★

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 86

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring)

3 SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

4 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999.

5 (a) DECLARATION.—Congress determines and de6 clares that this resolution is the concurrent resolution on

7 the budget for fiscal year 1999 including the appropriate

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

9 2003 as required by section 301 of the Congressional

10 Budget Act of 1974 and revising the budgetary levels for

11 fiscal year 1998 set forth in the concurrent resolution on

12 the budget for fiscal year 1998 as authorized by section

13 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

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

15 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
2

SCON 86 ES1S

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. Extension of Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

Sec. 207. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of the Senate regarding passage of the Senate Finance Committee’s IRS restructuring bill.

Sec. 302. Sense of Congress regarding the sunset of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986.

Sec. 303. Sense of Congress on the tax treatment of home mortgage interest

and charitable giving.

Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate on preservation of Social Security for the future.

Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate on annual statement of accrued liability of Social

Security and Medicare.

Sec. 306. Sense of the Senate on full funding for IDEA.

Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate on Social Security.

Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on School-to-Work programs.

Sec. 309. Sense of the Senate regarding taxpayer rights.

Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on National Guard funding.

Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate on Medicare payment.

Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate on long-term care.

Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on climate change research and other funding.

Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate on increased funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate on the formula change for Federal Family Education Loan.

Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate regarding the deductibility of health insurance

premiums of the self-employed.

Sec. 317. Sense of the Senate on objection to Kyoto Protocol implementation

prior to Senate ratification.

Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate on price increase on tobacco products of $1.50

per pack.

Sec. 319. Findings; sense of Congress.

Sec. 320. Sense of the Senate concerning immunity.

Sec. 321. Sense of Senate regarding agricultural trade programs.

Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate supporting long-term entitlement reforms.

Sec. 323. Sense of Congress regarding freedom of health care choice for Medicare seniors.

Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate regarding repair and construction needs of Indian schools.

Sec. 325. Sense of the Senate on Social Security personal retirement accounts

and the budget surplus.

Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate regarding the elimination of the marriage penalty.

Sec. 327. Findings and sense of Ccongress regarding affordable, high-quality

health care for seniors.

Sec. 328. Sense of Congress regarding permanent extension of income averaging for farmers.

Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate to maintain full funding for the Section 202 Elderly Housing program.
3

SCON 86 ES1S

Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate regarding outlay estimates of the Department of

Defense budget.

Sec. 331. Sense of the Senate regarding outlay estimates for the budgets of

Federal agencies other than the Department of Defense.

Sec. 332. Sense of the Senate regarding an evaluation of the outcome of welfare reform.

Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate regarding the establishment of a national background check system for long-term care workers.

Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate on expanding Medicare benefits.

Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate on battlefield preservation.

Sec. 336. A resolution regarding the Senate’s support for Federal, State and

local law enforcement.

Sec. 337. Sense of the Senate on analysis of civilian science and technology programs in the Federal budget.

Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate on civilian science and technology programs in

the Federal budget.

Sec. 339. Sense of the Senate on long-term budgeting and repayment of the

public debt.

Sec. 340. Sense of the Senate regarding President’s budget.

Sec. 341. Sense of the Senate regarding the value of the Social Security system

for future retirees.

Sec. 342. Sense of the Senate on the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Sec. 343. Sense of the Senate on education goals.

Sec. 344. Findings and sense of the Senate.

Sec. 345. Sense of the Senate on INS circuit riders in the former Soviet Union.

Sec. 346. Sense of the Senate regarding funding for the airport improvement

program.

Sec. 347. Sense of the Senate that the One Hundred Fifth Congress, Second

Session should reauthorize funds for the farmland protection

program.

Sec. 348. Sense of the Senate on health care quality.

Sec. 349. Sense of the Senate regarding wasteful spending in Defense Department acquisition practices.

Sec. 350. Sense of the Senate regarding the United States response to the

changing nature of terrorism.

Sec. 351. Sense of the Senate on economic growth, Social Security, and Government efficiency.

Sec. 352. Sense of the Senate regarding a supermajority requirement for raising taxes.

Sec. 353. Sense of the Senate on health care quality.

Sec. 354. Sense of the Senate on the use of budget surplus for tax relief or

debt reduction.

Sec. 355. Use of budget surplus to reform Social Security.

Sec. 356. Sense of the Senate on Colombian drug war helicopters.

Sec. 357. Sense of the Senate on funding for medical care for veterans.

Sec. 358. Sense of the Senate on objection to the use of the sale of public lands

to fund certain programs.

Sec. 359. Sense of the Senate regarding a multinational alliance against drug

trafficking.

Sec. 360. Sense of the Senate regarding legislation that increases complexity of

tax returns.

Sec. 361. General prohibition on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Sec. 362. Sense of the Senate regarding Amtrak funding.

Sec. 363. Sense of the Senate regarding market access program.
4

SCON 86 ES1S

Sec. 364. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Institutes of Health.

Sec. 365. Sense of the Senate regarding display of Ten Commandments.

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.

20 Fiscal year 2000: $0.

21 Fiscal year 2001: $0.

22 Fiscal year 2002: $0.

23 Fiscal year 2003: $0.
5

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Con2 tributions Act revenues for hospital insurance within

3 the recommended levels of Federal revenues are as

4 follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of

13 total new budget authority are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

19 Fiscal year 2003: $1,615,800,000,000.

20 (3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.—For purposes of the enforce21 ment of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total

22 budget outlays are as follows:

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

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

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

SCON 86 ES1S

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

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

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

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

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

6 Fiscal year 1998: ¥$95,600,000,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 public debt are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

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

23 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of

24 revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
7

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust

2 Fund are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of

12 outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance

13 Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust

14 Fund are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

20 Fiscal year 2003: $369,400,000,000.

21 SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

22 Congress determines and declares that the appro23 priate levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new

24 direct loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee
8

SCON 86 ES1S

1 commitments for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for each

2 major functional category are:

3 (1) National Defense (050):

4 Fiscal year 1998:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $267,700,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 1999:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $270,500,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2000:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $274,300,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2001:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $280,800,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2002:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $288,600,000,000.

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

24 Fiscal year 2003:
9

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $296,800,000,000.

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

4 (2) International Affairs (150):

5 Fiscal year 1998:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $15,200,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 1999:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $14,600,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $14,300,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2001:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $15,100,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2002:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $15,200,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2003:
10

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $15,200,000,000.

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

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

5 Fiscal year 1998:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $18,000,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 1999:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $18,300,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $17,800,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2001:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $17,700,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2002:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $17,300,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2003:
11

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $17,000,000,000.

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

4 (4) Energy (270):

5 Fiscal year 1998:

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

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

8 Fiscal year 1999:

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

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

11 Fiscal year 2000:

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

13 (B) Outlays, $0.

14 Fiscal year 2001:

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

16 (B) Outlays, ¥$200,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2002:

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

19 (B) Outlays, ¥$400,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2003:

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

22 (B) Outlays, ¥$400,000,000.

23 (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

24 Fiscal year 1998:
12

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $24,200,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 1999:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $23,400,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2000:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $23,300,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2001:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $23,000,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2002:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $22,900,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2003:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $22,900,000,000.

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

24 (6) Agriculture (350):

25 Fiscal year 1998:
13

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $11,800,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 1999:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $12,000,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2000:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $11,600,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2001:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $10,300,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2002:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $10,200,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2003:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $10,400,000,000.

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

24 (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):

25 Fiscal year 1998:
14

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $7,300,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 1999:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $4,200,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2000:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $15,100,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2001:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $15,300,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2002:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $15,600,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2003:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $14,900,000,000.

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

24 (8) Transportation (400):

25 Fiscal year 1998:
15

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $46,000,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 1999:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $51,500,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2000:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $51,800,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2001:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $52,100,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2002:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $51,400,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2003:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $52,000,000,000.

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

24 (9) Community and Regional Development (450):

25 Fiscal year 1998:
16

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $8,700,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 1999:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $8,700,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2000:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $7,900,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2001:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $7,600,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2002:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $7,600,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2003:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $7,600,000,000.

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

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

25 Services (500):
17

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $61,300,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $63,050,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $61,006,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $63,350,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $62,740,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $64,550,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $63,849,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $64,950,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $63,750,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $68,450,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $67,150,000,000.

25 (11) Health (550):
18

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $136,200,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $145,800,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $152,600,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $161,500,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $170,100,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $181,200,000,000.

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

25 (12) Medicare (570):
19

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $199,200,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $210,300,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $221,800,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $239,400,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $251,200,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $273,400,000,000.

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

25 (13) Income Security (600):
20

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $229,500,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $243,300,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $257,300,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $268,500,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $279,200,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $289,800,000,000.

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

25 (14) Social Security (650):
21

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $12,000,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $12,600,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $13,100,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $12,500,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $14,500,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $15,300,000,000.

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

25 (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
22

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $42,600,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $42,800,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $43,400,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $44,800,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $46,200,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $48,200,000,000.

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

25 (16) Administration of Justice (750):
23

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $25,100,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $25,800,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $24,500,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $24,500,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $24,700,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $25,000,000,000.

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

25 (17) General Government (800):
24

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $14,500,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $14,400,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $13,900,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $13,600,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $13,400,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $13,500,000,000.

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

25 (18) Net Interest (900):
25

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $291,600,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 1999:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $300,100,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2000:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $301,700,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2001:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $302,100,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2002:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $302,600,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2003:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $304,900,000,000.

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

25 (19) Allowances (920):
26

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Fiscal year 1998:

2 (A) New budget authority, ¥$0.

3 (B) Outlays, ¥$0.

4 Fiscal year 1999:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 ¥$300,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,900,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2000:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 ¥$1,200,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, ¥$4,600,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2001:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 ¥$2,700,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, ¥$3,000,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2002:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 ¥$3,800,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, ¥$7,000,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2003:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 ¥$5,400,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,000,000,000.

24 (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

25 Fiscal year 1998:
27

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 ¥$36,700,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, ¥$36,700,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 1999:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 ¥$36,300,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, ¥$36,300,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2000:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 ¥$36,000,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, ¥$36,000,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2001:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 ¥$37,900,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, ¥$37,900,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2002:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 ¥$45,000,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, ¥$45,000,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2003:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 ¥$35,700,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, ¥$35,700,000,000.
28

SCON 86 ES1S

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.
29

SCON 86 ES1S

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
30

SCON 86 ES1S

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-
31

SCON 86 ES1S

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.
32

SCON 86 ES1S

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
33

SCON 86 ES1S

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 (c) SENSE OF THE SENATE ON VA COMPENSATION

6 AND POST-SERVICE SMOKING-RELATED ILLNESSES.—

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

8 (A) the President has twice included in his

9 budgets a prohibition on the entitlement expan10 sion that the Department of Veterans Affairs

11 (referred to as the ‘‘VA’’) is proposing to allow

12 post-service smoking-related illness to be eligible

13 for VA compensation;

14 (B) Congress has never acted on this enti15 tlement expansion;

16 (C) the Congressional Budget Office and

17 the Office of Management and Budget have

18 concluded that this change in VA policy would

19 result in at least $10,000,000,000 over 5 years

20 and $45,000,000,000 over 10 years in addi21 tional mandatory costs to the VA;

22 (D) these increased number of claims and

23 the resulting costs may present undue delay

24 and hardship on veterans seeking claim review;
34

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (E) the entitlement expansion apparently

2 runs counter to all existing VA policy, including

3 a statement by former Secretary Brown that

4 ‘‘It is inappropriate to compensate for death or

5 disability resulting from veterans’ personal

6 choice to engage in conduct damaging to their

7 health.’’; and

8 (F) Secretary Brown’s comment was re9 cently reaffirmend by Acting Secretary of Vet10 erans Affairs Togo West, who stated ‘‘It has

11 been the position of the Department and of my

12 predecessor that the decision to use tobacco by

13 service members is a personal decision and is

14 not a requirement for military service. And that

15 therefore to compensate veterans for diseases

16 whose sole connection to service is a veteran’s

17 own tobacco use should not rest with the Gov18 ernment.’’.

19 (2) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of

20 the Senate that the function totals and assumptions

21 underlying this resolution assume the following:

22 (A) The support of the President’s pro23 posal to not allow post-service smoking related

24 illnesses to be eligible for VA.
35

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (B) The study and report required by sub2 paragraph (C) will be completed.

