Summary:

All articles in Senate section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3385-S3432] 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:

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3385-S3432] 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 M

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3385-S3432] 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:

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

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

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3385-S3432] 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 M