Calendar No. 330

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 86

[Report No. 105–170]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Setting forth the congressional budget for the

year 1998.concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and revising theUnited States Government for fiscal years 1999,

MARCH 20, 1998

Reported from the Committee on the Budget, read twice,

and placed on the calendar
III

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.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),
2

•SCON 86 PCS

1 SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999.

3 (a) DECLARATION.—Congress determines and de4 clares that this resolution is the concurrent resolution on

5 the budget for fiscal year 1999 including the appropriate

6 budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and

7 2003 as required by section 301 of the Congressional

8 Budget Act of 1974 and revising the budgetary levels for

9 fiscal year 1998 set forth in the concurrent resolution on

10 the budget for fiscal year 1998 as authorized by section

11 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

12 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for

13 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.
3

•SCON 86 PCS

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.

1 TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

2 SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

3 The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the

4 fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

5 (1) FEDERAL REVENUES.—For purposes of the en6 forcement of this resolution—

7 (A) The recommended levels of Federal reve8 nues are as follows:

9 Fiscal year 1998: $1,262,400,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 1999: $1,300,200,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000: $1,325,800,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2001: $1,369,400,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2002: $1,431,900,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2003: $1,486,900,000,000.

15 (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels

16 of Federal revenues should be changed are as fol17 lows:

18 Fiscal year 1998: $0.

19 Fiscal year 1999: $0.
4

•SCON 86 PCS

1 Fiscal year 2000: $0.

2 Fiscal year 2001: $0.

3 Fiscal year 2002: $0.

4 Fiscal year 2003: $0.

5 (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Con6 tributions Act revenues for hospital insurance within

7 the recommended levels of Federal revenues are as

8 follows:

9 Fiscal year 1998: $117,700,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 1999: $123,900,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000: $129,700,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2001: $135,300,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2002: $141,400,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2003: $148,100,000,000.

15 (2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—For purposes of the

16 enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of

17 total new budget authority are as follows:

18 Fiscal year 1998: $1,374,700,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 1999: $1,425,300,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2000: $1,471,100,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2001: $1,513,200,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2002: $1,547,200,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003: $1,615,800,000,000.
5

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.—For purposes of the enforce2 ment of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total

3 budget outlays are as follows:

4 Fiscal year 1998: $1,358,000,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 1999: $1,408,400,000,000.

6 Fiscal year 2000: $1,450,100,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 2001: $1,490,000,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2002: $1,507,000,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2003: $1,579,200,000,000.

10 (4) DEFICITS.—For purposes of the enforcement of

11 this resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:

12 Fiscal year 1998: ¥$95,600,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 1999: ¥$108,200,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2000: ¥$124,300,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001: ¥$120,600,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2002: ¥$75,100,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2003: ¥$92,300,000,000.

18 (5) PUBLIC DEBT.—The appropriate levels of the

19 public debt are as follows:

20 Fiscal year 1998: $5,482,000,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 1999: $5,668,300,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2000: $5,868,700,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2001: $6,064,400,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2002: $6,220,000,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2003: $6,392,700,000,000.
6

•SCON 86 PCS

1 SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

2 (a) SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUES.—For purposes of

3 Senate enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of

4 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of

5 revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance

6 Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust

7 Fund are as follows:

8 Fiscal year 1998: $417,300,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 1999: $438,200,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2000: $457,800,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2001: $477,100,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2002: $497,900,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2003: $520,700,000,000.

14 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY OUTLAYS.—For purposes of

15 Senate enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of

16 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of

17 outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance

18 Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust

19 Fund are as follows:

20 Fiscal year 1998: $313,300,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 1999: $212,600,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2000: $331,600,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2001: $344,100,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2002: $355,700,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2003: $369,400,000,000.
7

•SCON 86 PCS

1 SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

2 Congress determines and declares that the appro3 priate levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new

4 direct loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee

5 commitments for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for each

6 major functional category are:

7 (1) National Defense (050):

8 Fiscal year 1998:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $267,700,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $268,100,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 1999:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $270,500,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $265,500,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2000:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $274,300,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, $268,000,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2001:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $280,800,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, $269,700,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2002:

25 (A) New budget authority,

26 $288,600,000,000.
8

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $272,100,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2003:

3 (A) New budget authority,

4 $296,800,000,000.

5 (B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.

6 (2) International Affairs (150):

7 Fiscal year 1998:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $15,200,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 1999:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $14,600,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2000:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $14,300,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2001:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $15,100,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2002:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $15,200,000,000.
9

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2003:

3 (A) New budget authority,

4 $15,200,000,000.

