H. Con. Res. 68 Agreed to April 15, 1999

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

Concurrent Resolution

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2000.

(a) DECLARATION.—Congress determines and declares that this

concurrent resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget

for fiscal year 2000 including the appropriate budgetary levels

for fiscal years 2001 through 2009 as authorized by section 301

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.

Sec. 102. Social Security.

Sec. 103. Major functional categories.

Sec. 104. Reconciliation of revenue reductions in the Senate.

Sec. 105. Reconciliation of revenue reductions in the House of Representatives.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Safe deposit box for Social Security surpluses.

Sec. 202. Reserve fund for retirement security.

Sec. 203. Reserve fund for Medicare.

Sec. 204. Reserve fund for agriculture.

Sec. 205. Tax reduction reserve fund in the Senate.

Sec. 206. Emergency designation point of order in the Senate.

Sec. 207. Pay-as-you-go point of order in the Senate.

Sec. 208. Application and effect of changes in allocations and aggregates.

Sec. 209. Establishment of levels for fiscal year 1999.

Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to foster the employment and independence

of individuals with disabilities in the Senate.

Sec. 211. Reserve fund for fiscal year 2000 surplus.

Sec. 212. Reserve fund for education in the Senate.

Sec. 213. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS, HOUSE, AND SENATE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Sense of Congress Provisions

Sec. 301. Sense of Congress on the protection of the Social Security surpluses.

Sec. 302. Sense of Congress on providing additional dollars to the classroom.

Sec. 303. Sense of Congress on asset-building for the working poor.

Sec. 304. Sense of Congress on child nutrition.

Sec. 305. Sense of Congress concerning funding for special education.

Subtitle B—Sense of the House Provisions

Sec. 311. Sense of the House on the Commission on International Religious

Freedom.
H. Con. Res. 68—2

Sec. 312. Sense of the House on assessment of welfare-to-work programs.

Subtitle C—Sense of the Senate Provisions

Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate that the Federal Government should not invest the

Social Security trust funds in private financial markets. Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate regarding the modernization and improvement of the

Medicare Program. Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate on education.

Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate on providing tax relief to Americans by returning the

non-Social Security surplus to taxpayers. Sec. 325. Sense of the Senate on access to Medicare services.

Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate on law enforcement.

Sec. 327. Sense of the Senate on improving security for United States diplomatic

missions.

Sec. 328. Sense of the Senate on increased funding for the National Institutes of

Health.

Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate on funding for Kyoto Protocol implementation prior

to Senate ratification.

Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate on TEA–21 funding and the States.

Sec. 331. Sense of the Senate that the One Hundred Sixth Congress, first session

should reauthorize funds for the farmland protection program.

Sec. 332. Sense of the Senate on the importance of Social Security for individuals

who become disabled.

Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate on reporting of on-budget trust fund levels.

Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate regarding South Korea’s international trade practices

on pork and beef.

Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate on funding for natural disasters.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal

years 2000 through 2009:

(1) FEDERAL REVENUES.—For purposes of the enforcement

of this concurrent resolution—

(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are

as follows:

Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,082,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,434,837,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,454,757,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: $1,531,512,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: $1,584,969,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: $1,648,259,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: $1,681,438,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: $1,735,646,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: $1,805,517,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: $1,868,515,000,000.

(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of

Federal revenues should be changed are as follows: Fiscal year 2000: $0.

Fiscal year 2001: ¥$7,810,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: ¥$53,519,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: ¥$31,806,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: ¥$49,180,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: ¥$62,637,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: ¥$109,275,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: ¥$135,754,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: ¥$150,692,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: ¥$177,195,000,000.

(2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of

total new budget authority are as follows:
H. Con. Res. 68—3

Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,720,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,455,785,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,486,875,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: $1,559,079,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: $1,612,910,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: $1,666,657,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: $1,698,214,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: $1,753,326,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: $1,814,537,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: $1,874,778,000,000.

(3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.—For purposes of the enforcement

of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total

budget outlays are as follows:

Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,082,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,434,837,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,454,757,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: $1,531,512,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,753,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: $1,639,568,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: $1,667,838,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: $1,717,042,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: $1,781,865,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: $1,841,858,000,000.

(4) DEFICITS OR SURPLUSES.—For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits

or surpluses are as follows:

Fiscal year 2000: $0.

Fiscal year 2001: $0.

Fiscal year 2002: $0.

Fiscal year 2003: $0.

Fiscal year 2004: $1,216,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: $8,691,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: $13,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: $18,604,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: $23,652,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: $26,657,000,000.

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

are as follows:

Fiscal year 2000: $5,628,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $5,708,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $5,793,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: $5,877,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: $5,956,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: $6,024,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: $6,084,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: $6,136,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: $6,173,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: $6,203,400,000,000.

SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

enforcement under sections 302, and 311 of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal OldAge and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability

Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:

Fiscal year 2000: $468,020,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $487,744,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 68—4

Fiscal year 2002: $506,293,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: $527,326,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: $549,876,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: $576,840,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: $601,834,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: $628,277,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: $654,422,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: $681,313,000,000.

(b) SOCIAL SECURITY OUTLAYS.—For purposes of Senate enforcement under sections 302, and 311 of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal Old-Age and

Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:

Fiscal year 2000: $327,256,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $339,789,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $350,127,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: $362,197,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: $375,253,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: $389,485,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: $404,596,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: $420,616,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: $438,132,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: $459,496,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

Congress determines and declares that the appropriate levels

of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal years 2000

through 2009 for each major functional category are:

(1) National Defense (050):

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $288,812,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $276,567,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $303,616,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $285,949,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $308,175,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $291,714,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: (A) New budget authority, $318,277,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $303,642,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: (A) New budget authority, $327,166,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $313,460,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $328,370,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $316,675,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $329,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $315,110,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $330,869,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $313,686,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $332,175,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $317,102,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:
H. Con. Res. 68—5

(A) New budget authority, $333,451,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $318,040,000,000.

