`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 86 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]





                                                       Calendar No. 330

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 86

                          [Report No. 105-170]

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
  for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and revising the 
       concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 20, 1998

 Reported from the Committee on the Budget, read twice, and placed on 
                              the calendar





                                                       Calendar No. 330
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 86

                          [Report No. 105-170]

Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
  for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and revising the 
       concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 1998

Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on the Budget, reported the following 
original concurrent resolution; which was read twice and placed on the 
                                calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
  for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and revising the 
       concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999.

    (a) Declaration.--Congress determines and declares that this 
resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
1999 including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 
2001, 2002, and 2003 as required by section 301 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 and revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year 
1998 set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 1998 as authorized by section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
    (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this concurrent 
resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social Security.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.
             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Tax cut reserve fund.
Sec. 202. Tobacco reserve fund.
Sec. 203. Separate environmental allocation.
Sec. 204. Dedication of offsets to transportation.
Sec. 205. Adjustments for line item veto litigation.
Sec. 206. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
              TITLE III--SENSE OF CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of Congress regarding the sunset of the Internal 
                            Revenue Code of 1986.
Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate on preservation of Social Security for 
                            the future.
Sec. 303. Sense of the Senate on annual statement of accrued liability 
                            of Social Security and Medicare.
Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate on full funding for IDEA.
Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate on Social Security.
Sec. 306. Sense of the Senate on School-to-Work programs.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate regarding taxpayer rights.
Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on National Guard funding.
Sec. 309. Sense of the Senate on medicare payment.
Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on long-term care.
Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate on climate change research and other 
                            funding.
Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate on increased funding for the Child Care 
                            and Development Block Grant.
Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on the formula change for Federal Family 
                            Education Loan.
Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate regarding the deductibility of health 
                            insurance premiums of the self-employed.
Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate on objection to Kyoto Protocol 
                            implementation prior to Senate 
                            ratification.
Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate on price increase on tobacco products of 
                            $1.50 per pack.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

    The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal years 
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.
    (1) Federal Revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
resolution--
            (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
        follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: $1,262,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $1,300,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,325,800,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,369,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,431,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,486,900,000,000.
            (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
        revenues should be changed are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: $0.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $0.
            (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
        revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
        of Federal revenues are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: $117,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $123,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $129,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $135,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $141,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $148,100,000,000.
    (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 1998: $1,374,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $1,425,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,471,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,513,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,547,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,615,800,000,000.
    (3) Budget Outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: $1,358,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $1,408,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,450,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,490,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,507,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,579,200,000,000.
    (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, 
the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: -$95,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: -$108,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: -$124,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: -$120,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: -$75,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: -$92,300,000,000.
    (5) Public Debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: $5,482,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $5,668,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $5,868,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $6,064,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $6,220,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $6,392,700,000,000.

SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

    (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate enforcement 
under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: $417,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $438,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $457,800,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $477,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $497,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $520,700,000,000.
    (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate enforcement 
under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1998: $313,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $212,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $331,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $344,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $355,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $369,400,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

