[Pages S2754-S2759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, AND 2003

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be laid aside so I may offer 4 amendments on behalf of
Democratic Senators and that these amendments be sequenced between the
Republican amendments when we vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. The first amendment is on behalf of
Senator Dodd of Connecticut. It is an amendment to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for child care improvements.

Amendment No. 2173

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for child care
improvements)

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

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for Mr. Dodd,
proposes an amendment numbered 2173.

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHILD CARE
IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending
aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits
may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for
legislation to improve the affordability, availability, and
quality of child care and to support families' choices in
caring for their children, provided that, to the extent that
this concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the
costs of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation
will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or
previously-passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this
resolution for--
(1) fiscal year 1999;
(2) the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003; or
(3) the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
(b) Revised Allocations.--
(1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of
legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the
Senate appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised
functional levels and aggregates to carry out this section.
These revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and
aggregates contained in this resolution.
(2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment
under this section for legislation in furtherance of the
purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an
amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such
submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate
appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional
levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These
revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall
be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates
contained in this resolution.
(c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate
committees shall report appropriately-revised allocations
pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to carry out this section.
(d) Application of Section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67.--Section
202 of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) shall not apply for
purposes of this section.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the second amendment is on behalf of
myself, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Bingaman and Senator Reed. This is
to ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution protects
public health.

Amendment No. 2174

(Purpose: To ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution
protects public health)

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

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Reed, proposes an
amendment numbered 2174.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 28, strike line 2 through line 17 and insert the
following:
(a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending
aggregates may be adjusted and allocations may be adjusted
for legislation that reserves the Federal share of receipts
from tobacco legislation for--
(1) (A) public health efforts to reduce the use of tobacco
products by children, including youth tobacco control
education and prevention programs, counter-advertising,
research, and smoking cessation;
(B) transition assistance programs for tobacco farmers;
(C) increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration
to protect children from the hazards of tobacco products; or
(D) increased funding for health research; and
(2) savings for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
(b) Fevised Aggregates and Allocations.--Upon the
consideration of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may
file with the Senate appropriately-revised allocations under
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and
revised functional levels and aggregates to carry out this
section. These revised allocations, functional levels, and
aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the
Congressional

[[Page S2755]]

Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and
aggregates contained in this resolution.
(c) Application of Section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67.--For the
purposes of enforcement of Section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67
(104th Congress) with respect to this resolution, the
increase in the Federal share of receipts resulting from
tobacco legislation and used to fund subsection (a)(2) shall
not be taken into account.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the third amendment is on behalf of
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun.

Amendment No. 2175

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding elementary and
secondary school modernization and construction; improving the
educational environment for the 14 million children who attend severely
dilapidated schools, the millions of children in overcrowded
classrooms, and the 19 million children who are denied access to modern
computers because their schools lack basic electrical wiring; relieving
overcrowding in our Nation's classrooms; and generally helping States
and school districts bring their school buildings into the 21st
century)

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

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for Ms.
Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 2175.

