up the Transportation 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the budget resolution 
which the majority has presented to the Senate. In my judgement, this 
budget represents the wrong priorities. It places

[[Page S3405]]

too great an emphasis on tax breaks which largely benefit the 
wealthiest among us and too little on the protection of Medicare.
  Just six years ago, the nation was faced with annual deficits of more 
than $300 billion as far as the eye could see. In 1993, President 
Clinton presented and Congress approved by one vote in each House a 
deficit reduction plan that continues to pay dividends. Instead of 
billions of dollars of federal deficits, surpluses are forecast for the 
next fifteen years. This is a remarkable accomplishment. It presents us 
with the opportunity to make critical investments in the nation's 
future and to reduce the national debt. However, we must act wisely.
  We have seen many federal budget estimates, and we know well that as 
quickly as these surpluses appeared, they could disappear. The 
estimates of both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of 
Management and Budget have frequently been far off the mark in recent 
years. That is not their fault. We have some of the brightest 
economists in the country working at CBO and at OMB and they do a very 
good job, but they have a difficult task to do. Forecasting the 
performance of the economy, particularly over the course of several 
years is more art than science. For instance, last August CBO estimated 
that the unified budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 was $79 billion. 
Just four months later in a January 1999 CBO document, the surplus for 
fiscal year 2000 is estimated at $130 billion. This is a change of over 
60% in just four months and early indications are that in August the 
surplus amounts will rise even higher. I believe that if most Americans 
were confronted with such uncertainty over their own budget situation, 
they would recommend a cautious course. I agree.
  The President has established the framework for this new budget 
debate by his determination to strengthen Social Security. There is no 
more important or effective program. Two-thirds of those who collect 
Social Security rely on it for more than 50% of their income. The 
President's plan to save Social Security through debt retirement is 
largely intact in this resolution. This is a significant victory for 
the President and the American people, and it has broad support in the 
Senate. I look forward to supporting the legislation to implement this 
policy of debt reduction .
  Unfortunately, the majority party has not included the President's 
policy of debt reduction to shore up Medicare in this resolution. The 
President set aside fifteen percent of the surplus for Medicare, but 
this resolution does not. This omission is crucial when one considers 
that although Social Security is already solvent through 2033, Medicare 
is solvent only until 2008. We all know how important the Medicare 
program is. Today the Medicare program provides health care to 39 
million Americans. By 2032, the number of Medicare beneficiaries will 
double to 78 million as the baby boomers retire. Considering these 
demographics, it is unwise not to use part of our current budget 
surplus to help shore up the Medicare program, which will also need 
structural reforms. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does 
not shore up existing commitments to Medicare and our seniors. Instead 
this resolution takes us back to the bad old days of backloaded tax 
breaks whose real costs explode several years after enactment. For 
example, the GOP tax plan uses $177 billion of the surplus in the first 
five years after enactment and actually has no cost in the first year. 
But, in the second five years, the cost of the tax cut more than 
triples to $664 billion. This budgetary time bomb is set go off at the 
same time as the Medicare trust fund is expected to be bankrupt. 
Senator Kennedy's amendment, which I supported, would have set aside 
part of the surplus for the Medicare trust fund and avoided this 
outcome. The Kennedy amendment was defeated. The Republican majority, 
unfortunately, seems headed yet again this year for a showdown with the 
President and Democrats in the Congress over the budget.


                           Amendment No. 145

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, yesterday, I joined 
Senator Ashcroft and others in offering an amendment to the budget 
resolution for Fiscal Year 2000. Our amendment addresses a troubling 
aspect of the President's Social Security proposal, about which I would 
like to say a few words.
  President Clinton's plan calls for government-controlled investment 
of a sizeable portion of the Social Security trust funds. Our amendment 
expresses the sense of the Senate that the Federal government should 
not be directly investing the Social Security trust funds in private 
financial markets.
  Enabling the Federal government to own millions of dollars worth of 
private shares in corporations is a recipe for disaster. No matter how 
much care is taken to avoid bias in government-controlled investment 
decisions, the potential for abuse would always be present. Even if an 
independent board is charged with making the investment decisions on 
behalf of the government, there is always the risk that the board would 
be overwhelmed by political pressure from lobbyists, lawmakers and 
others.
  Inevitably, special interest groups or politicians would seek to 
influence the investment decisions. Questions such as whether or not a 
particular investment would benefit a corporation that hires union 
workers or is located in a certain state might become important 
considerations. The result would be that the rate of return on an 
investment would become secondary to numerous political or other 
concerns.
  Also, under the President's plan, the government would eventually own 
private stocks worth $600 billion or more. That could have perverse 
effects on the free market.
  Government-controlled investment of the Social Security trust funds 
would make possible what some have called ``crony capitalism.'' In a 
recent paper on this subject, Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage 
Foundation warned that government-controlled investment would give 
lawmakers power to control the economy indirectly by attempting to pick 
winners and losers.
  The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, is one of the more 
noteworthy critics of President Clinton's idea for government-
controlled investment. Chairman Greenspan has said that it ``would 
arguably put at risk the efficiency of our capital markets and thus, 
our economy.'' Mr. President, the Senate should heed his words and 
reject any plan to have the government directly involved in the 
investment of Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Senator Schumer and I have offered this 
amendment to strike Sec. 314 of S. Con. Res. 20, the Fiscal Year 2000 
budget resolution. Sec. 314 expresses the Sense of the Senate that 
Governors Island will be sold during Fiscal Year 2000. The underlying 
assumption is that it will be sold for $500 million. Another 
assumption--not stated in Sec. 314--is that the $500 million will be 
used as an off-set to help pay for Federal crop insurance reform.
  At the outset, I must say that I support crop insurance reform. Our 
farmers are the most productive in the world. I wonder, from time to 
time, if we appreciate just how affordable--and plentiful--food is in 
this country. If crop insurance reform will help our farmers to weather 
natural disasters and low commodity prices, I'm for it. But I have a 
serious problem with using the sale of Governors Island to pay for it 
for two reasons. The first is based on principle; the second, on 
practicality.
  There is a question of fairness here. Governors Island was part of 
New York before the United States existed. In 1800, New York State 
rather magnanimously gave jurisdiction--but not title--over Governors 
Island to the Federal government. Then, New York spent its own monies 
to construct Fort Jay and other harbor fortifications and batteries, 
such as Castle Clinton and Castle William. These fortifications 
successfully deterred the British from attempting to enter New York 
Harbor during the War of 1812. Governors Island has served our nation 
well. It is the site, after all, where Operation Overlord was planned 
fifty-five years ago.
  On June 18, 1958, a Federal district court determined that the 
Federal government needed to take title to the Island and awarded New 
York one dollar as ``just compensation''. Since then, the Army moved 
out, and the Island's most recent tenant, the Coast Guard, left in 
1997. Now, the 173-acre island sits vacant in New York Harbor.

[[Page S3406]]

  On October 22, 1995, President Clinton invited me to join him at the 
50th anniversary of the United Nations' General Assembly. On the 
helicopter flight from Kennedy Airport we flew over the Lower Harbor; I 
pointed out Castle William, Fort Jay, and some other fortifications and 
buildings, starting with Cornbury's Queen Anne mansion built in 1708. I 
noted that the Coast Guard was about to leave and that, presumedly, all 
would agree that the Island should revert to New York. President 
Clinton said that was fine with him, providing it would be used for 
public purposes. I demurred somewhat--that would involve a whole lot of 
public purpose--but accepted the offer. We left it there with 
sufficient accord.

  Governors Island belonged to New York. New York lent it to the 
Federal government. Now that the Federal government is no longer using 
it, New York should get it back, for no more than a nominal sum.
  Unfortunately, and rather to my surprise, when President Clinton 
submitted his Fiscal Year 1998 budget request, he proposed selling 
Governors Island in Fiscal Year 2002 for $500 million. Congress seized 
on the idea--so much so, in fact, that we have ``sold'' Governors 
Island a couple of times already!
  Now Members propose that we sell Governors Island, in Fiscal Year 
2000, to pay for crop insurance reform. Even if we put principle and 
fairness aside, there are real practical problems with this proposal. I 
guess the first is that there are no buyers. None. Certainly not at the 
asking price. We don't know how the Island will be zoned. There is no 
regular ferry service. It costs about $12 million to $15 million each 
year just to maintain the buildings, many of which are historic.
  Back in 1997, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated fair 
market value to be between $250 million and $1.0 billion. That's a 
pretty big range. There was no appraisal. Any appraisal would be highly 
speculative since the impact of zoning decisions and ultimate disposal 
of the Island remain unknown. Moreover, I do not believe that any CBO 
officials ever contacted anyone at the General Services Administration 
(GSA) who would be, perhaps, more knowledgeable about what sort of 
price the Island might fetch. I can tell you this: New York State, or 
New York City, won't pay a dime more than a dollar. So, in this 
instance, the CBO estimate is highly suspect. The site is magnificent, 
but it will be a considerable achievement to combine some public and 
private uses that preserve the historic portion of the Island. The 
combination eludes us still. In the meantime, we could lose it all if 
it should go unused for a few more New York winters.
  So I repeat what I said at the outset: I am for crop insurance 
reform. But Governors Island won't pay for it, because the Island will 
not be sold for $500 million next year. It won't be sold for any price 
because there are no buyers. We haven't figured out what to do with it 
yet.
  Governors Island belonged to New York, and New York ought to have it 
back. It is, at the same time, a national treasure for the historic 
value of its fortifications, buildings, and what has taken place there. 
I hope that Congress, and the Administration, will stop this tiresome 
tendency of ``selling'' it whenever some other program or initiative--
laudable, I'm sure--needs an off-set. I thank the Senator from New 
Mexico (Senator Domenici) and the Senator from New Jersey (Senator 
Lautenberg) for their willingness to accept the amendment Senator 
Schumer and I have offered to strike Sec. 314 from S. Con. Res. 20.


                governors island and the federal budget

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Moynihan 
to offer an amendment to strike Section 314 of S. Con. Res. 20, the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution. Section 314 expresses the Sense of 
the Senate that Governors Island will be sold during Fiscal Year 2000.
  While the intention of the sale, to provide an offset for crop 
insurance reform, is a worthy one, it is an illusory offset and will 
seriously undermine New York's efforts to turn this historic gem into 
an economically viable site. It is also a matter of fundamental 
fairness--President Clinton made the offer to Senator Moynihan to give 
the Island back to New York for one dollar--the very sum the Federal 
Government paid to the State for the Island back in 1958. Now that the 
Island's last tenant, the U.S. Coast Guard has gone, Governors Island 
should be returned to New York, not sold to provide offsets for other 
programs across the country, however well-intentioned those programs 
might be.
  I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg for their willingness 
to accept the amendment Senator Moynihan and I have offered. We will 
continue to strongly resist all attempts to thwart New York's efforts 
to develop Governors island for use by our own citizens, who are 
understandably anxious to reclaim this unique treasure.


                                medicare

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as we begin debating the budget which takes 
us into the twenty first century, I am disappointed that my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle continue to practice the Medicare 
politics of the past.
  Over the course of the last week, I've heard member after member come 
to the Senate floor to decry the Republican budget for allegedly 
throwing our nation's seniors into destitution by sacrificing Medicare 
in order to pay for tax cuts.
  Mr. President, as we listen to this discussion about the budget and 
the Medicare provisions contained within it, I keep coming back to one 
simple question. If the President's budget plan was so good for the 
country and saved Medicare, why did every member of his party on the 
Budget Committee vote against it? There is only one answer: President 
Clinton's so-called Medicare set-aside of 15 percent of the budget 
would do absolutely nothing to address the very real problems facing 
Medicare and we all know that.
  Indeed, the General Accounting Office (GAO), which we depend upon to 
provide impartial testimony, investigations and research, has concluded 
President Clinton's Medicare plan is meaningless in terms of either the 
budget or the Medicare program. This corroborates the conclusions 
reached by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. President, Medicare has always used the 2.9 percent payroll tax 
on a worker's wages to pay for current benefits. It has been so since 
the program was enacted in 1965 and its crafters intended it to stay 
that way.
  The president, by promising to use projected surpluses and general 
funds to shore up the Medicare program, is in fact promising to use 
``IOU's'' to shore up ``IOU's'' and altering the premise under which 
Medicare was enacted.

  I was and is supposed to be a self-sustaining program paid for by 
payroll taxes. It is not funded by general revenues, therefore Democrat 
charges that our tax relief out of the non-Social Security surplus 
comes at the expense of Medicare is just not true. Our tax relief 
returns overpaid income taxes. It does not cut the Social Security or 
Medicare payroll tax that funds Social Security or Medicare. The use of 
general funds to prop-up the program reverts it to a general welfare-
type program which was soundly rejected in the early 1960's.
  So adding more IOU's, as the President would like us to do, does 
nothing but add more meaningless pieces of paper which don't represent 
any new cash within the program to pay for health care services. In 
short, it is a hoax played upon the American people by its government 
which doesn't save Medicare.
  The budget resolution before us today provides for $10 billion more 
for the Medicare program than the President requested. It locks away 
Social Security surpluses to protect them from being spent on non-
Social Security programs. It also prepares us for the real task at 
hand--reforming Social Security and Medicare to ensure they will be 
self-sustaining for future beneficiaries.
  Under our plan, all of the projected Social Security surpluses are 
saved solely for Social Security. Of the non-Social Security surplus, 
over $100 billion is set-aside in the event it is needed during the 
important process of reforming the Medicare program we will soon 
address. The $100 billion set-aside is real money, not paper promises. 
It represents real assets which can put us on the road to modernizing a 
crucially important health care program that has been struck in the 
1960's.

[[Page S3407]]

  The practice of medicine has changed dramatically since the Medicare 
program was enacted. It's time we reformed Medicare to more accurately 
reflect our health care system, which still provide the most efficient 
and sought-after care in the world.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Breaux, who 
ably co-chaired the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, to 
address the long term solvency crisis in Medicare. I whole-heartedly 
agree with my colleague from Louisiana when he said that ``Medicare 
cannot, should not, and must not be a `wedge' issue. That is old 
politics and the old way of looking at this problem. Looking at it in 
that fashion has led us to never solve it with any serious reform since 
it was passed in 1965. The issue for the 1990's and the 21st century 
cannot be a tax cut versus saving Medicare. That is an improper 
statement of the problem facing this Congress. . . . It is not an 
either/or situation and should not be made to be so.''
  Clearly, Senator Breaux and my colleagues have the best interest of 
the Medicare program in mind as we consider this budget. He understands 
tax relief does not conflict with our goal to reform Medicare. By 
setting aside over $100 billion for the express purpose of funding the 
reformation of the Medicare program, we do more to ensure the viability 
of the health care program for our nation's seniors than the 
President's budget full of empty promises.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to support this responsible, truthful and 
meaningful budget resolution. It protects Social Security and Medicare, 
provides major tax relief and debt reduction and it continues important 
spending priorities. It represents a tremendous step in the right 
direction for the United States and its people.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my dissapointment 
with S. Con. Res. 20, the FY 2000 Budget Resolution. After our economy 
has enjoyed seven years of strong growth, I had hoped that this year's 
Budget Resolution, the first in the new millenium, would set policy 
priorities that would strengthen our economy. After seven years of 
phenomenal economic growth, it is a shame that we cannot convert our 
gains into ensuring a more secure economic future.
  This Budget Resolution fails to take positive steps by trying to do 
too much. The Resolution calls for using surplus funds for tax cuts, 
while maintaining the statutory spending caps.
  The Budget Resolution fails to protect Medicare or Social Security, 
fails to increase national savings, and cuts important spending 
priorities. It is neither financially prudent nor economically sound.
  It could endanger our sound economy and squander an historic 
opportunity to raise the living standards of all Americans and to 
ensure a dignified retirement for our seniors.
  S. Con. Res. 20 favors massive tax cuts over paying down the massive 
national debt, over protecting Medicare and Social Security, and over 
key important domestic initiatives. By keeping the statutory caps and 
using the surplus for tax cuts, the Budget Resolution makes deep cuts 
in science technology, in research and development, in important 
environmental protection initiatives, while failing to protect Medicare 
and the retirement security of our workers and families.


  The Budget Resolution Undermines Current and Future Economic Growth.

  The fiscal policies outlined in the Budget Resolution threaten the 
health of our growing economy. The Budget Resolution calls for using 
all surplus funds for tax cuts and nothing for reducing our federal 
debt. For the past several years, a declining federal debt has 
contributed to a decline in interest rates. Less government debt has 
translated into lower interest rates and lower interest rates have 
promoted greater investment and growth in our economy. It is no 
coincidence that of the G-7 countries, we are the only country with a 
balanced federal budget and strong economic growth. Using surplus funds 
for debt reduction sustains the virtuous cycle of lower interests 
rates, higher investment in our economy, and job creation. By choosing 
tax cuts over any debt reduction, this Budget Resolution has put us 
back to the era of the same trickle down economics that led to 
inflation and stagnation.
  Achieving a budget surplus has required some very strong measures and 
has come at some cost. It was not long ago that Congress adopted the 
Budget Enforcement Act to curb our appetite for spending. Since then we 
have better managed our spending and tax cutting through a number of 
important rules and statutes. Unfortunately, this Budget Resolution 
repeals the pay-as-you-go rule, the very rule that has been most 
responsible for bringing fiscal discipline to this body.


  The Budget Resolution Fails to Protect Medicare and Social Security

  The budget proposal for FY2000 does nothing to restore the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds back to solvency. It is unfortunate 
that at this time of robust economic growth and projected surpluses, 
the Republican budget does nothing to solve the looming Medicare and 
Social Security problems. The Budget Resolution calls for saving the 
Social Security surplus for Social Security. This is far from an 
adequate solution to the Social Security problem.
  The resolution also fails to address the more immediate problem of 
Medicare. Projected to go into deficit in 2008, the Medicare trust fund 
is in desperate need of funds. While the President has dedicated $350 
billion dollars for Medicare, the Budget proposal dedicates nothing. 
Here again, I cannot understand why we do not take advantage of budget 
surpluses to help extend the solvency of Medicare.


  The Budget Resolution Forces Deep Cuts in Non-Defense Discretionary 
                                Spending

  I would support a decision to adhere to the overall levels of 
discretionary spending established in the Budget Enforcement Act.
  The Budget maintains the current statutory spending caps and then 
chooses tax cuts over spending increases in several key areas. The 
Budget makes a major cut--7.5%--in all non-defense spending. Combined 
with using surplus funds for tax cuts, this means that many important 
domestic priorities such as environment and technology research have to 
be cut.


             Reduction in research and development funding

  In the proposed budget before us, the small and declining accounts in 
R are a direct prescription for long term economic decline. There 
have been at least a dozen major economic studies, including those of 
Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, which conclude that technological 
progress accounts for 50 percent or more of total growth and has twice 
the impact on economic growth as labor or capital. Ironically, we have 
spent far more time in Congress debating the economic impact of labor 
and capital, in the form of jobs and tax bills, than we have ever 
devoted to R This Budget follows in that trend. Mr. President, by 
cutting R funding this budget provides us with another chance to fall 
behind. It does a disservice to both our well-being as a society, and 
our well-being as an economy. I hope my colleagues will reconsider the 
measure.


                              Environment

  I am also concerned that funding for natural resources and 
environmental protection is being cut too steeply to make way for tax 
cuts. The proposed budget resolution reduces funding for priority 
domestic environmental programs to roughly 11% below current levels. 
This cut hurts programs that are critical for building clean, livable 
communities and protecting natural resources and wildlife. Ongoing 
efforts to enforce existing public health protections in drinking water 
would be curtailed. Energy efficiency and clean energy technology 
initiatives that save consumers money, reduce dependence on foreign oil 
and curb air pollution would be slashed. Funds for states to preserve 
open space, coast land, and urban parks would be cut. And the list goes 
on and on. The direction of these cuts runs directly counter to the 
needs of our neighborhoods and our nation, and ignores the reality that 
a clean environment is integral to building a sustainable and strong 
economy. We should not allow important public health and environmental 
protections to be sacrificed. Future generations and the public trust 
will ultimately pay the price.