(2) International Affairs (150):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $12,511,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,850,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $11,679,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,212,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $10,885,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,581,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $12,590,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,977,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $13,994,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,716,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $14,151,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,352,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $14,352,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,069,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $14,429,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,886,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: (A) New budget authority, $14,498,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,701,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: (A) New budget authority, $14,462,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,560,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $17,955,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $18,214,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $17,946,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,907,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,880,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,784,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,772,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000
H. Con. Res. 68—6

(B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.

(4) Energy (270):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $49,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$650,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$1,435,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$3,136,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$163,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,138,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$84,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,243,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$319,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,381,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$447,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,452,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$452,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,453,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$506,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,431,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$208,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,137,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$76,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,067,000,000.

(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $22,820,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,644,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $21,833,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $21,879,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $21,597,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $21,223,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $22,479,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,579,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $22,992,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $23,003,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $23,036,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,929,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 68—7

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $23,066,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,966,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $23,167,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,925,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $23,158,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,861,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $23,541,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $23,238,000,000.

(6) Agriculture (350):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $14,331,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,160,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $13,519,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,279,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $11,788,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,036,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $11,955,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,252,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $12,072,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,526,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: (A) New budget authority, $10,553,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,882,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: (A) New budget authority, $10,609,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,083,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: (A) New budget authority, $10,711,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,145,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: (A) New budget authority, $10,763,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,162,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: (A) New budget authority, $10,853,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,223,000,000.

(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $9,664,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $4,270,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $10,620,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $5,754,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $14,450,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,188,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $14,529,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,875,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:
H. Con. Res. 68—8

(A) New budget authority, $13,859,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,439,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $12,660,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,437,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $12,635,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,130,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $12,666,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,879,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $12,642,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,450,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $13,415,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,824,000,000.

(8) Transportation (400):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $51,825,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $45,833,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $50,996,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,711,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $50,845,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,265,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: (A) New budget authority, $52,255,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,769,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: (A) New budget authority, $52,285,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,255,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: (A) New budget authority, $52,314,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,071,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: (A) New budget authority, $52,345,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,039,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: (A) New budget authority, $52,378,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,039,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: (A) New budget authority, $52,412,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,056,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $52,447,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,082,000,000.

(9) Community and Regional Development (450):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $6,369,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,462,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $4,011,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,298,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $3,608,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 68—9

(B) Outlays, $5,857,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $3,851,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $4,536,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $3,828,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $3,812,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $3,819,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $3,012,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $3,816,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,732,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $3,810,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,606,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $3,811,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,522,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $3,808,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,483,000,000.

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

(500):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $66,347,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $63,806,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $66,030,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $64,574,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $66,476,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $64,847,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: (A) New budget authority, $70,963,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $67,460,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: (A) New budget authority, $73,277,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $70,162,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: (A) New budget authority, $74,093,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $72,672,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: (A) New budget authority, $74,858,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $73,843,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $75,762,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $74,748,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $76,773,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $75,738,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $76,680,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $75,688,000,000.

(11) Health (550):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $156,181,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 68—10

(B) Outlays, $152,986,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $164,089,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $162,357,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $173,330,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $173,767,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $184,679,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $185,330,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $197,893,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $198,499,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $212,821,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $212,637,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $228,379,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $228,323,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $246,348,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $245,472,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $265,160,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $264,420,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $285,541,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $284,941,000,000.

(12) Medicare (570):

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $208,652,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $208,698,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $222,104,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $222,252,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $230,593,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $230,222,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: (A) New budget authority, $250,743,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $250,871,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004: (A) New budget authority, $268,558,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $268,738,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $295,574,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $295,188,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $306,772,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $306,929,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $337,566,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $337,761,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $365,642,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $365,225,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:
H. Con. Res. 68—11

(A) New budget authority, $394,078,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $394,249,000,000.

(13) Income Security (600):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $244,390,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $248,088,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $250,473,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $257,033,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $262,970,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $266,577,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $276,386,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $276,176,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $286,076,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $285,533,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $298,442,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $298,424,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $304,655,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $305,093,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $310,547,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $311,448,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: (A) New budget authority, $323,815,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $325,266,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: (A) New budget authority, $334,062,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $335,604,000,000.

(14) Social Security (650):

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $14,239,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,348,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $13,768,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,750,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $15,573,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,555,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003: (A) New budget authority, $16,299,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,281,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $17,087,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,069,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $17,961,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,943,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $18,895,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $18,877,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $19,907,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 68—12

(B) Outlays, $19,889,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $21,033,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $21,015,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $22,233,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,215,000,000.

(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $45,424,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $45,564,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $44,255,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $44,980,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $44,728,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $45,117,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $45,897,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,385,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $46,248,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,713,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $48,789,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $49,292,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $47,266,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,812,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: (A) New budget authority, $47,805,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $46,231,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: (A) New budget authority, $48,451,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,997,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: (A) New budget authority, $49,099,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $49,671,000,000.

(16) Administration of Justice (750):

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $23,434,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $25,349,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $24,656,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $25,117,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $24,657,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $24,932,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $24,561,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $24,425,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $26,195,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $26,084,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $26,334,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $26,221,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 68—13

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $26,370,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $26,249,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $26,403,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $26,285,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $26,450,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $26,346,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $26,481,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $26,368,000,000.