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
AND CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the General Accounting Office has performed a
comprehensive survey of the Nation's public elementary and
secondary school facilities and has found severe levels of
disrepair in all areas of the United States;
(2) the General Accounting Office has concluded that more
than 14,000,000 children attend schools in need of extensive
repair or replacement, 7,000,000 children attend schools with
life safety code violations, and 12,000,000 children attend
schools with leaky roofs;
(3) the General Accounting Office has found the problem of
crumbling schools transcends demographic and geographic
boundaries. At 38 percent of urban schools, 30 percent of
rural schools, and 29 percent of suburban schools, at least
one building is in need of extensive repair or should be
completely replaced;
(4) the condition of school facilities has a direct effect
on the safety of students and teachers and on the ability of
students to learn. Academic research has provided a direct
correlation between the condition of school facilities and
student achievement. At Georgetown University, researchers
have found the test scores of students assigned to schools in
poor condition can be expected to fall 10.9 percentage points
below the test scores of students in buildings in excellent
condition. Similar studies have demonstrated up to a 20
percent improvement in test scores when students were moved
from a poor facility to a new facility;
(5) the General Accounting Office has found most schools
are not prepared to incorporate modern technology in the
classroom. Forty-six percent of schools lack adequate
electrical wiring to support the full-scale use of
technology. More than a third of schools lack the requisite
electrical power. Fifty-six percent of schools have
insufficient phone lines for modems;
(6) the Department of Education has reported that
elementary and secondary school enrollment, already at a
record high level, will continue to grow over the next 10
years, and that in order to accommodate this growth, the
United States will need to build an additional 6,000 schools;
(7) the General Accounting Office has determined the cost
of bringing schools up to good, overall condition to be
$112,000,000,000, not including the cost of modernizing
schools to accommodate technology, or the cost of building
additional facilities needed to meet record enrollent levels;
(8) schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for
Native American children are also in dire need of repair and
renovation. The General Accounting Office has reported that
the cost of total inventory repairs needed for BIA facilities
is $754,000,000. The December 1997 report by the Comptroller
General of the United States states that, ``Compared with
other schools nationally, BIA schools are generally in poorer
physical condition, have more unsatisfactory environmental
factors, more often lack key facilities requirements for
education reform, and are less able to support computer and
communications technology;''
(9) State and local financing mechanisms have proven
inadequate to meet the challenges facing today's aging school
facilities. Large numbers of local educational agencies have
difficulties securing financing for school facility
improvement;
(10) the Federal Government has provided resources for
school construction in the past. For example, between 1933
and 1939, the Federal Government assisted in 70 percent of
all new school construction; and
(11) the Federal Government can support elementary and
secondary school facilities without interfering in issues of
local control, and should help communities leverage
additional funds for the improvement of elementary and
secondary school facilities.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
budget resolution assume the enactment of legislation to
allow States and school districts to issue $21.8 billion
worth of zero-interest school modernization bonds to rebuild
and modernize our Nation's schools, and to provide Federal
income tax credits to the purchasers of those bonds in lieu
of interest payments.

Amendment No. 2176

(Purpose: To increase Function 500 discretionary budget authority and
outlays to accommodate an initiative promoting after-school education
and safety)

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

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for Mrs. Boxer,
proposes an amendment numbered 2176.

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

On page 16, line 9, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 16, line 10, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 16, line 14, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
On page 16, line 17, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 16, line 18, increase the amount by $49,000,000.
On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 16, line 25, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 17, line 1, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 25, line 9, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 25, line 12, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 25, line 13, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
On page 25, line 16, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 25, line 17, decrease the amount by $49,000,000.
On page 25, line 20, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 25, line 21, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 25, line 24, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 25, line 25, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.

Amendment no. 2174

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will say a word on the amendment
offered on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg, and others. The
purpose of that amendment is to make possible comprehensive tobacco
legislation on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
As the occupant of the chair knows, in the Budget Committee a
resolution came out that provides that the funding from any possible
resolution of the tobacco issue can only go for Medicare. While
Medicare is clearly a key priority, there are other priorities as well.
Among those are the question of preventing kids from taking up a habit.
The experts have all told us that we need to use some of the funds for
the purpose of tobacco prevention programs, smoking cessation programs,
counter-tobacco advertising programs, to increase health research, to
provide some easing of the transition for tobacco farmers, and also to
fund the expanded role of FDA and the question of regulating these
products.
The experts have told us, unanimously, that there is simply no way to
have comprehensive tobacco control legislation without those priorities
being included. In fact, every single bill that has been introduced
that is comprehensive in nature on the floor of the Senate, by
Republicans and Democrats, provides for taking some of that money for
those purposes. Unfortunately, under the budget resolution, every
single comprehensive bill--those introduced on the Republican side and
those introduced on the Democratic side--is out of order. Not a single
one

[[Page S2756]]