                            Defense Spending

   The President recently took action to add money to the defense 
budget, halting a 14-year slide. That slide seriously stressed the 
ability of our armed

[[Page S3408]]

forces--which are almost 40 percent smaller now than they were during 
the cold war--to meet present day commitments. The President's increase 
is enough to stop the decline in the readiness of our forces, but it is 
not enough to modernize the aging military equipment that is so 
important to ensuring that our forces are ready in the future. The 
additional money this budget adds to the defense budget is an essential 
investment for the future.


                               Conclusion

  This budget. While there are some bright spots in, ultimately there 
are just too many weaknesses for me to support it.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Senator Domenici, first let me reiterate my admiration 
for the remarkable budget you have produced. You have produced a budget 
that, in the first decade of the new millennium, balances the entire 
federal budget, protects Social Security, increases funding for 
education by 40%, seeks to protect the Social Security surplus from 
paying for other government operations, reduces federal debt, provides 
funds requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to strengthen our national 
defense, and provides an $800 billion tax cut. This is a strong budget 
that I will support.
  As you know, I intended to offer an amendment that would eliminate a 
$2.9 billion deficit currently projected for FY 2000. It appears 
likely, however, that when the final budget resolution is written and 
we have the latest budget and economic forecasts, that this deficit 
will be eliminated and, in fact, the budget will be in surplus. As I 
understand, the budget resolution, as reported by the committee, 
provides that any FY 2000 surplus should be devoted to tax cuts.
  Mr. Domenici. I appreciate your support for this budget. Given 
current estimates the budget resolution will show a $2.9 billion 
deficit. That $2.9 billion represents only 1.7% of the entire $1.7 
trillion budget, and even that small deficit will probably be 
eliminated when we get CBO's updated estimates this summer. With the 
numbers available at the time of the production of this resolution, 
specifically CBO's February baseline, it was impossible to declare that 
the budget we produced would be fully in balance according to those 
numbers.
  I want to salute the Senator from Missouri's efforts to make 
absolutely certain that we balance the budget excluding the Social 
Security surplus and I look forward to working with him to bring about 
that result.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the Ranking Member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to comment on S. Con. Res. 
20, the Concurrent Resolution on the FY 2000 Budget. Specifically, I 
will address the funding allowances for Function 700--Veterans Benefits 
and Services.
  At the outset, let me note that this budget resolution is a departure 
from past budget resolutions which have cut veterans' spending. The 
resolution emanating from the Senate Budget Committee includes total 
spending for an additional $0.9 billion in new budget authority and 
$1.1 billion in outlays for FY 2000. I am grateful for this increase. 
It is a valid attempt to infuse the VA with badly needed resources. 
However, the spending needs of the Veterans Health Administration 
exceed this recommended level. I believe we can and should do better.
  The VA health care system is being squeezed by lack of funding. It's 
high time that we realized that if this track continues, we will see 
the closure of VA hospitals. Many VA hospitals are already on the 
brink; another year of no-growth budgets will close hospitals. Small 
rural hospitals in New York State and Arizona will be closed. Large 
urban hospitals, like the ones in Illinois and California, will not be 
immune and will be shut down.
  Various estimates exist about what amount VA would need to simply 
maintain the level of current services. Conservatively, we are talking 
about an increase of $850 million to cover payroll inflation, increases 
in the costs of goods, and other increases beyond the control of VA. So 
despite VA's efforts to mitigate the increasing cost of 
pharmaceuticals, for example--efforts which have been lauded by others 
as the model for Medicare to follow--VA must budget for $850 million 
just to maintain current services. The concurrent budget resolution 
before us today fully addresses these uncontrollable costs. It does 
not, however, make allowances for increased growth of any kind.
  In our Committee Views and Estimates, Chairman Specter and I outlined 
the costs associated with unanticipated VA spending requirements, as 
well as those costs linked to unmet needs. I refer my colleagues to 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs Views and Estimates for a more complete 
listing of these substantial costs. However, I do want to highlight 
some of these areas.
  Caring for veterans with the Hepatitis C virus is certainly one of 
those unanticipated spending requirements. VA studies now indicate that 
at least 20 percent of hospitalized veteran-patients test positive for 
the virus. This is twice the rate reported in the general population. 
VA anticipates that to fully screen and treat these patients, $625 
million will be necessary in FY 2000.
  A second priority is to provide veterans with access to the same 
health care services as other Americans. VA cannot now provide 
emergency care services to all veterans. Many veterans have gone to 
community emergency rooms believing that VA would reimburse them. Of 
course, in most cases, VA would not and they were left with substantial 
medical bills. Providing emergency care and the subsequent hospital 
admission to veterans would cost the VA $548 million in FY 2000.
  Third, a funding need which should not be overlooked is long-term 
care. We know that the percent of veterans over the age of 65 years 
will grow from 35 percent of the total veteran population to 
approximately 42 percent of the total population over the next ten 
years. Does VA have the necessary resources to care for this influx of 
aging veterans? Under the current financial construct, the answer is a 
resounding ``no.'' A funding increase of at least $1 billion is 
required to meet this unmet need.
  It should come as no surprise to my colleagues that the financial 
constraints that have been placed upon the VA are also having a 
negative effect on the health care provided to our veterans.
  Through our oversight efforts on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
we have documented serious problems with quality which are the result 
of staffing shortages. The increase of dangerous pressure ulcer sores 
in VA nursing homes is only one example of deteriorating inpatient 
care. A recent report issued by the VA Medical Inspector's office 
clearly states that at the DC Medical Center, ``bedside patient care, 
such as turning patients at frequent intervals to prevent pressure 
ulcers, was affected by the shortage of staff.'' These staffing 
shortages exist at medical centers all across the country.
  With regard to outpatient treatment, the trend points to a disturbing 
lack of access. VA is rightly moving more patients into ambulatory care 
settings; however, the system as it is currently funded cannot handle 
the increased workload.
  In some cases, waiting times for routine clinic appointments--like 
cardiology and gastroenterology--reach 100 days or longer. Mental 
health services are simply unavailable at 60 percent of VA's outpatient 
clinics. Finally, while other health care providers and payers are 
seeing increased per patient costs, the VA must live within forecasts 
which assume a drop in per patient expenditures. This cannot continue 
without drastically impacting quality.
  I think many of my colleagues would also be disturbed to learn that 
VA's specialized health care services--blind rehabilitation, traumatic 
brain injury care, post traumatic stress disorder services, spinal cord 
injury care, and mental health services--have buckled under the strain. 
We have spent a tremendous amount of time visiting hospitals and 
looking deeply into these mandated programs. We have seen budgets for 
VA PTSD services in Ohio and New York cut at the expense of services. 
We have found VA substance abuse programs in Delaware, Alabama, New 
Jersey, and Ohio virtually decimated.
  In my home State of West Virginia, we have four small, rural VA 
medical centers. And I can tell you that simply covering the cost of 
current services won't help much. In fact, the continued financial 
stress of the VA budget will

[[Page S3409]]

have devastating effects on services and veterans at each of these VA 
hospitals in my State.
  In one hospital alone we could be faced with the elimination of 
audiology and speech pathology, the reduction of dental services, the 
complete closures of the inpatient surgery, outpatient surgery, and the 
outpatient mental health programs.
  I believe that West Virginia veterans, and veterans across the 
country, deserve quality health care--and I, for one, will not allow 
these reductions and program closures.
  And I can assure you, my friends, that if these situations exist in 
the small VA hospitals in my state of West Virginia, then they exist in 
other VA hospitals--whether they are small rural VA hospitals or large 
urban VA hospitals.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on 
another aspect of the VA budget. On the benefits side, I was very 
pleased to see the President request and the Budget Committee accept 
the increase of $49 million in the General Operating Expenses account 
to provide for an increase of 164 FTE in FY 2000. These new 164 FTE 
will join FTE shifted over from other duties to provide an additional 
440 adjudication FTE.
  The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has experienced an 
increase in pending compensation and pension workload of close to 
50,000 cases per year, over the last two years. This is a reversal of 
the downward trend from FY 92-96. The age of those cases is also 
growing, with an average in FY 98 of 168 days to process original 
compensation claims, resulting in 33 percent of cases pending over six 
months, up from 26 percent in FY 97. This increase in the backlog is in 
spite of a small decrease in the number of claims being filed. VBA also 
has real problems with the quality of their decision making. Their own 
review (STAR) revealed an error rate of 36 percent.
  VBA is taking measures to address its quality and workload problems, 
but they need more resources to deal with some of their biggest 
challenges, such as: the loss of their most experienced decision makers 
as they become retirement eligible; the lack of training and the lack 
of uniformity of that training; the struggle to improve customer 
service through case management and the reduction of blocked call 
rates.
  It is critical that VBA not only improve their quality and 
timeliness, but also ensure the integrity of the measures of those 
factors. They must require accountability in the effort or failure to 
achieve those goals. These are things that VBA has not been 
particularly motivated or driven to do in the past. I look to VBA to 
strive for data integrity and accountability and hope that additional 
staffing resources will aid in these efforts.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, we must do more to restore quality and 
access to health care for America's veterans today and those service 
members who will be veterans tomorrow.


                         federal r investment

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would like to focus for a minutes on an 
important, yet often ignored aspect of the federal budget--our 
investment in R While I strongly support the Chairman's contention 
that we must strive to stay within the budget caps, I also firmly 
believe that funding for research and development should be allowed to 
grow in fiscal year 2000 and beyond. Many economists argue that such an 
investment, through its impact on economic growth, will not drain our 
resources, but will actually improve our country's fiscal standing.
  A dozen economic studies, including those of Nobel Prize winner 
Robert Solow, have demonstrated that technological progress has 
historically been the single most important factor in economic growth, 
having more than twice the impact of labor and capital. In today's 
booming economy, this fact is particularly evident. Our high tech 
companies provide one third of our economic output and generate one 
half of our economic growth. More amazing is the realization that 
communications and technology stocks now comprise 80% of the value of 
the stock market.
  But it is crucial for everyone to understand that our prosperous high 
tech companies and revolutionary applications of today were created by 
scientific advances that occurred in the 1960's, when the U.S. 
government was prioritizing its resources on R In 1965, the federal 
government spent 2.2% on civilian and defense R, as a fraction of 
GDP. Now in 1999, we spend approximately 0.8 percent--almost one third 
of its value. If Congress were to follow the President's current 
budget, the number would dramatically decrease in the next five years.
  We simply cannot afford not to invest in R Our future prosperity 
depends on maintaining an innovative environment--with a solid research 
base and robust talent pool. If we allow our investment in our 
innovative capacity to continue to slip, current policy commitments and 
rates of reinvestment may not be high enough to sustain future 
improvements in our standard of living.
  I urge each of you to join me in cosponsoring this Sense of the 
Senate that outlines budgetary goals for increasing the federal 
investment in R in a fiscally responsible manner over time.
  Thank you.


                  idea amendment to budget resolution

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the early seventies, two landmark 
federal district court cases--PARC versus Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
and Mills versus Board of Education of the District Court of Columbia--
established that children with disabilities have a constitutional right 
to a free appropriate public education.
  In 1975, in response to these cases, the Congress enacted PL 94-142, 
the precursor to IDEA, to help states meet their constitutional 
obligations.
  When we enacted PL 94-142, the Congress authorized the maximum state 
award as the number of children served under the special education law 
times 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure.
  Congress has fallen far short of this goal. Indeed, in fiscal year 
1999, Congress appropriated only 11.7 percent of the national average 
per pupil expenditure for Part B of IDEA.
  Congress needs to do much more to help school districts meet their 
constitutional obligations. Indeed, whenever I go home to Iowa, I am 
besieged by requests for additional federal funding for special 
education.
  These requests increased in intensity following the Supreme Court 
decision in Cedar Rapids Community School District versus Garrett F. 
That decision reaffirmed the court's long-standing interpretation that 
schools must provide those health-related services necessary to allow a 
child with a disability to remain in school.
  This is a terribly important decision, which reaffirms that all 
children with disabilities have the right to a meaningful education. As 
Justice Stevens wrote, ``Under the statute, [Supreme Court] precedent, 
and the purpose of the IDEA, the District must fund such `related 
services' in order to help guarantee that students like Garret are 
integrated into the public schools.''
  The child in this case, Garret Frey, happens to come from Iowa. He is 
a friendly, bright, articulate young man, who is also quadriplegic and 
ventilator-dependent. Twenty years ago, he probably would have been 
shunted off to an institution, at a terrible cost to taxpayers. 
Instead, he is thriving as a high school student, and will most likely 
go off to college and become a hard-working, tax paying citizen.
  An editorial in USA Today summed up the situation well.
  We've learned a lot about the costs of special education over the 
past 24 years. In addition to the savings realized when children can 
live at home with their families, we also know there are astronomical 
costs associated with not educating students with disabilities. 
Research shows that individuals who did not benefit from IDEA are 
almost twice as likely to not complete high school, not attend college 
and not get a job. The bottom line: Providing appropriate special 
education and related services to children saves government hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in dependency costs.
  The Garrett Frey decision, however, also underscores the need for 
Congress to help school districts with the financial costs of educating 
children with disabilities. While the excess costs of educating some 
children with disabilities is minimal, the excess of educating other 
children with disabilities, like Garrett, is great.
  The pending amendment, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor, would

[[Page S3410]]

take two important steps. First, it would fully fund IDEA at the 40 
percent goal. Secondly, the amendment would provide a mandatory stream 
of funding for this important program. Finally, the amendment is paid 
for by taking a portion of the funds set-aside for tax breaks and 
instead invest those funds in IDEA.
  Mr. President, my amendment would provide real money to help school 
districts meet their constitutional obligations. Local school districts 
should not have to bear the full costs of educating children with 
disabilities.
  Again, the USA Today editorial said it well.
  Let's be clear: The job of educating all children is no small feat. 
But kids in special education and kids in ``gifted and talented'' 
programs are not to blame for tight resources. We, as a nation, must 
increase our commitment to a system of public education that has the 
capacity to meet the needs of all children, including children with 
disabilities.
  Of course, in providing increased funding for IDEA, we must make sure 
we do not do so at the expense of other equally important education 
programs. We need to fully fund Head Start so that all children start 
school ready to learn. We need to fully fund Title I so that all 
children get the extra help they need in reading and math. We need to 
fully fund Pell Grants so that all students have a chance to go to 
college. There are many other important education initiatives, such as 
reducing class size, improving teacher training, and modernizing our 
crumbling schools, that will also help children with disabilities.
  Finally, I'd like to point out that when we reauthorized IDEA in 
1977, we made clear that the cost of serving students with disabilities 
should fall not just on school districts, but should be shared by all 
responsible states agencies, including state Medicaid agencies and 
state health departments. While Garrett does not qualify for any state 
programs, many children in his situation do, and the school districts 
can and should avail themselves of that money.
  Mr. President, this amendment is about setting rational national 
priorities. We must make education our nation's top priority since the 
real threat to our national security is an inability to compete in the 
global marketplace. We must have the best-educated, most-skilled, 
healthiest workers in the world to secure our nation's future. 
Investments in education are essential if we are to reach that goal.
  The amendment targets one important area--special education--and 
fully funds this important program. As an editorial in the March 15 
edition of the New York Times explained, ``Educating disabled 
youngsters is a national responsibility. The expense should be borne on 
the nation as a whole, not imposed haphazardly on states or financially 
strapped districts that happen to serve a large number of disabled 
students.''
  By providing these additional resources for special education, we 
would free up funds both here and in local school districts for other 
important education priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important amendment to fully fund IDEA by reducing the tax breaks in 
the budget.


 elimination of marriage tax penalty and uniform across the board tax 
                                  cuts

  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, this amendment states that it is the sense 
of the Senate that the marriage penalty should be eliminated and that 
Congress should provide equal, across the board reductions in the 
individual income tax rates as soon as we have a non-Social Security 
surplus.
  Mr. President, this amendment will put the Senate on record as 
favoring or opposing the elimination of the marriage penalty. Every 
year, married couples pay a total of $29 billion per-year in extra 
taxes for getting married with an average penalty of $1,400 per couple 
for those married couples affected. Any tax system that discourages the 
time-honored institution of marriage is unjust and counterproductive. 
After all, the society of tomorrow is only as good as the families of 
today.
  This amendment calls on Congress to eliminate the marriage penalty in 
a manner that respects all married couples: couples with two-wage 
earners and those in which only one spouse works outside the home.
  The second part of this sense of the Senate calls for an across the 
board and equal reduction in each income tax rates as soon as we get a 
real budget surplus. This proposal is fair, feasible, and responsible. 
First, it compliments the lock box proposal which saves all of the 
social security surplus for future social security beneficiaries.
  Second, it is fair since it calls for a uniform tax rate reduction 
for all taxpayers. This proposal would actually provide a greater 
percentage cut for lower income taxpayers. For example, if we cut each 
of the income tax rates by 1 percentage point, taxpayers in the highest 
bracket would receive a 2.6 percent reduction in their marginal tax 
rate, while those taxpayers in the lowest bracket would receive a 6.5 
percent reduction in their tax rate. Over 5 years, the 15 percent rate 
would become 10 percent the 39.6 percent rate would become 34.6--each 
rate dropping by 5 percentage points, but the 15 percentage rate 
getting a 33 percent reduction--really a full \1/3\ reduction.
  If each of the rates was cut 1 percent per year over a five year 
period, the final result would be a 33.3 percent reduction in the 
income tax burden of those in the lowest rate and a 12.7 percent 
reduction in the top tax rate. But each bracket, each rate, gets the 
same reduction. Such a plan provides substantial tax relief for all 
taxpayers and would keep congress on track for fiscal discipline and 
responsible budgeting.
  I want to emphasize the wording that says, as soon as we have a non-
social security surplus. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this sense of the senate that honors marriage and families and calls 
for uniform tax rate cuts for all Americans.
  I thank the chair and yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 168

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have introduced in the Senate a 
sense of the Senate amendment to the budget resolution to provide funds 
for a grant program to build new schools.
  The goal of this amendment is to first, reduce the size of schools; 
and second, reduce the size of classes. The amendment would give the 
Senate's support for grant funding to enable states to build new 
schools.


                              The Problem

  Why do we need this amendment?
  First, many of our schools are too big. In particular, schools in 
urban areas are huge. The ``shopping mall'' high school is all too 
common. ``It's not unusual to find high schools of 2,000, 3,000, or 
even 4,000 students and junior high schools of 1,500 or more, 
especially in urban school systems,'' writes Thomas Toch in the 
Washington Post. In these monstrous schools, the principal is just a 
disembodied voice over the public address system.
  Second, another serious problem is that our classes are too big for 
effective learning and as public school enrollment soars, the problem 
will only worsen. Even though we have begun to reduce class sizes in my 
state, California still has highest pupil-teacher ratios in the nation, 
says the National Center for Education Statistics.


                              The Solution

  This amendment supports legislation providing flexibility in grant 
funding so that school districts can build new schools and reduce both 
school size and class size.
  The U.S. Department of Education estimates that we need to build 
6,000 new schools just to meet enrollment growth projections. This 
estimate does not take into account the need to cut class and school 
sizes. The needs are no doubt huge.


                    California's Schools Are Too Big

  My state that has some of the largest schools in the country. Here 
are some examples: Roosevelt High School, Fresno, 3,692 students; Clark 
Intermediate School, Clovis, 2,744 students; Berkeley High School, 
Berkeley, 3,025 students; Rosa Parks Elementary School, San Diego, 
1,423 students; Zamorano Elementary School, San Diego, 1,424 students.
  California also has some of the largest classes sizes in the nation. 
In 1996-1997, California had the second highest teacher-pupil ratio in 
the nation, at 22.8 students per teacher. Fortunately since 1996, the 
state has significantly cut class sizes in grades K-3, but 15 percent 
or 300,000 of our K-3 students have not benefitted from this reform. 
And students have grade 3 have not been touched.

[[Page S3411]]

                       Examples of Large Classes

  Here are some of the classes in my state: Fourth grade, statewide, 29 
students; sixth grade, statewide, 29.5 students. National City Middle 
School San Diego, English and math, 34 to 36 students. Berryessa school 
District in San Jose--fourth grade, 32 students; eighth grade, 31 
students. Long Beach and El Cajon School Districts, tenth grade 
English, 35 students. Santa Rose School District--fourth grade 32, 
students. San Diego City Schools, tenth grade biology, 38 students. 
Hoover Elementary and Knox Elementary in E. San Diego Elementary, 
grades 5 and 6, 31, to 33 students. Hoover High School 10th grade 
Algebra, 39 students.
  To add the problem, California will have a school enrollment rate 
between 1997 and 2007 of 15.7 percent, triple the national rate of 4.1 
percent. We will have the largest enrollment increase of all states 
during the next ten years. By 2007, our enrollment will have increased 
by 3.3. percent. To put it another way, California needs to build seven 
new classrooms a day at 25 students per class just to keep up with the 
surge in student enrollment. The California Department of Education 
says that we need to add about 327 schools over the next three years, 
just to keep pace with the projected growth.