(17) General Government (800):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $12,339,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,476,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $11,916,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,605,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $12,060,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,282,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $12,083,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,150,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $12,099,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,186,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005: (A) New budget authority, $12,112,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,906,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006: (A) New budget authority, $12,134,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,839,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007: (A) New budget authority, $12,150,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,873,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008: (A) New budget authority, $12,169,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,064,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009: (A) New budget authority, $12,178,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,931,000,000.

(18) Net Interest (900):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $275,486,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $275,486,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $271,071,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $271,071,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $267,482,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $267,482,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $265,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $265,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:
H. Con. Res. 68—14

(A) New budget authority, $263,498,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $263,498,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $261,143,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $261,143,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $258,985,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $258,985,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $257,468,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $257,468,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, $255,085,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $255,085,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, $252,968,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $252,968,000,000.

(19) Allowances (920):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$9,833,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$10,794,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$8,481,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$12,874,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$6,437,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$19,976,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,394,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$4,835,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,481,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,002,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,515,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,067,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,619,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,192,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$5,210,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,780,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$5,279,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,851,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$5,316,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,889,000,000.

(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$34,275,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$34,275,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,881,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,881,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$43,654,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 68—15

(B) Outlays, ¥$43,654,000,000.

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$37,102,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$37,102,000,000.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$37,329,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$37,329,000,000.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$38,465,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$38,465,000,000.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$39,364,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$39,364,000,000.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$40,856,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$40,856,000,000.

Fiscal year 2008:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$41,925,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$41,925,000,000.

Fiscal year 2009:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$43,039,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$43,039,000,000.

SEC. 104. RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN THE SENATE.

Not later than July 23, 1999, the Senate Committee on Finance

shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes

in laws within its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by

not more than $0 in fiscal year 2000, $142,315,000,000 for the

period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $777,868,000 for

the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN THE HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Not later than July 16, 1999, the Committee on Ways and

Means shall report to the House of Representatives a reconciliation

bill proposing changes in laws within its jurisdiction necessary

to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in fiscal year 2000,

$142,315,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004,

and $777,868,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 through

2009.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS

AND RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. SAFE DEPOSIT BOX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the Social

Security trust funds are off-budget for purposes of the President’s budget submission and the concurrent resolution on the

budget;

(2) the Social Security trust funds have been running surpluses for 17 years;

(3) these surpluses have been used to implicitly finance

the general operations of the Federal Government;

(4) in fiscal year 2000, the Social Security surplus will

exceed $137 billion;
H. Con. Res. 68—16

(5) for the first time, a concurrent resolution on the budget

balances the Federal budget without counting the Social Security surpluses;

(6) the only way to ensure that Social Security surpluses

are not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget

exclusive of such surpluses; and

(7) Congress and the President should take such steps

as are necessary to ensure that future budgets are balanced

excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security trust

funds.

(b) POINT OF ORDER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the House

of Representatives or the Senate to consider any revision to

this concurrent resolution or a concurrent resolution on the

budget for fiscal year 2001, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for any fiscal

year.

(2) DEFICIT LEVELS.—For purposes of this subsection—

(A) a deficit shall be the level (if any) set forth in

the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the

budget for that fiscal year pursuant to section 301(a)(3)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and

(B) in setting forth the deficit level pursuant to section

301(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that

level shall not include any adjustments in aggregates that

would be made pursuant to any reserve fund that provides

for adjustments in allocations and aggregates for legislation

that enhances retirement security through structural programmatic reform.

(3) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the deficit

for a fiscal year results solely from legislation enacted pursuant

to section 202.

(4) BUDGET COMMITTEE DETERMINATIONS.—For purposes of

this subsection, the levels of new budget authority, outlays,

direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits,

and surpluses for a fiscal year shall be determined on the

basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of

the House of Representatives or the Senate, as applicable.

SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY.

Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House

or the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill, or an

amendment thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon is

submitted that enhances retirement security through structural

programmatic reform, the appropriate chairman of the Committee

on the Budget may—

(1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of

new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget

authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing therefrom) for that purpose;

(2) in the Senate, adjust the levels used for determining

compliance with the pay-as-you-go requirements of section 207;

and

(3) reduce the revenue aggregates by the amount of the

revenue loss resulting from that measure for that purpose.
H. Con. Res. 68—17

SEC. 203. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means

of the House or the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports

a bill, or an amendment thereto is offered (in the House), or a

conference report thereon is submitted that implements structural

Medicare reform and significantly extends the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund without the use of transfers

of new subsidies from the general fund, the appropriate chairman

of the Committee on the Budget may change committee allocations

and spending aggregates if such legislation will not cause an onbudget deficit for—

(1) fiscal year 2000;

(2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or

(3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

(b) PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT.—The adjustments made

pursuant to subsection (a) may be made to address the cost of

the prescription drug benefit.

SEC. 204. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

(a) ADJUSTMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the Committee on Agriculture

of the House or the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry of the Senate reports a bill, or an amendment thereto

is offered (in the House), or a conference report thereon is

submitted that provides risk management or income assistance

for agriculture producers that complies with paragraph (2),

the appropriate chairman of the Committee on the Budget

shall increase the allocation of budget authority and outlays

to that committee by the amount of budget authority (and

the outlays resulting therefrom) provided by that legislation

for such purpose in accordance with subsection (b).