3 (C) The Secretary of the Department of

4 Veterans Affairs, the Office of Management and

5 Budget, and the General Accounting Office are

6 jointly required to—

7 (i) jointly study (referred to in this

8 section as the ‘‘study’’) the VA General

9 Counsel’s determination and the resulting

10 actions to change the compensation rules

11 to include disability and death benefits for

12 conditions related to the use of tobacco

13 products during service; and

14 (ii) deliver an opinion as to whether

15 illnesses resulting from post-service smok16 ing should be considered as a compensable

17 disability.

18 (D) The study should include—

19 (i) the estimated numbers of those fil20 ing such claims, the cost resulting from

21 such benefits, the time necessary to review

22 such claims, and how such a number of

23 claims will affect the VA’s ability to review

24 its current claim load;
36

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (ii) an examination of how the pro2 posed change corresponds to prior VA pol3 icy relating to post-service actions taken by

4 an individual; and

5 (iii) what Federal benefits, both VA

6 and non-VA, former service members hav7 ing smoking-related illnesses are eligible to

8 receive.

9 (E) The study shall be completed no later

10 than July 1, 1999.

11 (F) The Department of Veterans Affairs

12 and the Office of Management and Budget shall

13 report their finding to the Majority and Minor14 ity Leaders of the Senate and the chairmen and

15 ranking minority members of the Senate Budg16 et and Veterans’ Affairs Committees.

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

18 If the Supreme Court rules that the Line Item Veto

19 Act is unconstitutional, the Chairman of the Committee

20 on the Budget may make appropriate adjustments to the

21 allocations and aggregates in this resolution to reflect the

22 effects of the President’s cancellations becoming null and

23 void.
37

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 206. EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION

2 TRUST FUND.

3 (a) DISCRETIONARY LIMITS.—In the Senate, in this

4 section and for the purposes of allocations made for the

5 discretionary category pursuant to section 302(a) of the

6 Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the term ‘‘discre7 tionary spending limit’’ means—

8 (1) with respect to fiscal year 1999—

9 (A) for the defense category:

10 $271,570,000,000 in new budget authority and

11 $266,635,000,000 in outlays;

12 (B) for the nondefense category:

13 $255,450,000,000 in new budget authority and

14 $289,547,000,000 in outlays; and

15 (C) for the violent crime reduction cat16 egory: $5,800,000,000 in new budget authority

17 and $4,953,000,000 in outlays;

18 (2) with respect to fiscal year 2000—

19 (A) for the discretionary category:

20 $532,693,000,000 in new budget authority and

21 $558,711,000,000 in outlays; and

22 (B) for the violent crime reduction cat23 egory: $4,500,000,000 in new budget authority

24 and $5,554,000,000 in outlays;

25 (3) with respect to fiscal year 2001—
38

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (A) for the discretionary category:

2 $537,632,000,000 in new budget authority and

3 $558,415,000,000 in outlays; and

4 (B) for the violent crime reduction cat5 egory: $4,400,000,000 in new budget authority

6 and $5,981,000,000 in outlays; and

7 (4) with respect to fiscal year 2002—

8 (A) for the discretionary category:

9 $546,574,000,000 in new budget authority and

10 $556,269,000,000 in outlays; and

11 (B) for the violent crime reduction cat12 egory: $4,500,000,000 in new budget authority

13 and $4,530,000,000 in outlays;

14 as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b) of

15 section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Defi16 cit Control Act of 1985 and section 314 of the Congres17 sional Budget Act.

18 (b) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para20 graph (2), it shall not be in order in the Senate to

21 consider—

22 (A) a revision of this resolution or any con23 current resolution on the budget for fiscal years

24 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment,

25 motion, or conference report on such a resolu-
39

SCON 86 ES1S

1 tion) that provides discretionary spending in ex2 cess of the discretionary spending limit or limits

3 for such fiscal year; or

4 (B) any bill or resolution (or amendment,

5 motion, or conference report on such bill or res6 olution) for fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001, or

7 2002 that would cause any of the limits in this

8 section (or suballocations of the discretionary

9 limits made pursuant to section 302(b) of the

10 Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to be ex11 ceeded.

12 (2) EXCEPTION.—This section shall not apply if

13 a declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or

14 if a joint resolution pursuant to section 258 of the

15 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

16 Act of 1985 has been enacted.

17 (c) WAIVER.—This section may be waived or sus18 pended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three19 fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

20 (d) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from the deci21 sions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section

22 shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between,

23 and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the

24 concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case

25 may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members
40

SCON 86 ES1S

1 of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required

2 in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the

3 Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

4 (e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For pur5 poses of this section, the levels of new budget authority,

6 outlays, new entitlement authority, revenues, and deficits

7 for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of esti8 mates made by the Committee on the Budget of the Sen9 ate.

10 SEC. 207. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

11 Congress adopts the provisions of this title—

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

13 the Senate and the House of Representatives, re14 spectively, and as such they shall be considered as

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

16 to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall

17 supersede other rules only to the extent that they

18 are inconsistent therewith; and

19 (2) with full recognition of the constitutional

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

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

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

23 of any other rule of that House.
41

SCON 86 ES1S

1 TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS

2 AND THE SENATE

3 SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PASSAGE OF

4 THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE’S IRS RE5 STRUCTURING BILL.

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

7 (1) the House of Representatives passed H.R.

8 2676 on November 5, 1997;

9 (2) the Finance Committee of the Senate has

10 held several days of hearings this year on Internal

11 Revenue Service restructuring proposals;

12 (3) the hearings demonstrated many areas in

13 which the House-passed bill could be improved;

14 (4) on March 31, 1998, the Senate Finance

15 Committee voted 20–0 to report an Internal Reve16 nue Service restructuring package that contains

17 more oversight over the Internal Revenue Service,

18 more accountability for employees, and a new arse19 nal of taxpayer protections; and

20 (5) the Senate Finance package includes the

21 following items which were not included in the

22 House bill—

23 (A) removal of the statutory impediments

24 to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s ef-
42

SCON 86 ES1S

1 forts to reorganize the agency to create a more

2 streamlined, taxpayer-friendly organization,

3 (B) the providing of real oversight author4 ity for the Internal Revenue Service Oversight

5 Board to help prevent taxpayer abuse,

6 (C) the creation of a new Treasury Inspec7 tor General for Tax Administration to ensure

8 independence and accountability,

9 (D) real, meaningful relief for innocent

10 spouses,

11 (E) provisions which abate penalties and

12 interest after 1 year so that the Internal Reve13 nue Service does not profit from its own delay,

14 (F) provisions which ensure due process of

15 law to taxpayers by granting them a right to a

16 hearing before the Internal Revenue Service can

17 pursue a lien, levy, or seizure,

18 (G) provisions which forbid the Internal

19 Revenue Service from coercing taxpayers to ex20 tend the 10-year statute of limitations for col21 lection,

22 (H) provisions which require the Internal

23 Revenue Service to terminate employees who

24 abuse taxpayers or other Internal Revenue

25 Service employees,
43

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (I) provisions which make the Taxpayer

2 Advocate more independent, and

3 (J) provisions enabling the Commissioner

4 of Internal Revenue to manage employees more

5 effectively.

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

7 Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional to8 tals in this budget resolution assume that the Senate shall,

9 as expeditiously as possible, consider and pass an Internal

10 Revenue Service restructuring bill which provides the most

11 taxpayer protections, the greatest degree of Internal Reve12 nue Service employee accountability, and enhanced over13 sight.

14 SEC. 302. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE SUNSET

15 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

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

17 Federal tax system is one that—

18 (1) applies a low tax rate, through easily under19 stood laws, to all Americans;

20 (2) provides tax relief for working Americans;

21 (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces

22 tax collection abuses;

23 (4) eliminates the bias against savings and in24 vestment;

25 (5) promotes economic growth and job creation;
44

SCON 86 ES1S

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

2 (7) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections

3 process to replace the Internal Revenue Service.

4 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con5 gress that the provisions of this resolution assume that

6 all taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of

7 1986 shall sunset for any taxable year beginning after De8 cember 31, 2001 (or in the case of any tax not imposed

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

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

11 Federal tax system will be enacted that is both simple and

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

13 those resources for the Federal Government that are need14 ed to meet its responsibilities to the American people.

15 SEC. 303. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE TAX TREATMENT

16 OF HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST AND CHARI17 TABLE GIVING.

18 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

19 (1) current Federal income tax laws embrace a

20 number of fundamental tax policies including long21 standing encouragement for home ownership and

22 charitable giving, expanded health and retirement

23 benefits;

24 (2) the mortgage interest deduction is among

25 the most important incentives in the income tax code
45

SCON 86 ES1S

1 and promotes the American Dream of home owner2 ship—the single largest investment for most fami3 lies, and preserving it is critical for the more than

4 20,000,000 families claiming it now and for millions

5 more in the future;

6 (3) favorable tax treatment to encourage gifts

7 to charities is a longstanding principle that helps

8 charities raise funds needed to provide services to

9 poor families and others when government is simply

10 unable or unwilling to do so, and maintaining this

11 tax incentive will help charities raise money to meet

12 the challenges of their charitable missions in the

13 decades ahead;

14 (4) legislation has been proposed to repeal the

15 entire income tax code at the end of the year 2001

16 without providing a specific replacement; and

17 (5) sunsetting the entire income tax code with18 out describing a replacement threatens our Nation’s

19 future economic growth and unwisely eliminates ex20 isting tax incentives that are crucial for taxpayers

21 who are often making the most important financial

22 decisions of their lives.

23 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con24 gress that the levels in this resolution assume that Con25 gress supports the continued tax deductibility of home
46

SCON 86 ES1S

1 mortgage interest and charitable contributions and that

2 a sunset of the tax code that does not provide a replace3 ment tax system that preserves this deductibility could

4 damage the American dream of home ownership and could

5 threaten the viability of nonprofit institutions.

6 SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRESERVATION OF SO7 CIAL SECURITY FOR THE FUTURE.

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

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

10 important income security programs;

11 (2) the preservation of Social Security both for

12 those now retired and for future generations of

13 working Americans is a vital national priority;

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

15 Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust

16 Funds have reported to Congress that—

17 (A) the retirement of the baby boom gen18 eration will cause Social Security expenditures

19 to accelerate rapidly beginning around 2010;

20 (B) Social Security expenditures will ex21 ceed Social Security revenues after 2012 and

22 the trust funds will be depleted of reserves in

23 2029; and

24 (C) after 2029, tax revenues will be suffi25 cient to cover only three-fourths of the benefits
47

SCON 86 ES1S

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

2 the 75 year projection period, the annual deficit

3 in the trust funds will reach 2.1 percent of the

4 GDP;

5 (4) Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal

6 Reserve Board, has testified before Congress that

7 Social Security’s unfunded liability stands at around

8 $3,000,000,000,000 and advised Congress to move

9 expeditiously to reform the program so that current

10 workers will have sufficient time to adjust to any

11 changes in the program;

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

13 spending programs in the President’s budget under14 mines Social Security by diverting resources from

15 budget surpluses to a bigger government and more

16 spending; and

17 (6) the Medicare Hospital Insurance program is

18 projected to become insolvent in 2010 and a study

19 by the National Center on Addiction and Substance

20 Abuse at Columbia University estimated that 14

21 percent of Medicare spending in 1995 was for to22 bacco-related illnesses.

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

24 Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume

25 that—
48

SCON 86 ES1S

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. 305. 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.
49

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 306. 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. 307. 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
50

SCON 86 ES1S

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. 308. 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.
51

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 309. 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. 310. 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.
52

SCON 86 ES1S

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.
53

SCON 86 ES1S

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.
54

SCON 86 ES1S

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. 311. 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
55

SCON 86 ES1S

1 the Senate Finance Committee this year within the budget

2 as established by this Committee.

3 SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG-TERM CARE.

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

5 (1) our Nation is not financially prepared to

6 meet the long-term care needs of its rapidly aging

7 population and that long-term care needs threaten

8 the financial security of American families; and

9 (2) many people are unaware that most long10 term care costs are not covered by Medicare and

11 that Medicaid covers long-term care only after the

12 person’s assets have been exhausted.