           Smaller Schools, Smaller Classes, Better Learning

  Studies show that student achievement improves when school and class 
sizes are reduce.
  The American Education Research Association says that the ideal high 
school size is between 600 and 900 students. Study after study shows 
that small schools have more learning, fewer discipline problems, lower 
dropout rates, higher levels of student participating, higher 
graduation rates (The School Administrator, October 1997). The nation's 
school administrators are calling for more personalized schools.
  California's education reforms relied on a Tennessee study called 
Project STAR in which 6,500 kindergartners were put in 330 classes of 
different sizes. The students stayed in small classes for years and 
then returned to larger ones in the fourth grade. the test scores and 
behavior of students in the small classes were better than those of 
children in the larger classes. A similar 1997 study by Rand found that 
smaller classes benefit students from low-income families the most.
  Take the example of Sandy Sutton, a teacher in Los Angeles's Hancock 
Park Elementary School. She used to have 32 students in her second 
grade class. In the fall of 1997, she had 20. She says she can spend 
more time on individualized reading instruction with each student. She 
can now more readily draw out shy children and more easily identify 
slow readers early in the school year.

  The November 25, 1997, Sacramento Bee reported that when teachers in 
the San Juan Unified School Districts started spending more time with 
students, test scores rose and discipline problems and suspensions 
dropped. A San Juan teacher, Ralphene Lee, said, ``This is the most 
wonderful thing that has happened in education in my lifetime.''
  A San Diego initiative to bring down class sizes found that smaller 
classes mean better classroom management; more individual instruction; 
more contact with parents; more time for team teaching; more diverse 
instructional methods; and a higher morale.
  Teachers say that students in smaller classes pay better attention, 
ask more questions and have fewer discipline problems. Smaller schools 
and smaller classes make a difference, it is clear.


                            Many Old Schools

  Other amendments and other bills that I am supporting provide 
mechanisms to modernize old schools and we have many old schools. One 
third of the nation's 110,000 schools were built before World War II 
and only about one of 10 schools was built since 1980. More than one-
third of the nation's existing schools are currently over 50 or more 
years old and need to be repaired or replaced. The General Accounting 
Office has said that nationally we need over $112 billion for 
construction and repairs to bring schools up to date.


              California's School Building Needs Critical

  My state needs $26 billion from 1998 to 2008 to modernize and repair 
existing schools and $8 billion to build schools to meet enrollment 
growth. In November 1998, California voters approved state bonds 
providing $6.5 billion for school construction.
  In addition to the need to reduce school and class sizes, there are 
several key factors driving our need for school construction:
  1. High Enrollment: California today has a K-12 public school 
enrollment at 5.6 million students which represents more students than 
36 states have in total population, all ages. We have a lot of 
students.
  Between 1998 and 2008, when the national enrollment will grow by 4 
percent, in California, it will escalate by 15 percent, the largest 
increase in the nation. California's high school enrollment is 
projected to increase by 35.3 percent by 2007. Each year between 
160,000 and 190,000 new students enter California classrooms. 
Approximately 920,000 students are expected to be admitted to schools 
in the state during that period, boosting total enrollment from 5.6 
million to 6.8 million.
  California needs to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per 
class between now and 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student 
population. By 2007, California will need 22,000 new classrooms. 
California needs to add about 327 schools over the next three years 
just to keep pace with the projected growth.
  2. Crowding: Our students are crammed into every available space and 
in temporary buildings. Today, 20 percent of our students are in 
portable classrooms. There are 63,000 relocatable classrooms in use in 
1998.
  3. Old Schools: Sixty percent of California's schools are over 40 
years old. 87 percent of the public schools need to upgrade and repair 
buildings, according to the General Accounting Office. Ron Ottinger, 
president of the San Diego Board of Education has said; ``Roofs are 
leaking, pipes are bursting and many classrooms cannot accommodate 
today's computer technology.''
  4. High Costs: The cost of building a high school in California is 
almost twice the national cost. The U.S. average is $15 million; in 
California, it is $27 million. In California, our costs are higher than 
other states in part because our schools must be built to withstand 
earthquakes, floods, El Nino and a myriad of other natural disasters. 
California's state earthquake building standards add 3 to 4 percent to 
construction costs. Here's what it costs to build a schools in 
California: an elementary school (K-6), $5.2 million; a middle school 
(7-8), $12.0 million; a high school (9-12), $27.0 million.
  5. Class Size Reduction: Our state, commendably, is reducing class 
sizes in grades K through 3, but this means we need more classrooms.
  And so to exacerbate the need to build smaller schools and to reduce 
class sizes, our school districts are saddled with overwhelming 
construction demands.


                               Conclusion

  Big schools and big classes place a heavy burden on teachers and 
students. They create an impersonal learning environment.
  The American public supports increased federal funding for school 
construction. The Rebuild American Coalition this month announced that 
82 percent of Americans favor federal spending for school construction, 
up from 74 percent in a 1998 National education Association poll.
  Every parents knows the importance of a small class where the teacher 
can give individualized attention to a student. Every parents knows the 
importance of the sense of a school community that can come with 
school.
  I hope my colleagues will join me today in supporting this important 
education reform.


                      federal anti-drug strategies

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of sending a strong 
anti-drug message during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Resolution.
  As we approach the new millennium, one of the most difficult 
challenges facing our country is the sale, manufacture and distribution 
of illegal drugs. Drug abuse is a daily threat to the lives of young 
people and the health and safety of our families. We must strengthen 
our resolve to developing and innovative and effective drug strategy.
  The National Institute on Drug Abuse recently reported that 54 
percent

[[Page S3412]]

of high school seniors reported illegal use of a drug at least once in 
their lives, 42 percent reported use of an illegal drug in the past 
year and 26 percent reported use of an illegal drug in the past month. 
Clearly the American people need Congress to recommit this nation to 
ridding our schools and streets of drugs.
  I believe that our nation can reverse these troubling trends in drug 
abuse and decrease the number of Americans who use drugs. First and 
foremost, we must enforce our existing drug laws. Second, we must make 
a commitment to public education and community-based prevention 
programs, as well as effective treatment for those drug abusers who are 
motivated enough to accept treatment. We must ensure that local 
communities and law enforcement agencies have the tools to develop 
effective drug prevention and education programs. In my view, adequate 
funding for programs such as the Byrne grant program, the federal 
``Weed and Seed'' initiative and the ``Drug Free Communities Act'' 
program is critical to providing resources and guidance to local 
communities in my home state of Minnesota to help develop solutions to 
this problem and expand their anti-drug education and prevention 
programs.
  And finally, we must actively support the eradication and 
interdiction of drugs before they reach our borders. Illegal drugs are 
easy to find and cheap to buy. And there is no doubt that contributes 
to the high rate of drug use among our nation's children. We've got to 
invest this nation's resources in making sure more of these drugs never 
reach our shores. If we can reduce the supply of drugs, the price will 
go up. If we can reduce the supply of drugs, they'll be harder to find, 
and fewer American children will fall into drug use. That is why the 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and the Drug Free Century Act 
is so important. A counter-drug strategy which does not give sufficient 
weight to international interdiction and eradication efforts cannot 
succeed.
  The federal government must continue to work closely with local 
officials to combat the threat of illegal drug use, trafficking, and 
manufacturing to our children's future. A united commitment by 
Congress, parents, schools, city councils, faith-based organizations 
and medical institutions will help to create a drug-free America. 
Failure to act will only increase the likelihood that we will lose 
control of our neighborhoods to drug-related crime and violence.


        Sense of the Senate on Federal Research and Development

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Sense of the 
Senate regarding Federal Research and Development, Section 310 of the 
Concurrent Budget Resolution.
  The past few years of economic growth have led us to a remarkable 
stage in this country's history. For the first time, we have both low 
inflation and low unemployment, a stock market which seems boundless 
and, more germane to the discussion at hand, a historic budget surplus. 
However, the budget we have prepared for the turn of the new millenium 
is not one which promotes growth. Specifically, the small and declining 
accounts in research and development (R) are a direct prescription 
for long term economic decline. Let me explain.
  There have been at least a dozen major economic studies in recent 
years, including those of Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, which 
conclude that technological progress is the primary ingredient in 
economic growth, accounting for 50% or more of total growth. These 
studies further show that technological progress has twice the impact 
on economic growth of labor or capital. Ironically, we have spent far 
more time in Congress debating the economic impact of labor and 
capital, in the form of jobs and tax bills, than we have ever devoted 
to R, which is the true workhorse of economic growth. Today, the 
relationship between technological progress and economic growth is 
apparent even to the lay person. The Internet, cancer drugs, cellular 
phones, and computer-related services are ubiquitous. Communications 
and technology stocks now account for 80% of the value of today's 
booming $1.4 trillion stock market. Furthermore, the productivity 
improvements generated by leap-ahead advances in communications and 
computers have translated into an economic strength that makes us the 
envy of the world.
  Because it takes 20-30 years for fundamental discoveries to evolve 
into market products, we happen to be benefitting handsomely from the 
government's large investment in R in the mid-1960's. However, we 
have historically been poor guardians of that investment. This year is 
no exception. The Budget Committee's proposed cuts in research in R, 
totaling as much as 40% in some areas, sit atop a long historical 
decline which has already more than halved our total R investment (as 
a percent of GDP) over the past 34 years. In 1965, we spent an amount 
equivalent to 2.2% of our GDP on R in 1998, that amount was 0.8%. 
Commenting on our nation's 34 year decline in R investments, the 
investment guru Peter Lynch has said, ``If I saw a business with an R 
trend like this, I wouldn't buy the stock.''
  Almost every other country understands the rationale for R, and is 
especially conscious of the government's unique role in supporting 
basic research. As a result, thirteen countries now spend more on basic 
R as a percent of GDP than do we. What is the result of that 
investment? One result is that these countries maintain their base of 
excellence in science. If one looks at the set of nations with 
``significantly higher'' high school science achievement scores than 
the US, eight of the top eleven nations which comprise that list are 
the same eight nations which are in the top ten of basic science 
funding as a fraction of GDP. Exactly why there is such a strong 
correlation between research investment and high school science scores 
is not clear, but the correlation there, it is strong, and it bears 
investigation.

  Last year, the Senate began to recognize the value of R to the 
economy and to our innovation base. We passed, without opposition, S. 
2217, which sought to double R spending over the next decade. The 
bill was bipartisan, had 36 cosponsors, and passed without dissent. A 
Sense of the Senate amendment was also unanimously passed during this 
year's budget committee mark-up, calling for greater R investment. In 
contrast to these mandates for more R spending, the budget we see 
here today cuts R substantially.
  Although much of the discussion regarding R investment has focused 
on civilian R, I would like to point out the special and troubling 
case of military R Historically, DoD has funded the lion's share of 
research in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences, both 
in our military laboratories and in our university system. The output 
of this innovation enterprise is unmatched. If one looks at the U.S. 
cadre of Nobel Prize winners, 58% of the physics laureates and 43% of 
the chemistry laureates were funded by DoD prior to winning their Nobel 
prizes. What I find disturbing is the fact that we are dismantling this 
engine of innovation through dramatic cuts in DoD R, even as we are 
in the process of transforming from the Cold War Era to the much more 
technologically demanding era of--if I may use the term--``techno-
warfare.'' Every scenario of future military dominance by the U.S. 
assumes that we will inevitably have superior technology. However, if 
we are dramatically cutting military R, and we are simultaneously not 
supporting civilian R, exactly where is that technological 
superiority going to come from? Each of our services currently spends 
60-80% of its funds on readiness issues (i.e., operations and 
maintenance) and 20-40% of their funds on modernization tasks for 
incremental improvements (i.e., procurement, testing and evaluation). 
The obligation authority for science and technology--the military of 
the future--is currently less than 2% of the military budget. Even this 
minute fraction is destined to decline further under the budget we see 
before us today. Though we face daunting readiness problems in the 
present, we are far less ready for the future.
  The president's budget for military R proposed significant cuts, on 
the order of 6%, that the budget committee's budget will probably 
worsen. The budget committee's 19 billion increase for DoD is unlikely 
to accommodate all of DoD's readiness, modernization, retention, 
recruitment, and ballistic missile defense needs. The Armed Services'

[[Page S3413]]

Committee's probable response will be to squeeze the already small R 
budget enormously. DoD itself has requested extensive cuts in S 
(science and technology) which contrast sharply with its request for 
$112 billion in increases for readiness and modernization over the next 
5-6 years. The DoD budget requests, in conjunction with the budget 
committee's actions, make it clear that the problems the military is 
experiencing at present--though undoubtedly pressing--are actively 
preventing adequate long-term strategic planning.
  A recent Council on Competitiveness report shows that, as a nation, 
we are currently unmatched in our potential to innovate, due to our 
past investments in R through our military, industry, and university 
systems, and due to our vibrant venture capital sector. Let us not make 
the mistake of starving the system that gives us our greatest strength, 
just as we embark on the ``Innovation Economy'' of the new millenium.
  The budget resolution before us dramatically fails in its commitment 
to nourish R, which is the key to our future economy, our future 
security, and our future well being. The major cuts it makes in both 
civilian and military R our innovation system--are not 
supportable.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks a dramatic turning point for 
the Senate. Because, although Senators Thurmond, Hollings, Byrd, and a 
handful of others were members of this body the last time the Federal 
Government ran a unified budget surplus in 1969, no member of the 
Senate has even been involved in the crafting of a budget resolution 
under these all too unique fiscal circumstances.
  Furthermore, the consideration of this budget resolution is not only 
a significant moment for the Senate, but for more than a generation of 
Americans who never lived in a time without federal budget deficits.
  Mr. President, in light of the unified surpluses we are now 
enjoying--and the on-budget surpluses we are projected to soon enjoy--I 
would like to thank the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete 
Domenici, for his unwavering commitment to a balanced budget and 
fiscally responsible decision-making over the years. Thanks, in part, 
to his leadership and efforts, the turbulent waves of annual deficits 
and mounting debts have been temporarily calmed. And, if we are willing 
to adhere to these principles in this year's budget resolution and 
others yet to come, we may be able to maintain the current budgetary 
calm for many years in the future.
  Mr. President, the budget resolution reported by the Senate Budget 
Committee--and that we are now considering on the floor--not only 
maintains fiscal discipline, but it also ensures that critical 
priorities are protected and addressed in fiscal year 2000 and beyond.
  Specifically, the Senate budget resolution contains the following key 
provisions:
  First, it protects every penny of the Social Security surplus in 
upcoming years by devoting it solely to reducing publicly-held debt.
  Second, through an amendment I offered in the Budget Committee 
markup, it provides monies from the on-budget surplus for a new 
Medicare prescription drug benefit--something that President Clinton 
failed to include in his own budget proposal after touting the need for 
this benefit in his State of the Union address.
  Third, it adheres to the spending levels established just two years 
ago in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, while increasing funding for 
critically needed priroties including education and defense.
  Fourth, it provides tax relief for Americans at a time when the 
typical family's tax burden exceeds the cost of food, clothing, and 
shelter combined. And as a result of another amendment I offered during 
markup, it places marriage penalty relief as a top priority in any tax 
cut package that is ultimately crafted. When considering that 42 
percent of all married couples incurred a marriage tax penalty 
averaging $1,400 in 1996, I think of no tax cut that would be more 
appropriate in any upcoming tax package.
  Collectively, I believe these principles and priorities reflect those 
of most Americans--especially the protection of Social Security's 
monies. Accordingly, I believe this resolution deserves broad 
bipartisan support in the Senate and, ultimately, by the entire 
Congress.
  Mr. President, to truly appreciate what is contained in this budget 
resolution, I believe it is appropriate to compare it with the only 
other major proposal on the table: the budget proposal put forth by 
President Clinton on February 1.
  As mentioned, the first priority that is protected in the Senate 
budget resolution is Social Security and the annual surpluses it is 
currently accruing.
  As my colleagues are aware, the Social Security surplus was 
responsible for the unified budget surplus of $70 billion we accrued in 
FY98. In fact, without the Social Security surplus, the federal 
government actually ran an on-budget deficit of $29 billion last year.
  By the same token, Social Security's surpluses will account for the 
bulk of our unified budget surpluses in coming years as well. 
Specifically, over the coming 5 years, Social Security surpluses will 
total $769 billion and account for 82 percent of CBO's projected 
unified surpluses--and over 10 years, they will total $1.7 trillion and 
account for 69 percent of unified surpluses.
  To protect Social Security's surpluses, the Senate budget resolution 
sets the stage for ``lock-box'' legislation that will accomplish what 
many of us have desired for years: a bonafide means of taking Social 
Security off-budget. Put simply, this resolution ensures that Social 
Security surpluses will no longer be raided and used to fund other 
government programs in any upcoming year. Instead, every dollar of 
Social Security's current and projected surpluses will be set aside and 
used to bury-down publicly held debt.
  In contrast, President Clinton's budget offers no protection for the 
Social Security surplus and, in fact, would spend it on other federal 
programs in upcoming years.
  Specifically, as the chart behind me indicates over the coming five 
years, the President proposes we take a $158 billion ``bite'' out of 
Social Security surpluses and spend these monies on other federal 
programs. That means that, under the President's budget, fully 21 
percent of Social Security's upcoming surpluses would be spent on other 
programs over the next five years.
  Although the President has proposed that we spend a portion of the 
Social Security surplus on other programs, I was pleased that an 
overwhelming majority of my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Budget 
Committee voted for an amendment I offered during markup that rejected 
the President's proposed use of Social Security's surpluses.
  Specifically, my amendment outlined that fact that the President's 
budget would spend $40 billion of the Social Security surplus in 
FY2000; $41 billion in FY01; $24 billion in FY02; $34 billion in FY03; 
and $20 billion in FY04. Furthermore, the amendment called on Congress 
to reject any budget proposal that spent Social Security surplus monies 
on other federal programs. Appropriately, after my amendment was 
adopted by a vote of 21 to 1, the President's budget proposal--which 
spends Social Security's surplus monies--was unanimously rejected by 
the Committee when offered as an amendment later in the markup.
  Mr. President, not only does the President's budget propose that we 
spend Social Security's money at the same time as he expresses a desire 
to save the program, but he also fails to achieve the goals he laid out 
in the State of the Union address regarding the utilization of the 
unified surplus.
  First, it's worth nothing that--based on that goals he laid out in 
the State of the Union address--the President apparently double-counts 
the surplus and proposes that we spend 151 percent of the surplus over 
the coming 15 years! That's 51 percent than you or I could spend, Mr. 
President, and 51 percent more than would ever exist.
  The next chart--taken from the February 1 article in Newsweek--shows 
how this ``double counting'' would occur. As you can see, the President 
proposed that we spend $500 billion for the new Universal Savings 
Accounts, $500 billion for other federal spending, $700 billion for 
Medicare, and $2.8 trillion for Social Security. In total, these