(2) CONDITION.—Legislation complies with this paragraph

if it does not cause a net increase in budget authority or

outlays for fiscal year 2000 and does not cause a net increase

in budget authority that is greater than $2,000,000,000 for

any of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.

(b) LIMITATIONS.—The adjustments to the allocations required

by subsection (a) shall not exceed— (1) $6,000,000,000 in budget authority (and the outlays

resulting therefrom) for the period of fiscal years 2000 through

2004; and

(2) $6,000,000,000 in budget authority and outlays for the

period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

SEC. 205. TAX REDUCTION RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

In the Senate, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget

may reduce the spending and revenue aggregates and may revise

committee allocations for legislation that reduces revenues if such

legislation will not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus

for—

(1) fiscal year 2000;

(2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or

(3) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

SEC. 206. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER IN THE

SENATE.

(a) DESIGNATIONS.—
H. Con. Res. 68—18

(1) GUIDANCE.—In making a designation of a provision

of legislation as an emergency requirement under section

251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985, the committee report and any

statement of managers accompanying that legislation shall analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all the

criteria in paragraph (2).

(2) CRITERIA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change is

an emergency requirement or whether it is—

(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful

or beneficial);

(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not

building up over time;

(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need

requiring immediate action;

(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,

unpredictable, and unanticipated; and

(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.

(B) UNFORESEEN.—An emergency that is part of an

aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly

when normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.

(3) JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO MEET CRITERIA.—If the

proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria

set forth in paragraph (2), the committee report or the statement of managers, as the case may be, shall provide a written

justification of why the requirement should be accorded emergency status.

(b) POINT OF ORDER.—When the Senate is considering a bill,

resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, a point of

order may be made by a Senator against an emergency designation

in that measure and if the Presiding Officer sustains that point

of order, that provision making such a designation shall be stricken

from the measure and may not be offered as an amendment from

the floor.

(c) WAIVER AND APPEAL.—This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths

of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of

three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn,

shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling

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

(d) DEFINITION OF AN EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT.—A provision

shall be considered an emergency designation if it designates any

item an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)

or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Act of 1985.

(e) FORM OF THE POINT OF ORDER.—A point of order under

this section may be raised by a Senator as provided in section

313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(f ) CONFERENCE REPORTS.—If a point of order is sustained

under this section against a conference report the report shall

be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974.

(g) EXCEPTION FOR DEFENSE SPENDING.—Subsection (b) shall

not apply against an emergency designation for a provision making

discretionary appropriations in the defense category.
H. Con. Res. 68—19

(h) SUNSET.—This section shall expire on the adoption of the

concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.

SEC. 207. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.

(a) PURPOSE.—The Senate declares that it is essential to—

(1) ensure continued compliance with the balanced budget

plan set forth in this concurrent resolution; and

(2) continue the pay-as-you-go enforcement system.

(b) POINT OF ORDER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Senate

to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that

would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget

deficit for any one of the three applicable time periods as

measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).

(2) APPLICABLE TIME PERIODS.—For purposes of this subsection the term ‘‘applicable time period’’ means any one of

the three following periods:

(A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted

concurrent resolution on the budget.

(B) The period of the first five fiscal years covered

by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the

budget.

(C) The period of the five fiscal years following the

first five fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted

concurrent resolution on the budget.

(3) DIRECT-SPENDING LEGISLATION.—For purposes of this

subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term

‘‘direct-spending legislation’’ means any bill, joint resolution,

amendment, motion, or conference report that affects direct

spending as that term is defined by and interpreted for purposes

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

of 1985.

(4) EXCLUSION.—For purposes of this subsection, the terms

‘‘direct-spending legislation’’ and ‘‘revenue legislation’’ do not

include—

(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or

(B) any provision of legislation that affects the full

funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance guarantee commitment in effect on the date of the enactment

of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

(5) BASELINE.—Estimates prepared pursuant to this section

shall—

(A) use the baseline used for the most recently adopted

concurrent resolution on the budget; and

(B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections

(b) through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal years

beyond those covered by that concurrent resolution on the

budget.

(6) PRIOR SURPLUS.—If direct spending or revenue legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget

deficit when taken individually, then it must also increase

the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when taken

together with all direct spending and revenue legislation

enacted since the beginning of the calendar year not accounted

for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A).
H. Con. Res. 68—20

(c) WAIVER.—This section may be waived or suspended in the

Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,

duly chosen and sworn.

(d) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the

Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited

to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the

appellant and the manager of the bill or joint resolution, as the

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

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

Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point

of order raised under this section.

(e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For purposes of this

section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and revenues

for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates

made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

(f ) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress) is repealed.

(g) SUNSET.—Subsections (a) through (e) of this section shall

expire September 30, 2002.

SEC. 208. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS

AND AGGREGATES.

(a) APPLICATION.—Any adjustments of allocations and aggregates made pursuant to this concurrent resolution for any measure

shall—

(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;

(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and

(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as

practicable.

(b) EFFECT OF CHANGED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.— Revised allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in

this concurrent resolution.

(c) ENFORCEMENT IN THE HOUSE.—In the House, for the purpose

of enforcing this concurrent resolution, sections 302(f ) and 311(a)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall apply to fiscal year

2000 and the total for fiscal year 2000 and the four ensuing fiscal

years.

SEC. 209. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999.

The levels submitted pursuant to H. Res. 5 of the 106th Congress or S. Res. 312 of the 105th Congress, and any revisions

authorized by such resolutions, shall be considered to be the levels

and revisions of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal

year 1999.

SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO FOSTER THE EMPLOYMENT AND INDEPENDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH

DISABILITIES IN THE SENATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, revenue and spending aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be

adjusted and allocations may be revised for legislation that finances

disability programs designed to allow individuals with disabilities

to become employed and remain independent if, to the extent that

this concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the costs

of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation will not increase
H. Con. Res. 68—21

the deficit or decrease the surplus in this concurrent resolution

for—

(1) fiscal year 2000;

(2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or

(3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.— (1) ADJUSTMENTS FOR LEGISLATION.—Upon the consideration of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman

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

the Senate appropriately-revised allocations under section

302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised

functional levels and aggregates to carry out this section.

(2) ADJUSTMENTS FOR AMENDMENTS.—If the Chairman of

the Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment under this section for legislation in furtherance of the

purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an

amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such

submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels and

aggregates to carry out this section.

SEC. 211. RESERVE FUND FOR A FISCAL YEAR 2000 SURPLUS.

(a) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE UPDATED BUDGET FORE- CAST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000.—Pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office

shall update its economic and budget forecast for fiscal year 2000

by July 1, 1999.

(b) REPORTING A SURPLUS.—If the report provided pursuant

to subsection (a) estimates an on-budget surplus for fiscal year

2000, the appropriate chairman of the Committee on the Budget

may make the adjustments as provided in subsection (c).

(c) ADJUSTMENTS.—The appropriate chairman of the Committee

on the Budget may make the following adjustments in an amount

equal to the on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 as estimated

in the report submitted pursuant to subsection (a)—

(1) reduce the on-budget revenue aggregate by that amount

for fiscal year 2000;

(2) increase the on-budget surplus levels used for determining compliance with the pay-as-you-go requirements of section 207; and

(3) adjust the instruction in sections 104 and 105 of this

concurrent resolution to—

(A) reduce revenues by that amount for fiscal year

2000; and

(B) increase the reduction in revenues for the period

of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and for the period of

fiscal years 2000 through 2009 by that amount.

SEC. 212. RESERVE FUND FOR EDUCATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, upon reporting of a bill, the

offering of an amendment thereto, or the submission of a conference

report thereon that allows local educational agencies to use appropriated funds to carry out activities under part B of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act that complies with subsection (b),

the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may—

(1) increase the outlay aggregate and allocation for fiscal

year 2000 by not more than $360,000,000; and
H. Con. Res. 68—22

(2) adjust the levels used for determining compliance with

the pay-as-you-go requirements of section 207.

(b) CONDITION.—Legislation complies with this subsection if

it does not cause a net increase in budget authority or outlays

for the periods of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and 2000 through

2009.

SEC. 213. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title—

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

and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such

they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,

or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such

rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they

are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either

House to change those rules (so far as they relate to that

House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same

extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS,

HOUSE, AND SENATE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Sense of Congress Provisions

SEC. 301. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY SURPLUSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) Congress and the President should balance the budget

excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security trust

funds;

(2) reducing the Federal debt held by the public is a top

national priority, strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, as

evidenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s comment that debt reduction ‘‘is a very important element in sustaining economic growth’’, as well as President Clinton’s comments that it ‘‘is very, very important that we get the Government debt down’’ when referencing his own plans to use the

budget surplus to reduce Federal debt held by the public;

(3) according to the Congressional Budget Office, balancing

the budget excluding the surpluses generated by the Social

Security trust funds will reduce debt held by the public by

a total of $1,723,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009,

$417,000,000,000, or 32 percent, more than it would be reduced

under the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget submission;

(4) further, according to the Congressional Budget Office,

that the President’s budget would actually spend

$40,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses in fiscal year

2000 on new spending programs, and spend $158,000,000,000

of the Social Security surpluses on new spending programs

from fiscal year 2000 through 2004; and

(5) Social Security surpluses should be used for Social

Security reform, retirement security, or to reduce the debt

held by the public and should not be used for other purposes.
H. Con. Res. 68—23

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

the functional totals in this concurrent resolution on the budget

assume that Congress shall pass legislation which—

(1) reaffirms the provisions of section 13301 of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that provides that the

receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust funds

shall not be counted for the purposes of the budget submitted

by the President, the congressional budget, or the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and provides for a point of order within the Senate against any concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment thereto, or a

conference report thereon that violates that section;

(2) mandates that the Social Security surpluses are used

only for the payment of Social Security benefits, retirement

security, Social Security reform, or to reduce the Federal debt

held by the public and such mandate shall be implemented

by establishing a super-majority point of order in the Senate

against limits established on the level of debt held by the

public;

(3) provides for a Senate super-majority point of order

against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or conference

report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything

other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, retirement security, or the reduction of the Federal

debt held by the public;

(4) ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on

time; and

(5) accommodates Social Security reform legislation.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS

TO THE CLASSROOM.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) strengthening America’s public schools while respecting

State and local control is critically important to the future

of our children and our Nation;

(2) education is a local responsibility, a State priority,

and a national concern;

(3) working with the Nation’s governors, parents, teachers,

and principals must take place in order to strengthen public

schools and foster educational excellence;

(4) education initiatives should boost academic achievement

for all students; and excellence in American classrooms means

having high expectations for all students, teachers, and

administrators, and holding schools accountable to the children

and parents served by such schools;

(5) successful schools and school systems are characterized

by parental involvement in the education of their children,

local control, emphasis on basic academics, emphasis on fundamental skills and exceptional teachers in the classroom;