of the bills would be in order under the budget resolution as it came
out of the committee.
So the amendment offered by myself, Senator Lautenberg, Senator
Bingaman, and Senator Reed is to correct that deficiency, to allow the
Senate to work its will on comprehensive tobacco legislation, so that
we have a chance when we finally get to a discussion of the tobacco
bills, that the budget resolution is not an impediment to passing
national tobacco policy.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the provision in the budget prohibits
the use of any of the funds from the tobacco settlement for the range
of programs, such as the program for smoking cessation, for education,
to try to prevent teens from beginning smoking; is it the case that
this budget provision prevents the use of any of the tobacco settlement
money for any of those programs?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes, exactly. It seems startling, but that is what the
budget resolution provides. The resolution says that not one dime of
any tobacco settlement money can go for tobacco smoking cessation,
smoking prevention, or any of the other programs that all of the
experts have said are required. We could not have any of this money go
for the National Institutes of Health and Research. We could not use
any of the money for the expanded FDA role in regulating tobacco
products. None of the money could be used for counter-tobacco
advertising programs. Every single expert that has come to us has said
those are essential to a comprehensive plan to actually reduce teen
smoking. So the budget resolution is clearly deficient in that regard.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield further for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. I understand that those who put this prohibition in the
budget agreement said, ``But there are areas in the budget and other
areas that expend money for these programs, so these programs are not
being shorted.''
Can the Senator describe whether in fact the money is available in
other programs sufficient to address these issues?
Mr. CONRAD. Well, that is the convention of those who debated this
issue in the Budget Committee. They said, ``Well, we have provided the
funding elsewhere in the budget . . .''--not out of the tobacco
revenues, which is a curious thing if you think about it. Since these
are clearly tobacco-related expenses, you would think you would fund
them out of the tobacco revenue. They said, ``Don't worry, we funded it
somewhere else.''
Let me say to the Senator that there is not any assurance that there
would be one thin dime anywhere else in the budget for that purpose
because, as you know, the Budget Committee does not make those
determinations. What has been set up by the Budget Committee is mounds
of money that would be a jump ball. The appropriators would decide. You
serve on the appropriation committee and you understand that the Budget
Committee gives you an overall spending limit and you decide what the
priorities are. If you decided that existing priorities were more
important, there might not be any money for smoking cessation, smoking
prevention, counter-tobacco advertising, and all the rest. So that is
the problem with the budget resolution. They have an assumption in
there. The assumption is that the appropriators will provide something
over $100 million a year for these purposes, but every single major
bill that is out here provides $2 billion a year for these purposes--
smoking prevention, smoking cessation, counter-tobacco advertising,
expanded health research, FDA authority--and so there is no way that
this comes anywhere close to meeting the need.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have one additional question. The
Senator indicated that the Budget Committee does not determine the
level of expenditures--the actual expenditures. That is the
Appropriations Committee's job. I agree with that. But it is true that
the Budget Committee, with this provision, will determine what you
cannot expend money for. They, apparently, by this provision,
determined that any money coming from the tobacco settlement cannot and
will not be used for these specific areas--smoking cessation, curbing
teen smoking, a National Institutes of Health investment, and so on.
So is it not the case that, while they don't determine what the money
is going to be spent for, they are with this provision trying to
determine what you cannot spend the money for? I guess it would require
at least a 60-vote provision on the floor to overturn what they are
trying to prevent. Can the Senator tell me why on earth the Budget
Committee--because the Senator serves on that committee--can bring a
bill to the floor that says we are going to have a tobacco settlement,
but, by the way, you can't use any money from the settlement to deal
with teen smoking, or addiction, or smoking cessation? What on earth
could have persuaded them to provide a provision like this in the
budget bill?
Mr. CONRAD. I tell you, I have no idea. I will respond in this way. I
find it the most curious thing that has happened all year--why you
would provide a special reserve fund so that if there is tobacco
legislation that passes, you can have the revenue flow to the Federal
Treasury; but then you say, when we go to spend the money, none of it
can be used for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco
advertising, expanded health research, funding the FDA so that they can
attend to their added responsibilities under any of the bills that have
been offered, by either Republicans or Democrats.

The curious thing is that every single bill that has been offered out
here, whether it is the bill of Senator Hatch, who is chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, the bill of Senator McCain, who is chairman of the
Commerce Committee, or Senator Jeffords' bill, all those bills would be
out of order. So you have three Republican chairmen who have offered
bills out here, and their bills would be out of order under what has
been provided for under the budget resolution.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, in listening to the debate brought
forward through questions on the floor, I would like to put some
factual statements into the Record. First, the budget resolution puts
Social Security and Medicare first. I think people recall that the
President was saying we should use any surplus to save Social Security,
that this is an important program and we need to invest and protect
Social Security and, therefore, we should take any surpluses and put it
into Social Security.
We agree, but we also believe that we should go one step further and
say that any extra funds and resources here should be used to preserve
and protect Medicare as well. Medicare is an enormously important
program to the American public. I don't know how many people remember
last year when we debated how to save, preserve, and protect Medicare.
What is being talked about in the budget agreement is using the
resources to save Medicare. Now, you can go a couple of ways here. You
can say, OK, I am going to use these resources to save Medicare, this
enormous program that provides health care for over 35 million
Americans that have had a very difficult financial time, or you can say
we are going to start a whole bunch of other programs to do this--
which, by the way, we are taking care of in other parts of the
agreement. The Budget Committee decided to save and use these resources
to preserve and protect Medicare. Let's take care of first things
first, and Medicare is one of those programs. Instead of promising to
spend billions of dollars on new programs, we propose to dedicate any
tobacco receipts, if there are any, to Medicare solvency. Let's protect
what we have first. I think that is an important point that needs to be
brought into this debate.
Madam President, I have an amendment to offer, but before I do that I
will yield to the Senator from Wyoming for a statement that he has. He
has been on the floor waiting for a longer period of time than I.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, my original intent was to give some
comments on amendment No. 2166. Before I