[[Page S3414]]

five items would run $4.5 trillion--the total projected surplus over 
the 15 year period.
  However, what the President forgot to mention is that $2.3 trillion 
of this amount is already Social Security's money because it is the 
total of the annual Social Security surpluses that will accrue over the 
coming 15 years. As a result, the true total of the Clinton proposals 
would be $6.8 trillion--which is $2.3 trillion more than the surpluses 
we would accrue over the same period of time!
  Setting aside the questionable math of the President's proposals, 
it's also worth noting that there is a significant difference between 
how the President portrays his proposals, and what they actually 
accomplish.
  Specifically, as my next chart indicates, there is a gap between the 
``rhetoric'' and the ``reality'' of the President's plan. In fact, in 
light of this gap, I believe the President's budget should have earned 
an Oscar for ``Best Actor'' during Sunday's Academy Award presentation!
  As we can see on this chart, the President claimed that his budget 
would give 62 percent of the unified surplus to Social Security, 15 
percent to Medicare, 12 percent to new Universal Savings Accounts 
(USAs), and 11 percent to new spending.
  However, in reviewing CBO's analysis of the President's budget--and 
by removing the rhetoric from the various proposals and identifying 
them for what they truly are--it's clear that the ``reality'' of the 
President's budget is far different from how it has been presented.
  Specifically, instead of devoting a combined 77 percent of the 
unified surplus to Medicare and Social Security--65 percent to Social 
Security and 12 percent to Medicare respectively--the truth of the 
matter is that the President is simply proposing that we artificially 
increase the number of IOUs held by the Social Security and Medicare 
Trust Funds.
  Furthermore, we find that the President's goal to set-aside 77 
percent of the unified surplus will not even be met. Specifically, over 
the coming five years, only 65 percent of the unified surplus would be 
set aside--and that is only achieved if we assume that the President's 
proposal to have Social Security monies invested in the stock market is 
ultimately used for the same purpose.
  Also, the new Universal Savings Accounts (USAs) proposed by the 
President are just another name for a tax cut--and would utilize 11 
percent of the surplus accordingly. As I mentioned earlier, I believe 
reducing the marriage penalty should be the top priority of any tax cut 
package, and already had an amendment included in the budget resolution 
accordingly.
  Finally, over the coming five years, the President would actually 
spend 24 percent of the surplus on other federal programs--far above 
the 11 percent target that he laid out to the American people.
  Mr. President, as mentioned, for all the talk about devoting 62 
percent of the surplus to Social Security and 15 percent to Medicare, 
the President really is proposing that we simply increase the number of 
IOUs held by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds to make them 
more solvent on paper.
  Not only does this accounting scheme give the false impression that 
saving these critically needed programs can occur without lifting a 
``fiscal finger,'' but it could also lead to a false sense of 
complacency that will lead to true reforms being put off until it's too 
late. If that happens, the changes that will need to be made to these 
programs will need to be draconian--and all because we chose to give 
the public the false belief that nothing needed to be done to 
legitimately strengthen these programs today.
  Of note, the President's own budget highlights the futility of simply 
increasing trust fund balances without true reforms, and discredits his 
accounting scheme accordingly. On page 337 of the President's 
``Analytical Perspectives'' book for the FY 2000 budget, we read

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

  So, what does this mean? In a nutshell, the President isn't putting a 
penny of real money into these programs--he's simply increasing the 
number of IOUs held by the Trust Funds and hoping that someone figures 
out how to pay them back with real money in the future. There's 
absolutely no commitment of a single dollar from the surplus to these 
programs today.
  As I said during the Budget Committee markup this past week, the 
President should win a Pulitzer prize for fiction by claiming that this 
plan somehow ``saves'' Medicare!
  In contrast, the Senate budget resolution contains a mechanism and 
money to truly strengthen and improve Medicare. Specifically, an 
amendment I offered during the Committee markup--that was subsequently 
adopted by a bipartisan vote of 21 to 1--would allow a portion of 
remaining on-budget surpluses to be used for the creation of a new 
Medicare prescription drug benefit. As my colleagues are aware, the 
need for such a benefit was one of the key sticking points in the 
discussions of the Bipartisan Medicare Commission--so my provision 
ensures that this critically needed benefit can be funded.
  Yet even as it allows for the creation of a new prescription drug 
benefit, it also will encourage the development of a comprehensive plan 
to truly save Medicare without accounting gimmicks. Specifically, to 
access the on-budget surplus to pay for this new benefit, my provision 
requires that the Senate consider legislation that will ``significantly 
increase the solvency'' of the Medicare Trust Fund without artificially 
extending it in the manner prescribed by the President. While this 
provision in no way endorses one type of reform over another, it 
provides tantalizing ``carrot'' for Congress and the President if they 
are willing to sit down and legitimately work to strengthen Medicare.
  Mr. President, now that we've separated the rhetoric from the reality 
of the President's budget, it's possible to do an honest comparison of 
the President's budget proposal and the Senate budget resolution we are 
now considering.
  As my next chart indicates, the Senate budget resolution handily 
beats the President's budget at reducing publicly-held debt over the 
coming five years. In fact, by walling-off the Social Security surplus, 
the Republican plan would ensure that 82 percent of the unified surplus 
is used for debt reduction, versus 65 percent in the President's plan.
  Why is the President's debt reduction so much lower? In a nutshell, 
because of the magnitude of his new spending proposals. While the 
Senate budget resolution exercises fiscal austerity by only using 18 
percent of the surplus over the next five years for purposes other than 
debt reduction, the President uses 35 percent of the surplus for other 
purposes--the vast majority of which is increased spending.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is that whether you compare these 
budgets based on reality or on rhetoric, the Senate budget resolution 
is superior to the Clinton plan, especially in terms of protecting 
Social Security's money.
  As a result, I hope that the partisan attacks against the Senate 
budget resolution will end.
  Mr. President, by maintaining fiscal discipline, protecting Social 
Security surpluses, buying down debt, providing funds for a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, and enhancing funding for shared priorities 
such as education, I believe the Senate budget resolution deserves 
strong support by the full Senate.
  Ultimately, while members from either side of the aisle may disagree 
with specific provisions in the resolution that has been crafted, the 
simple fact is that this is a budget framework--or ``blueprint''--that 
establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on 
these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions 
will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, 
and ultimately by members on the floor.
  Therefore, I am hopeful that amendments offered to this framework do 
not

[[Page S3415]]

harm the broad and reasoned parameters that have been set, and that 
keep in mind that--unlike the President's proposal--the budget 
resolution should not be about rhetoric, but about fiscal reality.


                           Amendment No. 169

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate 
amendment to make room in the FY 2000 budget for remedial education 
funds for schools to end social promotion.
  My amendment would assume enactment of legislation or competitive 
grants to school districts to help provide remedial education, after 
school and summer school courses for needy and low-performing students 
who are not making passing grades.
  The purpose is to provide federal incentives and federal help to 
school districts that abolish and do not allow social promotion and 
provide interventions to help students meet state achievement standards 
in the core curriculum.
  This amendment seeks the endorsement of the Senate for providing 
remedial education that help students meet achievement standards and 
help school systems end social promotion.


                              The Problem

  Why do we need this amendment? In short, our students are failing.
  I truly believe that the linchpin to education reform is the 
elimination of the path of least resistance whereby students who are 
failing are simply promoted to the next grade in hopes that somehow 
they will learn, by virtue of sitting in the classroom.
  To promote youngsters when they are failing to learn has produced a 
generation of young people who cannot read or write, count change in 
their pockets or fill out an employment application. It has been called 
``educational malpractice.'' It is inexcusable for our education system 
to hand out a high school diploma to a youngster who does not have the 
skills to get a job.
  It is that bad. And California is just about the worst.
  On March 5, we received the bad news that California ranked second to 
last among 39 states in fourth-grade reading skills.
  This report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also 
showed that in California:
  Eighty percent of fourth-graders are ``not proficient readers,'' 
meaning they do not have a solid command of challenging reading 
materials.
  Fifty-two percent of the fourth-graders scored below the basic level, 
meaning they had failed to even partially master basic skills.
  The news was not must better for California eighth-graders who ranked 
33rd out of 36 states and only 22 percent were proficient readers.
  In a December 1998 study by the Education Trust, California ranked: 
last in the percent of young adults with a high school diploma; 37th in 
SAT scores; and 31st (of 41 states) in 8th grade math.
  And nearly half of all students entering the California State 
University system require remedial classes in math or English or both.


                     U.S. Students Lagging As Well

  The news is grim throughout the United States, where students are 
falling behind their international peers:
  The lowest 25 percent of Japanese and South Korean 8th graders 
outperform the average American student (source: Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development study, November 1998).
  In math and science, U.S. 12th grade students fell far behind their 
counterparts, which is especially troubling when we consider the skills 
that will be required to stay ahead in the 21st Century. (Source: Third 
International Mathematics and Science Study, 1998).
  Specifically, U.S. 12th graders:
  Were significantly outperformed by 14 countries and only performed 
better than students in Cyprus and South Africa.
  Scored last in physics and next to last in math.


                       What Is Social Promotion?

  Social promotion is the practice of schools' advancing a student from 
one grade to the next regardless of the student's academic achievement.
  It is time to end social promotion, a practice which misleads our 
students, their parents and the public.
  And apparently, the American Federation of Teachers agrees. Let me 
quote from their September 1997 study:

       Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides school 
     failure and creates problems for everybody--for kids, who are 
     deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to be 
     successful or get the message that achievement doesn't count; 
     for teachers who must face students who know that teachers 
     wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for the 
     business community and colleges that must spend millions of 
     dollars on remediation, and for society that must deal with a 
     growing proportion of uneducated citizens, unprepared to 
     contribute productively to the economic and civic life of the 
     nation.

  That is well said, from those faced with the problem everyday.


           Remedial Education Needed for Student Achievement

  Merely ending social promotion and holding students in grade will not 
solve the problem. We cannot just let them languish without direction 
and without help in a failing system.
  Instead, ongoing remedial work, specialized tutoring, after-school 
programs and summer school all must be used--intensively and 
consistently.
  That is why I am proposing a new federal infusion of funds for 
remedial education, as embodied in this amendment.


                  How Widespread Is Social Promotion?

  Social promotion is widespread. Although there is no hard data on the 
extent of social promotion, most authorities, in the schools and out, 
know it is happening--and in some districts it is standard operating 
procedure.
   In fact, 4 in 10 teachers reported that their schools automatically 
promote students when they reach the maximum age for their grade level 
(Source: Los Angeles Times, January 14, 1998).
  And the September 1998 American Federation of Teachers study says 
social promotion is ``rampant.''
  This study involved 85 of the nation's 820 largest school districts 
in 32 states--representing one-third of the nation's public school 
enrollment. It found most school districts:
  Use vague criteria for passing and retaining students.
  Lack explicit policies of social promotion, but have an implicit 
practice of social promotion, including a loose and vague criteria for 
advancing students to the next grade.
  View holding students back as a policy of last resort and often put 
explicit limits on retaining students.
  Also, the study found that only 17 states have standards in the four 
core disciplines (English, math, social studies and science) which are 
well grounded in content and that are clear enough to be used.


                     Social Promotion in California

  In July 1998, I wrote 500 California school districts and asked about 
their policy on social promotion.
  Their responses, which are vague and often misleading, include the 
following:
  Some school districts say they do not have a specific policy.
  Some say they simply figure what is ``in the best interest of the 
student.''
  Some say teachers provide recommendations, but final decisions on 
retention can be overridden by parents.
  And some simply promote regardless of failing grades, non-attendance, 
or virtually anything else.
  In short, the policies are all over the place.


                Social Promotion Is Ending in California

  Last year, in California, the Legislature passed and the Governor 
signed into law a bill to end social promotion in public education.
  This new law requires school districts to identify students who are 
failing based on their grades or scores on statewide performance tests.
  The schools have to hold back the student unless their teachers 
submit a written finding that the student should be allowed to advance 
to the next grade.
  In such a case, the teacher is required to recommend remediation to 
get the student to the next level, which could include summer school or 
after-school instruction.
  In one example, the Los Angeles Unified School District is currently 
working to develop a plan to end social promotion.
  The LAUSD Board plans to identify those students who are at risk of 
flunking and require them to participate in remedial classes.
  The alternative curriculum will stress the basics in reading, 
language arts and math through special after-

[[Page S3416]]

school tutoring. The district's plan would take effect in the 1999-2000 
school year and target students moving in the third through sixth 
grades and into the ninth grade.


                      The Cost of Social Promotion

  Here are some of the painful results of social promotion:
  Half of California's students--3 million children--perform below 
levels considered proficient for their grade level.
  One third of college freshmen nationwide take remedial courses in 
college and three-quarters of all campuses, public and private, offer 
remediation.
  More than two-thirds of students entering California State University 
campuses in Los Angeles lack the math or English they should have 
mastered in high school. At some high schools, not one graduate going 
on to one of Cal State's campuses passed a basic skills test.
  And these numbers represent an increase. In the fall of 1998, almost 
50 percent of freshmen needed remedial help. In 1997, it was 47 
percent, compared to 43 percent in each of the previous three years.


           The Public Recognizes the Flaw in Social Promotion

  President Clinton called for ending social promotion in his last two 
State of the Union speeches. Last year, he said, ``We must also demand 
greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade to grade who 
hasn't mastered the work, we don't do that child any favors. It is time 
to end social promotion in America's schools.''
  Seven states have a policy in place that ties promotion to state 
level standards. They are California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, 
North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
  The Chicago Public Schools have ditched social promotion. After their 
new policy was put in place, in the spring of 1997, over 40,000 
students failed tests in the third, sixth and eight and ninth grades 
and then went to mandatory summer school.
  In my own state, the San Diego School Board in February adopted 
requirements that all students in certain grades must demonstrate 
grade-level performance.
  And they will require all students to earn a C overall grade average 
and a C grade in core subjects for high school graduation, effectively 
ending social promotion for certain grades and for high school 
graduation. For example, San Diego's schools are requiring that eighth 
graders who do not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses 
in summer school.


                               Conclusion

  A January 1998 poll by Public Agenda asked employers and college 
professors whether they believe a high school diploma guarantees that a 
student has mastered basic skills. In this poll, 63 percent of 
employers and 76 percent of professors said that the diploma is not a 
guarantee that a graduate can read, write or do basic math.
  California employers tell me that many applicants are unprepared for 
work and they have to provide very basic training to make them 
employable.
  High tech companies say they have to recruit abroad. For example, 
last year, MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic skills training.
  On December 17, 1998, the California Business for Education 
Excellence announced that they were organizing a major effort to reform 
public education.
  This group includes the State's major corporations and organizations 
like the California Business Roundtable, the California Manufacturers 
Association, and the American Electronics Association, and companies 
like Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Boeing and Pacific Bell. They had to 
organize because they see firsthand the results of a lagging school 
system.
  I offer this amendment today to get the Senate, officially, on 
record, to support the notion that we have to provide our students and 
teachers the resources they need to help students achieve.
  The amendment is not meant as an indictment of our schools and the 
many able educators who work hard everyday.
  This amendment is being offered because we must face up to these 
deficiencies and do the hard work that reform requires.
  We can no longer tolerate doing what is ``politically correct'' or 
the latest teaching fad. It takes hard, proven, concentrated work by 
students, teachers, and families. And we have to have the ability to 
know the difference.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment, to give educators the 
resources they need to help students achieve and to tie federal 
resources to real results.
  Mr. BURNS. I stand in support of the Senate's Concurrent Budget 
Resolution for Fiscal Year 2000 since I believe it establishes the 
right priorities and balance for the Federal Government going into the 
next millennium. It preserves the future retirement and health care for 
our aging population by ensuring the financial integrity of the Social 
Security and Medicare Programs. It reduces the financial burden of the 
Federal Government on American taxpayers by reducing the national debt 
and returning excess taxes to them. And finally it limits the growth of 
the Federal Government by adhering to the statutory spending caps 
agreed to between Congress and the President in 1997.
  Saving Social Security is not a partisan issue. Principles, not 
politics should guide us when it comes to providing for our senior 
citizens who have been our guide through life thus far. We need to fix 
this program not only for our parents but also our grandchildren. We 
need to trust the American people that they can make their own choices 
on how their retirement will be financed. I believe all Americans 
should be given the opportunity to invest in a personalized savings 
account to control their own future. I do not agree that we should 
mandate the creation of a politically constituted Federal commission to 
control the investments of Social Security trust funds in the stock 
markets.
  The President's plan doesn't add up. His FY 2000 budget projects a 
$4.5 trillion surplus over the next 15 years. One half of that $2.3 
trillion, is the surplus for the Social Security trust fund. That 
leaves us with a working surplus of $2.2 trillion. I just don't 
understand where we come up with the $2.8 trillion for the Social 
Security trust fund out of this non-Social Security surplus of $2.2 
trillion especially after the President proposes to spend $1.7 trillion 
of the remaining $2.2 working surplus. His plan just doesn't add up. As 
we say in Montana--looks like it, smells like it, taste like it, glad 
we didn't step in it.
  Medicare is another tricky issue that we need to fix. I want the 
record to show that Republicans have never proposed cutting Medicare. 
Rather Republicans have allowed Medicare to grow at twice the rate of 
inflation. Our FY 2000 Budget Resolution assures that Medicare is fully 
funded--every dollar that is projected to go to beneficiaries will do 
so instead of what the President proposes with $9 billion in cuts to 
Medicare. This means that the Republican plan will continue to preserve 
Medicare for our seniors in this FY 2000 Budget Resolution.
  In the State of the Union, the President proposed that $1 out of 
every $6 of the surplus will be used to guarantee the soundness of 
Medicare until the year 2020. What he claims actually is to set aside 
$700 billion--15 percent of the $4.5 trillion total budget surplus of 
the next fifteen years--and then credit this with another $300 billion 
in interest payments.
  While this sounds attractive, the President doesn't have the money to 
implement this plan plus his claims are based on IOUs and phony 
numbers. However, the worst part is that his plan still wouldn't help 
Medicare.
  Since the total Federal budget deficit was eliminated in FY 1998, the 
FY 2000 Budget Resolution will focus now on eliminating the on-budget 
deficit in FY 2001--the first time this has occurred since the 1960s. 
Furthermore, the FY 2000 Budget Resolution will cut the public debt 
over the next 10 years by 50 percent versus the 20 percent reduction 
proposed in the President's budget. Correspondingly, Federal interest 
payments on the national debt will be cut in half--from $229 billion 
this year to $115 billion in 2009--releasing capital previously set 
aside to pay for interest on the national debt to more productive 
private economic activities, such as helping our struggling farmers and 
ranchers. Also we will not have to make the American public go further 
into debt. The statutory debt limit for the total government (currently 
at

[[Page S3417]]