(6) the one-size-fits-all approach to education often creates

barriers to innovation and reform initiatives at the local level;

America’s rural schools face challenges quite different from

their urban counterparts; and parents, teachers, and State

and local officials should have the freedom to tailor their education plans and reforms according to the unique educational

needs of their children;
H. Con. Res. 68—24

(7) the consolidation of various Federal education programs

will benefit our Nation’s children, parents, and teachers by

sending more dollars directly to the classroom; and

(8) our Nation’s children deserve an educational system

that will provide opportunities to excel.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) Congress should enact legislation that would consolidate

31 Federal K–12 education programs;

(2) the Department of Education, the States, and local

educational agencies should work together to ensure that not

less than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for the purpose

of carrying out elementary and secondary education programs

administered by the Department of Education is spent for our

children in their classrooms;

(3) increased funding for elementary and secondary education should be directed to States and local school districts;

and

(4) decision making authority should be placed in the hands

of States, localities, and families to implement innovative solutions to local educational challenges and to increase the

performance of all students, unencumbered by unnecessary Federal rules and regulations.

SEC. 303. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE

WORKING POOR.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

(1) 33 percent of all American households and 60 percent

of African American households have no or negative financial

assets.

(2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in households

with no financial assets, including 40 percent of Caucasian

children and 75 percent of African American children.

(3) In order to provide low-income families with more tools

for empowerment, incentives which encourage asset-building

should be established.

(4) Across the Nation, numerous small public, private, and

public-private asset-building incentives, including individual

development accounts, are demonstrating success at empowering low-income workers.

(5) Middle and upper income Americans currently benefit

from tax incentives for building assets.

(6) The Federal Government should utilize the Federal

tax code to provide low-income Americans with incentives to

work and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

the provisions of this concurrent resolution assume that Congress

should modify the Federal tax law to include provisions which

encourage low-income workers and their families to save for buying

a first home, starting a business, obtaining an education, or taking

other measures to prepare for the future.

SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHILD NUTRITION.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) both Republicans and Democrats understand that an

adequate diet and proper nutrition are essential to a child’s

general well-being;
H. Con. Res. 68—25

(2) the lack of an adequate diet and proper nutrition may

adversely affect a child’s ability to perform up to his or her

ability in school;

(3) the Federal Government currently plays a role in

funding school nutrition programs; and

(4) there is a bipartisan commitment to helping children

learn.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

the Committees on Education and the Workforce and Agriculture

in the House, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry in the Senate should examine our Nation’s nutrition programs to determine if they can be improved, particularly with

respect to services to low-income children.

SEC. 305. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING FUNDING FOR SPECIAL

EDUCATION.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20

U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) (referred to in this concurrent resolution

as the ‘‘Act’’), Congress found that improving educational results

for children with disabilities is an essential element of our

national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for

individuals with disabilities.

(2) In the Act, the Secretary of Education is instructed

to make grants to States to assist them in providing special

education and related services to children with disabilities.

(3) The Act represents a commitment by the Federal

Government to fund 40 percent of the average per-pupil

expenditure in public elementary and secondary schools in the

United States.

(4) The budget submitted by the President for fiscal year

2000 ignores the commitment by the Federal Government under

the Act to fund special education and instead proposes the

creation of new programs that limit the manner in which States

may spend the limited Federal education dollars received.

(5) The budget submitted by the President for fiscal year

2000 fails to increase funding for special education, and leaves

States and localities with an enormous unfunded mandate to

pay for growing special education costs.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

the budgetary levels in this concurrent resolution assume that

part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. 1400

et seq.) should be fully funded at the originally promised level

before any funds are appropriated for new education programs.

Subtitle B—Sense of the House Provisions

SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House finds that—

(1) persecution of individuals on the sole ground of their

religious beliefs and practices occurs in countries around the

world and affects millions of lives;

(2) such persecution violates international norms of human

rights, including those established in the Universal Declaration
H. Con. Res. 68—26

of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, the Helsinki Accords, and the Declaration on

the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination

Based on Religion or Belief;

(3) such persecution is abhorrent to all Americans, and

our very Nation was founded on the principle of the freedom

to worship according to the dictates of our conscience; and

(4) in 1998 Congress unanimously passed, and President

Clinton signed into law, the International Religious Freedom

Act of 1998, which established the United States Commission

on International Religious Freedom to monitor facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom and authorized

$3,000,000 to carry out the functions of the Commission for

each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.

(b) SENSE OF THE HOUSE.—It is the sense of the House that—

(1) this concurrent resolution assumes that $3,000,000 will

be appropriated within function 150 for fiscal year 2000 for

the United States Commission on International Religious

Freedom to carry out its duties; and

(2) the House Committee on Appropriations is strongly

urged to appropriate such amount for the Commission.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE-TOWORK PROGRAMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—It is the sense of the House that, recognizing

the need to maximize the benefit of the Welfare-to-Work Program,

the Secretary of Labor should prepare a report on Welfare-toWork Programs pursuant to section 403(a)(5) of the Social Security

Act. This report should include information on the following—

(1) the extent to which the funds available under such

section have been used (including the number of States that

have not used any of such funds), the types of programs that

have received such funds, the number of and characteristics

of the recipients of assistance under such programs, the goals

of such programs, the duration of such programs, the costs

of such programs, any evidence of the effects of such programs

on such recipients, and accounting of the total amount expended

by the States from such funds, and the rate at which the

Secretary expects such funds to be expended for each of the

fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002;

(2) with regard to the unused funds allocated for Welfareto-Work for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, identify areas

of the Nation that have unmet needs for Welfare-to-Work initiatives; and

(3) identify possible Congressional action that may be taken

to reprogram Welfare-to-Work funds from States that have

not utilized previously allocated funds to places of unmet need,

including those States that have rejected or otherwise not utilized prior funding.

