★

In the Senate of the United States,

March 25, 1999.

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 68) entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United

States Government for fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2001

through 2009.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

1 SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000.

3 (a) DECLARATION.—

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Congress determines and de5 clares that this resolution is the concurrent resolution

6 on the budget for fiscal year 2000 including the ap7 propriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001

8 through 2009 as authorized by section 301 of the Con9 gressional Budget Act of 1974.
2

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET RESOLUTION.—S.

2 Res. 312, approved October 21, 1998, (105th Con3 gress) shall be considered to be the concurrent resolu4 tion on the budget for fiscal year 1999.

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

6 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. Reserve fund for agriculture.

Sec. 202. Tax reduction reserve fund in the Senate.

Sec. 203. Clarification on the application of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67.

Sec. 204. Emergency designation point of order.

Sec. 205. Authority to provide committee allocations.

Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for use of OCS receipts.

Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for managed care plans that agree to provide additional services to the elderly.

Sec. 208. Reserve fund for medicare and prescription drugs.

Sec. 209. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

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

of individuals with disabilities.

TITLE III—SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of the Senate on marriage penalty.

Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate on improving security for United States diplomatic

missions.

Sec. 303. Sense of the Senate on access to medicare home health services.

Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate regarding the deductibility of health insurance premiums of the self-employed.

Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate that tax reductions should go to working families.

Sec. 306. Sense of the Senate on the National Guard.

Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate on effects of Social Security reform on women.

Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on increased funding for the national institutes of

health.

Sec. 309. Sense of Congress on funding for Kyoto protocol implementation prior

to Senate ratification.

Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on Federal research and development investment.

Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate on counter-narcotics funding.

Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate regarding tribal colleges.
3

HCON 68 EAS1S

Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on the Social Security surplus.

Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate on need-based student financial aid programs.

Sec. 315. Findings; sense of Congress on the protection of the Social Security surpluses.

Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate on providing adequate funding for United States

international leadership.

Sec. 317. Sense of the Senate that the Federal Government should not invest the

Social Security Trust Funds in private financial markets.

Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate concerning on-budget surplus.

Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate on TEA-21 funding and the States.

Sec. 320. Sense of the Senate that agricultural risk management programs should

benefit livestock producers.

Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate regarding the modernization and improvement of

the medicare program.

Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate on providing tax relief to all Americans by returning non-Social Security surplus to taxpayers.

Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate regarding tax incentives for education savings.

Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate that the One Hundred Sixth Congress, First Session

should reauthorize funds for the Farmland Protection Program.

Sec. 325. Sense of the Senate on tax cuts for lower and middle income taxpayers.

Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate regarding reform of the Internal Revenue Code of

1986.

Sec. 327. Sense of the Senate regarding Davis-Bacon.

Sec. 328. Sense of the Senate regarding access to items and services under medicare program.

Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate concerning autism.

Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate on women’s access to obstetric and gynecological

services.

Sec. 331. Sense of the Senate on LIHEAP.

Sec. 332. Sense of the Senate on transportation firewalls.

Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate on funding existing, effective public health programs

before creating new programs.

Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate concerning funding for special education.

Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate on the importance of Social Security for individuals

who become disabled.

Sec. 336. Sense of the Senate regarding funding for intensive firearms prosecution

programs.

Sec. 337. Honest reporting of the deficit.

Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate concerning fostering the employment and independence of individuals with disabilities.

Sec. 339. Sense of the Senate regarding asset-building for the working poor.

Sec. 340. Sense of the Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that

it is the policy of the United States to provide as soon as is technologically possible an education for every American child that

will enable each child to effectively meet the challenges of the

twenty-first century.

Sec. 341. Sense of the Senate concerning exemption of agricultural commodities

and products, medicines, and medical products from unilateral

economic sanctions.

Sec. 342. Sense of the Senate regarding capital gains tax fairness for family

farmers.

Sec. 343. Budgeting for the Defense Science and Technology Program.

Sec. 344. Sense of the Senate concerning funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program.

Sec. 345. Sense of the Senate on social promotion.
4

HCON 68 EAS1S

Sec. 346. Sense of the Senate on women and Social Security reform.

Sec. 347. Sense of the Congress regarding South Korea’s international trade practices on pork and beef.

Sec. 348. Sense of the Senate regarding support for State and local law enforcement.

Sec. 349. Sense of the Senate on merger enforcement by Department of Justice.

Sec. 350. Sense of the Senate to create a task force to pursue the creation of a

natural disaster reserve fund.

Sec. 351. Sense of the Senate concerning Federal tax relief.

Sec. 352. Sense of the Senate on eliminating the marriage penalty and acrossthe-board income tax rate cuts.

Sec. 353. Sense of the Senate on importance of funding for embassy security.

Sec. 354. Sense of the Senate on funding for after school education.

Sec. 355. Sense of the Senate concerning recovery of funds by the Federal Government in tobacco-related litigation.

Sec. 356. Sense of the Senate on offsetting inappropriate emergency spending.

Sec. 357. Findings; sense of Congress on the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget

proposal to tax association investment income.

Sec. 358. Sense of the Senate regarding funding for counter-narcotics initiatives.

Sec. 359. Sense of the Senate on modernizing America’s schools.

Sec. 360. Sense of the Senate concerning funding for the land and water conservation fund.

Sec. 361. Sense of the Senate regarding support for Federal, State and local law

enforcement and for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

Sec. 362. Sense of the Senate regarding Social Security notch babies.

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 2000 through 2009:

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

6 enforcement of this resolution—

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

9 Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,014,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2004: $1,585,969,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2005: $1,649,259,000,000.
5

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2006: $1,682,788,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2007: $1,737,451,000,000.

3 Fiscal year 2008: $1,807,417,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2009: $1,870,513,000,000.

5 (B) The amounts by which the aggregate

6 levels of Federal revenues should be changed are

7 as follows:

8 Fiscal year 2000: $0.

9 Fiscal year 2001: ¥$6,716,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2002: ¥$52,284,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2003: ¥$31,305,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2004: ¥$48,180,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2005: ¥$61,637,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2006: ¥$107,925,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2007: ¥$133,949,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2008: ¥$148,792,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2009: ¥$175,197,000,000.

18 (2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—For purposes of

19 the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate lev20 els of total new budget authority are as follows:

21 Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,931,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2001: $1,457,294,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2002: $1,488,477,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2003: $1,561,513,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2004: $1,613,278,000,000.
6

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2005: $1,666,843,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2006: $1,698,902,000,000.

3 Fiscal year 2007: $1,754,567,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2008: $1,815,739,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 2009: $1,875,969,000,000.

6 (3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.—For purposes of the en7 forcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of

8 total budget outlays are as follows:

9 Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,292,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,014,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,070,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2005: $1,639,428,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2006: $1,667,958,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2007: $1,717,688,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2008: $1,782,597,000,000.

18 Fiscal year 2009: $1,842,697,000,000.

19 (4) DEFICITS OR SURPLUSES.—For purposes of

20 the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the

21 deficits or surpluses are as follows:

22 Fiscal year 2000: ¥$6,313,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2001: $0.

24 Fiscal year 2002: $0.

25 Fiscal year 2003: $0.
7

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2004: $2,899,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2005: $9,831,000,000.

3 Fiscal year 2006: $14,830,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2007: $19,763,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 2008: $24,820,000,000.

6 Fiscal year 2009: $27,816,000,000.

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

8 public debt are as follows:

9 Fiscal year 2000: $5,635,900,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2001: $5,716,100,000,000.

11 Fiscal year 2002: $5,801,000,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2003: $5,885,000,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2004: $5,962,200,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2005: $6,029,400,000,000.

15 Fiscal year 2006: $6,088,100,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2007: $6,138,900,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2008: $6,175,100,000,000.

18 Fiscal year 2009: $6,203,500,000,000.

19 (6) DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC.—The appro20 priate levels of the debt held by the public are as fol21 lows:

22 Fiscal year 2000: $3,510,000,000,000.

23 Fiscal year 2001: $3,377,700,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2002: $3,236,900,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2003: $3,088,200,000,000.
8

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2004: $2,926,000,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2005: $2,742,900,000,000.

3 Fiscal year 2006: $2,544,200,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2007: $2,329,100,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 2008: $2,099,500,000,000.