5 (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.

6 (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):

7 Fiscal year 1998:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $18,000,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 1999:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $18,300,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2000:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $17,800,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2001:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $17,700,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2002:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $17,300,000,000.
10

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2003:

3 (A) New budget authority,

4 $17,000,000,000.

5 (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.

6 (4) Energy (270):

7 Fiscal year 1998:

8 (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.

9 (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 1999:

11 (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $300,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $0.

16 Fiscal year 2001:

17 (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, ¥$200,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.

21 (B) Outlays, ¥$400,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2003:

23 (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, ¥$400,000,000.

25 (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
11

•SCON 86 PCS

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $24,200,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $23,400,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $23,300,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $23,000,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $22,900,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $22,900,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $22,900,000,000.

25 (6) Agriculture (350):
12

•SCON 86 PCS

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $11,800,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $12,000,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $11,600,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $10,300,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $10,200,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $10,400,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.

25 (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
13

•SCON 86 PCS

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $7,300,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, $700,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $4,200,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $15,100,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $15,300,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $15,600,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $14,900,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.

25 (8) Transportation (400):
14

•SCON 86 PCS

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $46,000,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $51,500,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $51,800,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $52,100,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $45,700,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $51,400,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $45,800,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $52,000,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $46,900,000,000.

25 (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
15

•SCON 86 PCS

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $8,700,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $8,700,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $7,900,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $7,600,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $7,600,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $7,600,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
16

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social

2 Services (500):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $61,300,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $56,100,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $63,000,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $61,000,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $63,300,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $62,700,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $64,500,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $63,800,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $64,900,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $63,700,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $68,400,000,000.
17

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $67,100,000,000.

2 (11) Health (550):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $136,200,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $132,000,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $145,800,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $143,700,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $152,600,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $151,600,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $161,500,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $160,400,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $170,100,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $169,900,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $181,200,000,000.
18

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $181,100,000,000.

2 (12) Medicare (570):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $199,200,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $199,700,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $210,300,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $210,900,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $221,800,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $221,100,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $239,400,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $242,300,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $251,200,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $248,800,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $273,400,000,000.
19

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $273,600,000,000.

2 (13) Income Security (600):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $229,500,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $234,700,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $243,300,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $248,100,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $257,300,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $259,400,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $268,500,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $266,700,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $279,200,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $274,200,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $289,800,000,000.
20

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $282,400,000,000.

2 (14) Social Security (650):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $12,000,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $12,600,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $13,100,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $12,500,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $14,500,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $15,300,000,000.
21

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.

2 (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $42,600,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $42,800,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $43,300,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $43,400,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $44,000,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $44,800,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $46,200,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $46,600,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $48,200,000,000.
22

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $48,600,000,000.

2 (16) Administration of Justice (750):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $25,100,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $25,800,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $24,500,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $24,500,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $240,800,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $24,700,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $25,000,000,000.
23

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.

2 (17) General Government (800):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $14,500,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $14,400,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $13,900,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $13,600,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $13,400,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $13,500,000,000.
24

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.

2 (18) Net Interest (900):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority,

5 $291,600,000,000.

6 (B) Outlays, $291,600,000,000.

7 Fiscal year 1999:

8 (A) New budget authority,

9 $300,100,000,000.

10 (B) Outlays, $300,100,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2000:

12 (A) New budget authority,

13 $301,700,000,000.

14 (B) Outlays, $301,700,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2001:

16 (A) New budget authority,

17 $302,100,000,000.

18 (B) Outlays, $302,100,000,000.

19 Fiscal year 2002:

20 (A) New budget authority,

21 $302,600,000,000.

22 (B) Outlays, $302,600,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2003:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $304,900,000,000.
25

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (B) Outlays, $304,900,000,000.

2 (19) Allowances (920):

3 Fiscal year 1998:

4 (A) New budget authority, ¥$0.

5 (B) Outlays, ¥$0.

6 Fiscal year 1999:

7 (A) New budget authority,

8 ¥$300,000,000.

9 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,900,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2000:

11 (A) New budget authority,

12 ¥$1,200,000,000.

13 (B) Outlays, ¥$4,600,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2001:

15 (A) New budget authority,

16 ¥$2,700,000,000.

17 (B) Outlays, ¥$3,000,000,000.

18 Fiscal year 2002:

19 (A) New budget authority,

20 ¥$3,800,000,000.

21 (B) Outlays, ¥$7,000,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2003:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 ¥$5,400,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,000,000,000.
26

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

2 Fiscal year 1998:

3 (A) New budget authority,

4 ¥$36,700,000,000.