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

14 Senate that—

15 (1) this concurrent resolution on the budget as16 sumes that the National Bipartisan Commission on

17 the Future of Medicare should, as part of its delib18 erations, describe long-term care needs and make all

19 appropriate recommendations including private sec20 tor options that reflect the need for a continuum of

21 care that spans from acute to long-term care. This

22 is not a specific recommendation that any new pro23 gram be added to Medicare;

24 (2) the Federal Government should take all ap25 propriate steps to inform the public about the finan-
56

SCON 86 ES1S

1 cial risks posed by long-term care costs and about

2 the need for families to plan for their long-term care

3 needs;

4 (3) the Federal Government should take all ap5 propriate steps to inform the public that Medicare

6 does not cover most long-term care costs and that

7 Medicaid covers long-term care costs only when the

8 beneficiary has exhausted his or her assets;

9 (4) the appropriate committees of the Senate,

10 together with the Department of Health and Human

11 Services and other appropriate Executive Branch

12 agencies, should develop specific ideas for encourag13 ing Americans to plan for their own long-term care

14 needs; and

15 (5) the upcoming National Summit on Retire16 ment Income Savings should ensure that planning

17 for long-term care is an integral part of any discus18 sion of retirement security.

19 SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE RE20 SEARCH AND OTHER FUNDING.

21 It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions

22 underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume

23 the following:

24 (1) To the extent that funding is made avail25 able through grants or other Federal expenditures to
57

SCON 86 ES1S

1 reduce emissions of carbon dioxide or other green2 house gases or to increase sequestration of carbon to

3 offset such emissions, such funding shall be made

4 available through competitive, merit-based awards

5 designed to select cost-effective methods for reduc6 ing, sequestering, or mitigating such emissions. Such

7 awards shall consider all technologies, methods, and

8 research for reducing, sequestering, or mitigating

9 emissions, including sustainable agricultural prac10 tices and forest management and conservation strat11 egies. Funding criteria shall be comprehensive in

12 scope, not limited to specific technologies or indus13 tries, awarded on a nondiscriminatory basis, and

14 target cost-effectiveness in reducing, sequestering, or

15 mitigating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

16 gases through natural resource management pro17 grams or products. In considering the cost-effective18 ness of various reduction, sequestration, or mitiga19 tion technologies, other environmental benefits

20 should be considered.

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

22 incentives are created to stimulate the adoption of

23 technologies or practices that reduce, sequester, or

24 mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide and other

25 greenhouse gases (‘‘emissions tax incentives’’), such
58

SCON 86 ES1S

1 emission tax incentives shall also be available to any

2 person that employs an alternative technology or

3 practice that reduces, sequesters, or mitigates emis4 sions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases as

5 effectively as those technologies or practices for

6 which a tax credit or other incentive is provided.

7 Only payments for technologies or in support of

8 practices not legally required when payment is made

9 shall qualify for tax incentives.

10 SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING

11 FOR THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT

12 BLOCK GRANT.

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

14 (1) 54 percent of women in the labor force have

15 children under 13 and are either single parents or

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

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

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

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

20 percent of women with children younger than 3 were

21 in the labor force;

22 (3) a 1997 General Accounting Office study

23 found that the increased work participation require24 ments of the welfare reform law will cause the need

25 for child care to exceed the known supply;
59

SCON 86 ES1S

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
60

SCON 86 ES1S

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. 315. 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-
61

SCON 86 ES1S

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
62

SCON 86 ES1S

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
63

SCON 86 ES1S

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. 316. 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;
64

SCON 86 ES1S

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-
65

SCON 86 ES1S

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. 317. 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.
66

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 318. 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.

23 SEC. 319. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

24 (a) Congress finds that—

25 (1) studies have found that quality child care,

26 particularly for infants and young children, requires
67

SCON 86 ES1S

1 a sensitive, interactive, loving, and consistent care2 giver;

3 (2) as most parents meet and exceed the cri4 teria described in paragraph (1), circumstances al5 lowing, parental care is the best form of child care;

6 (3) a recent National Institute for Child Health

7 and Development study found that the greatest fac8 tor in the development of a young child is ‘‘what is

9 happening at home and in families’’;

10 (4) as a child’s interaction with his or her par11 ents has the most significant impact on the develop12 ment of the child, any Federal child care policy

13 should enable and encourage parents to spend more

14 time with their children;

(5) nearly 1 15 ⁄2 of preschool children have athome mothers and only 1 16 ⁄3 of preschool children have

17 mothers who are employed full time;

18 (6) a large number of low- and middle-income

19 families sacrifice a second full-time income so that

20 a mother may be at home with her child;

21 (7) the average income of 2-parent families with

22 a single income is $20,000 less than the average in23 come of 2-parent families with 2 incomes;

24 (8) only 30 percent of preschool children are in

25 families with paid child care and the remaining 70
68

SCON 86 ES1S

1 percent of preschool children are in families that do

2 not pay for child care, many of which are low- to

3 middle-income families struggling to provide child

4 care at home;

5 (9) child care proposals should not provide fi6 nancial assistance solely to the 30 percent of fami7 lies that pay for child care and should not discrimi8 nate against families in which children are cared for

9 by an at-home parent; and

10 (10) any congressional proposal that increases

11 child care funding should provide financial relief to

12 families that sacrifice an entire income in order that

13 a mother or father may be at home for a young

14 child.

15 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con16 gress that the functional totals in this concurrent resolu17 tion on the budget assume that—

18 (1) many families in the United States make

19 enormous sacrifices to forego a second income in

20 order to have a parent care for a child at home;

21 (2) there should be no bias against at-home

22 parents;

23 (3) parents choose many different forms of

24 child care to meet the needs of their families, such

25 as child care provided by an at-home parent, grand-
69

SCON 86 ES1S

1 parent, aunt, uncle, neighbor, nanny, preschool, or

2 child care center;

3 (4) any quality child care proposal should in4 clude, as a key component, financial relief for those

5 families where there is an at-home parent; and

6 (5) mothers and fathers who have chosen and

7 continue to choose to be at home should be ap8 plauded for their efforts.

9 SEC. 320. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING IMMUNITY.

10 It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this

11 resolution assume that no immunity will be provided to

12 any tobacco product manufacturer with respect to any

13 health-related civil action commenced by a State or local

14 governmental entity or an individual or class of individuals

15 prior to or after the date of the adoption of this resolution.

16 SEC. 321. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING AGRICULTURAL

17 TRADE PROGRAMS.

18 It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals

19 in this concurrent resolution assume the Secretary of Agri20 culture will use agricultural trade programs established by

21 law to promote, to the maximum extent practicable, the

22 export of United States agricultural commodities and

23 products.
70

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING LONG-TERM

2 ENTITLEMENT REFORMS.

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

4 assumes the following—

5 (1) entitlement spending has risen dramatically

6 over the last thirty-five years;

7 (2) in 1963, mandatory spending (i.e. entitle8 ment spending and interest on the debt) made up 30

9 percent of the budget, this figure rose to 45 percent

10 by 1973, to 56 percent by 1983 and to 61 percent

11 by 1993;

12 (3) mandatory spending is expected to make up

13 68 percent of the Federal budget in 1998;

14 (4) absent changes, that spending is expected to

15 take up over 70 percent of the Federal budget short16 ly after the year 2000 and 74 percent of the budget

17 by the year 2008;

18 (5) if no action is taken, mandatory spending

19 will consume 100 percent of the budget by the year

20 2030;

21 (6) this mandatory spending will continue to

22 crowd out spending for the traditional ‘‘discre23 tionary’’ functions of Government like clean air and

24 water, a strong National defense, parks and recre25 ation, education, our transportation system, law en-
71

SCON 86 ES1S

1 forcement, research and development and other in2 frastructure spending;

3 (7) taking significant steps sooner rather than

4 later to reform entitlement spending will not only

5 boost economic growth in this country, it will also

6 prevent the need for drastic tax and spending deci7 sions in the next century.

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

9 Senate that the levels in this budget resolution assume

10 that Congress and the President should work to enact

11 structural reforms in entitlement spending in 1998 and

12 beyond which sufficiently restrain the growth of manda13 tory spending in order to keep the budget in balance over

14 the long term, extend the solvency of the Social Security

15 and Medicare Trust Funds, avoid crowding out funding

16 for basic Government functions and that every effort

17 should be made to hold mandatory spending to no more

18 than seventy percent of the budget.

19 SEC. 323. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FREEDOM OF

20 HEALTH CARE CHOICE FOR MEDICARE SEN21 IORS.

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

23 (1) Medicare beneficiaries should have the same

24 right to obtain health care from the physician or
72

SCON 86 ES1S

1 provider of their choice as do Members of Congress

2 and virtually all other Americans.

3 (2) Most seniors are denied this right by cur4 rent restrictions on their health care choices.

5 (3) Affording seniors this option would create

6 greater health-care choices and result in fewer

7 claims being paid out of the near-bankrupt Medicare

8 trust funds.

9 (4) Legislation to uphold this right of health

10 care choice for seniors must protect beneficiaries and

11 Medicare from fraud and abuse. Such legislation

12 must include provisions that—

13 (A) require that such contracts providing

14 this right be in writing, be signed by the Medi15 care beneficiary, and provide that no claim be

16 submitted to the Health Care Financing Ad17 ministration;

18 (B) preclude such contracts when the bene19 ficiary is experiencing a medical emergency;

20 (C) allow for the Medicare beneficiary to

21 modify or terminate the contract prospectively

22 at any time and to return to Medicare; and

23 (D) are subject to stringent fraud and

24 abuse law, including the Medicare anti-fraud
73

SCON 86 ES1S

1 provisions in the Health Insurance Portability

2 and Accountability Act of 1996.

3 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con4 gress that seniors have the right to see the physician or

5 health care provider of their choice, and not be limited

6 in such right by the imposition of unreasonable conditions

7 on providers who are willing to treat seniors on a private

8 basis, and that the assumptions underlying the functional

9 totals in this resolution assume that legislation will be en10 acted to ensure this right.

11 SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REPAIR AND

12 CONSTRUCTION NEEDS OF INDIAN SCHOOLS.

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

14 (1) many of our Nation’s tribal schools are in

15 a state of serious disrepair. The Bureau of Indian

16 Affairs (BIA) operates 187 school facilities nation17 wide. Enrollment in these schools, which presently

18 numbers 47,214 students, has been growing rapidly.

19 A recent General Accounting Office report indicates

20 that the repair backlog in these schools totals

21 $754,000,000, and that the BIA schools are in gen22 erally worse condition than all schools nationally;

23 (2) approximately 60 of these schools are in

24 need of complete replacement or serious renovation.

25 Many of the renovations include basic structural re-
74

SCON 86 ES1S

1 pair for the safety of children, new heating compo2 nents to keep students warm, and roofing replace3 ment to keep the snow and rain out of the class4 room. In addition to failing to provide adequate

5 learning environments for Indian children, these re6 pair and replacement needs pose a serious liability

7 issue for the Federal Government;

8 (3) sixty-three percent of the BIA schools are

9 over 30 years old, and 26 percent are over 50 years

10 old. Approximately 40 percent of all students in BIA

11 schools are in portable classrooms. Originally in12 tended as temporary facilities while tribes awaited

13 new construction funds, these ‘‘portables’’ have a

14 maximum 10 year life-span. Because of the con15 struction backlog, children have been shuffling be16 tween classrooms in the harsh climates of the North17 ern plains and Western States for 10 to 15 years;

18 (4) annual appropriations for BIA education fa19 cilities replacement and repair combined have aver20 aged $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 annually, meeting

21 only 4 percent of total need. At the present rate, one

22 deteriorating BIA school can be replaced each year,

23 with estimates of completion of nine schools in the

24 next seven years. Since the new construction and re25 pair backlog is so great and growing, the current
75

SCON 86 ES1S

1 focus at BIA construction must remain on emer2 gency and safety needs only, without prioritizing

3 program needs such as increasing enrollment or

4 technology in the classroom; and

5 (5) unlike most schools, the BIA schools are a

6 responsibility of the Federal Government. Unfortu7 nately, the failure of the Federal Government to live

8 up to this responsibility has come at the expense of

9 quality education for some of this Nation’s poorest

10 children with the fewest existing opportunities to

11 better themselves.

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

13 Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional to14 tals in this budget resolution assume that the repair and

15 construction backlog affecting Bureau of Indian Affairs

16 school facilities should be eliminated over a period of no

17 more than 5 years beginning with fiscal year 1999, and

18 that the President should submit to Congress a plan for

19 the orderly elimination of this backlog.

20 SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

21 PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS AND

22 THE BUDGET SURPLUS.

23 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

24 findings:
76

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (1) The Social Security program is the founda2 tion of retirement income for most Americans, and

3 solving the financial problems of the Social Security

4 program is a vital national priority and essential for

5 the retirement security of today’s working Ameri6 cans and their families.

7 (2) There is a growing bipartisan consensus

8 that personal retirement accounts should be an im9 portant feature of Social Security reform.