6 Fiscal year 2009: $1,861,100,000,000.

7 SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

9 Senate enforcement under sections 302, and 311 of the Con10 gressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of

11 the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

12 and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as

13 follows:

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

15 Fiscal year 2001: $487,744,000,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Senate enforcement under sections 302, and 311 of the Con-
9

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 gressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of

2 the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

3 and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as

4 follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

16 Congress determines and declares that the appropriate

17 levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct

18 loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commit19 ments for fiscal years 2000 through 2009 for each major

20 functional category are:

21 (1) National Defense (050):

22 Fiscal year 2000:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 $288,812,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, $274,567,000,000.
10

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2001:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $303,616,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 2002:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $308,175,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2003:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $318,277,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2004:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $327,166,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2005:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $328,370,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2006:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $329,600,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $315,111,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2007:
11

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $330,870,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $313,687,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2008:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $332,176,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $317,103,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2009:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $333,452,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $318,041,000,000.

12 (2) International Affairs (150):

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $12,511,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2001:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $12,716,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $15,362,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2002:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $11,985,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $14,781,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2003:
12

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $13,590,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $14,380,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2004:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $14,494,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $14,133,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2005:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $14,651,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $13,807,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2006:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $14,834,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $13,513,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2007:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $14,929,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2008:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $14,998,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, $13,181,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2009:
13

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $14,962,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $13,054,000,000.

4 (3) General Science, Space, and Technology

5 (250):

6 Fiscal year 2000:

7 (A) New budget authority,

8 $17,955,000,000.

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

10 Fiscal year 2001:

11 (A) New budget authority,

12 $17,946,000,000.

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

14 Fiscal year 2002:

15 (A) New budget authority,

16 $17,912,000,000.

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

18 Fiscal year 2003:

19 (A) New budget authority,

20 $17,912,000,000.

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

22 Fiscal year 2004:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 $17,912,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, $17,772,000,000.
14

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2005:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $17,912,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 2006:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $17,912,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2007:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $17,912,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2008:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $17,912,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2009:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $17,912,000,000.

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

21 (4) Energy (270):

22 Fiscal year 2000:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 $49,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, ¥$650,000,000.
15

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2001:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 ¥$1,435,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, ¥$3,136,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 2002:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 ¥$163,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,138,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2003:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 ¥$84,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,243,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2004:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 ¥$319,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,381,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2005:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 ¥$447,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,452,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2006:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 ¥$452,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,453,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2007:
16

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 ¥$506,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,431,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2008:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 ¥$208,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,137,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2009:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 ¥$76,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, ¥$1,067,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $21,720,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $22,444,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2001:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $21,183,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $21,729,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2002:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $20,747,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $21,023,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2003:
17

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $22,479,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 2004:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $22,492,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $22,503,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2005:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $22,536,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $22,429,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2006:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $22,566,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $22,466,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2007:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $22,667,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, $22,425,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2008:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $22,658,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, $22,361,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2009:
18

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $23,041,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $22,738,000,000.

4 (6) Agriculture (350):

5 Fiscal year 2000:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $14,831,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $13,660,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2001:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $13,519,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2002:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $11,288,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $9,536,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2003:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $11,955,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2004:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $12,072,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2005:
19

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $10,553,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 2006:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $10,609,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2007:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $10,711,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2008:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $10,763,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2009:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $10,853,000,000.

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

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

21 Fiscal year 2000:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $9,664,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2001:
20

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $10,620,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 2002:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $14,450,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2003:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $14,529,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2004:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $13,859,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2005:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $12,660,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2006:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $12,635,000,000.

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

24 Fiscal year 2007:
21

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $12,666,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 2008:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $12,642,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2009:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $13,415,000,000.

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

12 (8) Transportation (400):

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $51,325,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $45,333,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2001:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $51,128,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2002:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $51,546,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $47,765,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2003:
22

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $52,477,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $46,720,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2004:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $52,580,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $46,207,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2005:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $52,609,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $46,022,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2006:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $52,640,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $45,990,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2007:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $52,673,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, $45,990,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2008:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $52,707,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, $46,007,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2009:
23

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $52,742,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $46,033,000,000.

4 (9) Community and Regional Development

5 (450):

6 Fiscal year 2000:

7 (A) New budget authority,

8 $5,343,000,000.

9 (B) Outlays, $10,273,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2001:

11 (A) New budget authority,

12 $2,704,000,000.

13 (B) Outlays, $7,517,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2002:

15 (A) New budget authority,

16 $1,889,000,000.

17 (B) Outlays, $4,667,000,000.

18 Fiscal year 2003:

19 (A) New budget authority,

20 $2,042,000,000.

21 (B) Outlays, $2,964,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2004:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 $2,037,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, $2,120,000,000.
24

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2005:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $2,030,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, $1,234,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 2006:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $2,027,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2007:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $2,021,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $795,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2008:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $2,019,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $724,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2009:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $2,013,000,000.

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

21 (10) Education, Training, Employment, and So22 cial Services (500):

23 Fiscal year 2000:

24 (A) New budget authority,

25 $67,373,000,000.
25

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (B) Outlays, $63,994,000,000.

2 Fiscal year 2001:

3 (A) New budget authority,

4 $66,549,000,000.

5 (B) Outlays, $65,355,000,000.

6 Fiscal year 2002:

7 (A) New budget authority,

8 $67,295,000,000.

9 (B) Outlays, $66,037,000,000.

10 Fiscal year 2003:

11 (A) New budget authority,

12 $73,334,000,000.

13 (B) Outlays, $68,531,000,000.

14 Fiscal year 2004:

15 (A) New budget authority,

16 $76,648,000,000.

17 (B) Outlays, $72,454,000,000.

18 Fiscal year 2005:

19 (A) New budget authority,

20 $77,464,000,000.

21 (B) Outlays, $75,891,000,000.

22 Fiscal year 2006:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 $78,229,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, $77,189,000,000.
26

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2007:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $79,133,000,000.

4 (B) Outlays, $78,119,000,000.

5 Fiscal year 2008:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $80,144,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, $79,109,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2009:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $80,051,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, $79,059,000,000.

13 (11) Health (550):

14 Fiscal year 2000:

15 (A) New budget authority,

16 $156,181,000,000.

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

18 Fiscal year 2001:

19 (A) New budget authority,

20 $164,089,000,000.

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

22 Fiscal year 2002:

23 (A) New budget authority,

24 $173,330,000,000.

25 (B) Outlays, $173,767,000,000.
27

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Fiscal year 2003:

2 (A) New budget authority,

3 $184,679,000,000.

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

5 Fiscal year 2004:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $197,893,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2005:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $212,821,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2006:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $228,379,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2007:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $246,348,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2008:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $265,160,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2009:
28

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $285,541,000,000.

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

4 (12) Medicare (570):

5 Fiscal year 2000:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $208,652,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2001:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $222,104,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2002:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $230,593,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2003:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $250,743,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2004:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $268,558,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2005:
29

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $295,574,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 2006:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $306,772,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2007:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $337,566,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2008:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $365,642,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2009:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $394,078,000,000.

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

20 (13) Income Security (600):

21 Fiscal year 2000:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $244,390,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2001:
30

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $251,873,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $257,750,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2002:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $264,620,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $267,411,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2003:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $277,386,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $277,175,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2004:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $286,576,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $286,388,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2005:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $298,942,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, $299,128,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2006:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $305,655,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, $305,943,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2007:
31

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $312,047,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $312,753,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2008:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $325,315,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $326,666,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2009:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $335,562,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $337,102,000,000.

12 (14) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $46,724,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $47,064,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2001:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $44,255,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2002:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $44,728,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2003:
32

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $45,536,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $46,024,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2004:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $45,862,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $46,327,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2005:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $48,341,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $48,844,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2006:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $46,827,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $47,373,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2007:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $47,377,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, $45,803,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2008:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $47,959,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, $48,505,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2009:
33

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $48,578,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $49,150,000,000.

4 (15) Administration of Justice (750):

5 Fiscal year 2000:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 $23,434,000,000.

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

9 Fiscal year 2001:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 $24,656,000,000.

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

13 Fiscal year 2002:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $24,657,000,000.

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

17 Fiscal year 2003:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $24,561,000,000.

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

21 Fiscal year 2004:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $24,467,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $24,356,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2005:
34

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $24,355,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $24,242,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2006:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $24,242,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $24,121,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2007:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $24,114,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $23,996,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2008:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $23,989,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $23,885,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2009:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $23,833,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, $23,720,000,000.

20 (16) General Government (800):

21 Fiscal year 2000:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $12,339,000,000.

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

25 Fiscal year 2001:
35

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $11,916,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 2002:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $12,080,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2003:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $12,083,000,000.

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

12 Fiscal year 2004:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $12,099,000,000.

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

16 Fiscal year 2005:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $12,112,000,000.

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

20 Fiscal year 2006:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $12,134,000,000.

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

24 Fiscal year 2007:
36

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $12,150,000,000.