$5.95 trillion) will not have to be increased until 2004 as opposed to 
the President's budget which would have to raise the statutory debt 
limit as early as 2001.
  The FY 2000 Concurrent Budget Resolution further accommodates a tax 
cut of $15 billion in the first year and $142 billion over the first 
five years from the non-Social Security surplus. Congress is not only 
receptive to paying down the national debt, but also to refund excess 
taxes to the American people.
  Let me assure you that the Republican tax cut will have no effect on 
Social Security or Medicare because they are not funded by general 
revenues but by dedicated payroll taxes. Also, tax cuts from a surplus 
discretionary budget have no impact on Social Security or Medicare.
  With a budget surplus well over $100 billion, I believe it is 
arrogant for the Administration to believe it has the best perspective 
on how to spend the American taxpayers money. Furthermore it is even 
harder to believe tax increases are justified as the President 
proposes. Our nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates, under 
current law, American taxpayers will overpay their taxes by $787 
billion over the next 10 years which is the equivalent of $7,000 for 
every American taxpayer.
  However, two areas of importance to me in the Budget Resolution are 
increased spending for education and agriculture. I support the 
increase of $47.4 billion over the Senate Budget Committee baseline and 
by $21.2 billion over the President's request for the next ten years. 
The FY 2000 Budget Resolution also provides for a $28 billion over five 
years and an $82 billion over ten years net increase in discretionary 
spending for elementary and secondary education. Overall discretionary 
spending for education increases by $2.4 billion in 2000--double the 
President's request--and $31 billion over the next five years--five 
times the President's request.
  The President's budget for the coming fiscal year contains 66 new 
programs and $45 billion in tax increases. His budget plans for the 
next 15 years call for over $500 billion in new spending and not one 
dollar in non-credit tax cuts.
  I am pleased that the FY 2000 Budget Resolution contains a mandatory 
spending allocation of $6 billion for the next 5 years (FY 2000-2004) 
based upon legislation proposed by the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition and Forestry. I am also pleased that the Committee-reported 
Resolution provides a total of over $4 billion more in budget authority 
for mandatory programs. Farmers need protection against the weather 
related and economic losses they have sustained this past year. It is 
critical that Congress provide adequate Federal funding in the FY 2000 
Budget Resolution so the Agriculture Committee can address the severe 
problems faced by our nation's farmers and ranchers.
  Unfortunately, every credible economic forecast indicates the farm 
economy will recover slowly at best. The Agriculture Committee needs 
adequate budget authority to develop and strengthen programs which 
provide production credit, risk management, and economic assistance to 
farmers and ranchers.
  Beyond these concerns, I call upon my colleagues to support the 
Budget Resolution for FY 2000 to continue the progress Congress has 
made to strengthen our financial future into the 21st Century.
  Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few observations on 
the budget resolution, and on some recent developments that relate 
closely to our budget position.
  In particular, I want to sound a note of caution to my colleagues, 
and urge that we refrain from basing our budget on the assumption that 
we will have significant budget surpluses in the near future.
  Mr. President, the last six years or so have seen some dramatic 
improvements in our Federal budget position.
  In part, this has been due to some tough budget discipline on the 
part of the White House and Congress.
  In part, it has come as a result of a strong economy, itself the 
beneficiary of our budget discipline.
  In January of 1993, I don't think anyone would have seriously 
predicted that we would be on the brink not only of balancing the 
unified budget, but also of eliminating the on-budget deficit, 
producing a balanced budget without having to rely on the Social 
Security Trust Fund balances to make up the difference.
  Now that we are so close to actually balancing the government's books 
without using Social Security, some recent developments are all the 
more troubling to me.
  I'll just note a few of them.
  Let me begin with last year's half trillion dollar omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  That measure was not only loaded up with special interest provisions, 
it ended up spending $20 billion over budget by using the emergency 
spending exceptions to our budget caps.
  There were a number of reasons the bill ended up the way it did, and 
let me say that I hope the biennial budget measure offered by the 
distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. Domenici) can help 
prevent such situations from arising again.
  I served in the Wisconsin State Legislature for 10 years using a 
biennial approach to budgeting, and I think such a structure at the 
Federal level might help prevent the kind of last minute omnibus 
appropriations bill we had last year where abuse of the budget process 
is almost inevitable.
  Mr. President, I had hoped the new Congress would start off on a more 
fiscally responsible foot after having produced the omnibus 
appropriations bill last fall.
  But I was disappointed that the first major piece of legislation we 
took up was just more of the same.
  The bill that passed the Senate recently, S. 4, was another giant 
budget buster, providing spending increases of more than $50 billion 
over the next 10 years without a penny of offsetting savings elsewhere.
  And it did so before Congress has had a chance to pass a budget 
resolution, even before this committee has produced a budget resolution 
for floor debate.
  Mr. President, there was no reason to rush that bill through.
  A pay hike for our armed forces would have received solid support as 
part of an overall budget plan. S. 4 was a politically popular bill, 
and rightly so.
  There are good arguments for providing members of our armed forces 
and the national guard and reserve a pay hike.
  Indeed, I very much want to support a pay hike for them.
  But not outside of an overall budget plan, and not in a measure that 
busts the budget.
  Mr. President, this brings me to the President's budget, the budget 
resolution reported out of the Budget Committee, and the alternative 
budgets various interests have proposed.
  Each of these budget proposals is centered around the use of 
projected budget surpluses.
  Indeed, it is the use of those very surpluses that in a sense defines 
the goals of these budget proposals, and distinguishes one from 
another.
  Mr. President, as I noted before, we have come a long way in the last 
6 years.
  We now have the opportunity to achieve a truly balanced budget, one 
that does not rely on Social Security Trust Fund balances.
  We are within striking distance of producing genuine surpluses.
  But let me emphasize, we may be within striking distance, but we 
aren't there yet.
  Mr. President, we do not have a budget surplus now, and I am 
concerned that for several reasons we may not achieve one.
  While subsequent estimates may change, the most recent CBO estimates 
show we do not have a budget surplus this year, and CBO does not 
project a genuine on-budget surplus of any significant size until 
FY2002, when a $55 billion on-budget surplus is projected.
  Mr. President, even those modest surpluses are based on assumptions 
that may prove to be overly optimistic.
  CBO currently projects non-Social Security surpluses of slightly over 
$800 billion over the next ten years.
  But in making those projections, CBO assumes that total discretionary 
spending will remain under the caps we agreed to in 1997, and that 
after 2002,

[[Page S3418]]

total discretionary spending will be held to inflationary increases 
only.
  Mr. President, according to the Center for Budget and Policy 
Priorities, these assumptions mean that discretionary spending over the 
next 10 years will be $580 billion below current levels in real terms.
  Put another way, if we simply held discretionary spending at a level 
which reflects current services, and adjusted only for inflation, 
nearly three-quarters of the projected surpluses over the next 10 years 
will vanish.
  Mr. President, some will argue Congress and the White House will hold 
to the spending caps, and will cut the amount of spending necessary to 
produce the projected surpluses.
  Let me suggest that given the omnibus appropriations bill of last 
fall, the military pay increase bill of last month, and the desire of 
so many to focus on the surpluses we hope for, those assumptions about 
limiting our spending appear to be extremely fragile.
  Beyond our ability to live up to the spending and tax assumptions 
that produce the projected surpluses, we know that projections can 
change quickly.
  Just since last August, the CBO projections for unified budget 
surpluses over the next 10 years have increased by about $1 trillion--a 
change that is itself larger than the non-Social Security surplus over 
that same period.
  Estimates that can grow by $1 trillion in a few months can shrink by 
the same amount just as quickly.
  Altogether, Mr. President, the projected surpluses are far from a 
sure thing, and we should not be writing budgets that commit us to 
spending and taxing policies that are so utterly dependent on them.


                           amendment no. 211

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues 
about some of my thoughts about Amendment 211 that was authored by my 
good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum. This Amendment to S. 
Con. Res. 20, was accepted by the Senate by unanimous consent.
  Mr. President, I know that I am not alone in stating that many of us 
in the Senate believe that, first and foremost, we believe that the 
Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. If full repeal is not possible at 
this time, there are meaningful steps we should take in the meantime to 
get us to that end.
  Mr. President, we must allow widespread use of ``helpers'' on federal 
construction projects. Considering our nation's changing welfare-to-
work environment and with the importance of revitalizing disadvantaged 
communities, it is particularly critical that the government not limit 
opportunities for entry-level jobs.
  Congress should exempt schools from the outdated rules and 
restrictions and give local school districts the flexibility to spend 
resources where they will most effectively meet students' educational 
needs.
  The Davis-Bacon wage process has been shown to be inaccurate, subject 
to bias, and used as a tool to defraud taxpayers. In March 1997, a DOL 
Inspector General's report confirmed that 2/3 of the wage surveys were 
inaccurate. In January 1999, a General Accounting Office report found 
errors in 70% of the wage forms, and confirmed frequent errors go 
undetected and the high proportion of erroneous data ``poses a threat 
to the reliability'' of prevailing wage determinations.
  Mr. President, again, I know that I am not the only Senator who would 
prefer repealing Davis-Bacon, but in light of the spirit of Senator 
Santorum's Amendment to the FY2000 budget measure, I ask that we at 
least consider the reform points I outlined above.


                          veterans health care

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was pleased that I was able to join 
with my colleague Mr. Wellstone from Minnesota in passing an amendment 
to the Fiscal Year 2000 budget resolution to increase funding for 
veterans health care. This amendment will help correct a serious 
injustice to our nation's veterans that I believe demands urgent 
attention by Congress and the Clinton Administration.
  This will be the fourth consecutive year, that the Clinton 
Administration has proposed a flat-line appropriation for veterans' 
health care in its FY 2000 budget request. The VA's budget includes a 
$17.3 billion appropriation request for the Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA). Although, the Clinton Administration's request 
includes allowing the VA to collect approximately $749 million from 
third-party insurers--$124 million more than in FY 1999, this cap on 
medical spending places a greater strain on the quality of patient care 
currently provided in our nation's VA facility, especially when meeting 
the needs and high health costs of our rapidly aging World War II 
population.
  In a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, Under Secretary for Health Dr. 
Kenneth Kizer expressed concern that the Administration's FY 2000 
requested budget ``poses very serious financial challenges which can 
only be met if decisive and timely actions are taken.'' He indicates 
that cuts must be made now to preclude even deeper cuts such as 
``mandatory employee furloughs, severe curtailment of services or 
elimination of programs, and possible unnecessary facility closures.'' 
Dr. Kizer also states that ``. . . changes are absolutely essential if 
we are to prepare ourselves for the limitations inherent in the 
proposed FY 2000 budget.''
  I have met with several representatives of South Dakota's veterans' 
organizations who have expressed their justifiable fears and 
frustrations that the VA's flat-lined health care budget is causing 
mandatory reductions in outpatient and inpatient care and VA staff 
levels. Since 1992, over 150 full-time employees at the Ft. Meade VA 
facility have been cut do to insufficient budgets. There are legitimate 
fears in South Dakota that inpatient care will be eliminated from one 
of our VA facilities if an immediate solution is not found to augment 
the VA's budget.
  Peter Henry, Director of the Ft. Meade/Hot Springs VA facilities has 
been raiding from other budgets and has been forced to close other 
services in order to provide health care for veterans in western South 
Dakota. If the FY 2000 VA budget is not increased, Dr. Henry will soon 
be forced to reduce inpatient care and could result in possible denial 
of certain category veterans.
  South Dakota's veterans are tired of hearing what the VA cannot do 
for them. It is time for Congress and the VA to tell veterans ``Yes, we 
can and will help you.''
  Many of South Dakota's 70,000 veterans contend that four years of 
flat-lined budgets for VA health care has left the system in danger of 
losing as many as 8,000 employees nationwide, eliminating health care 
programs and possibly closing VA facilities like the one in Sioux 
Falls. I have heard from people like Harry VandeMore, a Korean war 
veteran, who said, ``There was plenty of money to send me to Korea. 
There was plenty of money for hand grenades, plenty of money for rifle 
shells. I guess the government would like to throw me out in the weeds. 
I don't know where I would go for health care [without the VA]. The 
days of the hospital here in Sioux Falls are numbered if this keeps 
up.''
  Gene Murphy, a former national commander of the Disabled American 
Veterans and now state adjutant for the South Dakota DAV, feels that 
``. . . our government is always happy to send us off to war, but 
apparently they're not so happy to take care of us when we come back.''
  Since I began my service in Congress over twelve years ago, I have 
held countless meetings, marched in small town Memorial Day parades, 
and participated in Veterans Day tributes with South Dakota's veterans. 
As the years go on their concerns remain the same. To ensure that 
Congress provides the VA with adequate funding to meet the health care 
needs for all veterans. Without additional funding South Dakota VA 
facilities will continue to face staff reductions, cutbacks in 
programs, and possible closing of facilities.
  Too often, I have received letters from veterans who must wait up to 
three months to see a doctor. For many veterans who do not have any 
other form of health insurance, the VA is the only place they can go to 
receive medical attention. They were promised medical care when they 
completed their service and now many veterans are having to jump 
through hoops just to see a doctor.
  Our nation's veterans groups have worked extensively on crafting a 
sensible budget that will allow the VA to

[[Page S3419]]

provide the necessary care to all veterans. They have offered an 
Independent Budget that calls for an immediate $3 billion increase for 
VA health care to rectify two current deficiencies in the VA budget. 
First, the VA has had to reduce expenditures by $1.3 billion due to 
their flatlined budget at $17.3 billion. These were mandatory 
reductions in outpatient and inpatient care and VA staff levels that 
the VA had to make due to their flatlined budget.
  The remaining $1.7 billion is needed to keep up with medical 
inflation, COLAs for VA employees, new medical initiatives that the VA 
wants to begin (Hepatitis C screenings, emergency care services), long 
term health care costs, funding for homeless veterans, and treating 
54,000 new patients in 89 outpatient clinics.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee I was encouraged 
that an additional $1 billion was added for veterans health care. 
Although this will help relieve some of the VA's budgetary constraints, 
I believe that more needs to be done. The veterans community has 
requested that VA health care needs to be augmented by $3 billion to 
ensure the provision of accessible and high quality services to 
veterans. That is why I offered an amendment during the Budget 
Committee mark up of the budget resolution that would have raised VA 
health care by an additional $2 billion. The nation's top veterans 
groups (AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American 
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and 
Vietnam Veterans of America) voiced their strong support for my 
amendment in a letter that I shared with members of the Committee. 
Unfortunately, my amendment failed 11-11.
  Therefore, I along with Senator Wellstone offered an amendment that 
once again increased veterans health care by $2 billion. I was pleased 
that the Senate accepted my amendment by a vote of 99-0. The future of 
health care for veterans at the Sioux Falls, Hot Springs, and Ft. Meade 
VA facilities and in VA hospitals across the country will be sustained 
by this $3 billion total increase for veterans health care. The VA must 
be provided with every resource to provide quality care for all 
eligible veterans who walk into a VA facility.
  Mr. President, I feel that our VA facilities are on the verge of a 
catastrophic collapse if we continue to remain idle on this issue. In 
1972, the Sioux Falls VA medical facility contained 269 beds for 
inpatient care. Today, they are down to 44 beds. This is a facility 
that saw 75,000 people walk through their doors last year. Some 
veterans have told me that when they go to the VA they see more 
janitors than nurses. This is unacceptable. If we want to provide care 
for all eligible veterans who walk into a VA facility Congress needs to 
act now.
  The funding required for this amendment represents a minute fraction 
of the total federal budget that we are debating here today. However, 
the funding we set aside to improve accessibility and quality of care 
within our veterans health care system will provide a tremendous boost 
for an already stretched and fractured VA medical system.
  As we enter the twilight of the Twentieth Century, we can look back 
at the immense multitude of achievements that led to the ascension of 
the United States of America as the preeminent nation in modern 
history. We owe this title as world's greatest superpower in large part 
to the twenty-five million men and women who served in our armed 
services and who defended the principles and ideals of our nation.
  From the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, to the beaches of 
Normandy, and to the deserts of the Persian Gulf, our nation's history 
is replete with men and women who, during the savagery of battle, were 
willing to forego their own survival not only to protect the lives of 
their comrades, but because they believed that peace and freedom was 
too invaluable a right to be vanquished. Americans should never forget 
our veterans who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Wellstone and my Senate 
colleagues for supporting my amendment. Acceptance of my amendment was 
just one victory in the war to provide decent, affordable health care 
for South Dakota's veterans. By passing this amendment we live up to 
our obligation to our nation's veterans and ensure that they are 
treated with the respect and honor that they so richly deserve.


              Media Coverage of Federal Court Proceedings

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in 
introducing this legislation to permit federal trials and appellate 
proceedings to be televised, at the discretion of the presiding judge.
  Former Chief Justice Warren Burger once said of the U.S. Supreme 
Court, ``A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful 
scrutiny than any other. Unreviewable power is the most likely to 
indulge itself and the least likely to engage in dispassionate self-
analysis . . . In a country like ours, no public institution, or the 
people who operate it, can be above public debate.''
  I believe that these words are applicable to the entire federal 
judiciary. As such, I strongly support giving federal judges discretion 
to televise the proceedings over which they preside. When the people of 
this nation watch their government in action, they come to understand 
how our governing institutions work and equip themselves to hold those 
institutions accountable for their deeds. If there are flaws in our 
governing institutions--including our courts--we hide them only at our 
peril.
  The federal courts are lagging behind the state courts on the issue 
of televising court proceedings. Indeed, 48 out of the 50 states allow 
cameras in their courtrooms in at least some cases. Moreover, a two-
and-a-half year pilot program in which cameras were routinely permitted 
in six federal district courts and two courts of appeals revealed near 
universal support for cameras in the courtroom.
  Our bill would simply afford federal trial and appellate judges 
discretion to permit cameras in their courtrooms. It would not require 
them to do so. Furthermore, to protect the privacy of non-party 
witnesses, the legislation would give such witnesses the right to have 
their voices and images obscured during their testimony.
  A version of this legislation passed the House in the previous 
Congress. I eagerly anticipate Senate passage and the day when openness 
is the norm in our federal courtrooms, not the exception.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican Budget Resolution 
because it supports the wrong priorities.
  1998 was an exceptional year in this country's modern economic 
history. We enjoyed the first budget surplus in 29 years and the 
economy exceeded expectations and continued to expand in the face of 
international instability--unemployment remained low; wages continued 
to increase; welfare recipients declined; home ownership increased; and 
interest rates remained low. All of is good news has allowed the White 
House, the Congress, and the American people to begin debating how to 
use future surpluses which are projected for the foreseeable future.
  As a Member of Congress who arrived in Washington when the annual 
federal budget deficit was over $220 billion and still growing, I am 
extremely pleased and a little amazed that we have gotten to where we 
are today. That said, I think it is extremely important that Congress 
proceed carefully in the coming years to ensure we make wise choices 
that will keep this country's budget running in the black for years to 
come.
  Writing the FY 2000 budget is our first test of how we will handle 
existing and future surpluses to ensure long-term economic growth and 
stability, and it is a test too important to coming generations for us 
to fail. I believe that this year's budget resolution should follow 
four principles: first, we must save Social Security and Medicare; 
second, we should pay down the national debt; third, we should support 
targeted tax relief to low and middle-income Americans; and finally, we 
should identify and support critically needed discretionary priorities.
  Unfortunately, the Republican Budget Resolution doesn't follow these 
principles, which I believe are critical to balancing the many pressing 
needs of this nation. First, the Republican Budget Resolution does 
nothing to preserve Medicare. Second, while I support targeted tax 
cuts, I cannot support the

[[Page S3420]]

use of essentially all future on-budget surpluses for tax cuts at the 
expense of Medicare solvency and other critical discretionary 
investments such as veterans health care. Third, the Republican budget 
resolution reduces non-defense discretionary spending by $20 billion in 
FY 2000. Finally, while the resolution increases funding for some 
programs and protects others from cuts, the bottom line is that 
discretional programs such as agriculture, head start, law enforcement, 
and many other critically important programs could be cut by more than 
12% under the Republican Budget Resolution. I support preserving the 
discretionary caps and acknowledge that the caps force many tough 
decisions on decisions on discretionary spending priorities. However, I 
firmly believe that we can do a better job of balancing discretionary 
priorities than what is included in the Republican Budget Resolution.


                           Amendment No. 197

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a Sense of the 
Senate resolution as an amendment to the Budget Resolution. I am 
pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Santorum, Bingaman, 
and Abraham. As my colleagues know, saving is empowering. It allow 
families to weather the bad times, to live without aid, and to deal 
with emergencies. But more than just being a safety net, savings offer 
families a ladder up. That is because saving is the first step towards 
developing assets. And assets beget assets. Having them can actually 
change a family's economic station and set a better course for 
generations to come.
  Yet, despite our booming economy we know that fully a third of all 
American households have no financial assets to speak of. For those 
with children the outlook is even worse. Almost half of all American 
children live in households that have no financial assets. This, in my 
view, is an untenable situation that should be changed.
  Mr. President, we in the Senate have produced some innovative 
legislation in recent years that are designed to encourage Americans to 
build assets for retirement. That is due in no small part to the 
leadership of Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan; Senate leaders who 
understand the importance of savings. However, I believe that we have 
been remiss in neglecting the American that assets can benefit the 
most: the working poor. They need to build assets not just for 
retirement, but also for the betterment of their lives and those of 
their children.
  So Mr. President I, along with my distinguished colleagues offer this 
Sense of the Senate. It simply says that the tax laws should encourage 
low-income workers and their families to build assets. Similar language 
was offered by Representative Thompson, and passed unanimously in the 
House Budget Committee mark-up. I hope that this resolution will also 
be accepted here unanimously. Thank you and I cede the remainder of my 
time.