[[Page S2757]]

do that, since the topic is opened up on the tobacco settlement, I feel
compelled to make a few statements based on what has been said on the
floor.
I am on the Labor Committee and that has been a part of the tobacco
settlement debate. I can tell you how far we have gotten on that
committee. We have had a filibuster so far on the very issues the
Senators from North Dakota have been saying they want to get into the
budget. So the progress on this thing has been so disappointing to me.
Last week, when I was flying back from Wyoming--I go back almost every
weekend, and it's quite a trip to get from there back to Washington--I
started working on my laptop computer and listing the reasons why a
tobacco settlement might not happen this year. There were three single-
spaced pages on why it won't happen this year. I changed it to why it
won't happen this year.
What we are suggesting here is that we ought to go ahead and spend
the money anyway. I can't tell how the negotiations have gone that you
have been in, but I certainly never have liked to be in negotiations
with anybody where I had already spent the money I might get out of the
program. That is why we are taking some precaution with that. That is
why we are saying let's put it in Medicare. That is the biggest program
that we have to save that deals with health--particularly the health of
people in the United States. It is something we have to be concerned
about. We put that first. There can be changes made later. But after
that, there is some agreement from these three pages, single spaced,
and reasons why 100 Senators here may not be able to come to any
agreement on why there ought to be a tobacco settlement, let alone how
that tobacco settlement ought to take place.
Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak
for up to 10 minutes on amendment 2166, the Sessions-Enzi amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 2166

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today in support of amendment 2166
introduced by me and my colleague and good friend from Alabama, Senator
Sessions. Our amendment is entitled the ``Antidiscrimination of At-Home
Parents Amendment.''
I am proud to lend my support of this amendment that would give at-
home parents, who forego a second income so that one parent can raise
their children, the recognition by the federal government that they
truly deserve.
There has been a lot of talk about beefing up the quality and
availability of child care across our nation. I, too, have played a
role in this debate and feel it's one to be taken seriously. Parents
who choose to enroll their kids in day care face a difficult decision--
one based on trust, reliability, the quality of care and, of course,
the high costs. Moreover, that decision touches one of our nation's
most important resources--our children.
Unfortunately, this debate has unfairly excluded married couples who
face an even bigger decision--at-home care. There are more families
that fit this mold than I think many of us are aware. In fact, only 37
percent of mothers with children under the age of 6 are employed on a
full-time basis. The remaining percentage includes a constituency with
little representation. That must change.
It is true that conditions can be difficult for two income families.
I don't refute that. It is very hard for single, working moms to raise
children. To be fair, however, we must not imply that families who
choose to keep one parent home with their children are not making
sacrifices. For years now, the debate on family policy has been
centered on single working parents and day care. For years the sub-text
of federal family policy has been that everyone should work and that
the burden of accommodation should be on those parents who choose to
stay at home to raise their children. However, if the debate revolves
around the quality of care our children receive, we must modify
existing federal policy and end this senseless discrimination.
It would seem at times as if all forces conspire against single
income families. America's tax burden has grown so large that in many
instances, a second parent has to work just to pay their families tax
burden. A 1993 survey found that more than 50 percent of working women
would ``stay at home if money weren't an issue.'' Most families in
which both parents work would much prefer to have one parent stay at
home with the children if expenses would allow.
The financial penalty inherent in having one parent stay at home to
raise the children is large indeed. The few families who pursue such an
arrangement don't do it because they can easily afford it. They do it
because they believe that it is best for their kids. It should not be
the work of this body to second guess their judgement of their values.
Most importantly, these parents should not be discriminated against by
its own federal government simply because they sacrifice greater
financial gain for their children.
As you can see, there are a growing number of parents who give up one
income so that the mother or father can stay at home and be with their
children. Not long ago, this decision to utilize at-home care was
commonplace. However, our nation's workplace has changed significantly
as more parents move into the workforce--making parent's decision to
sacrifice one income for their child all the more difficult. This is
truly saddening, because the people who can best care for our nation's
children are the parents.
I have listened during the last few months to members implying that
parents who choose to forego a second income to stay home with their
children do so at no financial sacrifice. It has even been implied that
such parents lead a life of luxury and self-indulgence while working
mothers make the real sacrifice for their children. This notion is as
offensive as it is unfounded.
Parents who decide to forego a second income so that one parent might
be at home during their children's formative years incur quite an
expense, as several members of my own staff can attest. I have two
fathers on my staff that have made this difficult decision. One of
those parents on my staff spends four hours each work-day commuting to
and from work--only because raising a family on a single, moderate
income simply cannot be done here in Washington, DC. I am confident
that parents all over the nation are in similar straits.
If the Senate is serious about issues facing our nation's children,
then it must not exclude parents who choose at-home care for the
benefit of their kids. If those parents are left out, then the message
this body sends about the quality of care for American's children is
short-sighted at best. This amendment is geared to provide that
recognition and I encourage all members of the Senate to carefully read
it, cosponsor it, and vote in favor of its passage.
Thank you, Madam President.
I yield the remainder of my time but reserve the time remaining for
the amendment.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 2177