10 (3) Personal retirement accounts can provide a

11 substantial retirement nest egg and real personal

12 wealth. For an individual 28 years old on the date

13 of the adoption of this resolution, earning an aver14 age wage, and retiring at age 65 in 2035, just 1 per15 cent of that individual’s wages deposited each year

16 in a personal retirement account and invested in se17 curities consisting of the Standard & Poors 500

18 would grow to $132,000, and be worth approxi19 mately 20 percent of the benefits that would be pro20 vided to the individual under the current provisions

21 of the Social Security program.

22 (4) Personal retirement accounts would give the

23 majority of Americans who do not own any invest24 ment assets a new stake in the economic growth of

25 America.
77

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (5) Personal retirement accounts would dem2 onstrate the value of savings and the magic of com3 pound interest to all Americans. Today, Americans

4 save less than people in almost every other country.

5 (6) Personal retirement accounts would help

6 Americans to better prepare for retirement gen7 erally. According to the Congressional Research

8 Service, 60 percent of Americans are not actively

9 participating in a retirement plan other than Social

10 Security, although Social Security was never in11 tended to be the sole source of retirement income.

12 (7) Personal retirement accounts would allow

13 partial prefunding of retirement benefits, thereby

14 providing for Social Security’s future financial sta15 bility.

16 (8) The Federal budget will register a surplus

17 of $671,000,000,000 over the next 10 years, offering

18 a unique opportunity to begin a permanent solution

19 to Social Security’s financing.

20 (9) Using the Federal budget surplus to fund

21 personal retirement accounts would be an important

22 first step in comprehensive Social Security reform

23 and ensuring the delivery of promised retirement

24 benefits.
78

SCON 86 ES1S

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

2 Senate that this resolution assumes that the Committee

3 on Finance shall consider and report a legislative proposal

4 this year that would dedicate the Federal budget surplus

5 to the establishment of a program of personal retirement

6 accounts for working Americans and reduce the unfunded

7 liabilities of the Social Security program.

8 SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ELIMI9 NATION OF THE MARRIAGE PENALTY.

10 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that:

11 (1) Marriage is the foundation of the American

12 society and the key institution preserving our values.

13 (2) The tax code should not penalize those who

14 choose to marry.

15 (3) However, the Congressional Budget Office

16 found that 42 percent of married couples face a

17 marriage penalty under the current tax system.

18 (4) The Congressional Budget Office found that

19 the average penalty amounts to $1,380 a year.

20 (5) This penalty is one of the factors behind the

21 decline of marriage.

22 (6) In 1970, just 0.5 percent of the couples in

23 the United States were unmarried. By 1996, this

24 percentage had risen to 7.2 percent.
79

SCON 86 ES1S

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

2 Senate that the provisions in this budget resolution as3 sume that the Congress shall begin to phase out the mar4 riage penalty this year.

5 SEC. 327. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING

6 AFFORDABLE, HIGH-QUALITY HEALTH CARE

7 FOR SENIORS.

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

9 (1) Seniors deserve affordable, high quality

10 health care.

11 (2) The Medicare program under title XVIII of

12 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) has

13 made health care affordable for millions of seniors.

14 (3) Beneficiaries under the Medicare program

15 deserve to know that such program will cover the

16 benefits that they are currently entitled to.

17 (4) Beneficiaries under the Medicare program

18 can pay out-of-pocket for health care services when19 ever they—

20 (A) do not want a claim for reimbursement

21 for such services submitted to such program; or

22 (B) want or need to obtain health care

23 services that such program does not cover.
80

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (5) Beneficiaries under the Medicare program

2 can use doctors who do not receive any reimburse3 ment under such program.

4 (6) Close to 75 percent of seniors have annual

5 incomes below $25,000, including 4 percent who

6 have annual incomes below $5,000, making any ad7 ditional out-of-pocket costs for health care services

8 extremely burdensome.

9 (7) Very few beneficiaries under the Medicare

10 program report having difficulty obtaining access to

11 a physician who accepts reimbursement under such

12 program.

13 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con14 gress that the assumptions underlying the functional to15 tals in this resolution assume that seniors have the right

16 to affordable, high-quality health care, that they have the

17 right to choose their physicians, and that no change should

18 be made to the Medicare program that could—

19 (1) impose unreasonable and unpredictable out20 of-pocket costs for seniors or erode the benefits that

21 the 38,000,000 beneficiaries under the Medicare

22 program are entitled to;

23 (2) compromise the efforts of the Secretary of

24 Health and Human Services to screen inappropriate
81

SCON 86 ES1S

1 or fraudulent claims for reimbursement under such

2 program; and

3 (3) allow unscrupulous providers under such

4 program to bill twice for the same services.

5 SEC. 328. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PERMANENT

6 EXTENSION OF INCOME AVERAGING FOR

7 FARMERS.

8 It is the sense of Congress that the provisions of this

9 resolution assume that if the revenue levels are reduced

10 pursuant to section 201 of this resolution for tax legisla11 tion, such amount as is necessary shall be used to perma12 nently extend income averaging for farmers for purposes

13 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

14 SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE TO MAINTAIN FULL FUND15 ING FOR THE SECTION 202 ELDERLY HOUS16 ING PROGRAM.

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

18 (1) The Section 202 Elderly Housing program

19 is the most important housing program for elderly,

20 low-income Americans, providing both affordable

21 low-income housing and supportive services designed

22 to meet the special needs of the elderly.

23 (2) Since 1959, the Section 202 Elderly Hous24 ing program has funded some 5,400 elderly housing

25 projects with over 330,000 housing units, with the
82

SCON 86 ES1S

1 current average tenant in Section 202 housing being

2 a frail, older woman in her seventies, living alone

3 with an income of less than $10,000 per year.

4 (3) The combination of affordable housing and

5 supportive services under the Section 202 Elderly

6 Housing program is critical to promoting independ7 ent living, self-sufficiency, and dignity for the elderly

8 while delaying more costly institutional care.

9 (4) There are over 1.4 million elderly Ameri10 cans currently identified as having ‘‘worst case hous11 ing needs’’ and in need of affordable housing.

12 (5) There are 33 million Americans aged 65

13 and over, some 13 percent of all Americans. The

14 number of elderly Americans is anticipated to grow

15 to over 69 million by the year 2030, which would be

16 some 20 percent of all Americans, and continue to

17 increase to almost 80 million by 2050.

18 (6) The President’s Budget Request for fiscal

19 year 1999 proposes reducing funding for the Section

20 202 Elderly Housing program from the fiscal year

21 1998 level of $645,000,000 to $109,000,000 in fis22 cal year 1999. This represents a reduction of over

23 83 percent in funding, which will result in reducing

24 the construction of Section 202 housing units from
83

SCON 86 ES1S

1 some 6,000 units in fiscal year 1998 to only 1,500

2 units in fiscal year 1999.

3 (7) The full funding of the Section 202 Elderly

4 Housing program as an independent Federal hous5 ing program is an investment in our elderly citizens

6 as well as our Nation.

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

8 Senate that the levels in this resolution assume that the

9 Section 202 Elderly Housing program, as provided under

10 section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, shall

11 be funded in fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and

12 2003 at not less than the fiscal year 1998 funding level

13 of $645,000,000.

14 SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OUTLAY ES15 TIMATES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

16 BUDGET.

17 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

18 findings:

19 (1) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created

20 a new era for Federal spending and forced the De21 partment of Defense to plan on limited spending

22 over the five-year period from fiscal year 1998

23 through 2002.

24 (2) The agreements forged under the Balanced

25 Budget Act of 1997 specifically defined the available
84

SCON 86 ES1S

1 amounts of budget authority and outlays, requiring

2 the Department of Defense to properly plan its fu3 ture activities in the new, constrained budget envi4 ronment.

5 (3) The Department of Defense worked with

6 the Office of Management and Budget to develop a

7 fiscal year 1999 budget which complies with the Bal8 anced Budget Act of 1997.

9 (4) Based on Department of Defense program

10 plans and policy changes, the Office of Management

11 and Budget and the Department of Defense made

12 detailed estimates of fiscal year 1999 Department of

13 Defense outlay rates to ensure that the budget sub14 mitted would comply with the Balanced Budget Act

15 of 1997.

16 (5) The Congressional Budget Office outlay es17 timate of the fiscal year 1999 Department of De18 fense budget request exceeds both the outlay limit

19 imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and

20 the Office of Management and Budget’s outlay esti21 mate, a disagreement which would force a total re22 structuring of the Department of Defense’s fiscal

23 year 1999 budget.

24 (6) The restructuring imposed on the Depart25 ment of Defense would have a devastating impact on
85

SCON 86 ES1S

1 readiness, troop morale, military quality of life, and

2 ongoing procurement and development programs.

3 (7) The restructuring of the budget would be

4 driven solely by differing statistical estimates made

5 by capable parties.

6 (8) In a letter currently under review, the Di7 rector of the Office of Management and Budget will

8 identify multiple differences between the Office of

9 Management and Budget’s estimated outlay rates

10 and the Congressional Budget Office’s estimated

11 outlay rates.

12 (9) New information on Department of Defense

13 policy changes and program execution plans now

14 permit the Office of Management and Budget and

15 the Congressional Budget Office to reevaluate their

16 initial projections of fiscal year 1999 outlay rates.

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

18 Senate that the totals underlying this concurrent resolu19 tion on the budget assume that not later than April 22,

20 1998, the Director of the Office of Management and

21 Budget, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the

22 Congressional Budget Office shall complete discussions

23 and develop a common estimate of the projected fiscal year

24 1999 outlay rates for Department of Defense accounts.
86

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OUTLAY ES2 TIMATES FOR THE BUDGETS OF FEDERAL

3 AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE DEPARTMENT

4 OF DEFENSE.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

6 findings:

7 (1) The Federal civilian workforce in non-De8 fense Department agencies shrank by 125,000 em9 ployees, or 10 percent, between 1992 and 1997.

10 (2) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 assumed

11 over $60,000,000,000 in reductions in nondefense

12 discretionary spending over the period 1998–2002.

13 (3) These reductions were agreed to notwith14 standing ever-increasing responsibilities in agencies

15 engaged in fighting crime, combating the drug war,

16 countering terrorist threats, cleaning the environ17 ment, enforcing the law, improving education, con18 ducting health research, conducting energy research

19 and development, enhancing the Nation’s physical

20 infrastructure, and providing veterans programs.

21 (4) All Federal agencies have worked closely

22 with the Office of Management and Budget to bal23 ance much-needed programmatic needs with fiscal

24 prudence and to submit budget requests for fiscal

25 year 1999 that comply with the Balanced Budget

26 Act of 1997.
87

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (5) Reductions in the President’s requests, as

2 estimated by the Office of Management and Budget,

3 to comply with the Congressional Budget Office’s es4 timates could seriously jeopardize priority domestic

5 discretionary programs.

6 (6) There is no mechanism through which the

7 Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Man8 agement and Budget identify their differences in

9 outlay rates for nondefense agencies.

10 (7) Such consultation would lead to greater un11 derstanding between the two agencies and poten12 tially fewer and/or smaller differences in the future.

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

14 Senate that the totals underlying this concurrent resolu15 tion on the budget assume that not later than April 22,

16 1998, the Director of the Office of Management and

17 Budget and the Director of the Congressional Budget Of18 fice, in consultation with the Secretaries of the affected

19 nondefense agencies, shall complete discussions and de20 velop a common estimate of the projected fiscal year 1999

21 outlay rates for accounts in nondefense agencies.
88

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 332. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AN EVALUA2 TION OF THE OUTCOME OF WELFARE RE3 FORM.

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

5 in this resolution assume that—

6 (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv7 ices will, as part of the annual report to Congress

8 under section 411 of the Social Security Act (42

9 U.S.C. 611), include data regarding the rate of em10 ployment, job retention, and earnings characteristics

11 of former recipients of assistance under the State

12 programs funded under part A of title IV of the So13 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) for each

14 such State program; and

15 (2) for purposes of the annual report for fiscal

16 year 1997, the information described in paragraph

17 (1) will be transmitted to Congress not later than

18 September 1, 1998.

19 SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESTAB20 LISHMENT OF A NATIONAL BACKGROUND

21 CHECK SYSTEM FOR LONG-TERM CARE

22 WORKERS.

23 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

24 findings:

25 (1) The impending retirement of the baby boom

26 generation will greatly increase the demand and
89

SCON 86 ES1S

1 need for quality long-term care and it is incumbent

2 on Congress and the President to ensure that Medi3 care and Medicaid patients are protected from

4 abuse, neglect, and mistreatment.