5 (B) Outlays, ¥$36,700,000,000.

6 Fiscal year 1999:

7 (A) New budget authority,

8 ¥$36,300,000,000.

9 (B) Outlays, ¥$36,300,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2000:

11 (A) New budget authority,

12 ¥$36,000,000,000.

13 (B) Outlays, ¥$36,000,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2001:

15 (A) New budget authority,

16 ¥$37,900,000,000.

17 (B) Outlays, ¥$37,900,000,000.

18 Fiscal year 2002:

19 (A) New budget authority,

20 ¥$45,000,000,000.

21 (B) Outlays, ¥$45,000,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2003:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 ¥$35,700,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, ¥$35,700,000,000.
27

•SCON 86 PCS

1 TITLE II—BUDGETARY

2 RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

3 SEC. 201. TAX CUT RESERVE FUND.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, revenue and spend5 ing aggregates may only be reduced and allocations may

6 be reduced only for legislation that reduces revenues by

7 providing family tax relief (including relief from the ‘‘mar8 riage penalty’’ and support for child care expenses in9 curred by all parents), and incentives to stimulate savings,

10 investment, job creation, and economic growth (including

11 community renewal initiatives) if such legislation will not

12 increase the deficit or reduce the surplus for—

13 (1) fiscal year 1999;

14 (2) the period of fiscal years 1999–2003; or

15 (3) the period of fiscal years 2004–2008.

16 (b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the consideration

17 of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of

18 the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with

19 the Senate appropriately revised allocations under section

20 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and re21 vised aggregates to carry out this section. These revised

22 allocations and aggregates shall be considered for the pur23 poses of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as alloca24 tions and aggregates contained in this resolution.
28

•SCON 86 PCS

1 SEC. 202. TOBACCO RESERVE FUND.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, revenue aggregates

3 may be increased for legislation which reserves the Federal

4 share of receipts from tobacco legislation only for the

5 Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

6 (b) REVISED AGGREGATES.—Upon the consideration

7 of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of

8 the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file in9 creased aggregates to carry out this section. These aggre10 gates shall be considered for the purposes of the Congres11 sional Budget Act of 1974 as the aggregates contained

12 in this resolution.

13 (c) APPLICATION OF SECTION 202 OF H. CON. RES.

14 67.—For the purposes of enforcement of section 202 of

15 H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) with respect to this

16 resolution, the increase in receipts resulting from tobacco

17 legislation shall not be taken into account.

18 SEC. 203. SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATION.

19 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, revenue and spend20 ing aggregates may be increased and allocations may be

21 increased only for legislation that reauthorizes and re22 forms the Superfund program to facilitate the cleanup of

23 hazardous waste sites if such legislation will not increase

24 the deficit or reduce the surplus for—

25 (1) fiscal year 1999;

26 (2) the period of fiscal years 1999–2003; or
29

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (3) the period of fiscal years 2004–2008.

2 (b) REVISED AGGREGATES.—In the Senate, after the

3 Committee on Environment and Public Works reports a

4 bill (or after the submission of a conference report there5 on) to reform the Superfund program to facilitate the

6 cleanup of hazardous waste sites that does not exceed—

7 (1) $200,000,000 in budget authority and out8 lays for fiscal year 1999; and

9 (2) $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and

10 outlays for the period of fiscal years 1999 through

11 2003;

12 the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Sen13 ate may increase the appropriate aggregates and the ap14 propriate allocations of budget authority in this resolution

15 by the amounts provided in that bill for that purpose and

16 the outlays flowing in all years from such budget author17 ity. These revised allocations and aggregates shall be con18 sidered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act

19 of 1974 as the allocations and aggregates contained in this

20 resolution.

21 SEC. 204. DEDICATION OF OFFSETS TO TRANSPORTATION.

22 (a) SPENDING RESERVE.—In accordance with sec23 tion 312(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and

24 for the purposes of title III of that Act, the Chairman

25 of the Committee on the Budget may reserve the esti-
30

•SCON 86 PCS

1 mated reductions in new budget authority and outlays re2 sulting from changes in legislation affecting the programs

3 specified in subsection (b), if contained in the Department

4 of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations

5 Act, for the purpose of offsetting—

6 (1) additional outlays not to exceed

7 $1,300,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and

8 $18,500,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003

9 for discretionary highway programs as called for in

10 the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

11 Act of 1998; and

12 (2) additional budget authority not to exceed

13 $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and

14 $5,000,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003

15 for discretionary transit programs as called for in

16 the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

17 Act of 1998.

18 (b) OFFSETS.—The following reductions in manda19 tory spending are reserved in function 920, Allowances,