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding economic growth,
Social Security, and Government efficiency)

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) proposes an
amendment numbered 2177.

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

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, SOCIAL
SECURITY, AND GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY.

It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals
underlying this resolution assume that--
(1) the elimination of a discretionary spending program may
be used for either tax cuts or to reform the Social Security
system.
(2) the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and other
appropriate budget rules and laws should be amended to
implement the policy stated in paragraph (1).

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this amendment to the budget
resolution being considered before us today

[[Page S2758]]

would make it a priority for this Congress to cut taxes and to begin
shoring up our teetering Social Security system.
Madam President, before I begin I wish to commend Chairman Domenici
and other Members for their excellent work on the budget committee.
While I would prefer a budget that cut government spending more as well
as cut taxes more; I appreciate the enormity of the task before the
chairman and would like to compliment him for his leadership in this
area. As well, I look forward to working with the chairman to both
ensure a more fiscally responsible government as well as lower taxes
for all Americans.
Madam President, I would like to begin by making a few remarks on the
size and scope of our federal government and the importance of keeping
our promise with the American people by living up to the spending
parameters outlined in the bipartisan budget deal reached last year
between the Congress and the administration and with the American
people; and also to speak on the importance of honestly addressing the
need to begin reforming our Social Security system.
It is absolutely paramount and fundamental and something we must give
our attention to.
Although many of us agree that the Federal government is too large,
and too intrusive most of us seldom seem to be able to make the
necessary cuts to the federal government that will actually curtail its
size and curb its consumptive desires. In fact, the Administration
which once declared that ``the era of big government is over,'' has now
proposed an expansion of government programs that will have the effect
of busting the bipartisan budget deal that was so difficult to get to
in the first place. This is not only inconsistent but bad policy.
In contrast, I believe that it is imperative that we live within the
constraints agreed to last year during negotiations with the
administration. We had a deal. We had a deal with the administration
that set the limits on the size and scope of the federal government.
And, we had a deal with the American people.
Now is not the time to walk away from the principles that we outlined
in our bipartisan agreement just a few months ago simply because the
budget--thanks mostly to the entrepreneurial spirit of main street
America--is now near balance.
The fact of the matter is that our books aren't really balanced at
all because we are continuing to allow the federal government to raid
the social security trust fund in order to finance its day to day
operations. If a company in the private sector tried to do that they
would be shut down--and rightfully so.
If the President is serious about saving social security then he
would not continue raiding the Social Security trust fund to prop up
his government programs and he would not be proposing $140 billion in
new spending (which is coincidentally just a little more than expected
surplus receipts to the OASDI trust fund this year), rather he would be
cutting government spending and paying down the debt in anticipation of
unfunded future social security obligations. But he is doing just the
opposite.
Because this administration doesn't want to lead, the Congress must.
And my amendment takes the lead by prioritizing Social Security
solvency and tax cuts over more government spending and budget games.
Let's stop the nonsense.
Americans don't want more glib talk about big government programs
solving all of their problems. They don't want more empty promises.
They want a less intrusive government, they want lower taxes and they
deserve retirement security.
In order to help in our efforts to cut the size of the government I
am offering an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that we
should destroy the firewall between spending reductions and tax cuts;
by allowing for government spending reductions to be used for either
tax cuts or Social Security solvency.
Heretofore we have had a firewall between cutting domestic
discretionary programs and paying for tax cuts, saying we can't cut
this to pay for tax cuts. I am saying let's have a provision such that
you can eliminate discretionary spending in certain categories and that
money to be used to pay for tax cuts or Social Security solvency.
Currently, according to budget law Congress cannot make cuts in
discretionary spending programs in order to finance tax cuts. Rather,
Congress has to make cuts in mandatory spending programs like Social