    Congress determines and declares that the appropriate levels of new 
budget authority, budget outlays, new direct loan obligations, and new 
primary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 
for each major functional category are:
    (1) National Defense (050):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $267,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $268,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $270,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $265,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $274,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $268,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $280,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $269,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $288,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $272,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.
    (2) International Affairs (150):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
    (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
    (4) Energy (270):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$400,000,000.
    (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $24,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $23,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $22,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $22,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $22,900,000,000.
    (6) Agriculture (350):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
    (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $4,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
    (8) Transportation (400):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $46,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $51,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $52,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $45,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $51,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $45,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $52,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $46,900,000,000.
    (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $7,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
    (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $61,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $56,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $63,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $61,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $63,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $62,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $64,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $63,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $64,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $63,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $68,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $67,100,000,000.
    (11) Health (550):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $136,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $132,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $145,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $143,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $152,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $151,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $161,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $160,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $170,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $169,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $181,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $181,100,000,000.
    (12) Medicare (570):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $199,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $199,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $210,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $210,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $221,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $221,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $239,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $242,300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $251,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $248,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $273,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $273,600,000,000.
    (13) Income Security (600):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $229,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $234,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $243,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $248,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $257,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $259,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $268,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $266,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $279,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $274,200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $289,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $282,400,000,000.
    (14) Social Security (650):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
    (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $42,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $42,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $43,300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $43,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $44,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $44,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $46,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $46,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $48,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $48,600,000,000.
    (16) Administration of Justice (750):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $25,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $240,800,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.
    (17) General Government (800):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
    (18) Net Interest (900):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $291,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $291,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $300,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $300,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $301,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $301,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $302,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $302,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $302,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $302,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $304,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $304,900,000,000.
    (19) Allowances (920):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$0.
                    (B) Outlays, -$0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$1,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$1,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$4,600,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$2,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$3,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$3,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$7,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$5,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$5,000,000,000.
    (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$36,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$36,700,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$36,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$36,300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$36,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$36,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$37,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$37,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$45,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$45,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$35,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$35,700,000,000.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. TAX CUT RESERVE FUND.

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending aggregates may 
only be reduced and allocations may be reduced only for legislation 
that reduces revenues by providing family tax relief (including relief 
from the ``marriage penalty'' and support for child care expenses 
incurred by all parents), and incentives to stimulate savings, 
investment, job creation, and economic growth (including community 
renewal initiatives) if such legislation will not increase the deficit 
or reduce the surplus for--
            (1) fiscal year 1999;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 1999-2003; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2004-2008.
    (b) Revised Allocations.--Upon the consideration of legislation 
pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
of the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 and revised aggregates to carry out this section. These revised 
allocations and aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates 
contained in this resolution.

SEC. 202. TOBACCO RESERVE FUND.

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue aggregates may be increased 
for legislation which reserves the Federal share of receipts from 
tobacco legislation only for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust 
Fund.
    (b) Revised Aggregates.--Upon the consideration of legislation 
pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
of the Senate may file increased aggregates to carry out this section. 
These aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the aggregates contained in this 
resolution.
    (c) Application of Section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67.--For the 
purposes of enforcement of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th 
Congress) with respect to this resolution, the increase in receipts 
resulting from tobacco legislation shall not be taken into account.

SEC. 203. SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATION.

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending aggregates may 
be increased and allocations may be increased only for legislation that 
reauthorizes and reforms the Superfund program to facilitate the 
cleanup of hazardous waste sites if such legislation will not increase 
the deficit or reduce the surplus for--
            (1) fiscal year 1999;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 1999-2003; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2004-2008.
    (b) Revised Aggregates.--In the Senate, after the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works reports a bill (or after the submission of 
a conference report thereon) to reform the Superfund program to 
facilitate the cleanup of hazardous waste sites that does not exceed--
            (1) $200,000,000 in budget authority and outlays for fiscal 
        year 1999; and
            (2) $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and outlays for the 
        period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003;
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may increase 
the appropriate aggregates and the appropriate allocations of budget 
authority in this resolution by the amounts provided in that bill for 
that purpose and the outlays flowing in all years from such budget 
authority. These revised allocations and aggregates shall be considered 
for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the 
allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.