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

4 Fiscal year 2008:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $12,169,000,000.

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

8 Fiscal year 2009:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $12,178,000,000.

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

12 (17) Net Interest (900):

13 Fiscal year 2000:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 $275,682,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, $275,682,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2001:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 $271,443,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, $271,443,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2002:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 $267,855,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, $267,855,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2003:
37

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $265,573,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $265,573,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2004:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 $263,835,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, $263,835,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2005:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 $261,411,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, $261,411,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2006:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 $259,195,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, $259,195,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2007:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 $257,618,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, $257,618,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2008:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 $255,177,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, $255,177,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2009:
38

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 $253,001,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, $253,001,000,000.

4 (18) Allowances (920):

5 Fiscal year 2000:

6 (A) New budget authority,

7 ¥$10,033,000,000.

8 (B) Outlays, ¥$10,094,000,000.

9 Fiscal year 2001:

10 (A) New budget authority,

11 ¥$8,480,000,000.

12 (B) Outlays, ¥$12,874,000,000.

13 Fiscal year 2002:

14 (A) New budget authority,

15 ¥$6,437,000,000.

16 (B) Outlays, ¥$19,976,000,000.

17 Fiscal year 2003:

18 (A) New budget authority,

19 ¥$4,394,000,000.

20 (B) Outlays, ¥$4,835,000,000.

21 Fiscal year 2004:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 ¥$4,481,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,002,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2005:
39

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 ¥$4,515,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,067,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2006:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 ¥$4,619,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,192,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2007:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 ¥$5,210,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,780,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2008:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 ¥$5,279,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,851,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2009:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 ¥$5,316,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, ¥$5,889,000,000.

20 (19) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

21 Fiscal year 2000:

22 (A) New budget authority,

23 ¥$34,260,000,000.

24 (B) Outlays, ¥$34,260,000,000.

25 Fiscal year 2001:
40

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 ¥$36,876,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, ¥$36,876,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2002:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 ¥$43,626,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, ¥$43,626,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2003:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 ¥$37,464,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, ¥$37,464,000,000.

12 Fiscal year 2004:

13 (A) New budget authority,

14 ¥$37,559,000,000.

15 (B) Outlays, ¥$37,559,000,000.

16 Fiscal year 2005:

17 (A) New budget authority,

18 ¥$38,497,000,000.

19 (B) Outlays, ¥$38,497,000,000.

20 Fiscal year 2006:

21 (A) New budget authority,

22 ¥$39,178,000,000.

23 (B) Outlays, ¥$39,178,000,000.

24 Fiscal year 2007:
41

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (A) New budget authority,

2 ¥$40,426,000,000.

3 (B) Outlays, ¥$40,426,000,000.

4 Fiscal year 2008:

5 (A) New budget authority,

6 ¥$41,237,000,000.

7 (B) Outlays, ¥$41,237,000,000.

8 Fiscal year 2009:

9 (A) New budget authority,

10 ¥$42,084,000,000.

11 (B) Outlays, ¥$42,084,000,000.

12 SEC. 104. RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN

13 THE SENATE.

14 Not later than June 18, 1999, the Senate Committee

15 on Finance shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill

16 proposing changes in laws within its jurisdiction

17 necessary—

18 (1) to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in

19 fiscal year 2000, $138,485,000,000 for the period of

20 fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $765,985,000,000

21 for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009; and

22 (2) to decrease the statutory limit on the public

23 debt to not more than $5,865,000,000,000 for fiscal

24 year 2000.
42

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN

2 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

3 Not later than June 11, 1999, the Committee on Ways

4 and Means shall report to the House of Representatives a

5 reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws within its ju6 risdiction necessary—

7 (1) to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in

8 fiscal year 2000, $142,034,000,000 for the period of

9 fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $777,587,000,000

10 for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009; and

11 (2) to decrease the statutory limit on the public

12 debt to not more than $5,865,000,000,000 for fiscal

13 year 2000.

14 TITLE II—BUDGETARY

15 RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

16 SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

17 (a) ADJUSTMENT.—If legislation is reported by the

18 Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

19 that provides risk management and income assistance for

20 agriculture producers, the Chairman of the Senate Com21 mittee on the Budget may increase the allocation of budget

22 authority and outlays to that Committee by an amount that

23 does not exceed—

24 (1) $500,000,000 in budget authority and in out25 lays for fiscal year 2000; and
43

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) $6,000,000,000 in budget authority and

2 $5,165,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal

3 years 2000 through 2004; and

4 (3) $6,000,000,000 in budget authority and in

5 outlays for the period of fiscal years 2000 through

6 2009.

7 (b) LIMITATION.—The Chairman shall not make the

8 adjustments authorized in this section if legislation de9 scribed in subsection (a) would cause an on-budget deficit

10 when taken with all other legislation enacted for—

11 (1) fiscal year 2000;

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

13 or

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

15 (c) BUDGETARY ENFORCEMENT.—Revised allocations

16 under subsection (a) shall be considered for the purposes

17 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations con18 tained in this resolution.

19 SEC. 202. TAX REDUCTION RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, the Chairman of the

21 Committee on the Budget of the Senate may reduce the

22 spending and revenue aggregates and may revise committee

23 allocations for legislation that reduces revenues if such legis24 lation will not increase the deficit for—

25 (1) fiscal year 2000;
44

HCON 68 EAS1S

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

2 or

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

4 (b) BUDGETARY ENFORCEMENT.—Revised allocations

5 and aggregates under subsection (a) shall be considered for

6 the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as

7 allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.

8 (c) LIMITATION.—This reserve fund will give priority

9 to the following types of tax relief—

10 (1) tax relief to help working families afford

11 child care, including assistance for families with a

12 parent staying out of the workforce in order to care

13 for young children;

14 (2) tax relief to help individuals and their fami15 lies afford the expense of long-term health care;

16 (3) tax relief to ease the tax code’s marriage pen17 alties on working families;

18 (4) any other individual tax relief targeted ex19 clusively for families in the bottom 90 percent of the

20 family income distribution;

21 (5) the extension of the Research and Experimen22 tation tax credit, the Work Opportunity tax credit,

23 and other expiring tax provisions, a number of which

24 are important to help American businesses compete in

25 the modern international economy and to help bring
45

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 the benefits of a strong economy to disadvantaged in2 dividuals and communities;

3 (6) tax incentives to help small businesses; and

4 (7) tax relief provided by accelerating the in5 crease in the deductibility of health insurance pre6 miums for the self-employed.

7 SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION ON THE APPLICATION OF SEC8 TION 202 OF H. CON. RES. 67.

9 Section 202(b) of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress)

10 is amended—

11 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘the deficit’’

12 and inserting ‘‘the on-budget deficit or cause an on13 budget deficit’’; and

14 (2) in paragraph (6), by—

15 (A) striking ‘‘increases the deficit’’ and in16 serting ‘‘increases the on-budget deficit or causes

17 an on-budget deficit’’; and

18 (B) striking ‘‘increase the deficit’’ and in19 serting ‘‘increase the on-budget deficit or cause

20 an on-budget deficit’’.

21 SEC. 204. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER.

22 (a) DESIGNATIONS.—

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

24 provision of legislation as an emergency requirement

25 under section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced
46

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,

2 the committee report and any statement of managers

3 accompanying that legislation shall analyze whether

4 a proposed emergency requirement meets all the cri5 teria in paragraph (2).

6 (2) CRITERIA.—

7 (A) IN GENERAL.—The criteria to be con8 sidered in determining whether a proposed ex9 penditure or tax change is an emergency require10 ment are whether it is—

11 (i) necessary, essential, or vital (not

12 merely useful or beneficial);

13 (ii) sudden, quickly coming into being,

14 and not building up over time;

15 (iii) an urgent, pressing, and compel16 ling need requiring immediate action;

17 (iv) subject to subparagraph (B), un18 foreseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated;

19 and

20 (v) not permanent, temporary in na21 ture.

22 (B) UNFORESEEN.—An emergency that is

23 part of an aggregate level of anticipated emer24 gencies, particularly when normally estimated in

25 advance, is not unforeseen.
47

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (3) JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO MEET CRI2 TERIA.—If the proposed emergency requirement does

3 not meet all the criteria set forth in paragraph (2),

4 the committee report or the statement of managers, as

5 the case may be, shall provide a written justification

6 of why the requirement should be accorded emergency

7 status.

8 (b) POINT OF ORDER.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—When the Senate is consid10 ering a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or con11 ference report, upon a point of order being made by

12 a Senator against any provision in that measure des13 ignated as an emergency requirement pursuant to sec14 tion 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget

15 and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the

16 Presiding Officer sustains that point of order, that

17 provision along with the language making the des18 ignation shall be stricken from the measure and may

19 not be offered as an amendment from the floor.