5 (2) Although the majority of long-term care fa6 cilities do an excellent job in caring for elderly and

7 disabled patients, incidents of abuse and neglect and

8 mistreatment do occur at an unacceptable rate and

9 are not limited to nursing homes alone.

10 (3) Current Federal and State safeguards are

11 inadequate because there is little or no information

12 sharing between States about known abusers and no

13 common State procedures for tracking abusers from

14 State to State and facility to facility.

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

16 Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional to17 tals in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume

18 that a national registry of abusive long-term care workers

19 should be established by building upon existing infrastruc20 tures at the Federal and State levels that would enable

21 long-term care providers who participate in the Medicare

22 and Medicaid programs (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et

23 seq.) to conduct background checks on prospective employ24 ees.
90

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EXPANDING MEDI2 CARE BENEFITS.

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

4 (1) In the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement,

5 changes were made to Medicare that extended the

6 solvency of the Trust Fund for 10 years.

7 (2) The Medicare Commission, also established

8 in the Balanced Budget Agreement, has just started

9 the task of examining the Medicare program in an

10 effort to make sound policy recommendations to

11 Congress and the Administration about what needs

12 to be done to ensure that Medicare is financially pre13 pared to handle the added burden when the baby

14 boomers begin retiring.

15 (3) The problems facing Medicare are not about

16 more revenues. The program needs to do more to

17 improve the health care status of retirees and give

18 them more choices and better information to make

19 wise consumer decisions when purchasing health

20 care services.

21 (4) Improving the health care status of senior

22 citizens would ensure additional savings for Medi23 care. Helping seniors stay healthier should be a pri24 ority of any legislation aimed at protecting Medicare.

25 (5) In order to keep seniors healthier, Medicare

26 has to become more prevention based. Currently,
91

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Medicare offers prevention benefits, and the Bal2 anced Budget Act of 1997 made a substantial in3 vestment in prevention benefits, providing

4 $8,500,000,000 over 10 years.

5 (6) Preventing illnesses or long hospital stays

6 or repeated hospital stays will save Medicare dollars.

7 (7) Medicare cannot be saved without structural

8 changes and reforms.

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

10 Senate that the functional totals underlying this resolution

11 assume that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 directed

12 the National Bipartisan Commission on the future of

13 Medicare to examine Medicare’s benefit structure, includ14 ing prevention benefits, and make recommendations to the

15 Congress on such benefits in the context of an overall plan

16 to extend the solvency of the program.

17 SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON BATTLEFIELD PRES18 ERVATION.

19 It is the sense of the Senate that the budget levels

20 in this resolution assume that—

21 (1) preserving Revolutionary War, War of

22 1812, and Civil War battlefields is an integral part

23 of preserving our Nation’s history;

24 (2) the Secretary of the Interior should give

25 special priority to the preservation of Revolutionary
92

SCON 86 ES1S

1 War and War of 1812 battlefields, by making funds

2 available for the conduct of the Revolutionary War

3 and War of 1812 Historic Preservation Study as au4 thorized by section 603 of Public Law 104–333 (16

5 U.S.C. 1a–5 note); and

6 (3) the Secretary of the Interior should give

7 special priority to the preservation of Revolutionary

8 War, War of 1812, and Civil War battlefields by al9 locating funds in the Land and Water Conservation

10 Fund for the purchase of battlefield sites the integ11 rity of which is threatened by urban or suburban de12 velopment.

13 SEC. 336. A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SENATE’S SUP14 PORT FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW

15 ENFORCEMENT.

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

17 (1) our Federal, State and local law enforce18 ment officers provide essential services that preserve

19 and protect our freedom and safety, and with the

20 support of Federal assistance, State and local law

21 enforcement officers have succeeded in reducing the

22 national scourge of violent crime, illustrated by a

23 murder rate in 1996 which is projected to be the

24 lowest since 1971 and a violent crime total in 1996

25 which is the lowest since 1990;
93

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (2) through a comprehensive effort to attack vi2 olence against women mounted by State and local

3 law enforcement, and dedicated volunteers and pro4 fessionals who provide victim services, shelter, coun5 seling and advocacy to battered women and their

6 children, important strides have been made against

7 the national scourge of violence against women, il8 lustrated by the decline in the murder rate for wives,

9 ex-wives and girlfriends at the hands of their ‘‘inti10 mates’’ fell to a 19-year low in 1995;

11 (3) recent gains by Federal, State and local law

12 enforcement in the fight against violent crime and

13 violence against women are fragile, and continued fi14 nancial commitment from the Federal Government

15 for funding and financial assistance is required to

16 sustain and build upon these gains; and

17 (4) the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund as

18 adopted by the Violent Crime Control and Law En19 forcement Act of 1994 funds the Violent Crime Con20 trol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Violence

21 Against Women Act of 1994, and the Antiterrorism

22 and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 without

23 adding to the Federal budget deficit.

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

25 Senate that the provisions and the functional totals under-
94

SCON 86 ES1S

1 lying this resolution assume the Federal Government’s

2 commitment to fund Federal law enforcement programs

3 and programs to assist State and local efforts to combat

4 violent crime, including violence against women, shall be

5 maintained and funding for the Violent Crime Reduction

6 Trust Fund shall continue to at least fiscal year 2003.

7 SEC. 337. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ANALYSIS OF CIVILIAN

8 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS IN

9 THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

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

11 (1) The National Academy of Sciences, Na12 tional Academy of Engineering, and Institute of

13 Medicine have recommended, in their 1995 report,

14 entitled ‘‘Allocating Federal Funds for Science and

15 Technology’’, that the Federal science and tech16 nology budget ‘‘be presented as a comprehensive

17 whole in the President’s budget and similarly consid18 ered as a whole at the beginning of the congressional

19 budget process before the total Federal budget is

20 disaggregated and sent to the appropriations com21 mittees and subcommittees’’.

22 (2) Civilian Federal agencies are supporting

23 more than $35,000,000,000 of research and develop24 ment in fiscal year 1998, but it is difficult for the

25 Congress and the public to track or understand this
95

SCON 86 ES1S

1 support because it is dispersed among 12 different

2 budget functions.

3 (3) A meaningful examination of the overall

4 Federal budget for science and technology, consist5 ent with the recommendation of the National Acad6 emies, as well as an examination of science and tech7 nology budgets in individual civilian agencies, would

8 be facilitated if the President’s budget request clear9 ly displayed the amounts requested for science and

10 technology programs across all civilian agencies and

11 classified these amounts in Budget Function 250.

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

13 Senate that the congressional budget for the United States

14 for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 should

15 consolidate the spending for all Federal civilian science

16 and technology programs in Budget Function 250, and

17 that the President should accordingly transmit to the Con18 gress a budget request for fiscal year 2000 that classifies

19 these programs, across all Federal civilian departments

20 and agencies, in Budget Function 250.

21 SEC. 338. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CIVILIAN SCIENCE

22 AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS IN THE FED23 ERAL BUDGET.

24 It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions

25 underlying the function totals in this budget resolution as-
96

SCON 86 ES1S

1 sume that expenditures for civilian science and technology

2 programs in the Federal budget will double over the period

3 from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2008.

4 SEC. 339. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG-TERM BUDGET5 ING AND REPAYMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.

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

7 (1) today, there are 34,000,000 Americans over

8 the age of 65, and by the year 2030, that number

9 will grow to nearly 70,000,000;

10 (2) in 1963, mandatory spending represented

11 30 percent of the Federal budget, while discretionary

12 spending made up 70 percent, and by 1998, those

13 proportions have almost completely reversed, in that

14 mandatory spending now accounts for 68 percent of

15 the Federal budget, while discretionary spending

16 represents 32 percent;

17 (3) according to the 1997 Annual Report of the

18 Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Sur19 vivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI)

20 Trust Fund—

21 (A) the difference between the income and

22 benefits for the OASDI program is a deficit of

23 2.23 percent of taxable payroll;
97

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (B) the assets in the Trust Fund are ex2 pected to be depleted under present law in the

3 year 2029;

4 (C) by the time the assets in the Trust

5 Fund are depleted, annual tax revenues will be

6 sufficient to cover only three-fourths of the an7 nual expenditures;

8 (D) intermediate estimates are that

9 OASDI will absorb nearly 17.5 percent of na10 tional payroll by the year 2030; and

11 (E) the cost of the OASDI program is esti12 mated to rise from its current level of 4.7 per13 cent of Gross Domestic Product to 6.7 percent

14 by the end of the 75-year projection period;

15 (4) according to reports by the Congressional

16 Budget Office, the Economic and Budget Outlook:

17 Fiscal Years 1999-2008 (January 1998) and Reduc18 ing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options

19 (March 1997)—

20 (A) the Medicare Part A Trust Fund will

21 be exhausted early in fiscal year 2010;

22 (B) enrollment in Medicare will increase

23 dramatically as the baby boomers reach age 65;

24 (C) between the years 2010 and 2030, en25 rollment in Medicare is projected to grow by 2.4
98

SCON 86 ES1S

1 percent per year, up from the 1.4 percent aver2 age annual growth projected through 2007;

3 (D) by the year 2030, Medicare enrollment

4 will have doubled, to 75,000,000 people; and

5 (E) the increase in Medicare enrollment

6 caused by the aging of the population will be

7 accompanied by a tapering of the growth rate

8 of the working age population, and the number

9 of workers will drop from 3.8 for every Medi10 care beneficiary in 1997 to 2.02 per beneficiary

11 by 2030;

12 (5) the demographic shift that is currently tak13 ing place, and will continue for the next 30 years,

14 will put a tremendous burden on workers as the cost

15 of programs such as Social Security and Medicare

16 are borne by proportionately fewer workers;

17 (6) the current Budget Resolution, which

18 projects revenues and spending only for the next 10

19 years, does not give Congress a clear picture of the

20 budget problems that confront the United States

21 shortly after the turn of the century;

22 (7) currently, 14 percent of the Federal budget

23 is spent on interest payments on the national debt;

24 and
99

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (8) if projected surpluses are used entirely for

2 debt reduction and current tax and spending policies

3 remain unchanged, the share of Federal income

4 needed to pay interest would drop below 5 percent

5 within 12 years, and in 1997, that 10 percentage6 point reduction would have amounted to

7 $158,000,000,000 available for other priorities.

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

9 Senate that the functional totals in this concurrent resolu10 tion assume that future budget resolutions and future

11 budgets submitted by the President should include—

12 (1) an analysis for the period of 30 fiscal years

13 beginning with such fiscal year, of the estimated lev14 els of total budget outlays and total new budget au15 thority, the estimated revenues to be received, the

16 estimated surplus or deficit, if any, for each major

17 Federal entitlement program for each fiscal year in

18 such period; and

19 (2) a specific accounting of payments, if any,

20 made to reduce the public debt, or unfunded liabil21 ities associated with each major Federal entitlement

22 program.
100

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 340. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PRESIDENT’S

2 BUDGET.

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

4 in this resolution assume that the President should sub5 mit, as part of the budget request of the President that

6 is submitted to Congress, a study of the impact of the

7 provisions of the budget on each generation of Americans

8 and its long-term effects on each generation.

9 SEC. 341. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE VALUE

10 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR FU11 TURE RETIREES.

12 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

13 findings:

14 (1) The Social Security system has allowed a

15 generation of Americans to retire with dignity.

16 Today, 13 percent of the population is 65 or older

17 and by 2030, 20 percent of the population will be 65

or older. More than 1 18 ⁄2 of the elderly do not receive

private pensions and more than 1 19 ⁄3 have no income

20 from assets.

21 (2) For 60 percent of all senior citizens, Social

22 Security benefits provide almost 80 percent of their

23 retirement income. For 80 percent of all senior citi24 zens, Social Security benefits provide over 50 per25 cent of their retirement income.
101

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (3) Poverty rates among the elderly are at the

2 lowest level since the United States began to keep

3 poverty statistics, due in large part to the Social Se4 curity system.

5 (4) 78 percent of Americans pay more in pay6 roll taxes than they do in income taxes.

7 (5) According to the 1997 report of the Manag8 ing Trustee for the Social Security trust funds, the

9 accumulated balance in the Federal Old-Age and

10 Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is estimated to fall

11 to zero by 2029, and the estimated payroll tax at

12 that time will be sufficient to cover only 75 percent

13 of the benefits owed to retirees at that time.

14 (6) The average American retiring in the year

15 2015 will pay $250,000 in payroll taxes over the

16 course of a working career.