SEC. 204. DEDICATION OF OFFSETS TO TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) Spending Reserve.--In accordance with section 312(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for the purposes of title III of 
that Act, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may reserve the 
estimated reductions in new budget authority and outlays resulting from 
changes in legislation affecting the programs specified in subsection 
(b), if contained in the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, for the purpose of offsetting--
            (1) additional outlays not to exceed $1,300,000,000 in 
        fiscal year 1999 and $18,500,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 
        through 2003 for discretionary highway programs as called for 
        in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
        1998; and
            (2) additional budget authority not to exceed 
        $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $5,000,000,000 for 
        fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for discretionary transit 
        programs as called for in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
        Efficiency Act of 1998.
    (b) Offsets.--The following reductions in mandatory spending are 
reserved in function 920, Allowances, for purposes of subsection (a):
            (1) For reductions in programs in function 350, 
        Agriculture: For fiscal year 1999, $107,000,000 in budget 
        authority and $107,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
        2003, $603,000,000 in budget authority and $598,000,000 in 
        outlays.
            (2) For reductions in programs in function 370, Commerce 
        and Housing Credit: For fiscal year 1999, $242,000,000 in 
        budget authority and $242,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
        1999-2003, $1,195,000,000 in budget authority and 
        $1,195,000,000 in outlays.
            (3) For reductions in programs in function 500, Education, 
        Training, Employment, and Social Services: For fiscal year 
        1999, $471,000,000 in budget authority and $424,000,000 in 
        outlays; For fiscal years 1999-2003, $3,182,000,000 in budget 
        authority and $3,079,000,000 in outlays.
            (4) For reductions in programs in function 550, Health: For 
        fiscal year 1999, $250,000,000 in budget authority and 
        $250,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-2003, 
        $1,900,000,000 in budget authority and $1,900,000,000 in 
        outlays.
            (5) For reductions in programs in function 600, Income 
        Security: For fiscal year 1999, $260,000,000 in budget 
        authority and $260,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999-
        2003, $1,700,000,000 in budget authority and $1,700,000,000 in 
        outlays.
            (6) For reductions in programs in function 700, Veterans 
        Benefits and Services: For fiscal year 1999, $500,000,000 in 
        budget authority and $500,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 
        1999-2003, $10,500,000,000 in budget authority and 
        $10,500,000,000 in outlays.

SEC. 205. ADJUSTMENTS FOR LINE ITEM VETO LITIGATION.

    If the Supreme Court rules that the Line Item Veto Act is 
unconstitutional, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
appropriate adjustments to the allocations and aggregates in this 
resolution to reflect the effects of the President's cancellations 
becoming null and void.

SEC. 206. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

    Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
            (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
        they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, or 
        of that House to which they specifically apply, and such rules 
        shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
        inconsistent therewith; and
            (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
        either House to change those rules (so far as they relate to 
        that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
        extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

              TITLE III--SENSE OF CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

SEC. 301. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE SUNSET OF THE INTERNAL 
              REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that a simple and fair Federal tax 
system is one that--
            (1) applies a low tax rate, through easily understood laws, 
        to all Americans;
            (2) provides tax relief for working Americans;
            (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax 
        collection abuses;
            (4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment;
            (5) promotes economic growth and job creation;
            (6) does not penalize marriage or families; and
            (7) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections process to 
        replace the Internal Revenue Service.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
provisions of this resolution assume that all taxes imposed under the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall sunset for any taxable year 
beginning after December 31, 2001 (or in the case of any tax not 
imposed on the basis of a taxable year, on any taxable event or for any 
period after December 31, 2001) and that a new Federal tax system will 
be enacted that is both simple and fair as described in subsection (a) 
and that provides only those resources for the Federal Government that 
are needed to meet its responsibilities to the American people.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRESERVATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR 
              THE FUTURE.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) Social Security is one of the Nation's most important 
        income security programs;
            (2) the preservation of Social Security both for those now 
        retired and for future generations of working Americans is a 
        vital national priority;
            (3) the Trustees of the Federal Old Age and Survivors 
        Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds have reported to 
        Congress that--
                    (A) the retirement of the baby boom generation will 
                cause Social Security expenditures to accelerate 
                rapidly beginning around 2010;
                    (B) Social Security expenditures will exceed Social 
                Security revenues after 2012 and the trust funds will 
                be depleted of reserves in 2029; and
                    (C) after 2029, tax revenues will be sufficient to 
                cover only three-fourths of the benefits promised under 
                current law, and, by the end of the 75 year projection 
                period, the annual deficit in the trust funds will 
                reach 2.1 percent of the GDP;
            (4) Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, 
        has testified before Congress that Social Security's unfunded 
        liability stands at around $3,000,000,000,000 and advised 
        Congress to move expeditiously to reform the program so that 
        current workers will have sufficient time to adjust to any 
        changes in the program;
            (5) the $124,000,000,000 in new domestic spending programs 
        in the President's budget undermines Social Security by 
        diverting resources from budget surpluses to a bigger 
        government and more spending; and
            (6) the Medicare Hospital Insurance program is projected to 
        become insolvent in 2010 and a study by the National Center on 
        Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University estimated 
        that 14 percent of Medicare spending in 1995 was for tobacco-
        related illnesses.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions of this resolution assume that--
            (1) Congress should use unified budget surpluses to reform 
        Social Security for future generations; and
            (2) Congress should reserve the Federal proceeds from any 
        tobacco settlement for saving Medicare until legislation is 
        enacted to make Medicare actuarially sound.

SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF ACCRUED LIABILITY 
              OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
resolution assume that--
            (1) the concurrent resolution on the budget should include 
        a statement of the current accrued liability of the Federal 
        Government for future payments under the Social Security and 
        Medicare programs; and
            (2) the President's budget should include for fiscal years 
        beginning with 1999 a statement of the current accrued 
        liability of the Federal Government for future payments under 
        the Social Security and Medicare programs.

SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FULL FUNDING FOR IDEA.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels in this 
resolution assume that part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act 
(20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) should be fully funded at the originally 
promised level before any funds are appropriated for new education 
programs.

SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the Social Security program, created in 1935 to provide 
        old-age survivors, and disability insurance benefits, has been 
        one of the most successful government programs ever;
            (2) in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, 
        Congress created section 13301 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
        which removed Social Security spending and revenues from all 
        Federal budget calculations;
            (3) under current budget law, the Federal budget is still 
        in deficit; and
            (4) in his State of the Union message on January 27, 1998, 
        President Clinton called on Congress to ``save Social Security 
        first'' and to ``reserve one hundred percent of the surplus, 
        that is any penny of the surplus, until we have taken all the 
        necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for 
        the twenty-first century''.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
assumptions underlying the functional totals included in this 
resolution assume--
            (1) Congress and the President should continue to rid our 
        country of debt and work to balance the budget without counting 
        Social Security trust fund surpluses; and
            (2) Congress and the President should work in a bipartisan 
        way on specific legislation to reform the Social Security 
        system, to ensure that it is financially sound over the long 
        term and will be available for all future generations.

SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SCHOOL-TO-WORK PROGRAMS.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the budget totals and levels in 
this resolution assume the President's policy with respect to the 
School-to-Work program under the Education Reform Account and any such 
savings as a result should be applied to local initiatives focusing on 
early childhood development.

SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAXPAYER RIGHTS.

    It is the sense of the Senate that of revenues designated under 
section 201 for tax relief, a portion be set aside for--
            (1) improvement of taxpayer rights, including protections 
        for taxpayers in cases involving seizure of property by the 
        Internal Revenue Service; and
            (2) reform of the penalty rules under the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986.