20 for purposes of subsection (a):

21 (1) For reductions in programs in function 350,

22 Agriculture: For fiscal year 1999, $107,000,000 in

23 budget authority and $107,000,000 in outlays; For

24 fiscal years 1999–2003, $603,000,000 in budget au25 thority and $598,000,000 in outlays.
31

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (2) For reductions in programs in function 370,

2 Commerce and Housing Credit: For fiscal year

3 1999, $242,000,000 in budget authority and

4 $242,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999–

5 2003, $1,195,000,000 in budget authority and

6 $1,195,000,000 in outlays.

7 (3) For reductions in programs in function 500,

8 Education, Training, Employment, and Social Serv9 ices: For fiscal year 1999, $471,000,000 in budget

10 authority and $424,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal

11 years 1999–2003, $3,182,000,000 in budget author12 ity and $3,079,000,000 in outlays.

13 (4) For reductions in programs in function 550,

14 Health: For fiscal year 1999, $250,000,000 in budg15 et authority and $250,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal

16 years 1999–2003, $1,900,000,000 in budget author17 ity and $1,900,000,000 in outlays.

18 (5) For reductions in programs in function 600,

19 Income Security: For fiscal year 1999,

20 $260,000,000 in budget authority and $260,000,000

21 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999–2003,

22 $1,700,000,000 in budget authority and

23 $1,700,000,000 in outlays.

24 (6) For reductions in programs in function 700,

25 Veterans Benefits and Services: For fiscal year
32

•SCON 86 PCS

1 1999, $500,000,000 in budget authority and

2 $500,000,000 in outlays; For fiscal years 1999–

3 2003, $10,500,000,000 in budget authority and

4 $10,500,000,000 in outlays.

5 SEC. 205. ADJUSTMENTS FOR LINE ITEM VETO LITIGATION.

6 If the Supreme Court rules that the Line Item Veto

7 Act is unconstitutional, the Chairman of the Committee

8 on the Budget may make appropriate adjustments to the

9 allocations and aggregates in this resolution to reflect the

10 effects of the President’s cancellations becoming null and

11 void.

12 SEC. 206. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

13 Congress adopts the provisions of this title—

14 (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of

15 the Senate and the House of Representatives, re16 spectively, and as such they shall be considered as

17 part of the rules of each House, or of that House

18 to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall

19 supersede other rules only to the extent that they

20 are inconsistent therewith; and

21 (2) with full recognition of the constitutional

22 right of either House to change those rules (so far

23 as they relate to that House) at any time, in the

24 same manner, and to the same extent as in the case

25 of any other rule of that House.
33

•SCON 86 PCS

1 TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS

2 AND THE SENATE

3 SEC. 301. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE SUNSET

4 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that a simple and fair

6 Federal tax system is one that—

7 (1) applies a low tax rate, through easily under8 stood laws, to all Americans;

9 (2) provides tax relief for working Americans;

10 (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces

11 tax collection abuses;

12 (4) eliminates the bias against savings and in13 vestment;

14 (5) promotes economic growth and job creation;

15 (6) does not penalize marriage or families; and

16 (7) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections

17 process to replace the Internal Revenue Service.

18 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con19 gress that the provisions of this resolution assume that

20 all taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of

21 1986 shall sunset for any taxable year beginning after De22 cember 31, 2001 (or in the case of any tax not imposed

23 on the basis of a taxable year, on any taxable event or

24 for any period after December 31, 2001) and that a new

25 Federal tax system will be enacted that is both simple and
34

•SCON 86 PCS

1 fair as described in subsection (a) and that provides only

2 those resources for the Federal Government that are need3 ed to meet its responsibilities to the American people.

4 SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRESERVATION OF SO5 CIAL SECURITY FOR THE FUTURE.

6 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

7 (1) Social Security is one of the Nation’s most

8 important income security programs;

9 (2) the preservation of Social Security both for

10 those now retired and for future generations of

11 working Americans is a vital national priority;

12 (3) the Trustees of the Federal Old Age and

13 Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust

14 Funds have reported to Congress that—

15 (A) the retirement of the baby boom gen16 eration will cause Social Security expenditures

17 to accelerate rapidly beginning around 2010;

18 (B) Social Security expenditures will ex19 ceed Social Security revenues after 2012 and

20 the trust funds will be depleted of reserves in

21 2029; and

22 (C) after 2029, tax revenues will be suffi23 cient to cover only three-fourths of the benefits