17 (7) Future generations of Americans must be

18 guaranteed the same value from the Social Security

19 system as past covered recipients.

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

21 Senate that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume

22 that no change in the Social Security system should be

23 made that would reduce the value of the Social Security

24 system for future generations of retirees.
102

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 342. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE LAND AND WATER

2 CONSERVATION FUND.

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

4 in this resolution assume that programs funded from the

5 Land and Water Conservation Fund should be funded in

6 the full amount authorized by law.

7 SEC. 343. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EDUCATION GOALS.

8 It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals

9 underlying this resolution assume that the Federal Gov10 ernment should work hand-in-hand with States, school dis11 tricts, and local leaders—

12 (1) to accomplish the following goals by the

13 year 2005:

14 (A) establish achievement levels and as15 sessments in every grade for the core academic

16 curriculum; measure each regular student’s per17 formance; and prohibit the practice of social

18 promotion of students (promoting students rou19 tinely from one grade to the next without re20 gard to their academic achievement);

21 (B) provide remedial programs for stu22 dents whose achievement levels indicate they

23 should not be promoted to the next grade;

24 (C) create smaller schools to enable stu25 dents to have closer interaction with teachers;
103

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (D) require at least 180 days per year of

2 instruction in core curriculum subjects;

3 (E) recruit new teachers who are ade4 quately trained and credentialed in the subject

5 or subjects they teach and encourage excellent,

6 experienced teachers to remain in the classroom

7 by providing adequate salaries; require all

8 teachers to be credentialed and limit emergency

9 or temporary teaching credentials to a limited

10 period of time; hold teachers and principals ac11 countable to high educational standards; and

12 (F) require all regular students to pass an

13 examination in basic core curriculum subjects in

14 order to receive a high school diploma; and

15 (2) to reaffirm the importance of public school16 ing and commit to guaranteeing excellence and ac17 countability in the public schools of this Nation.

18 SEC. 344. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF THE SENATE.

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

20 (1) while it is important to study the effects of

21 class size on learning and study the need to hire

22 more teachers, each type of study must be carried

23 out in conjunction with an effort to ensure that

24 there will be quality teachers in every classroom;

25 (2) all children deserve well-educated teachers;
104

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (3) there is a teacher quality crisis in the

2 United States;

3 (4) individuals entering a classroom as teachers

4 should have a sound grasp on the subject the indi5 viduals intend to teach, and the individuals should

6 know how to teach;

7 (5) less than 40 percent of the individuals

8 teaching core subjects (consisting of English, mathe9 matics, science, social studies, and foreign lan10 guages) majored or minored in the core subjects;

11 (6) the quality of teachers impacts student

12 achievement;

13 (7) the measure of a good teacher is how much

14 and how well the teacher’s students learn;

15 (8) teachers should have the opportunity to

16 learn new technology and teaching methods through

17 the establishment of teacher training facilities so

18 that teachers can share their new knowledge and ex19 periences with children in the classroom;

20 (9) school officials should have the flexibility

21 the officials need to have teachers in their schools

22 adequately trained to meet strenuous teacher stand23 ards;

24 (10) knowledgeable and eager individuals of

25 sound character and various professional back-
105

SCON 86 ES1S

1 grounds should be encouraged to enter kindergarten

2 through grade 12 classrooms as teachers; and

3 (11) States should have maximum flexibility

4 and incentives to create alternative teacher certifi5 cation and licensure programs in order to recruit

6 well-educated people into the teaching profession.

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

8 Senate that the functional totals in this concurrent resolu9 tion on the budget assume—

10 (1) the enactment of legislation to provide as11 sistance for programs that—

12 (A) focus on teacher training delivered

13 through local partnerships, with private and

14 public partners, to ensure that current and fu15 ture teachers possess necessary teaching skills

16 and knowledge of subject areas; and

17 (B) focus on alternative certification to re18 cruit knowledgeable and eager individuals of

19 sound character to enter kindergarten through

20 grade 12 classrooms as teachers;

21 (2) that the quality of teachers can be strength22 ened by improving the academic knowledge of teach23 ers in the subject areas in which the teachers teach;

24 (3) that institutions of higher education should

25 be held accountable to prepare teachers who are
106

SCON 86 ES1S

1 highly competent in the subject areas in which the

2 teachers teach, including preparing teachers by pro3 viding training in the effective uses of technologies

4 in classrooms; and

5 (4) that there should be recruitment into teach6 ing of high quality individuals, including individuals

7 from other occupations.

8 SEC. 345. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INS CIRCUIT RIDERS

9 IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

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

11 this resolution assume that included in the funding for the

12 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is

13 $2,000,000 for the establishment of INS circuit riders in

14 the former Soviet Union for the purpose of processing ref15 ugees and conducting medical examinations of refugees

16 who will enter the United States under the Refugee Act

17 of 1980.

18 SEC. 346. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING

19 FOR THE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

20 It is the sense of the Senate that the congressional

21 budget for the United States Government as provided for

22 in this resolution should assure that—

23 (1) the contract authority level for the Airport

24 Improvement Program (provided for in part B of

25 subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code) not be
107

SCON 86 ES1S

1 reduced below the current level of $2,347,000,000;

2 and

3 (2) the critical infrastructure development,

4 maintenance, and repair of airports not be jeopard5 ized.

6 SEC. 347. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE ONE HUNDRED

7 FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION SHOULD

8 REAUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR THE FARMLAND

9 PROTECTION PROGRAM.

10 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

11 findings—

12 (1) eighteen States and dozens of localities have

13 spent nearly $1,000,000,000 to protect over 600,000

14 acres of important farmland;

15 (2) the Farmland Protection Program has pro16 vided cost-sharing for 18 States and dozens of local17 ities to protect over 82,000 acres on 230 farms since

18 1996;

19 (3) the Farmland Protection Program has gen20 erated new interest in saving farmland in commu21 nities around the country;

22 (4) the Farmland Protection Program rep23 resents an innovative and voluntary partnership, re24 wards local ingenuity, and supports local priorities;
108

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (5) current funds authorized for the Farmland

2 Protection Program will be exhausted in the next six

3 months;

4 (6) the United States is losing two acres of our

5 best farmland to development every minute of every

6 day;

7 (7) these lands produce three quarters of the

8 fruits and vegetables and over one half of the dairy

9 in the United States.

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

11 Senate that the functional totals contained in this resolu12 tion assume that the One Hundred Fifth Congress, Sec13 ond Session will reauthorize funds for the Farmland Pro14 tection Program.

15 SEC. 348. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE QUAL16 ITY.

17 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

18 findings—

19 (1) out of a total 549 plans under the Federal

20 Employees Health Benefits Program, which includes

21 fee-for-service, point of service, and Health Mainte22 nance Organizations, only 186 were fully accredited;

23 (2) out of a total 549 plans under the Federal

24 Employees Health Benefits Program, which includes
109

SCON 86 ES1S

1 fee-for-service, point of service, and Health Mainte2 nance Organizations, 7 were denied accreditation.

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

4 Senate that the assumptions underlying this resolution

5 provide for the enactment of legislation requiring all

6 health plans participating in the Federal Employees

7 Health Benefits Program to be accredited by a nationally

8 recognized accreditation organization representative of a

9 spectrum of health care interests including purchasers,

10 consumers, providers and health plans.

11 SEC. 349. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING WASTEFUL

12 SPENDING IN DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ACQUI13 SITION PRACTICES.

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

15 (1) according to the Defense Department’s In16 spector General, despite efforts to streamline Gov17 ernment purchases, the military, in some cases, paid

18 more than ‘‘fair value’’ for many items;

19 (2) efficient purchasing policies, in the context

20 of decreasing defense budgets, are more important

21 than ever to ensure Defense Department spending

22 contributes to military readiness.

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

24 Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that

25 the Defense Department should continue efforts to elimi-
110

SCON 86 ES1S

1 nate wasteful spending such that defense spending allo2 cated in the fiscal year 1999 budget, and all subsequent

3 budgets, is spent in the manner most efficient to maintain

4 and promote military readiness for United States Armed

5 Forces around the globe.

6 SEC. 350. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE UNITED

7 STATES RESPONSE TO THE CHANGING NA8 TURE OF TERRORISM.

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

10 (1) the threat of terrorism to American citizens

11 and interests remains high, with Americans suffer12 ing one-third of the total terrorist attacks in the

13 world in 1997;

14 (2) the terrorist threat is changing—while past

15 acts were generally limited to the use of conventional

16 explosives and weapons, terrorists today are exploit17 ing technological advances and increasingly lethal

18 tools and strategies to pursue their agenda;

19 (3) on a worldwide basis, terrorists are focusing

20 on afflicting mass casualties on civilian targets

21 through the acquisition of chemical, biological and

22 nuclear weapons of mass destruction;

23 (4) chemical and biological weapons in the

24 hands of terrorists or rogue nations constitute a

25 threat to the United States;
111

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (5) the multifaceted nature of the terrorist

2 threat encompasses not only foreign terrorists tar3 geting American citizens and interests abroad, but

4 foreign terrorists operating within the United States

5 itself, as well as domestic terrorists;

6 (6) terrorists groups are becoming increasingly

7 multinational, more associated with criminal activity,

8 and less responsive to external influences;

9 (7) terrorists exploit America’s free and open

10 society to illegally enter the country, raise funds, re11 cruit new members, spread propaganda, and plan fu12 ture activities;

13 (8) terrorists are also making use of computer

14 technology to communicate, solicit money and sup15 port, and store information essential to their oper16 ations;

17 (9) State sponsors of terrorism and other for18 eign countries are known to be developing computer

19 intrusion and manipulation capabilities which could

20 pose a threat to essential public and private infor21 mation systems in the United States;

22 (10) the infrastructures deemed critical to the

23 United States are the telecommunications networks,

24 the electric power grid, oil and gas distribution,

25 water distribution facilities, transportation systems,
112

SCON 86 ES1S

1 financial networks, emergency services, and the con2 tinuity of Government services, the disruption of

3 which could result in significant losses to the United

4 States economic well-being, public welfare, or na5 tional security;

6 (11) a national strategy of infrastructure pro7 tection, as required by the Defense Appropriations

8 Act of 1996, and subsequent amendments, has yet

9 to be issued; and

10 (12) we as a Nation remain fundamentally un11 prepared to respond in a coordinated and effective

12 manner to these growing terrorist threats.

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

14 Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume

15 that—

16 (1) the Federal Government must take the lead

17 in establishing effective coordination between intel18 ligence-gathering and law enforcement agencies,

19 among Federal, State, and local levels of Govern20 ment, and with the private sector, for the purpose of

21 assessing, warning, and protecting against terrorist

22 attacks;

23 (2) technical preparedness for the detection and

24 analysis of chemical and biological weapons, and for

25 swift and adequate emergency response to their use
113

SCON 86 ES1S

1 by terrorists, must be a near-term continuing prior2 ity;

3 (3) the United States must seek full inter4 national cooperation in securing the capture and

5 conviction of terrorists who attack or pose a threat

6 to American citizens and interests;

7 (4) the United States should fully enforce its

8 laws intended to deny foreign terrorist organizations

9 the ability to raise money in the United States, pre10 vent the evasion of our immigration laws and fur11 thering of criminal activities, and curtail the use of

12 our country as a base of operations; and

13 (5) a national strategy, adequate to addressing

14 the complexity of protecting our critical infrastruc15 tures, and as required by the Defense Appropria16 tions Act of 1996 and subsequent amendments,

17 must be completed and implemented immediately.

18 SEC. 351. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH,

19 SOCIAL SECURITY, AND GOVERNMENT EFFI20 CIENCY.

21 It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals

22 underlying this resolution assume that—

23 (1) the elimination of a discretionary spending

24 program may be used for either tax cuts or to re25 form the Social Security system;
114

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (2) the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the

2 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

3 Act of 1985, and other appropriate budget rules and

4 laws should be amended to implement the policy

5 stated in paragraph (1).

6 SEC. 352. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A SUPER7 MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR RAISING

8 TAXES.

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

10 (1) the Nation’s current tax system is indefensi11 ble, being overly complex, burdensome, and severely

12 limiting to economic opportunity for all Americans;

13 (2) fundamental tax reform should be under14 taken as soon as practicable to produce a tax system

15 that—

16 (A) applies a low tax rate, through easily

17 understood laws, to all Americans;

18 (B) provides tax relief for working Ameri19 cans;

20 (C) protects the rights of taxpayers and re21 duces tax collection abuses;

22 (D) eliminates the bias against savings and

23 investment;

24 (E) promotes economic growth and job cre25 ation;
115

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (F) does not penalize marriage or families;

2 and

3 (G) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collec4 tions process to replace the Internal Revenue

5 Service; and

6 (3) the stability and longevity of any new tax

7 system designed to achieve these goals should be

8 guaranteed with a supermajority vote requirement so

9 that Congress cannot easily raise tax rates, impose

10 new taxes, or otherwise increase the amount of a

11 taxpayer’s income that is subject to tax.