20 (2) GENERAL POINT OF ORDER.—A point of

21 order under this subsection may be raised by a Sen22 ator as provided in section 313(e) of the Congres23 sional Budget Act of 1974.

24 (3) CONFERENCE REPORTS.—If a point of order

25 is sustained under this subsection against a con-
48

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 ference report the report shall be disposed of as pro2 vided in section 313(d) of the Congressional Budget

3 Act of 1974.

4 SEC. 205. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE COMMITTEE ALLOCA5 TIONS.

6 In the event there is no joint explanatory statement

7 accompanying a conference report on the concurrent resolu8 tion on the budget for fiscal year 2000, and in conformance

9 with section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

10 the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House

11 of Representatives and of the Senate shall submit for print12 ing in the Congressional Record allocations consistent with

13 the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000,

14 as passed by the House of Representatives and of the Senate.

15 SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR USE OF

16 OCS RECEIPTS.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, spending aggregates

18 and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be

19 adjusted and allocations may be revised for legislation that

20 would use proceeds from Outer Continental Shelf leasing

21 and production to fund historic preservation, recreation

22 and land, water, fish, and wildlife conservation efforts and

23 to support coastal needs and activities, provided that, to

24 the extent that this concurrent resolution on the budget does

25 not include the costs of that legislation, the enactment of
49

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 that legislation will not increase (by virtue of either contem2 poraneous or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit

3 in this resolution for—

4 (1) fiscal year 2000;

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

6 or

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

8 (b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—

9 (1) ADJUSTMENTS FOR LEGISLATION.—Upon the

10 consideration of legislation pursuant to subsection

11 (a), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of

12 the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately re13 vised allocations under section 302(a) of the Congres14 sional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional lev15 els and aggregates to carry out this section. These re16 vised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates

17 shall be considered for the purposes of the Congres18 sional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional

19 levels, and aggregates contained in this resolution.

20 (2) ADJUSTMENTS FOR AMENDMENTS.—If the

21 Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Sen22 ate submits an adjustment under this section for leg23 islation in furtherance of the purpose described in

24 subsection (a), upon the offering of an amendment to

25 that legislation that would necessitate such submis-
50

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 sion, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate appro2 priately revised allocations under section 302(a) of

3 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised

4 functional levels and aggregates to carry out this sec5 tion. These revised allocations, functional levels, and

6 aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the

7 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations,

8 functional levels, and aggregates contained in this res9 olution.

10 (c) REPORTING REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—The appro11 priate committees shall report appropriately revised alloca12 tions pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budg13 et Act of 1974 to carry out this section.

14 SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MANAGED

15 CARE PLANS THAT AGREE TO PROVIDE ADDI16 TIONAL SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, spending aggregates

18 and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be

19 adjusted and allocations may be revised for legislation to

20 provide: additional funds for medicare managed care plans

21 agreeing to serve elderly patients for at least 2 years and

22 whose reimbursement was reduced because of the risk ad23 justment regulations, provided that to the extent that this

24 concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the

25 costs of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation
51

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or

2 previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this reso3 lution for—

4 (1) fiscal year 2000;

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

6 or

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

8 (b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—

9 (1) ADJUSTMENTS FOR LEGISLATION.—Upon the

10 consideration of legislation pursuant to subsection

11 (a), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of

12 the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately re13 vised allocations under section 302(a) of the Congres14 sional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional level

15 and spending aggregates to carry out this section.

16 These revised allocations, functional levels, and spend17 ing aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of

18 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations,

19 functional levels, and aggregates contained in this res20 olution.

21 (2) ADJUSTMENTS FOR AMENDMENTS.—If the

22 Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Sen23 ate submits an adjustment under this section for leg24 islation in furtherance of the purpose described in

25 subsection (a), upon the offering of an amendment to
52

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 that legislation that would necessitate such submis2 sion, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate appro3 priately revised allocations under section 302(a) of

4 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised

5 functional levels and spending aggregates to carry out

6 this section. These revised allocations, functional lev7 els, and aggregates shall be considered for the pur8 poses of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allo9 cations, functional levels, and aggregates contained in

10 this resolution.

11 (d) REPORTING REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—The appro12 priate committees shall report appropriately revised alloca13 tions pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budg14 et Act of 1974 to carry out this section.

15 SEC. 208. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE AND PRESCRIP16 TION DRUGS.

17 (a) ADJUSTMENT.—If legislation is reported by the

18 Senate Committee on Finance that significantly extends the

19 solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

20 without the use of transfers of new subsidies from the gen21 eral fund, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget

22 may change committee allocations and spending aggregates

23 if such legislation will not cause an on-budget deficit for—

24 (1) fiscal year 2000;
53

HCON 68 EAS1S

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

2 or

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

4 (b) PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT.—The adjustments

5 made pursuant to subsection (a) may be made to address

6 the cost of the prescription drug benefit.

7 (c) BUDGETARY ENFORCEMENT.—The revision of allo8 cations and aggregates made under this section shall be con9 sidered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act

10 of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in this reso11 lution.

12 SEC. 209. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

13 Congress adopts the provisions of this title—

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

15 Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively,

16 and as such they shall be considered as part of the

17 rules of each House, or of that House to which they

18 specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede

19 other rules only to the extent that they are incon20 sistent therewith; and

21 (2) with full recognition of the constitutional

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

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

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

25 other rule of that House.
54

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO FOSTER

2 THE EMPLOYMENT AND INDEPENDENCE OF

3 INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, revenue and spend5 ing aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and

6 limits may be adjusted and allocations may be revised for

7 legislation that finances disability programs designed to

8 allow individuals with disabilities to become employed and

9 remain independent: Provided, That, to the extent that this

10 concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the

11 costs of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation

12 will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or

13 previously-passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this reso14 lution for—

15 (1) fiscal year 2000;

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

17 or

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

19 (b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—

20 (1) ADJUSTMENTS FOR LEGISLATION.—Upon the

21 consideration of legislation pursuant to subsection

22 (a), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of

23 the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately-re24 vised allocations under section 302(a) of the Congres25 sional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional lev26 els and aggregates to carry out this section. These re-
55

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 vised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates

2 shall be considered for the purposes of the Congres3 sional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional

4 levels, and aggregates contained in this resolution.

5 (2) ADJUSTMENTS FOR AMENDMENTS.—If the

6 chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Sen7 ate submits an adjustment under this section for leg8 islation in furtherance of the purpose described in

9 subsection (a), upon the offering of an amendment to

10 that legislation that would necessitate such submis11 sion, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate appro12 priately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of

13 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised

14 functional levels and aggregates to carry out this sec15 tion. These revised allocations, functional levels, and

16 aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the

17 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations,

18 functional levels, and aggregates contained in this res19 olution.

20 (c) REPORTING REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—The appro21 priate committees shall report appropriately-revised alloca22 tions pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budg23 et Act of 1974 to carry out this section.
56

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 TITLE III—SENSE OF THE

2 CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

3 SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MARRIAGE PENALTY.

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

5 (1) differences in income tax liabilities caused by

6 marital status are embodied in a number of tax code

7 provisions including separate rate schedules and

8 standard deductions for married couples and single

9 individuals;

10 (2) according to the Congressional Budget Office

11 (CBO), 42 percent of married couples incurred ‘‘mar12 riage penalties’’ under the tax code in 1996, aver13 aging nearly $1,400;

14 (3) measured as a percent of income, marriage

15 penalties are largest for low-income families, as cou16 ples with incomes below $20,000 who incurred a mar17 riage penalty in 1996 were forced to pay nearly 8

18 percent more of their income in taxes than if they had

19 been able to file individual returns;

20 (4) empirical evidence indicates that the mar21 riage penalty may affect work patterns, particularly

22 for a couple’s second earner, because higher rates re23 duce after-tax wages and may cause second earners to

24 work fewer hours or not at all, which, in turn, re25 duces economic efficiency; and
57

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (5) the tax code should not improperly influence

2 the choice of couples with regard to marital status by

3 having the combined Federal income tax liability of

4 a couple be higher if they are married than if they

5 are single.

6 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen7 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

8 pursuant to this resolution assume that significantly reduc9 ing or eliminating the marriage penalty should be a compo10 nent of any tax cut package reported by the Finance Com11 mittee and passed by Congress during the fiscal year 2000

12 budget reconciliation process.

13 SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPROVING SECURITY

14 FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS.

15 It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this reso16 lution assume that there is an urgent and ongoing require17 ment to improve security for United States diplomatic mis18 sions and personnel abroad, which should be met without

19 compromising existing budgets for International Affairs

20 (function 150).