24 promised under current law, and, by the end of

25 the 75 year projection period, the annual deficit
35

•SCON 86 PCS

1 in the trust funds will reach 2.1 percent of the

2 GDP;

3 (4) Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal

4 Reserve Board, has testified before Congress that

5 Social Security’s unfunded liability stands at around

6 $3,000,000,000,000 and advised Congress to move

7 expeditiously to reform the program so that current

8 workers will have sufficient time to adjust to any

9 changes in the program;

10 (5) the $124,000,000,000 in new domestic

11 spending programs in the President’s budget under12 mines Social Security by diverting resources from

13 budget surpluses to a bigger government and more

14 spending; and

15 (6) the Medicare Hospital Insurance program is

16 projected to become insolvent in 2010 and a study

17 by the National Center on Addiction and Substance

18 Abuse at Columbia University estimated that 14

19 percent of Medicare spending in 1995 was for to20 bacco-related illnesses.

21 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

22 Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume

23 that—
36

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (1) Congress should use unified budget sur2 pluses to reform Social Security for future genera3 tions; and

4 (2) Congress should reserve the Federal pro5 ceeds from any tobacco settlement for saving Medi6 care until legislation is enacted to make Medicare

7 actuarially sound.

8 SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT

9 OF ACCRUED LIABILITY OF SOCIAL SECU10 RITY AND MEDICARE.

11 It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of

12 this resolution assume that—

13 (1) the concurrent resolution on the budget

14 should include a statement of the current accrued li15 ability of the Federal Government for future pay16 ments under the Social Security and Medicare pro17 grams; and

18 (2) the President’s budget should include for

19 fiscal years beginning with 1999 a statement of the

20 current accrued liability of the Federal Government

21 for future payments under the Social Security and

22 Medicare programs.
37

•SCON 86 PCS

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

2 IDEA.

3 It is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels

4 in this resolution assume that part B of the Individuals

5 with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) should be

6 fully funded at the originally promised level before any

7 funds are appropriated for new education programs.

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

9 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

10 (1) the Social Security program, created in

11 1935 to provide old-age survivors, and disability in12 surance benefits, has been one of the most successful

13 government programs ever;

14 (2) in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

15 of 1990, Congress created section 13301 of the Con16 gressional Budget Act, which removed Social Secu17 rity spending and revenues from all Federal budget

18 calculations;

19 (3) under current budget law, the Federal

20 budget is still in deficit; and

21 (4) in his State of the Union message on Janu22 ary 27, 1998, President Clinton called on Congress

23 to ‘‘save Social Security first’’ and to ‘‘reserve one

24 hundred percent of the surplus, that is any penny of

25 the surplus, until we have taken all the necessary
38

•SCON 86 PCS

1 measures to strengthen the Social Security system

2 for the twenty-first century’’.

3 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

4 Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional to5 tals included in this resolution assume—

6 (1) Congress and the President should continue

7 to rid our country of debt and work to balance the

8 budget without counting Social Security trust fund

9 surpluses; and

10 (2) Congress and the President should work in

11 a bipartisan way on specific legislation to reform the

12 Social Security system, to ensure that it is finan13 cially sound over the long term and will be available

14 for all future generations.

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

16 PROGRAMS.

17 It is the sense of the Senate that the budget totals

18 and levels in this resolution assume the President’s policy

19 with respect to the School-to-Work program under the

20 Education Reform Account and any such savings as a re21 sult should be applied to local initiatives focusing on early

22 childhood development.
39

•SCON 86 PCS

1 SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAXPAYER

2 RIGHTS.

3 It is the sense of the Senate that of revenues des4 ignated under section 201 for tax relief, a portion be set

5 aside for—

6 (1) improvement of taxpayer rights, including

7 protections for taxpayers in cases involving seizure

8 of property by the Internal Revenue Service; and

9 (2) reform of the penalty rules under the Inter10 nal Revenue Code of 1986.

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

12 FUNDING.

13 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds the following:

14 (1) The Army National Guard represents 34

15 percent of total Army forces, including 55 percent of

16 combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of combat

17 support, and 25 percent of combat service support.

18 (2) The Army National Guard receives just 9.5

19 percent of Army funds.

20 (3) A recent military study estimates the aver21 age cost to train and equip an active duty soldier is

22 $73,000 per year, while the average cost to train

23 and equip a National Guard soldier is just $17,000

24 per year.
40

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (4) The Constitution of the United States pro2 vides for a specific role for the National Guard in

3 our national defense.