Security and Medicare in order to pay for its tax cuts. It is wrong to
pit Social Security against tax cuts.
My amendment flips the table on this false tradeoff by pitting Social
Security and tax cuts against big Government spending on the other
side. Let's use the cuts in big Government spending to support Social
Security and tax cuts.
According to the current budget law every time someone wants to cut
taxes they are essentially forced to propose cuts in either social
security or Medicare. That just isn't right.
Our federal government is too large, and this arcane law is part of
the reason. We need to focus our efforts on cutting government
spending--not increasing it. And I believe one way to help accelerate
the downsizing of our massive federal bureaucracy is by allowing cuts
in discretionary spending to be used for tax cuts and Social Security
accounts.
My amendment would call for a change in budget law that would allow
for tax cuts to be implemented in the amount of program eliminations
and for saving Social Security. So, when we eliminate a program during
consideration of an appropriations measure that money would be credited
to the PAYGO scorecard and reserved for tax cuts and Social Security.
Therefore, should my amendment pass and budget law be changed, we can
eliminate programs like the Advanced Technology Program, the National
Endowment for the Arts, the Department of Commerce, and a whole host of
other government programs while at the same time giving the taxpayers
the tax relief they deserve and the retirement security they need--and
we can do it without making draconian cuts to mandatory spending
programs that ultimately do little to save the programs and much to
simply prolong the crisis.
With my amendment we can eliminate wasteful programs and at the same
time provide the American taxpayers with a solvent Social Security
System along with the tax relief that they deserve.
That is why I am offering this amendment. We can begin to cut taxes
and to reform our Social Security system by transforming the debate
about Social Security from rhetoric into reality.
We have a unique opportunity to substantively begin to reform our
social security system in order to ensure long-run solvency.
We have this opportunity in large part because for the first time in
over a generation we will have a balanced budget this fiscal year.
This presents Congress with a chance to begin making changes to the
Social Security system that will both protect current benefits for
retirees, and those about to retire, as well as to help preserve
benefits for future generations.
We must make use of this historic opportunity to cut more government
spending and to use those cuts along with the unified budget surplus to
help shore up the Social Security trust fund.
My amendment begins the process of reforming our government by making
it a priority for this Congress to cut taxes and to begin shoring up
our teetering Social Security system.
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. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2178

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of
agricultural trade programs to promote the export of United States
agricultural commodities and products)

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I send the desk an amendment to the
budget.

[[Page S2759]]

It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] proposes an amendment
numbered 2178.

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING AGRICULTURAL TRADE
PROGRAMS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals in
this concurrent resolution assume the Secretary of
Agriculture will use agricultural trade programs established
by law to promote, to the maximum extent practicable, the
export of United States agricultural commodities and
products.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
Every year, we have authorized and we have appropriated moneys for
programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help market
grain abroad; in other words, to beef up our exports and to be able to
compete in the international market.
We are going through times now where prices are very, very stressed
and depressed, I would say. We need all the help we can get to move the
supply that we have into foreign hands after the collapse of the
financial markets in the Pacific rim that have been major buyers of our
agricultural commodities. Of course, the actions of the IMF and what
this country has undertaken to help those countries out of that
financial condition will help those of us who depend heavily on
agricultural exports.
This is just a sense of the Senate to tell the USDA and the
International Trade Representative that we need help. It does no good
to put the loaded pistol in the holster if the USDA doesn't pull it in
times when we really need it. The time is now. This is just a sense of
the Senate to say that we have authorized it, we have funded it, and we
hope the USDA will use it.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy's name
be added as a cosponsor to the Conrad amendment No. 2174.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. And I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a
cosponsor to the Gregg amendment No. 2168.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________