21 SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ACCESS TO MEDICARE

22 HOME HEALTH SERVICES.

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

24 (1) medicare home health services provide a vi25 tally important option enabling homebound individ-
58

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 uals to stay in their own homes and communities

2 rather than go into institutionalized care; and

3 (2) implementation of the Interim Payment Sys4 tem and other changes to the medicare home health

5 benefit have exacerbated inequalities in payments for

6 home health services between regions, limiting access

7 to these services in many areas and penalizing effi8 cient, low-cost providers.

9 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen10 ate the levels in this resolution assume that the Senate

11 should act to ensure fair and equitable access to high qual12 ity home health services.

13 SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE DEDUCT14 IBILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS

15 OF THE SELF-EMPLOYED.

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

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

18 enjoy parity with their corporate competitors with re19 spect to the tax deductibility of their health insurance

20 premiums;

21 (2) this April, the self-employed will only be able

22 to deduct only 45 percent of their health insurance

23 premiums for the tax year 1998;
59

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (3) the following April, the self-employed will be

2 able to take a 60-percent deduction for their health

3 insurance premiums for the tax year 1999;

4 (4) it will not be until 2004 that the self-em5 ployed will be able to take a full 100-percent deduc6 tion for their health insurance premiums for the tax

7 year 2003;

8 (5) the self-employed’s health insurance pre9 miums are generally over 30 percent higher than the

10 health insurance premiums of group health plans;

11 (6) the increased cost coupled with the less favor12 able tax treatment makes health insurance less afford13 able for the self-employed;

14 (7) these disadvantages are reflected in the higher

15 rate of uninsured among the self-employed which

16 stands at 24.1 percent compared with 18.2 percent for

17 all wage and salaried workers, for self-employed liv18 ing at or below the poverty level the rate of uninsured

19 is 53.1 percent, for self-employed living at 100

20 through 199 percent of poverty the rate of uninsured

21 is 47 percent, and for self-employed living at 200 per22 cent of poverty and above the rate of uninsured is

23 17.8 percent;

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

25 face significant occupational safety hazards, this lack
60

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 of health insurance affordability has even greater

2 ramifications; and

3 (9) this lack of full deductibility is also adversely

4 affecting the growing number of women who own

5 small businesses.

6 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen7 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that tax relief

8 legislation should include parity between the self-employed

9 and corporations with respect to the tax treatment of health

10 insurance premiums.

11 SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT TAX REDUCTIONS

12 SHOULD GO TO WORKING FAMILIES.

13 It is the sense of the Senate that this concurrent resolu14 tion on the budget assumes any reductions in taxes should

15 be structured to benefit working families by providing fam16 ily tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings, invest17 ment, job creation, and economic growth.

18 SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE NATIONAL

19 GUARD.

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

21 (1) the Army National Guard relies heavily

22 upon thousands of full-time employees, Military Tech23 nicians and Active Guard/Reserves, to ensure unit

24 readiness throughout the Army National Guard;
61

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) these employees perform vital day-to-day

2 functions, ranging from equipment maintenance to

3 leadership and staff roles, that allow the drill week4 ends and annual active duty training of the tradi5 tional Guardsmen to be dedicated to preparation for

6 the National Guard’s warfighting and peacetime mis7 sions;

8 (3) when the ability to provide sufficient Active

9 Guard/Reserves and Technicians end strength is re10 duced, unit readiness, as well as quality of life for sol11 diers and families is degraded;

12 (4) the Army National Guard, with agreement

13 from the Department of Defense, requires a minimum

14 essential requirement of 23,500 Active Guard/Reserves

15 and 25,500 Technicians; and

16 (5) the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the

17 Army National Guard provides resources sufficient

18 for approximately 21,807 Active Guard/Reserves and

19 22,500 Technicians, end strength shortfalls of 3,000

20 and 1,693, respectively.

21 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen22 ate that the functional totals in the budget resolution as23 sume that the Department of Defense will give priority to

24 providing adequate resources to sufficiently fund the Active
62

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Guard/Reserves and Military Technicians at minimum re2 quired levels.

3 SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EFFECTS OF SOCIAL

4 SECURITY REFORM ON WOMEN.

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

6 (1) the Social Security benefit structure is of

7 particular importance to low-earning wives and wid8 ows, with 63 percent of women beneficiaries aged 62

9 or older receiving wife’s or widow’s benefits;

10 (2) three-quarters of unmarried and widowed el11 derly women rely on Social Security for more than

12 half of their income;

13 (3) without Social Security benefits, the elderly

14 poverty rate among women would have been 52.2 per15 cent, and among widows would have been 60.6 per16 cent;

17 (4) women tend to live longer and tend to have

18 lower lifetime earnings than men do;

19 (5) women spend an average of 11.5 years out of

20 their careers to care for their families, and are more

21 likely to work part-time than full-time; and

22 (6) during these years in the workforce, women

23 earn an average of 70 cents for every dollar men earn.

24 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen25 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that—
63

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) women face unique obstacles in ensuring re2 tirement security and survivor and disability sta3 bility;

4 (2) Social Security plays an essential role in

5 guaranteeing inflation-protected financial stability

6 for women throughout their entire old age; and

7 (3) the Congress and the President should take

8 these factors into account when considering proposals

9 to reform the Social Security system.

10 SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING

11 FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

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

13 (1) the National Institutes of Health is the Na14 tion’s foremost research center;

15 (2) the Nation’s commitment to and investment

16 in biomedical research has resulted in better health

17 and an improved quality of life for all Americans;

18 (3) continued biomedical research funding must

19 be ensured so that medical doctors and scientists have

20 the security to commit to conducting long-term re21 search studies;

22 (4) funding for the National Institutes of Health

23 should continue to increase in order to prevent the

24 cessation of biomedical research studies and the loss
64

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 of medical doctors and research scientists to private

2 research organizations; and

3 (5) the National Institutes of Health conducts re4 search protocols without proprietary interests, thereby

5 ensuring that the best health care is researched and

6 made available to the Nation.

7 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen8 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

9 pursuant to this resolution assume that there shall be a con10 tinuation of the pattern of budgetary increases for bio11 medical research.

12 SEC. 309. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FUNDING FOR KYOTO

13 PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO SEN14 ATE RATIFICATION.

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

16 (1) The agreement signed by the Administration

17 on November 12, 1998, regarding legally binding

18 commitments on greenhouse gas reductions is incon19 sistent with the provisions of S. Res. 98, the Byrd20 Hagel Resolution, which passed the Senate unani21 mously.

22 (2) The Administration has agreed to allowing

23 at least 2 additional years for negotiations on the

24 Buenos Aires Action Plan to determine the provisions

25 of several vital aspects of the Treaty for the United
65

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 States, including emissions trading schemes, carbon

2 sinks, a clean development mechanism, and devel3 oping Nation participation.

4 (3) The Administration has not submitted the

5 Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification and has

6 indicated it has no intention to do so in the foresee7 able future.

8 (4) The Administration has pledged to Congress

9 that it would not implement any portion of the Kyoto

10 Protocol prior to its ratification in the Senate.

11 (5) Congress agrees that Federal expenditures are

12 required and appropriate for activities which both

13 improve the environment and reduce carbon dioxide

14 emissions. Those activities include programs to pro15 mote energy efficient technologies, encourage tech16 nology development that reduces or sequesters green17 house gases, encourage the development and use of al18 ternative and renewable fuel technologies, and other

19 programs justifiable independent of the goals of the

20 Kyoto Protocol.

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

22 that the levels in this resolution assume that funds should

23 not be provided to put into effect the Kyoto Protocol prior

24 to its Senate ratification in compliance with the require-
66

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 ments of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution and consistent with

2 previous Administration assurances to Congress.

3 SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FEDERAL RESEARCH

4 AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT.

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

6 (1) A dozen internationally, prestigious economic

7 studies have shown that technological progress has

8 historically been the single most important factor in

9 economic growth, having more than twice the impact

10 of labor or capital.

11 (2) The link between economic growth and tech12 nology is evident: our dominant high technology in13 dustries are currently responsible for 80 percent of the

value of today’s stock market, 1 14 ⁄3 of our economic out15 put, and half of our economic growth. Furthermore,

16 the link between Federal funding of research and de17 velopment (R&D) and market products is conclusive:

18 70 percent of all patent applications cite nonprofit or

19 federally-funded research as a core component to the

20 innovation being patented.