4 (5) The National Guard will play an increasing

5 role in a variety of ongoing worldwide operations by

6 relieving active units and reducing the operational

7 and personnel burdens of the Army’s frequent and

8 lengthy deployments.

9 (6) The home land defense is a mission of

10 growing importance for our military forces and the

11 National Guard forces will play an increasingly key

12 role in that mission.

13 (7) Congress created the National Defense

14 Panel to recommend ways in which to transform

15 United States defense and national security policy

16 for the 21st century and it reached the following

17 recommendations:

18 (A) Some portion of the Army National

19 Guard’s divisional combat units (including com20 bat support) should become part of active divi21 sions and brigades.

22 (B) The National Guard’s enhanced bri23 gades should report to an active Army com24 mand.
41

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (C) The Guard should develop selected

2 early-deploying units that would join the active

3 component.

4 (D) Some additional reserve or Guard

5 units may be needed to reduce pressure on the

6 active Army.

7 (E) The Guard should assume the entire

8 U.S. Army South (USARSO) mission, the

9 Army component of the United States Southern

10 Command (Southcom) based in Panama.

11 (F) The National Guard should continue

12 to provide general purpose forces to give

13 prompt military support to civil authorities.

14 (G) The National Guard should provide

15 forces organized and equipped for training of

16 civil agencies and the immediate reinforcement

17 of first-response efforts in domestic emer18 gencies.

19 (H) New homeland defense missions de20 velop (e.g., National Missile Defense and infor21 mation warfare), the Guard should be used in

22 lieu of active forces wherever possible.

23 (8) The National Guard estimates it was under24 funded by $743,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and by

25 $634,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
42

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

2 Senate that the functional totals in the budget resolution

3 assume that the Department of Defense will give the high4 est priority to moving toward fully funding the National

5 Guard.

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

7 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

8 (1) one of the goals of the Balanced Budget Act

9 of 1997 was to expand options for Medicare bene10 ficiaries under the new Medicare+Choice program;

11 and

12 (2) the new Medicare payment formula in the

13 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was intended to make

14 these choices available to all Americans, but because

15 of the low update and specific budget neutrality pro16 visions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the

17 blending of rates to create greater equity for rural

18 and other lower payment areas was not implemented

19 in 1998 or 1999.

20 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

21 Senate that the functional totals underlying this concur22 rent resolution on the budget assume that funding the

23 blending of local and national payment rates pursuant to

24 the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 should be a priority for
43

•SCON 86 PCS

1 the Senate Finance Committee this year within the budget

2 as established by this Committee.

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

4 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that our Nation is

5 not financially prepared to meet the long-term care needs

6 of its rapidly aging population and that long-term care

7 needs threaten the financial security of American families.

8 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

9 Senate that this concurrent resolution on the budget as10 sumes that the National Bipartisan Commission on the

11 Future of Medicare should, as part of its deliberations,

12 describe long-term care needs and make all appropriate

13 recommendations including private sector options that re14 flect the need for a continuum of care that spans from

15 acute to long-term care. This is not a specific rec16 ommendation that any new program be added to Medi17 care.

18 SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE RE19 SEARCH AND OTHER FUNDING.

20 It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions

21 underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume

22 the following:

23 (1) To the extent that funding is made avail24 able through grants or other Federal expenditures to

25 reduce emissions of carbon dioxide or other green-
44

•SCON 86 PCS

1 house gases or to increase sequestration of carbon to

2 offset such emissions, such funding shall be made

3 available through competitive, merit-based awards

4 designed to select cost-effective methods for reduc5 ing, sequestering, or mitigating such emissions. Such

6 awards shall consider all technologies, methods, and

7 research for reducing, sequestering, or mitigating

8 emissions, including sustainable agricultural prac9 tices and forest management and conservation strat10 egies. Funding criteria shall be comprehensive in

11 scope, not limited to specific technologies or indus12 tries, awarded on a nondiscriminatory basis, and

13 target cost-effectiveness in reducing, sequestering, or

14 mitigating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

15 gases through natural resource management pro16 grams or products. In considering the cost-effective17 ness of various reduction, sequestration, or mitiga18 tion technologies, other environmental benefits

19 should be considered.

20 (2) To the extent any tax credits or other tax

21 incentives are created to stimulate the adoption of

22 technologies or practices that reduce, sequester, or

23 mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide and other

24 greenhouse gases (‘‘emissions tax incentives’’), such

25 emission tax incentives shall also be available to any
45

•SCON 86 PCS

1 person that employs an alternative technology or

2 practice that reduces, sequesters, or mitigates emis3 sions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases

4 as effectively as those technologies or practices for

5 which a tax credit or other incentive is provided.