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

13 that the assumptions underlying the functional totals of

14 this resolution assume fundamental tax reform that is ac15 companied by a proposal to amend the Constitution of the

16 United States to require a supermajority vote in each

17 House of Congress to approve tax increases.

18 SEC. 353. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE QUAL19 ITY.

20 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following

21 findings:

22 (1) Rapid changes in the health care market23 place have compromised confidence in the our Na24 tion’s health system.
116

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (2) American consumers want more conven2 ience, fewer hassles, more choices, and better service

3 from their health insurance plans.

4 (3) All Americans deserve quality-driven health

5 care supported by sound science and evidence-based

6 medicine.

7 (4) The Federal Government, through the Na8 tional Institutes of Health, supports research that

9 improves the quality of medical care that Americans

10 receive.

11 (5) This resolution assumes increased funding

12 for the National Institutes of Health for 1999 of

13 $15,100,000,000, an 11-percent increase over cur14 rent funding levels, which are 7 percent higher than

15 in 1997.

16 (6) As the largest purchaser of health care serv17 ices, the Federal Government has a responsibility to

18 utilize its purchasing power to demand high quality

19 health plans and providers for its health programs

20 and to protect its beneficiaries from inferior medical

21 care.

22 (7) The Federal Government must adopt the

23 posture of private sector purchasers and insist on

24 high quality care for the 67,000,000 Medicare and
117

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Medicaid beneficiaries and the 9,000,000 Federal

2 employees, retirees, and their dependents.

3 (8) The private sector has proven to be more

4 capable of keeping pace with the rapid changes in

5 health care delivery and medical practice that affect

6 quality of care considerations than the Federal Gov7 ernment.

8 (9) As Congress considers health care legisla9 tion, it must first commit to ‘‘do no harm’’ to health

10 care quality, consumers, and the evolving market

11 place. Rushing to legislate or regulate based on an12 ecdotal information and micro-managing health

13 plans on politically popular issues will not solve the

14 problems of consumer confidence and the quality of

15 our health care system.

16 (10) When health insurance premiums rise,

17 Americans lose health coverage. Studies indicate

18 that a 1 percent increase in private health insurance

19 premiums will be associated with an increase in the

20 number of persons without insurance of about

21 400,000 persons.

22 (11) Health care costs have begun to rise sig23 nificantly in the past year. The Congressional Budg24 et Office (referred to as ‘‘CBO’’) projects that the

25 growth in health premiums will be 5.5 percent in
118

SCON 86 ES1S

1 1998 up from 3.8 percent in 1997. CBO continues

2 to project that premiums will grow about 1 percent3 age point faster than the Gross Domestic Product in

4 the longer run. CBO also warns that new Federal

5 mandates on health insurance could exacerbate this

6 increase in premiums.

7 (12) The President’s Advisory Commission on

8 Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health

9 Care Industry developed the Consumer Bill of

10 Rights and Responsibilities. This includes informa11 tion disclosure, confidentiality of health information,

12 and choice of providers.

13 (13) The President’s Commission further deter14 mined that private sector organizations have the ca15 pacity to act in a timely manner needed to keep pace

16 with the swiftly evolving health system.

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

18 Senate that the assumptions underlying this resolution as19 sume that the Senate will not pass any health care legisla20 tion that will—

21 (1) make health insurance unaffordable for

22 working families and increase the number of unin23 sured Americans;
119

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (2) divert limited health care resources away

2 from serving patients to paying lawyers and hiring

3 new bureaucrats; or

4 (3) impose political considerations on clinical

5 decisions, instead of allowing such decisions to be

6 made on the basis of sound science and the best in7 terests of patients.

8 SEC. 354. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE USE OF BUDGET

9 SURPLUS FOR TAX RELIEF OR DEBT REDUC10 TION.

11 It is the sense of the Senate that this resolution as12 sumes that any budget surplus should be dedicated to debt

13 reduction or direct tax relief for hard-working American

14 families.

15 SEC. 355. USE OF BUDGET SURPLUS TO REFORM SOCIAL

16 SECURITY.

17 It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions

18 underlying the functional totals included in the resolution

19 assume:

20 (1) The Congress and the President should use

21 any budget surplus to reduce the Social Security

22 payroll tax and to establish personal retirement ac23 counts with the tax reduction for hard-working

24 Americans.
120

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (2) The Congress and the President should not

2 use the Social Security surplus to finance general

3 Government programs and other spending, should

4 begin to build real assets for the trust funds, and

5 work to reform the Social Security system.

6 SEC. 356. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COLOMBIAN DRUG

7 WAR HELICOPTERS.

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

9 (1) Colombia is the leading illicit drug produc10 ing country in the Western Hemisphere;

11 (2) 80 percent of the world’s cocaine originates

12 in Colombia;

13 (3) based on the most recent data of the Drug

14 Enforcement Administration (DEA), more than 60

15 percent of the heroin seized in the United States

16 originates in Colombia;

17 (4) in the last 10 years more than 4,000 offi18 cers of the Colombian National Police have died

19 fighting the scourge of drugs;

20 (5) in one recent year alone, according to data

21 of the United States Government, the United States

22 had 141,000 new heroin users and the United States

23 faces historic levels of heroin use among teenagers

24 between the ages of 12 and 17;
121

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (6) once Colombian heroin is in the stream of

2 commerce it is nearly impossible to interdict because

3 it is concealed and trafficked in very small quan4 tities;

5 (7) the best and most cost efficient method of

6 preventing Colombian heroin from entering the

7 United States is to destroy the opium poppies in the

8 high Andes mountains where Colombian heroin is

9 produced;

10 (8) the elite anti-narcotics unit of the Colom11 bian National Police has the responsibility to eradi12 cate both coca and opium in Colombia, including the

13 reduction and elimination of cocaine and heroin pro14 duction, and they have done a remarkably effective

15 job with the limited and outdated equipment at their

16 disposal;

17 (9) more than 40 percent of the anti-narcotics

18 operations of the Colombian National Police involve

19 hostile ground fire from narco-terrorists and 90 per20 cent of such operations involve the use of heli21 copters;

22 (10) the need for better high performance heli23 copters by the Colombian National Police, especially

24 for use in the high Andes mountains, is essential for

25 more effective eradication of opium in Colombia;
122

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (11) on December 23, 1997, one of the anti2 quated Vietnam-era UH–1H Huey helicopters used

3 by the Colombian National Police in an opium eradi4 cation mission crashed in the high Andes mountains

5 due to high winds and because it was flying above

6 the safety level recommended by the original manu7 facturer;

8 (12) in the Foreign Operations, Export Financ9 ing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,

10 1998 (Public Law 105–118), amounts were appro11 priated for the procurement by the United States for

12 the Colombian National Police of three UH–60L

13 Blackhawk utility helicopters that can operate safely

14 and more effectively at the high altitudes of the

15 Andes mountains where Colombian opium grows at

16 altitudes as high as 12,000 feet;

17 (13) the Blackhawk helicopter is a high per18 formance utility helicopter, with greater lift capacity,

19 that can perform at the high altitudes of the Andes

20 mountains, as well as survive crashes and sustain

21 ground fire, much better than any other utility heli22 copter now available to the Colombian National Po23 lice in the war on drugs;

24 (14) because the Vietnam-era Huey helicopters

25 that the United States has provided the Colombian
123

SCON 86 ES1S

1 National Police are outdated and have been develop2 ing numerous stress cracks, a sufficient number

3 should be upgraded to Huey II’s and the remainder

4 should be phased-out as soon as possible;

5 (15) these Huey helicopters are much older

6 than most of the pilots who fly them, do not have

7 the range due to limited fuel capacity to reach many

8 of the expanding locations of the coca fields or co9 caine labs in southern Colombia, nor do they have

10 the lift capacity to carry enough armed officers to

11 reach and secure the opium fields in the high Andes

12 mountains prior to eradication;

13 (16) the elite anti-narcotics unit of the Colom14 bian National Police has a stellar record in respect15 ing for human rights and has received the com16 mendation of a leading international human rights

17 group in their operations to reduce and eradicate il18 licit drugs in Colombia;

19 (17) the narco-terrorists of Colombia have an20 nounced that they will now target United States citi21 zens, particularly those United States citizens work22 ing with their Colombian counterparts in the fight

23 against illicit drugs in Colombia;

24 (18) a leading commander of the Revolutionary

25 Armed Forces of Colombia (‘‘FARC’’) announced re-
124

SCON 86 ES1S

1 cently that the objective of these narco-terrorists, in

2 light of recent successes, will be ‘‘to defeat the

3 Americans’’;

4 (19) United States Government personnel in

5 Colombia who fly in these helicopters accompanying

6 the Colombian National Police on missions are now

7 at even greater risk from these narco-terrorists and

8 their drug trafficking allies;

9 (20) in the last six months four anti-narcotics

10 helicopters of the Colombian National Police have

11 been downed in operations;

12 (21) Congress intends to provide the necessary

13 support and assistance to wage an effective war on

14 illicit drugs in Colombia and provide the equipment

15 and assistance needed to protect all of the men and

16 women of the Colombian National Police as well as

17 those Americans who work side by side with the Co18 lombian National Police in this common struggle

19 against illicit drugs;

20 (22) the new Government of Bolivia has made

21 a commitment to eradicate coca and cocaine produc22 tion in that country within 5 years;

23 (23) the United States should support any

24 country that is interested in removing the scourge of

25 drugs from its citizens; and
125

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (24) Bolivia has succeeded, in large measure

2 due to United States assistance, in reducing acreage

3 used to produce coca, which is the basis for cocaine

4 production.

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

6 Senate that the functional totals underlying this resolution

7 assume that—

8 (1) the President should, with funds made

9 available under Public Law 105–118, expeditiously

10 procure and provide to the Colombian National Po11 lice three UH–60L Blackhawk utility helicopters

12 solely for the purpose of assisting the Colombian

13 National Police to perform their responsibilities to

14 reduce and eliminate the production of illicit drugs

15 in Colombia and the trafficking of such illicit drugs,

16 including the trafficking of drugs such as heroin and

17 cocaine to the United States;

18 (2) if the President determines that the pro19 curement and transfer to the Colombian National

20 Police of three UH–60L Blackhawk utility heli21 copters is not an adequate number of such heli22 copters to maintain operational feasibility and effec23 tiveness of the Colombian National Police, then the

24 President should promptly inform Congress as to the

25 appropriate number of additional UH–60L
126

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Blackhawk utility helicopters for the Colombian Na2 tional Police so that amounts can be authorized for

3 the procurement and transfer of such additional heli4 copters; and

5 (3) assistance for Bolivia should be maintained

6 at least at the level assumed in the fiscal year 1998

7 budget submission of the President and the Admin8 istration should act accordingly.

9 SEC. 357. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR MEDI10 CAL CARE FOR VETERANS.

11 It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals

12 underlying this resolution assume that $40,274,000 in ad13 ditional amounts above the President’s budget levels will

14 be made available for veterans health care for fiscal year

15 1999.

16 SEC. 358. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OBJECTION TO THE

17 USE OF THE SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO

18 FUND CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

19 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that the Budget

20 Committee Report accompanying this resolution assumes

21 that the landowner incentive program of the Endangered

22 Species Recovery Act would be funded ‘‘from the gross

23 receipts realized in the sales of excess BLM land: Pro24 vided, That BLM has sufficient administrative funds to

25 conduct such sales’’.
127

SCON 86 ES1S

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

2 Senate that the functional totals underlying this resolution

3 assume that—

4 (1) the landowner incentive program included in

5 the Endangered Species Recovery Act should be fi6 nanced from a dedicated source of funding; and

7 (2) public lands should not be sold to fund the

8 landowner incentive program of the Endangered

9 Species Recovery Act through their proceeds alone,

10 if subsequent legislation provides an alternative or

11 mixed, dedicated source of mandatory funding.

12 SEC. 359. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A MULTI13 NATIONAL ALLIANCE AGAINST DRUG TRAF14 FICKING.