(b) REPORT.—It is the sense of the House that, not later than

January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Labor should submit to the

Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and Means

of the House and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, in

writing, the report described in subsection (a).
H. Con. Res. 68—27

Subtitle C—Sense of the Senate Provisions

SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

SHOULD NOT INVEST THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST

FUNDS IN PRIVATE FINANCIAL MARKETS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying

the functional totals in this concurrent resolution assume that

the Federal Government should not directly invest contributions

made to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under

section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) in private

financial markets.

SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE MODERNIZATION

AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

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

(1) The health insurance coverage provided under the Medicare Program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42

U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial security

for retired and disabled individuals, as such coverage protects

those individuals against the financially ruinous costs of a

major illness.

(2) Expenditures under the Medicare Program for hospital,

physician, and other essential health care services that are

provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired and disabled individuals

will be $232,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.

(3) During the nearly 35 years since the Medicare Program

was established, the Nation’s health care delivery and financing

system has undergone major transformations. However, the

Medicare Program has not kept pace with such transformations.

(4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert

Reischauer has described the Medicare Program as it exists

today as failing on the following four key dimensions (known

as the ‘‘Four I’s’’):

(A) The program is inefficient.

(B) The program is inequitable.

(C) The program is inadequate.

(D) The program is insolvent.

(5) The President’s budget framework does not devote 15

percent of the budget surpluses to the Medicare Program. The

Federal budget process does not provide a mechanism for setting aside current surpluses for future obligations. As a result,

the notion of saving 15 percent of the surplus for the Medicare

Program cannot practically be carried out.

(6) The President’s budget framework would transfer to

the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund more than

$900,000,000,000 over 15 years in new IOUs that must be

redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting

benefits, or borrowing more from the public, and these new

IOUs would increase the gross debt of the Federal Government

by the amounts transferred.

(7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the

transfers described in paragraph (6), which are strictly

intragovernmental, have no effect on the unified budget surpluses or the on-budget surpluses and therefore have no effect

on the debt held by the public.
H. Con. Res. 68—28

(8) The President’s budget framework does not provide

access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.

(9) The Comptroller General of the United States has stated

that the President’s Medicare Proposal does not constitute

reform of the program and ‘‘is likely to create a public

misperception that something meaningful is being done to

reform the Medicare Program’’.

(10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted changes

to the Medicare Program which strengthen and extend the

solvency of that program.

(11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that without the changes made to the Medicare Program by the Balanced

Budget Act of 1997, the depletion of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would now be imminent.

(12) The President’s budget proposes to cut Medicare Program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, primarily

through reductions in payments to providers under that program.

(13) The recommendations by Senator John Breaux and

Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support

of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

(14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new

prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries within

a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the Medicare

Program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal Hospital

Insurance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by raising

taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the public.

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

the provisions contained in this budget resolution assume the following:

(1) This resolution does not adopt the President’s proposals to reduce Medicare Program spending by $19,400,000,000 over

10 years, nor does this resolution adopt the President’s proposal

to spend $10,000,000,000 of Medicare Program funds on unrelated programs.

(2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by

raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the public.

(3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend

the solvency of the Medicare Program and to ensure that benefits under that program will be available to beneficiaries in

the future.

(4) The American public will be well and fairly served

in this undertaking if the Medicare Program reform proposals

are considered within a framework that is based on the following five key principles offered in testimony to the Senate

Committee on Finance by the Comptroller General of the United

States:

(A) Affordability.

(B) Equity.

(C) Adequacy.

(D) Feasibility.

(E) Public acceptance.

(5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for
H. Con. Res. 68—29

the neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially

improves the solvency of the Medicare Program without

transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

new IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting

benefits, or borrowing more from the public.

(6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the

bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen of the National

Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

(7) Congress should continue to work with the President

as he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of

the Medicare Program.

SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EDUCATION.

It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) the levels in this concurrent resolution assume that—

(A) increased Federal funding for elementary and secondary education should be directed to States and local

school districts;

(B) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20

U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) should be fully funded at the originally

promised level before any funds are appropriated for new

education programs;

(C) decisionmaking authority should be placed in the

hands of States, localities, and families to implement

innovative solutions to local education challenges and to

increase the performance of all students, unencumbered

by unnecessary Federal rules and regulations; and

(D) the Department of Education, the States, and local

education agencies should work together to ensure that

not less than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for

the purpose of carrying out elementary and secondary education programs administered by the Department of Education is spent for our children in their classrooms; and

(2) within the discretionary allocation provided to the

Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate for

function 500 that to the maximum extent practicable—

(A) the Federal Pell Grant maximum award should

be increased;

(B) funding for the Federal Supplemental Education

Opportunity Grants Program should be increased;

(C) funding for the Federal capital contributions under

the Federal Perkins Loan Program should be increased;

(D) funding for the Leveraging Educational Assistance

Partnership Program should be increased;

(E) funding for the Federal Work-Study Program

should be increased; and

(F) funding for the Federal TRIO Programs should

be increased.

SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO

AMERICANS BY RETURNING THE NON-SOCIAL SECURITY

SURPLUS TO TAXPAYERS.