6 Only payments for technologies or in support of

7 practices not legally required when payment is made

8 shall qualify for tax incentives.

9 SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING

10 FOR THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT

11 BLOCK GRANT.

12 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

13 (1) 54 percent of women in the labor force have

14 children under 13 and are either single parents or

15 have husbands who earn less than $30,000 per year;

16 (2) in 1995, 62 percent of women with children

17 younger than age 6, and 77 percent of women with

18 children ages 6–17 were in the labor force, and 59

19 percent of women with children younger than 3 were

20 in the labor force;

21 (3) a 1997 General Accounting Office study

22 found that the increased work participation require23 ments of the welfare reform law will cause the need

24 for child care to exceed the known supply;
46

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (4) a 1995 study by the Urban Institute of

2 child care prices in 6 cities found that the average

3 cost of care for a 2-year-old in a child care center

4 ranged from $3,100 to $8,100;

5 (5) for an entry-level worker, the family’s child

6 care costs at the average price of care for an infant

7 in a child care center would be at least 50 percent

8 of family income in 5 of the 6 cities examined;

9 (6) 40 percent of children under the age of 5

10 are taken care of at home by 1 parent;

11 (7) a large number of low- and middle-income

12 families sacrifice a second full-time income so that

13 a parent may be at home with the child;

14 (8) the average income of 2-parent families with

15 a single income is $20,000 less than the average in16 come of 2-parent families with 2 incomes;

17 (9) the recent National Institute for Child

18 Health and Development study found that the great19 est factor in the development of a young child is

20 ‘‘what is happening at home and in families’’; and

21 (10) increased tax relief directed at making

22 child care more affordable, and increased funding

23 for the Child Care and Development Block Grant,

24 would take significant steps toward bringing quality

25 child care within the reach of many parents, and
47

•SCON 86 PCS

1 would increase the options available to parents in de2 ciding how best to care for their children.

3 (b) SENSE OF SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate

4 that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

5 pursuant to this resolution assume—

6 (1) that tax relief should be directed at parents

7 who are struggling to afford quality child care, in8 cluding those who wish to stay at home to care for

9 a child, and should be included in any tax cut pack10 age; and

11 (2) doubling funding for the Child Care and

12 Development Block Grant will significantly increase

13 the States’ ability to deliver quality child care to

14 low-income working families.

15 SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE FORMULA

16 CHANGE FOR FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION

17 LOAN.

18 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds the following:

19 (1) Postsecondary students receive critical ac20 cess to a higher education through student loans

21 made available by lenders in the Federal Family

22 Education Loan (FFEL) program.

23 (2) Guaranteed student loan borrowers cur24 rently pay an interest rate on their FFEL loans

25 equal to the 91-day Treasury bill rate plus 2.5 per-
48

•SCON 86 PCS

1 cent while the borrower attends school, and the 91-

2 day Treasury bill rate plus 3.1 percent during repay3 ment. In addition, the maximum FFEL student loan

4 rate is capped at 8.25 percent.

5 (3) As a result of the Omnibus Budget Rec6 onciliation Act of 1993, the new formula for FFEL

7 student loans, effective July 1, 1998, will be equal

8 to the 10-year Treasury bond rate plus 1 percent. In

9 addition, the same 8.25 percent rate cap would

10 apply to these new loans.

11 (4) Lenders in the FFEL program have alerted

12 Congress that the scheduled formula change will

13 make these loans unprofitable. As a result, lenders

14 may withdraw from the FFEL program or signifi15 cantly reduce their participation in the program

16 after July 1, 1998.

17 (5) A July 25, 1997 report by the Congres18 sional Research Service stated that the scheduled

19 formula change ‘‘can result in a greater likelihood

20 that the program will become unprofitable at certain

21 points in the business cycle,’’ and ‘‘the result could

22 be a shutdown of the guaranteed delivery system.’’.

23 (6) In a report by the Treasury Department on

24 February 26, 1998, the Clinton Administration con25 cluded that the new formula will provide a rate of
49

•SCON 86 PCS

1 return on student loans that is below the target rate

2 of return of for-profit bank lenders in the guaran3 teed student loan program. Furthermore, the Ad4 ministration concluded that there are inefficiencies

5 associated with the proposed formula, and joint ben6 efits could be realized to students and lenders from

7 moving back to a short-term index.

8 (7) At the time that the proposed formula

9 change was adopted in 1993, the rate of return to

10 lenders would have been higher under the proposed

11 formula than under the existing formula.