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

16 (1) the traffic in illegal drugs greatly threatens

17 democracy, security and stability in the Western

18 Hemisphere due to the violence and corruption asso19 ciated with drug trafficking organizations;

20 (2) drug trafficking organizations operate with21 out respect for borders or national sovereignty;

22 (3) the production, transport, sale, and use of

23 illicit drugs endangers the people and legitimate in24 stitutions of all countries in the hemisphere;
128

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (4) no single country can successfully confront

2 and defeat this common enemy;

3 (5) full bilateral cooperation with the United

4 States to reduce the flow of drugs is in the national

5 interests of our neighbors in the hemisphere;

6 (6) in addition, victory in the hemispheric battle

7 against drug traffickers requires expanded multilat8 eral cooperation among the nations of the region.

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

10 Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that

11 in addition to existing bilateral cooperative efforts, the Ad12 ministration should promote at the Summit of the Ameri13 cas and in other fora the concept of a multinational hemi14 spheric ‘‘war alliance’’ bringing together the United States

15 and key illicit drug producing and transiting countries in

16 the Western Hemisphere for the purpose of implementing

17 a coordinated plan of action against illegal drug traffick18 ing and promoting full cooperation against this common

19 menace.

20 SEC. 360. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING LEGISLATION

21 THAT INCREASES COMPLEXITY OF TAX RE22 TURNS.

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

24 (1) As part of the consideration by the Senate

25 of tax cuts for the families of America, the Senate
129

SCON 86 ES1S

1 should also examine the condition of the Internal

2 Revenue Code of 1986.

3 (2) According to the Congressional Research

4 Service, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997

5 added 1,000,000 words and 315 pages to the Inter6 nal Revenue Code.

7 (3) The Internal Revenue Code continues to

8 grow more complex and difficult for the average tax9 payer to understand, and the average tax return has

10 become more time-consuming to prepare.

11 (4) The average taxpayer will spend 9 hours

12 and 54 minutes preparing Form 1040 for the 1997

13 tax year.

14 (5) The average taxpayer spends between 21

15 and 28 hours each year on tax matters.

16 (6) In 1995, 58,965,000 of the 118,218,327 tax

17 returns that were filed, almost 50 percent, were filed

18 by taxpayers who utilized the help of a paid tax pre19 parer.

20 (7) The average taxpayer spends $72 each year

21 for tax preparation.

22 (8) The total burden on all taxpayers of main23 taining records, and preparing and filing tax returns

24 is estimated to be in excess of 1,600,000 hours per

25 year.
130

SCON 86 ES1S

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

2 Senate that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume

3 that the Senate should give priority to tax proposals that

4 simplify the tax code and reject proposals that add greater

5 complexity in the tax code and increased compliance costs

6 for the taxpayer.

7 SEC. 361. GENERAL PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF MARI8 JUANA FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES.

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

10 this resolution assume that no funds appropriated by Con11 gress should be used to provide, procure, furnish, fund or

12 support, or to compel any individual, institution or govern13 ment entity to provide, procure, furnish, fund or support,

14 any item, good, benefit, program or service, for the pur15 pose of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, ex16 cept that this section shall not apply to medical research

17 and investigational new drug programs under the jurisdic18 tion of the Food and Drug Administration.

19 SEC. 362. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AMTRAK

20 FUNDING.

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

22 (1) on November 13, 1997 the Senate unani23 mously passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountabil24 ity Act of 1997, Public Law 105–134, authorizing

25 appropriations of $1,058,000,000 for fiscal year
131

SCON 86 ES1S

1 1999; $1,023,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;

2 $989,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and

3 $955,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, totaling

4 $4,025,000,000 for fiscal years 1999–2002;

5 (2) in Public Law 105–134 the Congress de6 clared that ‘‘intercity rail passenger service is an es7 sential component of a national intermodal pas8 senger transportation system’’;

9 (3) section 201 of the Amtrak Reform and Ac10 countability Act of 1997 has now statutorily formal11 ized prior Congressional directives to Amtrak to

12 reach operating self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2002;

13 (4) the Congress and the President, through en14 actment of this legislation, have effectively agreed

15 that Congress will provide adequate funding to per16 mit Amtrak to achieve the goal of operating self-suf17 ficiency;

18 (5) capital investment is critical to reducing op19 erating costs and increasing the quality of Amtrak

20 service;

21 (6) capital investment is essential to improving

22 Amtrak’s long-term financial health;

23 (7) the $2,200,000,000 provided to Amtrak

24 through the Taxpayer Relief Act is for the sole pur25 pose of capital expenditures and other qualified ex-
132

SCON 86 ES1S

1 penses and is intended to supplement, not supplant,

2 annual appropriations.

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

4 Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional to5 tals in this budget resolution assume that Congress and

6 the Administration will fulfill the intent of the Amtrak Re7 form and Accountability Act of 1997 and appropriate suf8 ficient funds in each of the next 5 fiscal years for Amtrak

9 to implement its fiscal years 1998–2003 Strategic Busi10 ness Plan, while preserving the integrity of the

11 $2,200,000,000 provided under the Taxpayer Relief Act

12 for the statutory purpose of capital investment.

13 SEC. 363. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MARKET AC14 CESS PROGRAM.

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

16 (1) The Market Access Program (MAP) contin17 ues to be a vital and important part of United

18 States trade policy aimed at maintaining and ex19 panding United States agricultural exports, counter20 ing subsidized foreign competition, strengthening

21 farm income and protecting American jobs. Further,

22 the Senate finds that:

23 (A) The Market Access Program is specifi24 cally targeted towards small business, farmer

25 cooperatives and trade associations.
133

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (B) The Market Access Program is admin2 istered on a cost-share basis. Participants, in3 cluding farmers and ranchers, are required to

4 contribute up to 50 percent or more toward the

5 cost of the program.

6 (2) The Market Access Program has been a tre7 mendous success by any measure. Since the program

8 was established, United States agricultural exports

9 have doubled. In fiscal year 1997, United States ag10 ricultural exports amounted to $57,300,000,000, re11 sulting in a positive agricultural trade surplus of ap12 proximately $22,000,000,000, and contributing bil13 lions of dollars more in increased economic activity

14 and additional tax revenues.

15 (3) The Market Access Program has also

16 helped maintain and create needed jobs throughout

17 the Nation’s economy. More than one million Ameri18 cans now have jobs that depend on United States

19 agricultural exports. Further, every billion dollars in

20 additional United States agricultural exports helps

21 create as many as 17,000 or more new jobs.

22 (4) United States agriculture, including farm

23 income and related jobs, is more dependent than

24 ever on maintaining and expanding United States
134

SCON 86 ES1S

1 agricultural exports as Federal farm programs are

2 gradually reduced under the FAIR Act of 1996.

3 (5) In addition to the Asian economic situation

4 and exchange rate fluctuations, United States agri5 cultural exports continue to be adversely impacted

6 by continued subsidized foreign competition, artifi7 cial trade barriers and other unfair foreign trade

8 practices.

9 (6) The European Union (EU) and other for10 eign competitors continue to heavily outspend the

11 United States by more than 10 to 1 with regard to

12 export subsidies.

13 (A) In 1997, the EU budgeted

14 $7,200,000,000 for export subsidies aimed at

15 capturing a larger share of the world market at

16 the expense of United States agriculture.

17 (B) EU and other foreign competitors also

18 spend nearly $500,000,000 on market pro19 motion activities. The EU spends more on wine

20 promotion than the United States currently

21 spends on all commodities and related agricul22 tural products.

23 (C) The EU has announced a major new

24 initiative aimed at increasing their exports to
135

SCON 86 ES1S

1 Japan—historically, the largest single market

2 for United States agriculture exports.

3 (7) United States agriculture is the most com4 petitive industry in the world, but it cannot and

5 should not be expected to compete alone against the

6 treasuries of foreign governments.

7 (8) Reducing or eliminating funding for the

8 Market Access Program would adversely affect

9 United States agriculture’s ability to remain com10 petitive in today’s global marketplace. A reduction in

11 United States agricultural exports would translate

12 into lower farm income, a worsening trade deficit,

13 slower economic growth, fewer export-related jobs,

14 and a declining tax base.

15 (9) United States success in upcoming trade

16 negotiations on agriculture scheduled to begin in

17 1999 depends on maintaining an aggressive trade

18 strategy and related policies and programs. Reduc19 ing or eliminating the Market Access Program would

20 represent a form of unilateral disarmament and

21 weaken the United States negotiating position.

22 (10) The Market Access Program is one of the

23 few programs specifically allowed under the current

24 Uruguay Round Agreement.
136

SCON 86 ES1S

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

2 Senate that funding for the Market Access Program

3 (MAP) should be fully maintained as authorized and ag4 gressively utilized by the United States Department of Ag5 riculture to encourage United States agricultural exports,

6 strengthen farm income, counter subsidized foreign com7 petition, and protect American jobs.

8 SEC. 364. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NA9 TIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

10 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

11 (1) heart disease was the leading cause of death

12 for both men and women in every year from 1970

13 to 1993;

14 (2) mortality rates for individuals suffering

15 from prostate cancer, skin cancer, and kidney cancer

16 continue to rise;

17 (3) the mortality rate for African American

18 women suffering from diabetes is 134 percent higher

19 than the mortality rate of Caucasian women suffer20 ing from diabetes;

21 (4) asthma rates for children increased 58 per22 cent from 1982 to 1992;

23 (5) nearly half of all American women between

24 the ages of 65 and 75 reported having arthritis;
137

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (6) AIDS is the leading cause of death for

2 Americans between the ages of 24 and 44;

3 (7) the Institute of Medicine has described

4 United States clinical research to be ‘‘in a state of

5 crisis’’ and the National Academy of Sciences con6 cluded in 1994 that ‘‘the present cohort of clinical

7 investigators is not adequate’’;

8 (8) biomedical research has been shown to be

9 effective in saving lives and reducing health care ex10 penditures;

11 (9) research sponsored by the National Insti12 tutes of Health has contributed significantly to the

13 first overall reduction in cancer death rates since

14 recordkeeping was instituted;

15 (10) research sponsored by the National Insti16 tutes of health has resulted in the identification of

17 genetic mutations for osteoporosis; Lou Gehrig’s

18 Disease, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington’s Disease;

19 breast, skin and prostate cancer; and a variety of

20 other illnesses;

21 (11) research sponsored by the National Insti22 tutes of Health has been key to the development of

23 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Positron

24 Emission Tomography (PET) scanning technologies;
138

SCON 86 ES1S

1 (12) research sponsored by the National Insti2 tutes of Health has developed effective treatments

3 for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Today,

4 80 percent of children diagnosed with Acute

5 Lymphoblastic Leukemia are alive and free of the

6 disease after 5 years; and

7 (13) research sponsored by the National Insti8 tutes of Health contributed to the development of a

9 new, cost-saving cure for peptic ulcers.

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

11 Senate that the function totals in this budget resolution

12 assume that—

13 (1) appropriations for the National Institutes of

14 Health should be increased by 100 percent over the

15 next 5 fiscal years;

16 (2) appropriations for the National Institutes of

17 Health should be increased by $2,000,000,000 in

18 year 1999 over the amount appropriated in fiscal

19 year 1998;

20 (3) the budget resolution takes a major step to21 ward meeting this goal; and

22 (4) at a minimum, appropriations for the Na23 tional Institutes of Health should match the rec24 ommendations provided in the budget resolution.
139

SCON 86 ES1S

1 SEC. 365. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DISPLAY OF

2 TEN COMMANDMENTS.

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

4 (1) the Ten Commandments have had a signifi5 cant impact on the development of the fundamental

6 legal principles of Western Civilization; and

7 (2) the Ten Commandments set forth a code of

8 moral conduct, observance of which is acknowledged

9 to promote respect for our system of laws and the

10 good of society.

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

12 Senate that the functional totals in this concurrent resolu13 tion on the budget assume that—

14 (1) the Ten Commandments are a declaration

15 of fundamental principles that are the cornerstones

16 of a fair and just society; and

17 (2) the public display, including display in the

18 Supreme Court, the Capitol building, the White

19 House, and other government offices and court20 houses across the nation, of the Ten Commandments

21 should be permitted, as long as it is consistent with
140

SCON 86 ES1S

1 the establishment clause of the first amendment of

2 the United States Constitution.

Passed the Senate April 2, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 86

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,
SCON 86 ES1S——10

SCON 86 ES1S——9SCON 86 ES1S——8SCON 86 ES1S——7SCON 86 ES1S——6SCON 86 ES1S——5SCON 86 ES1S——4SCON 86 ES1S——3SCON 86 ES1S——2