                           Amendment No. 224

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to pose a question to my 
colleague, Mr. Baucus. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Baucus 
for working with me on our amendment concerning Korea's compliance with 
their trade agreements. For our beef and pork producers, this couldn't 
come at more pressing time. Particularly since the South Korean 
Government reportedly has been subsidizing its pork exports to Japan 
and these subsidies are hindering U.S. pork producers from capturing 
their full potential in the Japanese market.
  However, I would like to take a moment to pose a question to Mr. 
Baucus in order to clarify paragraph (4). My question is what kind of 
report do we intend to request? And how shall we define what 
``resources'' shall be reported upon?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank you for working with me on this measure and agree 
with you that it is critical that South Korea live up to its trade 
agreements concerning beef and pork. For that reason, I agree that we 
should clarify the implications of paragraph (4). In answer to your 
questions, I would respond that reporting to Congress is meant to say 
that any reporting will: be in verbal form. And, second, that reports 
on resources used to stabilize the South Korean market will be provided 
by the Department of Treasury and the Department of Agriculture as 
appropriate.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I concur with your suggestions and urge all of my 
colleagues to support the measure as defined.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Crapo in 
offering a Sense of the Senate amendment rejecting a new tax proposed 
by the Clinton Administration. I am very pleased that this amendment 
has been cleared on both sides of the aisle and will be accepted by the 
full United States Senate. This unanimous voice vote for the Abraham-
Crapo amendment demonstrates beyond shadow of a doubt that this 
association tax increase proposal is dead on arrival here in the United 
States Senate.
  As part of the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal, 
this tax would be levied on the investment income earned by non-profit 
trade associations and professional societies. This proposal, which 
would tax any income earned through interest, dividends, capital gains, 
rents and royalties in excess of $10,000, imposes a tremendous burden 
on thousands of small and mid-sized trade associations and professional 
societies currently exempt under 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
Code.
  The Administration would like us to believe that this tax is targeted 
to a few large associations, affecting only those ``lobbying 
organizations'' which exist as tax shelters for members and to further 
the goals of special interests. Mr. President, nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  This new tax would affect an estimated 70,000 registered trade 
associations and professional societies. The bulk of these associations 
operate at a state and local level, many of whom perform little, if 
any, lobbying function. In fact, associations rely on investment income 
to perform such vital services as education, training, standard 
setting, industry safety, research and statistical data, and community 
outreach. Through association organized volunteer programs, Americans 
contribute more than 173 million volunteer hours per year, at a value 
estimated at over $2 billion annually.
  These organizations already contribute millions in taxes for any 
activities which place them in competition with for-profit businesses. 
Yet the Administration would like to impose a new tax on income earned 
outside of the competitive business environment, income which is used 
to fund functions serving the public welfare. Unlike for-profit 
corporations, investment income does not go to shareholders, 
individuals, or other companies. Associations do not have the liberty 
of simply raising prices, as do ordinary corporations, to cover 
increased costs.
  Mr. President, faced with an additional increase in taxes of $1.44 
billion over the next five years, many trade associations will be 
forced to cut back on important services, and some may not survive an 
economic downturn without the small cushion their investments provide. 
Without such services provided by associations, the government will be 
forced to step in, increasing expenditures and creating additional 
government programs and departments.
  During a time when the government is projecting on-budget tax 
surpluses of more than $800 billion over the next 10 years, it is 
unconscionable that we allow the Administration to levy a new tax on 
these non-profit organizations.
  Mr. President, in summary, the unanimous vote puts the entire Senate 
on record as rejecting this misguided tax increase on trade 
associations. Should this association tax proposal surface as a part 
of--or as an amendment to--tax reduction legislation reported by the 
Senate Finance Committee later this year, I will fight to ensure that 
the Senate adheres to the vote that we have taken today expressing the 
Sense of the Senate that it ought to be rejected outright.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this is the third time this year that I've 
come to the floor to express my strong support to help states and 
localities build and repair our children's schools. I am concerned that 
this budget resolution, which often serves as our roadmap throughout 
the appropriations process, does not adequately take into account the 
urgent need that school districts are facing throughout the country. 
Not only do we have old schools in desperate need of repair, we also 
have a growing student population. States and localities simply cannot 
keep up with

[[Page S3421]]

their school construction and repair needs. They cannot pay for major 
infrastructure projects without our help.
  Mr. President, this is what we know. We know that the average school 
building in the country is 50 years old. We know that GAO estimates 
that we need $112 billion just to repair old buildings to make them 
safe. And Mr. President, we know that over the last ten years, public 
school enrollment has increased 16.4% and that GAO estimates that it 
will cost an additional $73 billion to build the new schools we need to 
accommodate this surge in enrollment.
  Mr. President, in Virginia, there are over 3,000 trailers in use. 
These trailers are not wired to the Internet; they're not even wired to 
their own schools network. Over the last two years, 38% of our school 
districts have been forced to close at least one building in each 
district due to facility-related problems. The most commonly reported 
problem was the insufficiency of air-conditioning and ventilation. In 
fact, our students have lost 38 days of instructional time--that's 
seven weeks--because of problems with the air conditioning.
  But these problems are not unique to Virginia. School infrastructure 
problems exist everywhere. In Alabama, it is reported that the roof of 
an elementary school collapsed just after the children had left for the 
day. In Chicago, teachers place cheesecloth over air vents to filter 
out lead-based paint flecks from getting into their classrooms. In 
Ohio, there are even some children who use outhouses instead of modern-
day restrooms. Roughly forty percent of New Mexico schools have 
inadequate electrical wiring, and fifty percent of Delaware schools 
report inadequate plumbing systems.
  The list goes on and on.
  Developing a budget is about setting priorities. I have long believed 
that we have three basic priorities which should come before all 
others: we should provide for our citizens a strong national defense, 
we should provide quality education for our children, and we should not 
pass on debt to the next generation.
  When we consider the federal role in education, we should focus on 
helping states and localities to meet their pressing needs. And Mr. 
President we have pressing needs when it comes to the condition of our 
schools. It is a pressing need when we see children fainting in school 
because the building has no air conditioning. It is a pressing need 
when we see a child attending class in a trailer. It is a pressing need 
when we see leaky, unsafe roofs. I don't believe that any parent would 
deny that their children's needs come first.
  We should not procrastinate in finding a solution to this problem. 
This amendment is broadly worded. It doesn't target the money to any 
particular population. It doesn't impede stats' efforts to begin their 
construction projects. Where there are disagreements on how to allocate 
federal funds to the states, or whether or not to target a certain 
portion of those funds, or whether to have more private sector 
involvement, or what amount of federal dollars we can afford, let's 
talk about those issues. But let's at least agree that we in Congress 
do have an important role to play. This amendment is merely an attempt 
to determine whether this Congress is going to recognize our national 
school construction crisis. Our states and localities have recognized 
the crisis and are reaching out for our help.
  Mr. President, last session Congress recognized another 
infrastructure need--our national transportation need--and appropriated 
$216 billion for roads and transit projects. If we can recognize this 
national need, come together on a bipartisan basis, and pass 
legislation to build roads, surely we can come together to build 
schools. Schools are more than just classrooms, they're community 
centers. Schools provide more than just classroom instruction, they 
provide the keys to the future.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a starting point. Let's at least 
send the right message to this Nation: that we see the leaking roofs, 
that we see the cracked walls, that we see all the trailers--and that 
we are willing to help.
  I thank my friends, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Harkin, and all 
those who have co-sponsored this amendment and I urge its adoption. 
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senator Gregg and 
myself to offer a Sense of the Senate Amendment to reaffirm the 
commitment of the United States government to make good on the promise 
it made in 1975 to fund special education and to reject the President's 
efforts to undermine this commitment.
  When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
in 1975, the federal government promised states and local school 
districts that Washington would help them meet the cost of educating 
students with special needs. The federal government pledged to pay 40 
percent of the average cost of providing elementary and secondary 
education for each student receiving special education. Unfortunately, 
the federal government has failed to meet this obligation, creating an 
unfunded mandate that must be borne by every state and community in 
America.
  Due to the efforts of Senator Gregg and others, we are making 
progress. The appropriation for Fiscal Year 1999 contained a 13 percent 
increase in special education funding. As the Table behind me shows, 
the Budget Resolution before the Senate increases funding for K-12 
education by $27.5 billion more than the President's budget over the 
next five years. This includes an increase of $2.5 billion dollars for 
special education over the next five years.
  We must not retreat from our commitment to fund special education, as 
the President's budget proposes to do. This Sense of the Senate 
resolution will make clear that we reject the President's flat funding 
of special education grants to the states. Instead, it expresses the 
Senate's intention to fulfill the pledge made years ago.
  What would this mean for our states and local school districts? Let's 
take my home State of Maine as an example. In the 1997-1998 school 
year, the total cost of special education was $189 million dollars. The 
Individuals with Disabilities Act promised Maine $2,318 per student 
receiving special education services, but the federal government only 
sent the states slightly more than $535 per student--which means that 
Maine received $57 million dollars less than what had been promised.
  For the current school year, the increased appropriation for special 
education brings the federal payment to $638 per student but still 
leaves a shortfall that exceeds $55 million. The President's budget 
proposal for fiscal year 2000, however, reverses this progress and 
allows the federal shortfall in Maine alone to grow to almost $59 
million. According the U.S. Department of Education, the unmet mandate 
will reach over $11 billion nationally. We can not continue to shift 
this burden to our local communities. We must meet the federal 
commitment to help pay for special education and end this unfunded 
mandate.

  I want to quote briefly from a letter I received last week from the 
Governor of Maine. In the letter, Governor Angus King describes the 
consequence of this mandate on Maine's communities.

       The costs of special education (in Maine) . . . continue to 
     grow dramatically, at nearly twice the rate of increase in 
     overall education spending. The federal mandate to provide 
     all children with a free and appropriate education is being 
     met, but the rising costs of special education are borne by 
     local property taxpayers. The fiscal pain of meeting this 
     mandate is dividing our communities around an issue on which 
     we should be united--helping every child meet this or her 
     full potential, without regard to disability.

  In Maine, meeting this mandate accounts for millions of dollars 
annually, dollars that otherwise could be used for school construction, 
teacher salaries, new computers, or any other state effort to improve 
the performance of our students.
  We need to increase federal spending on education, but we do not need 
new federal categorical programs with more federal regulations and 
dollars wasted on administrative costs. Rather we need to meet our 
commitment to bear our fair share of special education costs. As 
Governor King told President Clinton several weeks ago, ``If you want 
to do something for schools in Maine, then fund special education and 
we can hire our own teachers and build our own schools.'' This is true 
for every state. The best thing this Congress can do for education is 
to move toward fully funding, the federal government's share of special 
education--not standing in place as the President's budget would have 
us do.

[[Page S3422]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this commitment to give our states 
and local communities the financial help they have been promised and so 
desperately need. Let's finally keep the promise made more than 20 
years ago.
  Mr. SNOWE. I support the Chafee amendment that assumes funding of 
$200 million specifically for the stateside program of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund to come out of Function 370. It is my 
understanding that no specific program in Function 370 has been 
designated as an offset for the Chafee amendment. The ultimate funding 
decision of course rests with the appropriators, but I wanted to take 
this opportunity to cast my support for funds for the LWCF stateside 
program, which has not received any funding since 1995.
  Up until 1995, LWCF stateside program funds were used in my state to 
assist communities for planning, acquiring and developing outdoor 
recreation facilities that would not otherwise have been affordable, 
especially in the smaller communities in Maine.
  The LWCF stateside program has funded such local projects in Maine as 
the community playground in Durham, the Mt. Apatite trails in Auburn, 
the Dionne Park Playground in Madawaska, the East-West Aroostook Valley 
trail in Caribou, the Williams Wading Pool in Augusta, multi-purpose 
fields in St. George, Hampden, Buxton, Calais, and Bradford, the 
skating rink in Bucksport, and wharf rehabilitation in Greenville.
  By leveraging state dollars with critical LWCF stateside funds, 
Maine's communities have been able to enjoy recreational facilities 
such as neighborhood parks, swimming pools, and ball fields, and also 
have had the opportunity to conserve certain highly valued lands that 
the citizens of the state wish to save for outdoor recreational 
activities for themselves and for generations to come.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my colleague 
from Maine in offering this important amendment to the Budget 
Resolution. Senator Collins has been a leader in the area of higher 
education and she has contributed a great deal as a member of the 
Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee.
  Last year, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
reported and Congress passed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. 
We adopted the conference report to accompany that bill by 
overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 96-0. Throughout the process, we were 
determined to craft legislation that offered students more 
opportunities. We kept our sights clearly focused on the goal of 
increasing educational opportunities for all our nation's students.
  We achieved our goal and as a result, students will receive 
significant benefits from the passage of that legislation. They will 
benefit from the lowest interest rate in 17 years on their new student 
loans. They will benefit from strengthened and improved student grant 
programs and campus based programs. They will benefit from the creation 
of a performance based organization housed in the Department of 
Education which will vastly improve the delivery of student financial 
aid. More of our nation's aspiring students will be prepared for and 
able to pursue higher education because of programs like TRIO and GEAR 
UP. Clearly, that bill went far in opening the door to all who dream of 
pursuing higher education.
  We have an opportunity today to take another step forward in meeting 
the goals that we set out in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
  The Sense of Senate offered by Senator Collins, myself and others 
follows the blueprint that we laid out during reauthorization and 
encourages the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for some of 
the most critical programs designed to help our neediest students 
succeed at the undergraduate level.
  Earlier this year I called for a $400 increase in the maximum Pell 
grant. The importance of this program cannot be overstated--it is the 
cornerstone of our federal investment in need-based grant aid. It has 
helped millions of young people obtain a degree. The Pell grant has 
made a positive difference in the lives of individual students who 
received it and it is has made a positive difference in the well being 
of our nation. Thanks to the Pell grant, more Americans have received a 
post secondary degree, the knowledge base of our nation has been 
expanded and the earnings base of our nation has increased.
  This Sense of the Senate also calls on Congress to increase funds for 
other programs that have as their goal increasing access to post 
secondary study for our nation's neediest students. The SEOG program, 
Perkins Loans, LEAP, Federal Work Study and TRIO all are targeted to 
provide additional assistance, both financial and educational, to 
students who really need it the most. These funds often times make the 
difference for a student between making it through school or dropping 
out. Therefore, our efforts today in support of these programs are 
critical.
  We are pleased to have the support of nearly all the major higher 
education groups on this amendment. These organizations represent the 
students and institutions and they have a deep, first-hand 
understanding of how important this federal investment is to today's 
undergraduate students.
  I applaud my colleague from Maine, Ms. Collins for her contributions 
to the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and for the effort she is 
making today.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to introduce this 
amendment, which would once again put this Senate on record in support 
of restoring our nation's military science and technology base. 
Specifically, our amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that the 
budgetary levels for the Defense Science and Technology program should 
be consistent with the 2% real increases in the budget request called 
for by Congress in last year's Defense Authorization Act.
  Without question, our nation has built the most technologically 
superior military force in the history of mankind. During our recent 
demonstration of resolve against Saddam Hussein, the men and women who 
participated in Operation Desert Fox were virtually untouchable. The 
results of their efforts were amazing: we attacked over 100 separate 
targets in an effort to degrade Saddam Hussein's military 
infrastructure. We totally destroyed 85 percent of these targets, and 
partially damaged the remainder, all without so much as a scratched 
airplane.
  Why are our aircraft so overwhelmingly dominant and untouchable on 
the battlefield? The answer: the Air Force made an investment many 
years ago in science and technology research and we are now reaping the 
returns of that investment.
  Unfortunately, in recent years, the Air Force, as well as our other 
service branches, have made significant reductions in its investment in 
scientific research which may cast a long, dark shadow on the success 
of tomorrow's military. Over the last 10 years, the Air Force, for 
example, has reduced the S workforce by 2,375 people. A large number 
of these talented individuals came from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 
in Dayton, Ohio. And unless we in Congress take action, Wright-
Patterson and other similar bases across our country will continue to 
lose this unrivaled expertise.
  Mr. President, this should be of great concern to all of us. 
Continued investment in Defense S research is crucial if we are to 
meet the challenges ahead. Yes, our nation's central security concern 
of the past half century--the threat of communist expansion--is gone. 
However, the world is far from being a safe place. Every day, our 
nation faces more and more diverse and complex challenges--as 
highlighted by recent events in the Middle East, Kosovo, international 
terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means 
to deliver them, and the flooding of illegal drugs into our country. 
These threats to stability and security require an enduring commitment 
to diplomatic engagement and military readiness. In both instances, 
science and technology research plays a critical role.
  Today we lead the world in virtually every measure of technological 
development, but we can't rest on our recent successes. To remain the 
best we have to continue to offer the best technology and employ the 
best scientists,

[[Page S3423]]

engineers, technicians, and innovators. The brave men and women of 
tomorrow's military will have to fight with the technology we invest in 
today--what we do today will have a direct impact on our success 
tomorrow.
  Since the founding of our great nation, scientific discovery and 
technological innovation have advanced our military capabilities and 
economic prosperity, ensuring the United States' position as a world 
leader. I must confess a great deal of personal pride in the dedicated 
men and women at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base--the Defense 
Department's largest research site--who play no small part in this 
endeavor.
  Wright-Patterson, founded in 1917 and formerly known as McCook Field, 
has given the nation technological advancements too numerous to count. 
These include advanced lightweight aerodynamic designs, advanced jet 
engines, hypersonic lifting bodies, development of the first ``smart 
weapons,'' and many, many others.
  It is doubtful we will see that kind of achievement in the near 
future. My colleagues and I are here offering this amendment because we 
are very concerned that the proposed level of funding for Defense S 
programs for next year is nearly $400 million below the level Congress 
provided this year.
  I am very troubled about the Air Force's proposal to use Air Force 
S resources to fund the Space Based Laser and Discoverer II (space-
based radar) program beginning in FY 2000. It is our understanding that 
these previously non-S programs were inserted into the FY 2000 Air 
Force late in the budget process, while providing no additional funding 
to cover the costs of current S programs. This represents a 
significant reduction in our Air Force S investment in FY 2000 and 
the outyears, and unless Congress acts, will result in drastic cuts in 
critical Air Force research programs, severe reductions in force, and 
weaken our overall Air Force technology base. In fact, earlier this 
month, the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force 
Base (WPAFB) announced it would lose 163 civilian positions as a result 
of the Air Force's proposed FY 2000 S budget.
  Now that Congress has agreed to address emerging readiness issues and 
increase our investment in our national defense, our long term 
readiness requires Congress to reverse the dangerous decline in S 
funding. Last year, Congress recognized this downward trend in our S 
investments and passed legislation that called for an increase in the 
budget for Defense S programs in all the Services by at least two 
percent above the rate of inflation for each year for the next nine 
years.
  Rebuilding Defense S is more than in investment in programs, but in 
people as well. Simply restoring funding for S will not automatically 
bring that lost expertise back. It has to be built up over time. In 
order to take advantage of next generation technology, we need to begin 
recruiting the next generation of innovators.
  For these reasons, it's important that we pass a long-term budget 
plan that is consistent with the goal we set last year to rebuild our 
Defense S programs and personnel. We can start that effort by passing 
the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. If we abide by 
the commitment embodied in this amendment, we will give tomorrow's 
military the tools it needs to ensure our national security needs are 
met. In addition, by investing in highly qualified personnel, we are 
making it possible to devote the best minds toward developing the best 
technology. We must invest now so our children can enjoy the peace and 
prosperity that comes with being second to none in military 
technological superiority.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a sense of 
the Senate amendment to the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 20.
  As we prepare to work on this year's federal budget, everyone seems 
to be talking about what we should and should not do with the Social 
Security trust funds. There is a growing understanding that the federal 
government mixes the revenues of the Social Security trust fund in with 
the revenues of the general fund in order to cover-up continuing annual 
deficits. What many people may not know is that the government does the 
same thing with over 150 other trust funds, mixing them all in with the 
general fund.
  The ``surpluses'' now being talked about are entirely fictitious, the 
result of misleading and deceptive accounting practices. The 
``surpluses'' disappear once borrowing from the Social Security trust 
funds ($121.9 billion in the current fiscal year) and borrowing from 
all other trust funds ($67.9 billion in the current fiscal year) are 
subtracted. That's why the national debt will rise by $395.6 billion 
between FY 1998 and FY 2004.
  I believe it is wrong for our government to use deceptive accounting 
practices. I believe it is wrong to encourage the perception that we 
are running annual surpluses, when in fact we are continuing to run 
annual deficits and continuing to add to the national debt. Anyone in 
the private sector who engaged in similar practices would, by our own 
laws, be subjected to prosecution and imprisonment. Why do we allow the 
government to use accounting shell games that would be illegal anywhere 
else?
  To provide a more accurate picture of our country's financial 
situation to the American people, I have this amendment to the Budget 
Resolution. This Sense of the Senate amendment states that the Office 
of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office should 
separate the revenues of all government trust funds from the general 
fund and report the budget deficit or surplus when all trust funds are 
excluded.
  This is an incremental first step toward changing the way Congress 
and the President budget and spend taxpayer money.
  I ask for your support in this effort to provide truthful budget 
numbers to the American people. This amendment is, in my judgment, 
completely non-partisan. It makes no pre-judgments about tax cuts or 
spending increases. Instead, it simply seeks to expose a deceptive 
accounting practice long used by our federal government.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of my Sense of the Senate 
amendment to the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 20. This amendment 
will require truth-in-budgeting with respect to the on-budget trust 
funds.
  There is a growing understanding that the federal government mixes 
the revenues of the Social Security trust fund in with the revenues of 
the general fund in order to cover-up continuing annual deficits. What 
many people may not know is that the government does the same thing 
with over 150 other trust funds, mixing them all in with the general 
fund.
  I believe it is wrong for our government to use deceptive accounting 
practices. I believe it is wrong to encourage the perception that we 
are running annual surpluses, when in fact we are continuing to run 
annual deficits and continuing to add to the national debt. Anyone in 
the private sector who engaged in similar practices would, by our own 
laws, be subjected to prosecution and imprisonment. Why do we allow the 
government to use accounting shell games that would be illegal anywhere 
else?
  To provide a more accurate picture of our country's financial 
situation to the American people, I have offered this amendment to the 
Budget Resolution. This Sense of the Senate amendment states that the 
Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office 
should separate the revenues of all government trust funds from the 
general fund and report the budget deficit or surplus when all trust 
funds are excluded.
  I ask for your support in this effort to provide truthful budget 
numbers to the American people. This amendment is, in my judgement, 
completely non-partisan. It makes no pre-judgements about tax cuts or 
spending increases. Instead, it simply seeks to expose a deceptive 
accounting practice long used by our federal government.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this new era of budget surpluses 
presents us with a tremendous opportunity to expand our investment in 
education, particularly our efforts to improve our public schools and 
raise academic achievement. This opportunity could not come at a better 
time, given the growing importance of knowledge in this Information Age 
economy, the