21 (3) The revolutionary high technology applica22 tions of today were spawned from scientific advances

23 that occurred in the 1960’s, when the Government in24 tensively funded R&D. In the 3 decades since then,

25 our investment in R&D as a fraction of Gross Domes-
67

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 tic Product (GDP) has dropped to half its former

2 value. As a fraction of the Federal budget, the investment in civilian R&D has dropped to only 1 3 ⁄3 its

4 value in 1965.

5 (4) Compared to other foreign nation’s invest6 ment in science and technology, American competi7 tiveness is slipping: an Organization for Economic

8 Co-operation and Development report notes that 14

9 countries now invest more in basic and fundamental

10 research as a fraction of GDP than the United States.

11 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen12 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that the Federal

13 investment in R&D should be preserved and increased in

14 order to ensure long-term United States economic strength.

15 Funding for Federal agencies performing basic scientific,

16 medical, and precompetitive engineering research pursuant

17 to the Balanced Budget Agreement Act of 1997 should be

18 a priority for the Senate Budget and Appropriations Com19 mittees this year, within the Budget as established by this

20 Committee, in order to achieve a goal of doubling the Fed21 eral investment in R&D over an 11 year period.

22 SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COUNTER-NARCOTICS

23 FUNDING.

24 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
68

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) the drug crisis facing the United States is a

2 top national security threat;

3 (2) the spread of illicit drugs through United

4 States borders cannot be halted without an effective

5 drug interdiction strategy;

6 (3) effective drug interdiction efforts have been

7 shown to limit the availability of illicit narcotics,

8 drive up the street price, support demand reduction

9 efforts, and decrease overall drug trafficking and use;

10 and

11 (4) the percentage change in drug use since 1992,

12 among graduating high school students who used

13 drugs in the past 12 months, has substantially in14 creased—marijuana use is up 80 percent, cocaine use

15 is up 80 percent, and heroin use is up 100 percent.

16 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen17 ate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals

18 included in this resolution assume the following:

19 (1) All counter-narcotics agencies will be given a

20 high priority for fully funding their counter-narcotics

21 mission.

22 (2) Front line drug fighting agencies are dedi23 cating more resources for intentional efforts to con24 tinue restoring a balanced drug control strategy. Con25 gress should carefully examine the reauthorization of
69

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 the United States Customs service and ensure they

2 have adequate resources and authority not only to fa3 cilitate the movement of internationally traded goods

4 but to ensure they can aggressively pursue their law

5 enforcement activities.

6 (3) By pursuing a balanced effort which requires

7 investment in 3 key areas: demand reduction (such as

8 education and treatment); domestic law enforcement;

9 and international supply reduction, Congress believes

10 we can reduce the number of children who are exposed

11 to and addicted to illegal drugs.

12 SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRIBAL COL13 LEGES.

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

15 (1) more than 26,500 students from 250 tribes

16 nationwide attend tribal colleges. The colleges serve

17 students of all ages, many of whom are moving from

18 welfare to work. The vast majority of tribal college

19 students are first-generation college students;

20 (2) while annual appropriations for tribal col21 leges have increased modestly in recent years, core operation funding levels are still about 1 22 ⁄2 of the $6,000

23 per Indian student level authorized by the Tribally

24 Controlled College or University Act;
70

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (3) although tribal colleges received a $1,400,000

2 increase in funding in fiscal year 1999, because of

3 rising student populations, these institutions faced an

4 actual per-student decrease in funding over fiscal

5 year 1998; and

6 (4) per student funding for tribal colleges is only

7 about 63 percent of the amount given to mainstream

8 community colleges ($2,964 per student at tribal col9 leges versus $4,743 per student at mainstream com10 munity colleges).

11 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen12 ate that—

13 (1) this resolution recognizes the funding dif14 ficulties faced by tribal colleges and assumes that pri15 ority consideration will be provided to them through

16 funding for the Tribally Controlled College and Uni17 versity Act, the 1994 Land Grant Institutions, and

18 title III of the Higher Education Act; and

19 (2) the levels in this resolution assume that such

20 priority consideration reflects Congress’ intent to con21 tinue work toward current statutory Federal funding

22 goals for the tribal colleges.

23 SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY

24 SURPLUS.

25 (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
71

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) according to the Congressional Budget Office

2 (CBO) January 1999 ‘‘Economic and Budget Out3 look,’’ the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to

4 incur annual surpluses of $126,000,000,000 in fiscal

5 year 1999, $137,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000,

6 $144,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001,

7 $153,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002,

8 $161,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, and

9 $171,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;

10 (2) the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution crafted

11 by Chairman Domenici assumes that Trust Fund sur12 pluses will be used to reduce publicly-held debt and

13 for no other purposes, and calls for the enactment of

14 statutory legislation that would enforce this assump15 tion;

16 (3) the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget pro17 posal not only fails to call for legislation that will en18 sure annual Social Security surpluses are used strict19 ly to reduce publicly-held debt, but actually spends a

20 portion of these surpluses on non-Social Security pro21 grams;

22 (4) using CBO’s re-estimate of his budget pro23 posal, the President would spend approximately

24 $40,000,000,000 of the Social Security surplus in fis25 cal year 2000 on non-Social Security programs;
72

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 $41,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001; $24,000,000,000

2 in fiscal year 2002; $34,000,000,000 in fiscal year

3 2003; and $20,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2004; and

4 (5) spending any portion of an annual Social

5 Security surplus on non-Social Security programs is

6 wholly-inconsistent with efforts to preserve and pro7 tect Social Security for future generations.

8 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen9 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

10 pursuant to this resolution assume that Congress shall reject

11 any budget that would spend any portion of the Social Se12 curity surpluses generated in any fiscal year for any Fed13 eral program other than Social Security.

14 SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NEED-BASED STUDENT

15 FINANCIAL AID PROGRAMS.

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

17 (1) public investment in higher education yields

18 a return of several dollars for each dollar invested;

19 (2) higher education promotes economic oppor20 tunity for individuals, as recipients of bachelor’s de21 grees earn an average of 75 percent per year more

22 than those with high school diplomas and experience

23 half as much unemployment as high school graduates;

24 (3) higher education promotes social oppor25 tunity, as increased education is correlated with re-
73

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 duced criminal activity, lessened reliance on public

2 assistance, and increased civic participation;

3 (4) a more educated workforce will be essential

4 for continued economic competitiveness in an age

5 where the amount of information available to society

6 will double in a matter of days rather than months

7 or years;

8 (5) access to a college education has become a

9 hallmark of American society, and is vital to uphold10 ing our belief in equality of opportunity;

11 (6) for a generation, the Federal Pell Grant has

12 served as an established and effective means of pro13 viding access to higher education for students with fi14 nancial need;

15 (7) over the past decade, Pell Grant awards have

16 failed to keep pace with inflation, eroding their value

17 and threatening access to higher education for the Na18 tion’s neediest students;

19 (8) grant aid as a portion of all students finan20 cial aid has fallen significantly over the past 5 years;

21 (9) the Nation’s neediest students are now bor22 rowing approximately as much as its wealthiest stu23 dents to finance higher education; and
74

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (10) the percentage of freshmen attending public

2 and private 4-year institutions from families below

3 national median income has fallen since 1981.

4 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen5 ate that within the discretionary allocation provided to the

6 Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for function

7 500—

8 (1) the maximum amount of Federal Pell Grants

9 should be increased by $400;

10 (2) funding for the Federal Supplemental Edu11 cational Opportunity Grants Program should be in12 creased by $65,000,000;

13 (3) funding for the Federal capital contributions

14 under the Federal Perkins Loan Program should be

15 increased by $35,000,000;

16 (4) funding for the Leveraging Educational As17 sistance Partnership Program should be increased by

18 $50,000,000;

19 (5) funding for the Federal Work-Study Program

20 should be increased by $64,000,000;

21 (6) funding for the Federal TRIO Programs

22 should be increased by $100,000,000.

23 SEC. 315. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROTEC24 TION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

25 (a) The Congress finds that—
75

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) Congress and the President should balance

2 the budget excluding the surpluses generated by the

3 Social Security Trust Funds;

4 (2) reducing the Federal debt held by the public

5 is a top national priority, strongly supported on a bi6 partisan basis, as evidenced by Federal Reserve

7 Chairman Alan Greenspan’s comment that debt re8 duction ‘‘is a very important element in sustaining

9 economic growth’’, as well as President Clinton’s com10 ments that it ‘‘is very, very important that we get the

11 Government debt down’’ when referencing his own

12 plans to use the budget surplus to reduce Federal debt

13 held by the public;

14 (3) according to the Congressional Budget Office,

15 balancing the budget excluding the surpluses gen16 erated by the Social Security Trust Funds will reduce

17 debt held by the public by a total of

18 $1,723,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009,

19 $417,000,000,000, or 32 percent, more than it would

20 be reduced under the President’s fiscal year 2000

21 budget submission;

22 (4) further, according to the Congressional Budg23 et Office, that the President’s budget would actually

24 spend $40,000,000,000 of the Social Security sur25 pluses in fiscal year 2000 on new spending programs,
76

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 and spend $158,000,000,000 of the Social Security

2 surpluses on new spending programs from fiscal year

3 2000 through 2004; and

4 (5) Social Security surpluses should be used for

5 Social Security reform or to reduce the debt held by

6 the public and should not be used for other purposes.