It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) the levels in this concurrent resolution assume that

the Senate not only puts a priority on protecting Social Security

and Medicare and reducing the Federal debt, but also on tax

reductions for working families in the form of family tax relief
H. Con. Res. 68—30

and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation,

and economic growth;

(2) such tax relief could include an expansion of the 15-

percent bracket, marginal rate reductions, a significant reduction or elimination of the marriage penalty, retirement savings

incentives, estate tax relief, an above-the-line income tax deduction for Social Security payroll taxes, tax incentives for education savings, parity between the self-employed and corporations with respect to the tax treatment of health insurance

premiums, and capital gains tax fairness for family farmers;

(3) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 needs comprehensive

reform, and Congress should move expeditiously to consider

comprehensive tax reform and simplification proposals; and

(4) Congress should reject the President’s proposed tax

increase on investment income of associations as defined under

section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ACCESS TO MEDICARE SERVICES.

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

resolution assume Congress should review payment levels in the

Medicare Program to ensure beneficiaries have a range of choices

available under the Medicare+Choice program and have access to

high quality skilled nursing services, home health care services,

and inpatient and outpatient hospital services in rural areas.

SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT.

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

resolution assume that—

(1) significant resources should be provided for strong law

enforcement and aggressive crimefighting programs and that

funding in fiscal year 2000 for critical programs should be

equal to or greater than funding for these programs in 1999;

(2) critical programs include—

(A) State and local law enforcement assistance, especially with respect to the development and integration of

anticrime technology systems and upgrading forensic laboratories and the information and communications infrastructures upon which they rely;

(B) continuing efforts to reduce violent crime; and

(C) significant expansion of intensive Federal firearms

prosecutions projects such as the ongoing programs in Richmond and Philadelphia into America’s most crime plagued

cities; and

(3) the existence of a strong Federal drug control policy

is essential in order to reduce the supplies of illegal drugs

internationally and to reduce the number of children who are

exposed to or addicted to illegal drugs and this can be furthered

by—

(A) investments in programs authorized in the Western

Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and the proposed Drug

Free Century Act; and

(B) securing adequate resources and authority for the

United States Customs Service in any legislation reauthorizing the Service.
H. Con. Res. 68—31

SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPROVING SECURITY FOR

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS.

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

resolution assume that—

(1) there is an urgent and ongoing requirement to improve

security for United States diplomatic missions and personnel

abroad; and

(2) additional budgetary resources should be devoted to

programs within function 150 to enable successful international

leadership by the United States.

SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

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

resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this concurrent resolution assume that—

(1) there shall be a continuation of the pattern of budgetary

increases for biomedical research; and

(2) additional resources should be targeted towards autism

research.

SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR KYOTO PROTOCOL

IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO SENATE RATIFICATION.

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

resolution assume that funds should not be provided to put into

effect the Kyoto Protocol prior to its Senate ratification in compliance with the requirements of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution and consistent with previous Administration assurances to Congress.

SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TEA–21 FUNDING AND THE

STATES.

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

resolution and any legislation enacted pursuant to this concurrent

resolution assume that the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget

proposal to change the manner in which any excess Federal gasoline

tax revenues are distributed to the States will not be implemented,

but rather any of these funds will be distributed to the States

pursuant to section 1105 of TEA–21.

SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION SHOULD REAUTHORIZE

FUNDS FOR THE FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

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

in this concurrent resolution assume that the One Hundred Sixth

Congress, first session will reauthorize funds for the Farmland

Protection Program.
H. Con. Res. 68—32

SEC. 332. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL

SECURITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO BECOME DISABLED.

It is the sense of the Senate that levels in the resolution

assume that—

(1) Social Security plays a vital role in providing adequate

income for individuals who become disabled; and

(2) Congress and the President should take this fact into

account when considering proposals to reform the Social Security program.

SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REPORTING OF ON-BUDGET

TRUST FUND LEVELS.

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

resolution assume, effective for fiscal year 2001, the President’s

budget and the budget report of Congressional Budget Office

required under section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 should include an itemization of the on-budget trust funds

for the budget year, including receipts, outlays, and balances.

SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOUTH KOREA’S INTERNATIONAL TRADE PRACTICES ON PORK AND BEEF.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate—

(1) believes strongly that while a stable global marketplace

is in the best interest of America’s farmers and ranchers, the

United States should seek a mutually beneficial relationship

without hindering the competitiveness of American agriculture;

(2) calls on South Korea to abide by its trade commitments;

(3) calls on the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the

United States Executive Director of the International Monetary

Fund to promote vigorously policies that encourage the opening

of markets for beef and pork products by requiring South Korea

to abide by its existing international trade commitments and

to reduce trade barriers, tariffs, and export subsidies;

(4) calls on the President and the Secretaries of the

Treasury and Agriculture to monitor and report to Congress

that resources will not be used to stabilize the South Korean

market at the expense of United States agricultural goods

or services; and

(5) requests the United States Trade Representative and

the United States Department of Agriculture to pursue the

settlement of disputes with the Government of South Korea

on its failure to abide by its international trade commitments

on beef market access, to consider whether Korea’s reported

plans for subsidizing its pork industry would violate any of

its international trade commitments, and to determine what

impact Korea’s subsidy plans would have on United States

agricultural interests, especially in Japan.
H. Con. Res. 68—33

SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR NATURAL

DISASTERS.

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

resolution assume that, given that emergency spending for natural

disasters continues to have an unpredictable yet substantial impact

on the Federal budget and that consequently budgeting for disasters

remains difficult, the Administration and Congress should review

procedures for funding emergencies, including natural disasters,

in any budget process reform legislation that comes before the

Congress.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.