[[Page S3424]]

growing concerns parents have about the ability of our schools to 
adequately prepare America's children for the challenges ahead of them, 
and the growing interest here in Congress in retooling our Federal 
education policy this year through the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The budget resolution before us makes an attempt to seize that 
opportunity providing for a $32 billion increase in elementary and 
secondary education programs over the next five years. But I am 
disappointed that the architects of this plan did not go further, that 
rather than making a dramatic statement about the priority we place on 
education quality, this resolution instead opts to devote far more 
resources to broad-based tax cuts. In particular, I am disappointed 
that, because of this preference for tax cuts, we have failed to fund 
the President's plan to help local school districts reduce elementary 
school class sizes by hiring 100,000 new teachers, a plan I am proud to 
have cosponsored. And I am disappointed that we have failed to fully 
fund our share of IDEA, to finally meet the pledge Congress made to 
cover 40 percent of the cost of providing a free and appropriate 
education to children with special needs. Eliminating this shortfall is 
by far the top priority of the teachers and principals and 
administrators in my state of Connecticut, whose budgets are being 
busted by the spiraling costs of meeting the requirements of IDEA, and 
who tell us that all children are suffering as a result.
  It is my hope that we could rectify this imbalance, which is why I am 
joining many of my colleagues in cosponsoring an amendment that would 
significantly strengthen our investment in education. Specifically, it 
would shift one-fifth of the funding reserved for tax cuts, $156 
billion over the next 10 years, into education accounts. This shift 
would enable us to fully fund the class-size initiative and meet our 
IDEA obligations, as well as provide additional resources to several 
important K-12 programs. This amendment is broadly supported by a wide 
array of education groups, and I believe that it truly reflects the 
will of the American, people who have repeatedly expressed their 
preference for using the surplus to lift up our schools over broad-
based tax cuts.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment and send a clear signal to the American people 
about the priorities of this Congress, about our willingness to seize 
the unique opportunity this new budget environment affords to invest in 
our children's future.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Kennedy-Dodd amendment. This amendment helps right a wrong that 
was committed during the Senate Ed-Flex debate several weeks ago. 
During that debate, the Senate adopted an amendment that effectively 
forces our school districts to choose between hiring teachers and 
providing services for students with special needs. This was unfair and 
unnecessary, and I am still hopeful that the amendment will be dropped 
in conference. However, I believe we need to do more than that--we need 
to send a strong signal to our school districts that we are committed 
to fulfilling our obligations to fully fund both IDEA and hiring 
teachers. The Kennedy-Dodd amendment does just that.
  School districts in Wisconsin and across the nation are working hard 
to improve public education for all children. However, we in Congress 
must also live up to our obligation to assist them. Although the 
Federal government has the responsibility to fund 40% of the costs of 
special education, we are currently only funding about 10%. In 
addition, school districts will need to hire 2 million new teachers 
over the next decade, and we should continue to provide funding for 
them to do that.
  The Kennedy-Dodd amendment provides full funding for the next six 
years for both IDEA and the hiring of teachers. This amendment sends a 
strong message--backed up by real dollars--that we will continue to be 
partners with local communities in improving education. It tells them 
we will not tie their hands and force them to choose between hiring 
teachers and serving students with special needs. It is our duty to 
live up to our obligations and fully fund both. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support the Kennedy-Dodd amendment, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment along 
with Senators, Abraham, Coverdell, Burns, Santorum, Smith of Oregon, 
Grams, Baucus, and Ashcroft to the budget resolution on the importance 
of counter-narcotic funding. I offer this amendment because I want to 
make it crystal clear that this budget, and this Congress, should make 
a serious investment in anti-drug activities.
  This amendment expresses a Sense of Senate that funding for federal 
drug control activities should be at a level higher than that proposed 
in the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2000 and that funding 
for federal drug control activities should allow for investments in 
programs authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and 
in S.5, the proposed Drug Free Century Act, which I introduced earlier 
this year.
  Mr. President, history has proven that a successful anti-drug 
strategy is balanced and comprehensive in three key areas: demand 
reduction--such as education and treatment; domestic law enforcement; 
and international supply reduction.
  This is why last year, I introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act, a $2.6 billion authorization initiative over three 
years for enhanced international eradication, interdiction and crop 
alternative programs.
  Two factors motivated me to launch this bi-partisan effort: a 
significant rise in teen drug use and a significant decline in our 
investment to seize drugs outside our borders. This dramatic decrease 
in our international efforts is one of the reasons why drugs have 
become more available and more affordable.
  This wasn't always the case. The budget numbers tell an alarming and 
undeniable story. In 1987, the federal government's drug control budget 
of $4.79 billion was divided as follows: 29% for demand reduction 
programs; 38% for domestic law enforcement; and 33% for international 
supply reduction. This funding breakdown was the norm during the Reagan 
and Bush Administrations' efforts against illegal drugs, from 1985-92.
  And during that time, our investment paid off. From 1988-1991, total 
drug use was down 13%. Cocaine use dropped by 35%. Marijuana use was 
reduced by 16%.
  After President Clinton took office in 1993, this Administration 
pursued an anti-drug strategy that upset this careful funding balance. 
And by 1995, the federal drug control budget of $13.3 billion was 
divided as follows: 35% for demand reduction programs; 53% for domestic 
law enforcement, and only 12% for international supply reduction. The 
share of our anti-drug investment dedicated to stopping drugs outside 
our country dropped from 33% in 1987 to 12% in 1995.
  Mr. President, our country is paying the price for this unfortunate 
change in strategy. Since 1992, overall drug use among teens aged 12 to 
17 rose by 70 percent. Drug-abuse related arrests more than doubled for 
minors between 1992 and 1996. And the price of drugs also decreased 
during this time period.
  Last year we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and 
also provided a down payment of $829 million to get this initiative 
started.
  Today, however, it is clear that the Administration is not yet ready 
to exercise the leadership Congress demanded on this Act. First, the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget would invest less in our anti-
drug efforts than what Congress provided this year. Second, regardless 
of repeated efforts to work with the Administration to get serious 
about eradication and interdiction, not one of the top priorities 
outlined in our bi-partisan Act were funded in the Administration's 
proposed budget.
  So, once again, it is up to us in Congress to set the example and 
provide the leadership to ensure we implement a serious and balanced 
drug control policy.
  Let me conclude by thanking the Chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Domenici, and his staff, for their efforts to make sure this 
budget resolution represents the commitment we must make if we are 
truly serious about reducing drugs. It will take that kind of 
commitment to help us achieve

[[Page S3425]]

once again a comprehensive and balanced drug control strategy. Most 
important, it will put us back on a course toward ridding our schools 
and communities of illegal and destructive drugs.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important and 
timely amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this month, under the impressive 
bipartisan leadership of Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, the Finance 
Committee approved the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 by a 16-
2 vote. This important legislation sends a strong message that all 
Americans with disabilities have access to the affordable health care 
they need in order to work and live independently.
  The Jeffords amendment endorses that legislation as part of the 
budget resolution, and will put the Senate on record that now is the 
time for barriers that prevent disabled people from obtaining 
employment to come down.
  Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is now 
enjoying, people with disabilities continue to struggle to live 
independently and become fully contributing members of their 
communities. We need to do more to see that the benefits of our 
prosperous economy are truly available to all Americans, including 
those with disabilities. Children and adults with disabilities deserve 
access to the benefits and support they need to achieve their full 
potential.
  Large numbers of the 54 million Americans with disabilities have the 
capacity to work and become productive citizens but they are unable to 
do so because of the unnecessary barriers they face. For too long 
people with disabilities have suffered from unfair penalties if they go 
to work. They are in danger of losing their cash benefits if they 
accept a paying job. They are in danger of losing their medical 
coverage, which may well mean the difference between life and death. 
Too often, they face a harsh choice between eating a decent meal and 
buying their needed medication.
  The goal of the Work Incentives Improvement Act is to reform and 
improve existing disability programs so that they do more to encourage 
and support every disabled person's dream to work and live 
independently, and be productive and contributing members of their 
society. That goal should be the birthright of all Americans--and when 
we say all, we mean all.
  It is a privilege to be part of this bipartisan effort with Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, and sixty-six other Senate 
colleagues. Work is a central part of the American dream, and it is 
time for Congress to give greater support to disabled citizens in 
achieving that dream. This legislation is the right thing to do, it is 
the cost effective thing to do, and now is the time to do it. I urge 
the Senate to make this commitment a part of the budget resolution.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have worked for many years to try to keep 
the costs of prescription drugs down. Too many Americans are unable to 
afford the costly medications they need to stay healthy. Seniors in 
Vermont living on fixed incomes should not be forced to choose between 
buying food or fuel for heat, and paying for prescription drugs.
  As part of this continuing effort, I am pleased to cosponsor the 
Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999, which is being 
introduced today. This bill is an important step toward increasing the 
access of older Americans to the prescription drugs they need for their 
health and well-being. The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act 
will allow pharmacies to purchase prescription drugs for Medicare 
beneficiaries at the same discounted rates available to the federal 
government and large insurance companies. Seniors should no longer foot 
the bill for generous discounts to the favored customers of 
pharmaceutical companies. Under this legislation, seniors could see 
their medication costs decrease by more than 40 percent.
  This is only the first step. We must begin to address the greater 
problem that the costs of most prescription drugs are not covered by 
Medicare. As drug costs skyrocketed 17 percent in the last year alone, 
paying for prescription drugs has become a tremendous out-of-pocket 
burden for seniors, who fill 18 prescriptions a year on average. I am 
encouraged by the debate on the Senate floor on the Budget Resolution 
which has focused on addressing the lack of a drug benefit. I will 
support efforts to include coverage of prescription drugs in the 
Medicare program. This is the right thing to do for seniors, and this 
is the right time to do it.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators 
Kennedy, Johnson, Leahy, Wellstone, Inouye, Kerry, and others in 
introducing the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act.
  Mr. President, the sky-rocketing cost of prescription drugs has long 
been among the top 2 or 3 issues my constituents in Wisconsin call and 
write to me about. The problem of expensive prescription drugs is 
particularly acute among Wisconsin senior citizens who live on fixed 
incomes. Nationally, prescription drugs are Senior Citizens' largest 
single out-of-pocket health care expenditure: the average Senior spends 
$100-$200 month on prescription drugs.
  As you may know, Mr. President, last fall, a study by the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee found that the average price 
seniors pay for prescription drugs is twice as high as that enjoyed by 
favored customers--big purchasers such as HMOs and the federal 
government. The Committee's report found a price differential in one 
case was 1400%, meaning that the retail price a typical senior citizen 
paid was $27.05, while the favored customer was charged only $1.75.
  To be sure, Mr. President, the Committee's report did find that 
Wisconsin had lower price differentials compared to other parts of the 
country, an 85% differential compared to a high of 123% in California. 
But I think my constituents would find that a pretty hollow 
distinction. There's not doubt in my mind that paying 85% more than 
others are charged for the same product is unfair, plain and simple.
  Mr. President, as we all know, traditional Medicare does not cover 
prescription drugs. While some Medicare managed care plans offer a 
prescription drug benefit, few of those managed care plans operate in 
Wisconsin or in other largely rural states. So, while pharmaceutical 
companies give lower prices to favored customers who buy in bulk, small 
community pharmacies such as we have throughout Wisconsin lack this 
purchasing power, meaning that Seniors who purchase their prescriptions 
drugs at those small pharmacies get the high prices passed on to them.
  Mr. President, I regularly get calls from Seniors on tight, fixed 
incomes who tell me that they have to choose between buying groceries 
and buying groceries and buying their prescription drugs. I would guess 
that many of my colleagues receive similar calls from their 
constituents. Calls like these, and the fact that prices are only 
getting higher as scientific advances develop new medications, tell me 
that we must take action to make prescription drugs more affordable to 
Seniors.
  The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today will 
require that pharmaceutical companies offer senior citizens the same 
discounts that they offer to their most favored customers. Through this 
legislation, we take an important step in making costly but vitally 
important prescription drugs more affordable to the Seniors who need 
them. I thank the chair.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with a little assistance, I believe we can 
finish this bill within the next 45 minutes.
  I commend Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked hard to 
work out these amendments and accept them by voice vote. The managers 
have been doing an excellent job, and Senator Reid, and Senator Dorgan, 
so that we can do this.
  But I want to try to explain where we are. The votes are still taking 
close to 10 minutes. But there is a physical problem with just how long 
it takes to call the roll. We will continue to try to do those as 
quickly as possible.
  I believe we have no more than five amendments left. We have two that 
we already had ready to go, and we have possibly three more, and two 
more on that side. We could be down to, I think, no more than five. I 
don't want to say fewer than that until we are sure what we have done. 
But let me ask unanimous consent and see if we can identify this 
properly.

[[Page S3426]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 
amendments remaining in order, other than those previously in order by 
Senator Domenici, and except those agreed to by the two managers, and, 
following the disposition of the amendments, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, the House companion bill.
  I further ask that all after the enacting clause be stricken in the 
House resolution, the text of the Senate resolution be inserted, 
passage occur immediately, and the Senate resolution be placed back on 
the Calendar.

  The amendments are as follows. I believe we have two that are still 
pending.
  Robb, No. 181. I believe we are going to be able to do that one by 
voice vote.
  Lautenberg, No. 183, which I believe will very likely take a recorded 
vote. Voice vote? All right. We will do those two by voice vote.
  Then Kerry No. 190;
  Kennedy, No. 196;
  And Chafee, No. 238.
  I further ask that the votes occur in sequence, as provided in the 
previous consent, with all provisions of the previous consent still in 
order.
  I want to emphasize, we may still work out one or two of those that 
are on the list. But we are locking it down to the two that we are 
going to do by voice vote and the three that may require a recorded 
vote.
  I yield to the manager.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have a question. Mr. President, I understand a 
vote will be asked for on the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have another list of ones we will accept, that the 
leader hasn't mentioned, that we agreed on.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. All right.
  Mr. REID. There is also No. 182, the Robb amendment. Whatever the 
body decides on that by voice vote will do.
  Mr. LOTT. Right.
  I renew my unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. My question is, does the leader's request preclude a vote 
up or down on the resolution itself?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, my understanding is it does not. It would 
not be my intent to do that.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I believe that I have 236. I believe that has been 
cleared.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes. I believe it has. No. 236 is on the list.
  Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Let's proceed.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the question on 
the Robb amendment No. 182.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator in New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could I do the house cleaning? That will 
get us to the unanimous consent agreement.


                     Amendment No. 164, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Graham No. 164, as modified. We ask that 
it be accepted. We send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 164), as modified, is as follows:


                     amendment no. 164, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 164), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 165, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Graham of Florida, No. 165, with a modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 165), as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

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

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) some emergency expenditures made at the end of the 
     105th Congress for fiscal year 1999 were inappropriately 
     deemed as emergencies;
       (2) Congress and the President should identify these 
     inappropriate expenditures and fully pay for these 
     expenditures during the fiscal year in which they will be 
     incurred; and
       (3) Congress should only apply the emergency designation 
     for occurrences that meet the criteria set forth in the 
     Congressional Budget Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 165), as modified, was agreed to.
       Amendments Nos. 227, 230, 185, 214, As Modified, And 236.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Abraham, 227; 230, Senator Stevens; 185, 
Senator Durbin; 214, Senator DeWine, modification. I send the 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Chafee, 236.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.

[[Page S3427]]

  The amendments (Nos. 227, 230, 185, and 236) were agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 214), as modified, was agreed to, 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;
       (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.


              Amendments Nos. 226, 223, And 167, Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. The following amendments are withdrawn: 226, 223, and 
167.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
withdrawn.
  The amendments (Nos. 226, 223, and 167) were withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Lautenberg, do you have your amendment?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we accept it right now?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We can accept it. This is on school modernization. It 
has my list of cosponsors.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We accept the Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 183) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of 
the Senate that we should enact legislation to help local school 
districts modernize their schools. This is a critical need for our 
school districts.
  This school modernization proposal is supported by the National 
School Boards Association, the National PTA, the National Association 
of Elementary School Principals, and the entire range of education 
advocates.
  Mr. President, help with school modernization is what the education 
community wants from the Federal Government. They don't want lip 
service, they want action. Here is our chance. I ask for my colleagues' 
support.
  I thank my principal cosponsor Senator Robb for his support for this 
important amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is it so far.


                           Amendment No. 182

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I hope I may have the 60 seconds, even 
though I am going to have a voice vote, and I know the result of that 
vote.
  Mr. President, may I simply say pay-as-you-go has served this 
institution and this country well. It has helped reduce deficits, and 
it has helped us not to spend money we did not have. Senator Graham and 
I thought it would be appropriate to continue that discipline. 
Regrettably, in an effort to spend money that we do not have, it is 
being withdrawn in this amendment.
  I yield to my distinguished friend from Florida to use up any time 
that I have not used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the threat to the surplus is not the 
threat that it will or will not be placed in a lockbox. It is a threat 
whether the surplus will be dissipated by expenditures that are not 
offset by either other spending or by sources of revenue to support 
those additional expenditures.
  I believe if you are seriously committed to preserving the surplus so 
it can be used to strengthen our Social Security system, you should 
give strong support to the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the fiscally responsible vote is yea. With 
that, Mr. President, I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't believe we should vote yea. We 
should not be required to follow a pay-as-you-go that was there when we 
had big deficits and require we have 60 votes when you have a surplus 
or to spend any money when you have a surplus. We should not do that. 
We will not support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 182) was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 196

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment up is the Kennedy amendment 
No. 196.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We understand that amendment should be called a 
Rockefeller amendment. Is that correct?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, that is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is the Rockefeller amendment. 
The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I may have the attention of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, our senior citizens in the United 
States deserve a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The amendment that 
I am offering, together with Senator Kennedy, creates a credible 
reserve fund to accommodate such if a bill which reforms Medicare, in 
fact, passes. This will not add to the debt. There are no unacceptable 
conditions. There is no uncertainty about whether the funds will be 
there. The idea is clear and simple, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There will be order in the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fellow Senators, this amendment sets up a reserve fund 
for any taxes that might be forthcoming from cigarettes without 
requiring any reform or any changes in the Medicare program. It just 
says that is out there to be used for Medicare. And whatever you want 
to call it, prescription drugs or what, it just doesn't seem to this 
Senator we ought to be doing that when we have a bipartisan Commission 
and many others saying let's reform Medicare and then let's see where 
we are.
  So I don't believe we should be doing this, and I move to table the 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S3428]]

  There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     McCain
      
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 196) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 190

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we spent a lot of effort in the last years 
trying to assert discipline on the budget process. This amendment is an 
opportunity to continue that discipline and to vote against deficit 
spending. As my colleagues know, I think the vast majority of the 
Senate is in favor of a tax cut. But this tax cut is loaded in a way 
that of $780 billion, $630 billion is not until the last years. In 
fact, it will not even take effect until about 2005.
  What we say is we do not take away the tax cut. We simply say if CBO 
says that will result in deficit spending, we delay for the 1 year 
until we know we are in surplus rather than having to deficit spend in 
order to fund a tax cut.
  The vast majority of the American people want to get out of debt. 
They do not want a tax cut if it means deficit spending to provide it. 
The danger is that the economic statistics, or realities, could turn 
downwards, but the law will require a tax cut we cannot afford.
  So, this is a way of saying there is an automatic delay. We do not 
take it away. It affects nothing on Social Security and guarantees no 
deficit spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the simplest way I can explain this is 
this is the kind of tax cut we give, but we take it way. It is kind of 
a reverse trigger. Instead of putting a tax on, we put tax on and then 
we stop it in the event we get an estimate from the Congressional 
Budget Office that the surpluses are not quite what we figured out.
  We do not do that for spending. Spending can go on up. We have no 
triggers on or off. But when it comes to tax cuts, we kind of give 
them, but we do not quite give them. I do not think that is the way we 
ought to treat the taxpayer.
  Having said that, the amendment violates the Budget Act. It is not 
germane and I make the point of order it does not comply with the 
Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                     motion to waive the budget act

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act 
of 1974, I move to waive the provisions for consideration of this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to the amendment (No. 190). The yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     McCain
      
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The question is now on the Chafee amendment.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. REID. On vote No. 64, I voted ``nay,'' but I meant to vote 
``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as an ``aye.'' It 
will not affect the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. With just a few amendments we have to clear up, we will 
be ready to vote on final passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Crapo be added as a cosponsor to 
amendment No. 227.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Amendments Nos. 233, 203, 201, 200, 198, 194, 184, 172, And 168, 
                               Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 233, 
Coverdell. And I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the following 
amendments. I will not name the Senator, just the number. These are 
what we know are around but nobody wants them called up: 203, 201, 200, 
198, 194, 184, 172, and 168. I send that to the desk in case the 
scrivener did not get my vocabulary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are withdrawn.
  The amendments (Nos. 233, 203, 201, 200, 198, 194, 184, 172, and 168) 
were withdrawn.