7 (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals

8 in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that

9 Congress shall pass legislation which—

10 (1) reaffirms the provisions of section 13301 of

11 the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that

12 provides that the receipts and disbursements of the

13 Social Security Trust Funds shall not be counted for

14 the purposes of the budget submitted by the President,

15 the congressional budget, or the Balanced Budget and

16 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and provides

17 for a point of order within the Senate against any

18 concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment

19 thereto, or a conference report thereon that violates

20 that section;

21 (2) mandates that the Social Security surpluses

22 are used only for the payment of Social Security ben23 efits, Social Security reform or to reduce the Federal

24 debt held by the public, and not spent on non-Social

25 Security programs or used to offset tax cuts;
77

HCON 68 EAS1S

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

2 order against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion

3 or conference report that would use Social Security

4 surpluses on anything other than the payment of So5 cial Security benefits, Social Security reform or the

6 reduction of the Federal debt held by the public;

7 (4) ensures that all Social Security benefits are

8 paid on time; and

9 (5) accommodates Social Security reform legisla10 tion.

11 SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROVIDING ADEQUATE

12 FUNDING FOR UNITED STATES INTER13 NATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

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

15 (1) United States international leadership is es16 sential to maintaining security and peace for all

17 Americans;

18 (2) such leadership depends on effective diplo19 macy as well as a strong military;

20 (3) effective diplomacy requires adequate re21 sources both for embassy security and for inter22 national programs;

23 (4) in addition to building peace, prosperity and

24 democracy around the world, programs in the Inter25 national Affairs (150) account serve United States in-
78

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 terests by ensuring better jobs and a higher standard

2 of living, promoting the health of our citizens and

3 preserving our natural environment, and protecting

4 the rights and safety of those who travel or do busi5 ness overseas;

6 (5) real spending for International Affairs has

7 declined more than 50 percent since the mid-1980s, at

8 the same time that major new challenges and oppor9 tunities have arisen from the disintegration of the So10 viet Union and the worldwide trends toward democ11 racy and free markets;

12 (6) current ceilings on discretionary spending

13 will impose severe additional cuts in funding for

14 International Affairs; and

15 (7) improved security for United States diplo16 matic missions and personnel will place further

17 strain on the International Affairs budget absent sig18 nificant additional resources.

19 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen20 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that additional

21 budgetary resources should be identified for function 150

22 to enable successful United States international leadership.
79

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOV2 ERNMENT SHOULD NOT INVEST THE SOCIAL

3 SECURITY TRUST FUNDS IN PRIVATE FINAN4 CIAL MARKETS.

5 It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions un6 derlying the functional totals in this resolution assume that

7 the Federal Government should not directly invest contribu8 tions made to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance

9 Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust

10 Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security

11 Act (42 U.S.C. 401) in private financial markets.

12 SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ON-BUDGET

13 SURPLUS.

14 (a) It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions

15 in this resolution assume that if the Congressional Budget

16 Office determines there is an on-budget surplus for fiscal

17 year 2000, $2,000,000,000 of that surplus will be restored

18 to the programs cut in function 920.

19 (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions

20 underlying this budget resolution assume that none of these

21 offsets will come from defense or veterans, and to the extent

22 possible should come from administrative functions.

23 SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TEA-21 FUNDING AND

24 THE STATES.

25 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
80

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) on May 22, 1998, the Senate overwhelmingly

2 approved the conference committee report on H.R.

3 2400, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Cen4 tury, in a 88–5 roll call vote;

5 (2) also on May 22, 1998, the House of Rep6 resentatives approved the conference committee report

7 on this bill in a 297–86 recorded vote;

8 (3) on June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed

9 this bill into law, thereby making it Public Law 105–

10 178;

11 (4) the TEA–21 legislation was a comprehensive

12 reauthorization of Federal highway and mass transit

13 programs, which authorized approximately

14 $216,000,000,000 in Federal transportation spending

15 over the next 6 fiscal years;

16 (5) section 1105 of this legislation called for any

17 excess Federal gasoline tax revenues to be provided to

18 the States under the formulas established by the final

19 version of TEA–21; and

20 (6) the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget re21 quest contained a proposal to distribute approxi22 mately $1,000,000,000 in excess Federal gasoline tax

23 revenues that was not consistent with the provisions

24 of section 1105 of TEA–21 and would deprive States

25 of needed revenues.
81

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen2 ate that the levels in this resolution and any legislation en3 acted pursuant to this resolution assume that the Presi4 dent’s fiscal year 2000 budget proposal to change the man5 ner in which any excess Federal gasoline tax revenues are

6 distributed to the States will not be implemented, but rather

7 any of these funds will be distributed to the States pursuant

8 to section 1105 of TEA–21.

9 SEC. 320. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT AGRICULTURAL

10 RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS SHOULD BEN11 EFIT LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS.

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

13 (1) extremes in weather-related and natural con14 ditions have a profound impact on the economic via15 bility of producers;

16 (2) these extremes, such as drought, excessive

17 rain and snow, flood, wind, insect infestation are cer18 tainly beyond the control of livestock producers;

19 (3) these extremes do not impact livestock pro20 ducers within a State, region or the Nation in the

21 same manner or during the same time frame or for

22 the same duration of time;

23 (4) the livestock producers have few effective risk

24 management tools at their disposal to adequately
82

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 manage the short and long term impacts of weather2 related or natural disaster situations; and

3 (5) ad hoc natural disaster assistance programs,

4 while providing some relief, are not sufficient to meet

5 livestock producers’ needs for rational risk manage6 ment planning.

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

8 that any consideration of reform of Federal crop insurance

9 and risk management programs should include the needs

10 of livestock producers.

11 SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE MOD12 ERNIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE

13 MEDICARE PROGRAM.

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

15 (1) The health insurance coverage provided

16 under the medicare program under title XVIII of the

17 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an in18 tegral part of the financial security for retired and

19 disabled individuals, as such coverage protects those

20 individuals against the financially ruinous costs of a

21 major illness.

22 (2) Expenditures under the medicare program

23 for hospital, physician, and other essential health care

24 services that are provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired
83

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 and disabled individuals will be $232,000,000,000 in

2 fiscal year 2000.

3 (3) During the nearly 35 years since the medi4 care program was established, the Nation’s health care

5 delivery and financing system has undergone major

6 transformations. However, the medicare program has

7 not kept pace with such transformations.

8 (4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director

9 Robert Reischauer has described the medicare pro10 gram as it exists today as failing on the following 4

11 key dimensions (known as the ‘‘Four I’s’’):

12 (A) The program is inefficient.

13 (B) The program is inequitable.

14 (C) The program is inadequate.

15 (D) The program is insolvent.

16 (5) The President’s budget framework does not

17 devote 15 percent of the budget surpluses to the medi18 care program. The Federal budget process does not

19 provide a mechanism for setting aside current sur20 pluses for future obligations. As a result, the notion

21 of saving 15 percent of the surplus for the medicare

22 program cannot practically be carried out.

23 (6) The President’s budget framework would

24 transfer to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust

25 Fund more than $900,000,000,000 over 15 years in
84

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 new IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising

2 taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or bor3 rowing more from the public, and these new IOUs

4 would increase the gross debt of the Federal Govern5 ment by the amounts transferred.

6 (7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated

7 that the transfers described in paragraph (6), which

8 are strictly intragovernmental, have no effect on the

9 unified budget surpluses or the on-budget surpluses

10 and therefore have no effect on the debt held by the

11 public.

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

13 provide access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.

14 (9) The Comptroller General of the United States

15 has stated that the President’s medicare proposal does

16 not constitute reform of the program and ‘‘is likely to

17 create a public misperception that something mean18 ingful is being done to reform the medicare program’’.

19 (10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted

20 changes to the medicare program which strengthen

21 and extend the solvency of that program.

22 (11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated

23 that without the changes made to the medicare pro24 gram by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the deple-
85

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 tion of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

2 would now be imminent.

3 (12) The President’s budget proposes to cut medi4 care program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10

5 years, primarily through reductions in payments to

6 providers under that program.