12 (8) The withdrawal of lenders from the FFEL

13 program, who now account for approximately 70

14 percent of all student loans, would be devastating to

15 students because, as the Administration has ac16 knowledged, the Federal direct loan program would

17 be unable to absorb the demand for student loans

18 that would arise from the absence of guaranteed

19 lenders.

20 (9) A variety of proposals have been put for21 ward to resolve this pending crisis in the FFEL pro22 gram by modifying the scheduled formula change.

23 (b) SENSE OF SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate

24 that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

25 pursuant to this resolution assume that the documented
50

•SCON 86 PCS

1 problems that will rise from the scheduled formula change

2 for the Federal Family Education Loan program should

3 be resolved in a manner that ensures that students are

4 not harmed by the withdrawal of lenders from this pro5 gram.

6 SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE DEDUCT7 IBILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS

8 OF THE SELF-EMPLOYED.

9 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

10 (1) under current law, the self-employed do not

11 enjoy parity with their corporate competitors with

12 respect to the deductibility of their health insurance

13 premiums;

14 (2) at present, the self-employed can deduct

15 only 45 percent of their health insurance premiums;

16 (3) scheduled changes in the deductible amount

17 of health insurance premiums will rise slowly, to

18 only 60 percent by 2002;

19 (4) only by 2007 will the self-employed enjoy

20 equitable treatment with their corporate competitors

21 with respect to the deductibility of their health in22 surance premiums;

23 (5) the limited deductibility available to the

24 self-employed greatly reduces the affordability of

25 their health insurance;
51

•SCON 86 PCS

1 (6) these disadvantages faced by the self-em2 ployed are exacerbated by the fact that the self-em3 ployed generally pay higher premium rates because

4 they do not have access to group insurance plans;

5 (7) these disadvantages are reflected in the

6 higher rate of lack of insurance among self-employed

7 individuals that stands at 23.6 percent compared

8 with 17.4 percent for all other wage and salaried

9 workers, for self-employed living at or below the pov10 erty level the rate of uninsured is over 57 percent,

11 for self-employed living at 100–150 percent poverty

12 the rate of uninsured is 47 percent, and for self-em13 ployed living at 150–199 percent the rate of unin14 sured is 40 percent;

15 (8) for some self-employed, such as farmers

16 who face significant occupational safety hazards, this

17 lack of health insurance affordability has even great18 er ramifications; and

19 (9) this lack of full deductibility is adversely af20 fecting the growing number of women who own

21 small businesses.

22 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

23 Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional to24 tals in this resolution assume that legislation implement25 ing this concurrent resolution on the budget should in-
52

•SCON 86 PCS

1 clude accelerated movement toward parity between the

2 self-employed and corporations with respect to the tax

3 treatment of health insurance premiums, while maintain4 ing deficit neutrality.

5 SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OBJECTION TO KYOTO

6 PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO SEN7 ATE RATIFICATION.

8 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

9 (1) The agreement reached by the Administra10 tion in Kyoto, Japan, regarding legally binding com11 mitments on greenhouse gas reductions is inconsist12 ent with the provisions of S. Res. 98, The Byrd13 Hagel Resolution, that passed the United States

14 Senate unanimously.

15 (2) The Administration has pledged to Con16 gress that it would not implement any portion of the

17 Kyoto Protocol prior to its ratification in the Senate.

18 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con19 gress that funds should not be provided to put in effect

20 the Kyoto Protocol prior to the Senate ratification in com21 pliance with the requirements of the Byrd-Hagel Resolu22 tion and consistent with Administration assurances to

23 Congress.
53

•SCON 86 PCS

1 SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRICE INCREASE ON

2 TOBACCO PRODUCTS OF $1.50 PER PACK.

3 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

4 (1) smoking rates among children and teen5 agers have reached epidemic proportions;

6 (2) of the 3,000 children and teenagers who

7 begin smoking every day, 1,000 will eventually die of

8 smoking-related disease; and

9 (3) public health experts and economists agree

10 that the most effective and efficient way to achieve

11 major reduction in youth smoking rates is to raise

12 the price of tobacco products by at least $1.50 per

13 pack.

14 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the

15 Senate that comprehensive tobacco legislation should in16 crease the price of each pack of cigarettes sold by at least

17 $1.50 through a per-pack fee or other mechanism that will

18 guarantee a price increase of $1.50 per pack within 3

19 years, not including existing scheduled Federal, State, and

20 local tax increases, with equivalent price increases on

21 other tobacco products, and should index these price in22 creases by an appropriate measure of inflation.