                     Amendment No. 206, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 206 be 
modified with the modification I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is 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--

[[Page S3429]]

       ``(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 shall be 
     maintained, and the funding for the Violent Crime Reduction 
     Trust Fund shall continue to at least year 2005.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 206, as 
modified, the Hatch-Biden amendment, be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 206), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 247

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on need-based student 
                        financial aid programs)

  Mr. DOMENICI. We have an amendment that by mistake did not get called 
up and was misplaced somewhere. It is Senator Collins' amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order to offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Ms. Collins, 
     for herself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy 
     and Mr. Lieberman proposes an amendment numbered 247.

  The amendment reads as follows:

       Amend section 315 to read as follows:

     SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NEED-BASED STUDENT FINANCIAL 
                   AID PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) public investment in higher education yields a return 
     of several dollars for each dollar invested;
       (2) higher education promotes economic opportunity for 
     individuals, as recipients of bachelor's degrees earn an 
     average of 75 percent per year more than those with high 
     school diplomas and experience half as much unemployment as 
     high school graduates;
       (3) higher education promotes social opportunity, as 
     increased education is correlated with reduced criminal 
     activity, lessened reliance on public assistance, and 
     increased civic participation;
       (4) a more educated workforce will be essential for 
     continued economic competitiveness in an age where the amount 
     of information available to society will double in a matter 
     of days rather than months or years;
       (5) access to a college education has become a hallmark of 
     American society, and is vital to upholding our belief in 
     equality of opportunity;
       (6) for a generation, the Federal Pell Grant has served as 
     an established and effective means of providing access to 
     higher education for students with financial need;
       (7) over the past decade, Pell Grant awards have failed to 
     keep pace with inflation, eroding their value and threatening 
     access to higher education for the nation's neediest 
     students;
       (8) grant aid as a portion of all students financial aid 
     has fallen significantly over the past 5 years;
       (9) the nation's neediest students are now borrowing 
     approximately as much as its wealthiest students to finance 
     higher education; and
       (10) the percentage of freshmen attending public and 
     private 4-year institutions from families below national 
     median income has fallen since 1981.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that within the discretionary allocation provided to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for function 500--
       (1) the maximum amount of Federal Pell Grants should be 
     increased by $400;
       (2) funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational 
     Opportunity Grants Program should be increased by 
     $65,000,000;
       (3) funding for the Federal capital contributions under the 
     Federal Perkins Loan Program should be increased by 
     $35,000,000;
       (4) funding for the Leveraging Educational Assistance 
     Partnership Program should be increased by $50,000,000;
       (5) funding for the Federal Work-Study Program should be 
     increased by $64,000,000;
       (6) funding for the Federal TRIO Programs should be 
     increased by $100,000,000.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr President, I rise to offer a Sense of the Senate 
amendment to express the commitment of the Senate to expand needs-based 
Federal student aid programs. I am joined in this effort by Senators 
Jeffords, Reed, Dodd, Kennedy, and Lieberman.
  I am pleased by the large increase in funding for education included 
in the Budget Resolution and thank Senator Domenici and the other 
members of the Budget Committee for taking a forward-looking stance in 
favor of our children. I am offering this amendment to help ensure that 
as these increased funds for education are appropriated--and as the 
``hard decisions'' are made about appropriations for specific 
programs--need-based student financial aid programs are given priority.
   Although the federal government cannot guarantee that every American 
will complete a postsecondary education program, we can ensure that 
every qualified American has an equal opportunity to do so. This is the 
primary purpose of the student financial aid programs authorized by the 
Higher Education Act.
  The evidence is overwhelming that individuals from low-income 
families pursue higher education at a significantly lower rate than 
individuals from middle- and upper-income families. This educational 
gap, which is rooted in economic disparity, threatens to divide our 
nation into two self-perpetuating classes: an educated class that 
participates fully in the tremendous economic opportunities that demand 
a postsecondary education and a class of ``have nots'' lacking the 
skills and education needed to be successful members of the modern work 
force.
  Congress created need-based student financial aid programs to ensure 
that individuals from low-income families are not denied postsecondary 
education because they cannot afford it. These are the programs that 
assist the most disadvantaged Americans. They are the programs that 
help the students who come from families with no history of pursuing 
postsecondary education. They are the programs that will close the gap 
between educational ``haves'' and the ``have nots''
  Federal Pell Grants are the cornerstone of our country's need-based 
financial aid. These grants provide essential financial assistance to 
almost 4 million students a year. Eighty percent of the dependent 
students receiving Pell Grants come from families with annual family 
incomes of less than $30,000. Yet, over the last 20 years, while the 
cost of postsecondary education has grown at an unprecedented rate, the 
maximum Pell Grant has declined in constant dollars by 14 percent. This 
Sense of the Senate amendment states that we should increase the 
maximum Pell Grant by $400 dollars to $3525. We still will not be back 
to the 1980 level in terms of purchasing power, but we will be getting 
closer.

  This amendment also urges an increase in two other important grant 
programs. The Federal Supplementary Educational Opportunity Grant and 
the Leveraged Educational Assistance Program (formerly SSIG) are grant 
programs managed by schools and states respectively. These programs 
leverage federal dollars through matching funds from schools and states 
and provide additional assistance for those students most in need of 
financial aid.
  In addition to these important educational grants, my amendment calls

[[Page S3430]]

for increased funding for two other need-based programs that assist 
students from low income families: the Federal Work Study Program and 
the Perkins Loan Program. These are campus-based programs in which the 
federal contribution is leveraged by matching funds from participating 
schools. Work Study is a self-help student aid program under which 
needy students pay some of the cost of their education through jobs 
that contribute to their education and often involve important 
community service. The Perkins Loan program allows schools to make low-
interest loans to needy students. Both of these programs, along with 
the Supplementary Educational Opportunity Grants, give financial aid 
offices flexibility in creating individualized student aid packages 
that will minimize the student's debt burden upon graduation.
  Unfortunately, during the last 20 years, funding for the work study 
program had declined by 25 percent in constant dollars and the capital 
contribution to Perkins Loans has declined by 78 percent. This Sense of 
the Senate Amendment expresses our support for these important 
programs, which aid our neediest students.
  Providing financial aid is only one aspect of the challenge to 
equalize education opportunity. Before financial aid can help, a 
potential student must aspire to higher education. This is one of the 
goals of the TRIO programs. There is no question that thousands of 
individuals who would never have considered a college education have 
been identified by Talent Search and Upward Bound and gone on to 
college and successful careers. Thousands of other individuals have 
been assisted while in college by the Academic Support Services 
Program, while many non-traditional students have entered college 
because of the Educational Opportunity Centers.
  Despite this strong record of success, the existing TRIO programs 
reach only a very small percentage of the individuals who are eligible 
for their services. The additional funds that this Sense of the Senate 
Amendments urges will extend the reach of these programs to more 
disadvantaged youth and adults who could so benefit from the support 
the TRIO programs provide.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that more of our 
citizens can pursue the American dream of college education.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 247) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 170

  Mr. REID. Amendment No. 170 was acceptable with a modification. It 
was cleared by both sides.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would you accept that as if I said it, please, so I do 
not have to say it. It has been accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 170) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for participating 
and for permitting us to get this bill done today. It has been a big 
struggle for many of us. And while we had a lot of fun with many of the 
amendments and many of the concepts, it is a serious budget resolution. 
It has been a pleasure serving you as chairman of the Budget Committee. 
And I thank all of those who vote for it. For those who do not vote for 
it, I think you are missing the boat, missing a great path. It is the 
best budget we have produced in an awful long time.
  I thank Senator Lautenberg for all his cooperation and certainly all 
the good he has done in bringing this budget to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I say to Senator Domenici, I too had 
fun, not as much fun as the Senator had, but it was good working 
together. We put our most difficult disagreements to the side at times. 
Senator Domenici invented a new index for debate. And the index that 
Senator Domenici has is a ``red'' neck. When it gets above your collar, 
that is when you have to sit back.
  So we have no ``red'' necks in the Budget Committee. We have had a 
good time in getting it done. I thank all of my colleagues, 
particularly the members on my side, who worked so arduously.
  I do want to say a word about the staff while the Senators are here. 
I thank Bill Hogan and his team; but I also want to make particular 
mention of the fact that Bruce King, our chief of staff, Sue Nelson, 
Lisa Konwinski, Amy Abraham, Claudia Arko, Jim Esquea, Dan Katz, Marty 
Morris, Paul Saltman, Jeff Siegel, Mitch Warren, Ted Zegers, and Jon 
Rosenwasser--I thank all the staff. They worked very hard, on both 
sides, and they deserve our deep thanks and our appreciation.

  With that, I surrender the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senate will 
be in order.
  The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 238

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I made a mistake. We have been working 
very hard to get Senator Chafee's amendment No. 238 accepted on the 
other side. It was. And we would like to offer it at this time. I think 
it is at the desk, amendment No. 238.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not believe there are any objections to it.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 238 previously offered by the Senator from 
     New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Chafee.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor, 
along with the gentleman from Rhode Island and others, an amendment to 
increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Our 
amendment would accomplish two important goals.
  First, the amendment authorizes $200 million in matching grants to 
states for their conservation and recreation programs. The amendment 
therefore would help fulfill a thirty-five year-old Federal commitment 
that has been largely ignored in recent years.
  Second, our amendment maintains Congress' commitment to living within 
the budget agreement by offsetting the increased LWCF funding with an 
equivalent reduction in programs within the Department of Commerce.
  Let me speak first about the LWCF. As most of my colleagues know, the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund was established in 1964, and it has 
been the main source of Federal funding for Federal and state 
recreational lands. The LWCF accumulates revenues from outdoor 
recreation user fees, the federal motorboat fuel tax, surplus property 
sales, and, most significantly, revenue from oil and gas leases on the 
Outer Continental Shelf. Due to early successes and strong support, 
authorized funding levels increased steadily from the initial 
authorization of $60 million to the program's current $900 million 
level--although appropriations have consistently fallen far short of 
authorized levels.
  Until Fiscal Year 1995, about one third of the total $10 billion 
appropriated under this program went directly to the states. The rest 
of the revenue was split between four Federal agencies: the Park 
Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 
Bureau of Land Management.
  Matching grants to states have funded some 37,000 projects and helped 
conserve 2.3 million acres of land. While the law requires at least a 
50% match from states receiving funds, in some cases the Federal grants 
enabled states to leverage up to seven times the grant amount.
  The LWCF has enjoyed widespread support, both in my home State of New 
Hampshire and across the nation. The LWCF has truly been, up until 
recent years, a Federal-state partnership that works.

  In the early years of the program, the bulk of the funding for LWCF 
went directly to the states. However, the state share of LWCF funding 
has declined dramatically since Fiscal Year 1978, when annual LWCF 
appropriations stabilized at between $200 and $300 million after fiscal 
year 1978, but the state portion of LWCF appropriations steadily 
declined until Fiscal

[[Page S3431]]

Year 1996, when grants to states were completely eliminated. Since 
Fiscal Year 1996, overall funding for LWCF has begun to increase again, 
but all of the money has been appropriated for the Federal-side of the 
program, and none for the states.
  Mr. President, to put it simply: that is wrong. These revenues were 
originally intended to be shared between the Federal Government and the 
states. We should not penalize states like New Hampshire that can 
effectively manage these funds and that have critical needs which must 
be addressed. The idea that only the Federal government can be trusted 
to conserve resources is again, Mr. President, simply wrong.
  Last month, more than 100 elected officials, community 
representatives and other New Hampshire citizens sent a letter to the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee, expressing their strong support for 
the LWCF and other conservation partnership programs. I ask unanimous 
consent that their letter be inserted into the Record, along with a 
letter that I and thirty-five of my colleagues sent to the Chairman on 
this topic as well.
  Today's amendment will help bring back some balance to this program 
by providing $200 million for states from the LWCF. Our amendment will 
not reduce LWCF appropriations to Federal agencies, but will, as I 
stated earlier, offset this increased funding with a corresponding 
reduction in appropriations for certain Commerce Department activities 
within Budget Function 370.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, while I support the underlying Chafee 
amendment providing $200 million in increased funding for the state-
side portion of the Land and Water Conservation Program, I object to 
the use of funds from Function 370 as an offset. The Land and Water 
Fund monies are of critical importance to communities in my state and 
around the nation, and I have pledged to work hard to ensure that the 
state-side portion of the Fund is revived. I believe that revival of 
the State-side Fund represents the commitment of all Americans to 
conserving natural treasures and preserving open space.
  Nevertheless, Function 370 is not the place to target offsets. 
Important programs under this budget function in the Commerce 
Department are vital to small businesses around the country and to our 
economic growth and our global competitiveness. Function 370 contains 
cost-effective initiatives that directly contribute to our economic 
well-being. Clearly, it makes little sense to take funds from some of 
the numerous cost effective programs in this Function when other areas 
in other Functions could better serve as offsets. I will support the 
amendment because I trust that the conference and the appropriations 
process will locate preferable offsets to fund this important Land and 
Water Conservation initiative.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Chafee, Bob 
Smith, and Feingold in offering this amendment to restart the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) state assistance program. Our amendment 
will recognize the outpouring of support for open space conservation 
and urban revitalization demonstrated by the passage of 124 ballot 
measures dedicating tax revenues to these goals.
  Our amendment will allocate $200 million to the state grants program 
of LWCF. More than thirty years ago Congress made a promise to future 
generations that we would use the revenues from offshore oil and gas 
leases to protect the ``irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and 
unique recreational value.'' The revenues would be placed into the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund and used by the federal government, states 
and local communities to build a network of parks, refuges, hiking 
trails, bike paths, river accesses and greenways.
  Unfortunately, only half of that promise has been kept. For the past 
three years, Congress has not funded the state grants program of the 
Fund. Instead, we have been diverting these revenues for other purposes 
at a time when these investments are needed more than ever. We have all 
seen the impact of urban sprawl in our home states, whether it be 
large, multi-tract housing or mega-malls that bring national 
superstores and nation-sized parking lots. We are losing farm and 
forest land across the country at an alarming rate. If we are going to 
reverse this trend, Congress has to step in to the debate and start 
funding federal land conservation programs that help states address 
their land conservation priorities. The LWCF state grants program is 
one of the few federal programs available to do this--Congress now 
needs to make a commitment to fund it.
  By funding the state grants program we will be investing in a proven 
success. The program has proved itself by helping to fund more than 
37,000 projects across the country. As the National Park Service has 
testified, these projects are in ``every nook and cranny of the country 
and serve every segment of the public.'' I am sure every one of us have 
visited one of these places without even knowing that federal funds--
which leveraged state and local funds--made it happen.
  But it is not happening any more. By not funding the state grants 
program we are leaving state and local governments to fill the gap. In 
Vermont, we are fortunate. Most Vermonters are within a few hours of 
the Green Mountain National Forest or the Appalachian Trail. Most 
Americans, however, are much further away from a national park, 
national forest or wildlife refuge. They depend on their local parks 
and bike paths for weekend getaways or evening excursions.
  I have seen the success of the state-side program in Vermont, where 
more than $27 million from the Fund has helped conserve more than 
66,000 acres of land that was set aside as open space, parks and 
recreation places. I have a list of more than 500 projects that touch 
every corner of Vermont. However, there are still many special places 
in Vermont that remain unprotected. I constantly hear from Vermonters 
what are trying to protect their town green, a local wetland or access 
to their favorite fishing hole.
  By restarting the state grant program we will be able to protect some 
of these special places in each of our states. In Vermont, I would like 
to see the Long Trail, which follows the spine of the Green Mountains 
through my state and attracts more than 200,000 hikers a year, 
completed. I would like to see better access to the banks of one of the 
premier fly-fishing rivers, the Battenkill. Although these will not 
become part of our federal network of conservation areas, we still have 
a federal responsibility to ensure they remain open and accessible for 
future generations to enjoy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 238) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are ready now for the last vote of the 
night and the last vote on the budget resolution. I commend the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member, the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  This is a record handling of a budget resolution. I think, in at 
least the 5 years that I have been watching it closely, this is the 
shortest time--2 days--and a limited number of votes in the ``vote-
arama.'' I think it makes more sense when you have a more limited 
number. We understand a little bit better about what we are voting on.
  So you have done an exceptional job. But it would not have happened 
without the leadership and cooperation of Senator Daschle, his team, 
Senator Reid and Senator Dorgan; on our side, Senator Nickles, Senator 
Craig, and a lot of other people who cooperated and were willing to 
forgo votes on their amendments. So I think, sincerely, a lot of 
congratulations should be passed out for the cooperation on this 
concurrent resolution.
  It has been a very good legislative period. Senator Daschle and I----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The majority 
leader has the floor. The Senate will be in order. Would the Senators 
suspend to my right. Thank you.
  Mr. LOTT. This is actually so much fun, we might want to stay on and 
take up another bill. But I want to give a little more credit here 
because it has been a very productive legislative period. With this 
budget resolution, we

[[Page S3432]]

have also passed the national missile defense bill; we passed the Ed-
Flex bill; the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of 
Rights Act; the supplemental appropriations bill, on a voice vote; the 
Y2K small business bill; and the resolution supporting our men and 
women overseas in Kosovo.

  Particularly this week, we took up the vote on Kosovo, the 
supplemental, and the budget resolution. It is one of the most 
productive weeks I have seen in a long time.
  When we adjourn shortly, the Easter recess will, of course, begin 
tonight. There will be no recorded votes until Tuesday, April 13.
  We will not be in session this Friday. We will be in session on 
Monday, April 12, but there will be no recorded votes. At that time, we 
expect to take up the supplemental appropriations conference report, if 
available, and a budget conference report, if available, and other 
legislation that may be cleared at that time.
  Thank you all very much. Have a good Easter recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Pursuant to the previous order, 
the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 68. 
All after the enacting clause is stricken and the text of S. Con. Res. 
20, as amended, is inserted in lieu thereof.
  The question is on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 68, as amended.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the concurrent 
resolution. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The text of H. Con. Res. 68 will be printed in a future edition of 
the Record.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Pursuant to the previous order, S. Con. Res. 20 is returned to the 
calendar.

                          ____________________