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NATIONAL GUARD FUNDING.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) The Army National Guard represents 34 percent of total 
        Army forces, including 55 percent of combat divisions and 
        brigades, 46 percent of combat support, and 25 percent of 
        combat service support.
            (2) The Army National Guard receives just 9.5 percent of 
        Army funds.
            (3) A recent military study estimates the average cost to 
        train and equip an active duty soldier is $73,000 per year, 
        while the average cost to train and equip a National Guard 
        soldier is just $17,000 per year.
            (4) The Constitution of the United States provides for a 
        specific role for the National Guard in our national defense.
            (5) The National Guard will play an increasing role in a 
        variety of ongoing worldwide operations by relieving active 
        units and reducing the operational and personnel burdens of the 
        Army's frequent and lengthy deployments.
            (6) The home land defense is a mission of growing 
        importance for our military forces and the National Guard 
        forces will play an increasingly key role in that mission.
            (7) Congress created the National Defense Panel to 
        recommend ways in which to transform United States defense and 
        national security policy for the 21st century and it reached 
        the following recommendations:
                    (A) Some portion of the Army National Guard's 
                divisional combat units (including combat support) 
                should become part of active divisions and brigades.
                    (B) The National Guard's enhanced brigades should 
                report to an active Army command.
                    (C) The Guard should develop selected early-
                deploying units that would join the active component.
                    (D) Some additional reserve or Guard units may be 
                needed to reduce pressure on the active Army.
                    (E) The Guard should assume the entire U.S. Army 
                South (USARSO) mission, the Army component of the 
                United States Southern Command (Southcom) based in 
                Panama.
                    (F) The National Guard should continue to provide 
                general purpose forces to give prompt military support 
                to civil authorities.
                    (G) The National Guard should provide forces 
                organized and equipped for training of civil agencies 
                and the immediate reinforcement of first-response 
                efforts in domestic emergencies.
                    (H) New homeland defense missions develop (e.g., 
                National Missile Defense and information warfare), the 
                Guard should be used in lieu of active forces wherever 
                possible.
            (8) The National Guard estimates it was underfunded by 
        $743,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and by $634,000,000 in fiscal 
        year 1999.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional totals in the budget resolution assume that the Department 
of Defense will give the highest priority to moving toward fully 
funding the National Guard.

SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MEDICARE PAYMENT.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) one of the goals of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was 
        to expand options for Medicare beneficiaries under the new 
        Medicare+Choice program; and
            (2) the new Medicare payment formula in the Balanced Budget 
        Act of 1997 was intended to make these choices available to all 
        Americans, but because of the low update and specific budget 
        neutrality provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the 
        blending of rates to create greater equity for rural and other 
        lower payment areas was not implemented in 1998 or 1999.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional totals underlying this concurrent resolution on the budget 
assume that funding the blending of local and national payment rates 
pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 should be a priority for 
the Senate Finance Committee this year within the budget as established 
by this Committee.

SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG-TERM CARE.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that our Nation is not financially 
prepared to meet the long-term care needs of its rapidly aging 
population and that long-term care needs threaten the financial 
security of American families.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that this 
concurrent resolution on the budget assumes that the National 
Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare should, as part of its 
deliberations, describe long-term care needs and make all appropriate 
recommendations including private sector options that reflect the need 
for a continuum of care that spans from acute to long-term care. This 
is not a specific recommendation that any new program be added to 
Medicare.

SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH AND OTHER 
              FUNDING.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the 
functional totals in this resolution assume the following:
            (1) To the extent that funding is made available through 
        grants or other Federal expenditures to reduce emissions of 
        carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases or to increase 
        sequestration of carbon to offset such emissions, such funding 
        shall be made available through competitive, merit-based awards 
        designed to select cost-effective methods for reducing, 
        sequestering, or mitigating such emissions. Such awards shall 
        consider all technologies, methods, and research for reducing, 
        sequestering, or mitigating emissions, including sustainable 
        agricultural practices and forest management and conservation 
        strategies. Funding criteria shall be comprehensive in scope, 
        not limited to specific technologies or industries, awarded on 
        a nondiscriminatory basis, and target cost-effectiveness in 
        reducing, sequestering, or mitigating carbon dioxide and other 
        greenhouse gases through natural resource management programs 
        or products. In considering the cost-effectiveness of various 
        reduction, sequestration, or mitigation technologies, other 
        environmental benefits should be considered.
            (2) To the extent any tax credits or other tax incentives 
        are created to stimulate the adoption of technologies or 
        practices that reduce, sequester, or mitigate emissions of 
        carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (``emissions tax 
        incentives''), such emission tax incentives shall also be 
        available to any person that employs an alternative technology 
or practice that reduces, sequesters, or mitigates emissions of carbon 
dioxide or other greenhouse gases as effectively as those technologies 
or practices for which a tax credit or other incentive is provided. 
Only payments for technologies or in support of practices not legally 
required when payment is made shall qualify for tax incentives.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE CHILD CARE 
              AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) 54 percent of women in the labor force have children 
        under 13 and are either single parents or have husbands who 
        earn less than $30,000 per year;
            (2) in 1995, 62 percent of women with children younger than 
        age 6, and 77 percent of women with children ages 6-17 were in 
        the labor force, and 59 percent of women with children younger 
        than 3 were in the labor force;
            (3) a 1997 General Accounting Office study found that the 
        increased work participation requirements of the welfare reform 
        law will cause the need for child care to exceed the known 
        supply;
            (4) a 1995 study by the Urban Institute of child care 
        prices in 6 cities found that the average cost of care for a 2-
        year-old in a child care center ranged from $3,100 to $8,100;
            (5) for an entry-level worker, the family's child care 
        costs at the average price of care for an infant in a child 
        care center would be at least 50 percent of family income in 5 
        of the 6 cities examined;
            (6) 40 percent of children under the age of 5 are taken 
        care of at home by 1 parent;
            (7) a large number of low- and middle-income families 
        sacrifice a second full-time income so that a parent may be at 
        home with the child;
            (8) the average income of 2-parent families with a single 
        income is $20,000 less than the average income of 2-parent 
        families with 2 incomes;
            (9) the recent National Institute for Child Health and 
        Development study found that the greatest factor in the 
        development of a young child is ``what is happening at home and 
        in families''; and
            (10) increased tax relief directed at making child care 
        more affordable, and increased funding for the Child Care and 
        Development Block Grant, would take significant steps toward 
        bringing quality child care within the reach of many parents, 
        and would increase the options available to parents in deciding 
        how best to care for their children.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the levels 
in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this resolution 
assume--
            (1) that tax relief should be directed at parents who are 
        struggling to afford quality child care, including those who 
        wish to stay at home to care for a child, and should be 
        included in any tax cut package; and
            (2) doubling funding for the Child Care and Development 
        Block Grant will significantly increase the States' ability to 
        deliver quality child care to low-income working families.

SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE FORMULA CHANGE FOR FEDERAL FAMILY 
              EDUCATION LOAN.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) Postsecondary students receive critical access to a 
        higher education through student loans made available by 
        lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.
            (2) Guaranteed student loan borrowers currently pay an 
        interest rate on their FFEL loans equal to the 91-day Treasury 
        bill rate plus 2.5 percent while the borrower attends school, 
        and the 91-day Treasury bill rate plus 3.1 percent during 
        repayment. In addition, the maximum FFEL student loan rate is 
        capped at 8.25 percent.
            (3) As a result of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
        1993, the new formula for FFEL student loans, effective July 1, 
        1998, will be equal to the 10-year Treasury bond rate plus 1 
        percent. In addition, the same 8.25 percent rate cap would 
        apply to these new loans.
            (4) Lenders in the FFEL program have alerted Congress that 
        the scheduled formula change will make these loans 
        unprofitable. As a result, lenders may withdraw from the FFEL 
        program or significantly reduce their participation in the 
        program after July 1, 1998.
            (5) A July 25, 1997 report by the Congressional Research 
        Service stated that the scheduled formula change ``can result 
        in a greater likelihood that the program will become 
        unprofitable at certain points in the business cycle,'' and 
        ``the result could be a shutdown of the guaranteed delivery 
        system.''.
            (6) In a report by the Treasury Department on February 26, 
        1998, the Clinton Administration concluded that the new formula 
        will provide a rate of return on student loans that is below 
the target rate of return of for-profit bank lenders in the guaranteed 
student loan program. Furthermore, the Administration concluded that 
there are inefficiencies associated with the proposed formula, and 
joint benefits could be realized to students and lenders from moving 
back to a short-term index.
            (7) At the time that the proposed formula change was 
        adopted in 1993, the rate of return to lenders would have been 
        higher under the proposed formula than under the existing 
        formula.
            (8) The withdrawal of lenders from the FFEL program, who 
        now account for approximately 70 percent of all student loans, 
        would be devastating to students because, as the Administration 
        has acknowledged, the Federal direct loan program would be 
        unable to absorb the demand for student loans that would arise 
        from the absence of guaranteed lenders.
            (9) A variety of proposals have been put forward to resolve 
        this pending crisis in the FFEL program by modifying the 
        scheduled formula change.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the levels 
in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this resolution 
assume that the documented problems that will rise from the scheduled 
formula change for the Federal Family Education Loan program should be 
resolved in a manner that ensures that students are not harmed by the 
withdrawal of lenders from this program.

SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF HEALTH 
              INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF THE SELF-EMPLOYED.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) under current law, the self-employed do not enjoy 
        parity with their corporate competitors with respect to the 
        deductibility of their health insurance premiums;
            (2) at present, the self-employed can deduct only 45 
        percent of their health insurance premiums;
            (3) scheduled changes in the deductible amount of health 
        insurance premiums will rise slowly, to only 60 percent by 
        2002;
            (4) only by 2007 will the self-employed enjoy equitable 
        treatment with their corporate competitors with respect to the 
        deductibility of their health insurance premiums;
            (5) the limited deductibility available to the self-
        employed greatly reduces the affordability of their health 
        insurance;
            (6) these disadvantages faced by the self-employed are 
        exacerbated by the fact that the self-employed generally pay 
        higher premium rates because they do not have access to group 
        insurance plans;
            (7) these disadvantages are reflected in the higher rate of 
        lack of insurance among self-employed individuals that stands 
        at 23.6 percent compared with 17.4 percent for all other wage 
        and salaried workers, for self-employed living at or below the 
        poverty level the rate of uninsured is over 57 percent, for 
        self-employed living at 100-150 percent poverty the rate of 
        uninsured is 47 percent, and for self-employed living at 150-
        199 percent the rate of uninsured is 40 percent;
            (8) for some self-employed, such as farmers who face 
        significant occupational safety hazards, this lack of health 
        insurance affordability has even greater ramifications; and
            (9) this lack of full deductibility is adversely affecting 
        the growing number of women who own small businesses.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
that legislation implementing this concurrent resolution on the budget 
should include accelerated movement toward parity between the self-
employed and corporations with respect to the tax treatment of health 
insurance premiums, while maintaining deficit neutrality.

SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OBJECTION TO KYOTO PROTOCOL 
              IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO SENATE RATIFICATION.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) The agreement reached by the Administration in Kyoto, 
        Japan, regarding legally binding commitments on greenhouse gas 
        reductions is inconsistent with the provisions of S. Res. 98, 
        The Byrd-Hagel Resolution, that passed the United States Senate 
        unanimously.
            (2) The Administration has pledged to Congress that it 
        would not implement any portion of the Kyoto Protocol prior to 
        its ratification in the Senate.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that funds 
should not be provided to put in effect the Kyoto Protocol prior to the 
Senate ratification in compliance with the requirements of the Byrd-
Hagel Resolution and consistent with Administration assurances to 
Congress.

SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRICE INCREASE ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS OF 
              $1.50 PER PACK.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) smoking rates among children and teenagers have reached 
        epidemic proportions;
            (2) of the 3,000 children and teenagers who begin smoking 
        every day, 1,000 will eventually die of smoking-related 
        disease; and
            (3) public health experts and economists agree that the 
        most effective and efficient way to achieve major reduction in 
        youth smoking rates is to raise the price of tobacco products 
        by at least $1.50 per pack.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
comprehensive tobacco legislation should increase the price of each 
pack of cigarettes sold by at least $1.50 through a per-pack fee or 
other mechanism that will guarantee a price increase of $1.50 per pack 
within 3 years, not including existing scheduled Federal, State, and 
local tax increases, with equivalent price increases on other tobacco 
products, and should index these price increases by an appropriate 
measure of inflation.`