7 (13) The recommendations by Senator John

8 Breaux and Representative William Thomas received

9 the bipartisan support of a majority of members on

10 the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of

11 Medicare.

12 (14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations pro13 vide for new prescription drug coverage for the need14 iest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially im15 proves the solvency of the medicare program without

16 transferring new IOUs to the Federal Hospital Insur17 ance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by rais18 ing taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from

19 the public.

20 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen21 ate that the provisions contained in this budget resolution

22 assume the following:

23 (1) This resolution does not adopt the President’s

24 proposals to reduce medicare program spending by

25 $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, nor does this resolu-
86

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 tion adopt the President’s proposal to spend

2 $10,000,000,000 of medicare program funds on unre3 lated programs.

4 (2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal

5 Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must

6 be redeemed later by raising taxes on American work7 ers, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the pub8 lic.

9 (3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion

10 to extend the solvency of the medicare program and

11 to ensure that benefits under that program will be

12 available to beneficiaries in the future.

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

14 served in this undertaking if the medicare program

15 reform proposals are considered within a framework

16 that is based on the following 5 key principles offered

17 in testimony to the Senate Committee on Finance by

18 the Comptroller General of the United States:

19 (A) Affordability.

20 (B) Equity.

21 (C) Adequacy.

22 (D) Feasibility.

23 (E) Public acceptance.

24 (5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux

25 and Congressman Thomas provide for new prescrip-
87

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 tion drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries with2 in a plan that substantially improves the solvency of

3 the medicare program without transferring to the

4 Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs

5 that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting

6 benefits, or borrowing more from the public.

7 (6) Congress should move expeditiously to con8 sider the bipartisan recommendations of the Chair9 men of the National Bipartisan Commission on the

10 Future of Medicare.

11 (7) Congress should continue to work with the

12 President as he develops and presents his plan to fix

13 the problems of the medicare program.

14 SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROVIDING TAX RE15 LIEF TO ALL AMERICANS BY RETURNING

16 NON-SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS TO TAX17 PAYERS.

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

19 (1) Every cent of Social Security surplus should

20 be reserved to pay Social Security benefits, for Social

21 Security reform, or to pay down the debt held by the

22 public and not be used for other purposes.

23 (2) Medicare should be fully funded.

24 (3) Even after safeguarding Social Security and

25 medicare, a recent Congressional Research Service
88

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 study found that an average American family will

2 pay $5,307 more in taxes over the next 10 years than

3 the Government needs to operate.

4 (4) The Administration’s budget returns none of

5 the excess surplus back to the taxpayers and instead

6 increases net taxes and fees by $96,000,000,000 over

7 10 years.

8 (5) The burden of the Administration’s tax in9 creases falls disproportionately on low- and middle10 income taxpayers. A recent Tax Foundation study

11 found that individuals with incomes of less than

12 $25,000 would bear 38.5 percent of the increased tax

13 burden, while taxpayers with incomes between

14 $25,000 and $50,000 would pay 22.4 percent of the

15 new taxes.

16 (6) The budget resolution returns most of the

17 non-Social Security surplus to those who worked so

18 hard to produce it by providing $142,000,000,000 in

19 real tax relief over 5 years and almost

20 $800,000,000,000 in tax relief over 10 years.

21 (7) The budget resolution builds on the following

22 tax relief since 1995:

23 (A) In 1996, Congress provided, and the

24 President signed, tax relief for small business

25 and health care-related tax relief.
89

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (B) In 1997, Congress once again pushed

2 for tax relief in the context of a balanced budget,

3 and President Clinton signed into law a $500

4 per child tax credit, expanded individual retire5 ment accounts and the new Roth IRA, a cut in

6 the capital gains tax rate, education tax relief,

7 and estate tax relief.

8 (C) In 1998, Congress pushed for reform of

9 the Internal Revenue Service, and provided tax

10 relief for America’s farmers.

11 (8) Americans deserve further tax relief because

12 they are still overpaying. They deserve a refund. Fed13 eral taxes currently consume nearly 21 percent of na14 tional income, the highest percentage since World War

15 II. Families are paying more in Federal, State, and

16 local taxes than for food, clothing, and shelter com17 bined.

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

19 that—

20 (1) the levels in this resolution assume that the

21 Senate not only puts a priority on protecting Social

22 Security and medicare and reducing the Federal debt,

23 but also on middle-class tax relief by returning some

24 of the non-Social Security surplus to those from

25 whom it was taken; and
90

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) such middle-class tax relief could include

2 broad-based tax relief, marriage penalty relief, retire3 ment savings incentives, estate tax relief, savings and

4 investment incentives, health care-related tax relief,

5 education-related tax relief, and tax simplification

6 proposals.

7 SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX INCEN8 TIVES FOR EDUCATION SAVINGS.

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

10 (1) families in the United States have accrued

11 more college debt in the 1990s than during the pre12 vious 3 decades combined; and

13 (2) families should have every resource available

14 to them to meet the rising cost of higher education.

15 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen16 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

17 pursuant to this resolution assume that additional tax in18 centives should be provided for education savings,

19 including—

20 (1) excluding from gross income distributions

21 from qualified State tuition plans; and

22 (2) providing a tax deferral for private prepaid

23 tuition plans in years 2000 through 2003 and exclud24 ing from gross income distributions from such plans

25 in years 2004 and after.
91

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE ONE HUNDRED

2 SIXTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION SHOULD

3 REAUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR THE FARMLAND

4 PROTECTION PROGRAM.

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

6 findings—

7 (1) nineteen States and dozens of localities have

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

9 acres of important farmland;

10 (2) the Farmland Protection Program has pro11 vided cost-sharing for 19 States and dozens of local12 ities to protect over 123,000 acres on 432 farms since

13 1996;

14 (3) the Farmland Protection Program has gen15 erated new interest in saving farmland in commu16 nities around the country;

17 (4) the Farmland Protection Program represents

18 an innovative and voluntary partnership, rewards

19 local ingenuity, and supports local priorities;

20 (5) the Farmland Protection Program is a

21 matching grant program that is completely voluntary

22 in which the Federal Government does not acquire the

23 land or easement;

24 (6) funds authorized for the Farmland Protection

25 Program were expended at the end of fiscal year
92

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 1998, and no funds were appropriated in fiscal year

2 1999;

3 (7) the United States is losing two acres of our

4 best farmland to development every minute of every

5 day;

6 (8) these lands produce three quarters of the

7 fruits and vegetables and over one half of the dairy

8 in the United States.

9 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen10 ate that the functional totals contained in this resolution

11 assume that the One Hundred Sixth Congress, First Session

12 will reauthorize funds for the Farmland Protection Pro13 gram.

14 SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX CUTS FOR LOWER

15 AND MIDDLE INCOME TAXPAYERS.

16 It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this reso17 lution assume that Congress will not approve an across18 the-board cut in income tax rates, or any other tax legisla19 tion, that would provide substantially more benefits to the

20 top 10 percent of taxpayers than to the remaining 90 per21 cent.

22 SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REFORM OF

23 THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

24 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
93

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (referred

2 to in this section as the ‘‘tax code’’) is unnecessarily

3 complex and burdensome, consisting of 2,000 pages of

4 tax code, and resulting in 12,000 pages of regulations

5 and 200,000 pages of court proceedings;

6 (2) the complexity of the tax code results in tax7 payers spending approximately 5,400,000,000 hours

8 and $200,000,000,000 on tax compliance each year;

9 (3) the impact of the complexity of the tax code

10 is inherently inequitable, rewarding taxpayers which

11 hire professional tax preparers and penalizing tax12 payers which seek to comply with the tax code with13 out professional assistance;

14 (4) the percentage of the income of an average

15 family of four that is paid for taxes has grown sig16 nificantly, comprising nearly 40 percent of the fam17 ily’s earnings, a percentage which represents more

18 than a family spends in the aggregate on food, cloth19 ing, and housing;

20 (5) the total amount of Federal, State, and local

21 tax collections in 1998 increased approximately 5.7

22 percent over such collections in 1997;

23 (6) the tax code penalizes saving and investment

24 by imposing tax on these important activities twice
94

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 while promoting consumption by only taxing income

2 used for consumption once;

3 (7) the tax code stifles economic growth by dis4 couraging work and capital formation through high

5 tax rates;

6 (8) Congress and the President have found it

7 necessary on several occasions to enact laws to protect

8 taxpayers from abusive actions and procedures of the

9 Internal Revenue Service in enforcement of the tax

10 code; and

11 (9) the complexity of the tax code is largely re12 sponsible for the growth in size of the Internal Rev13 enue Service.

14 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen15 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that —

16 (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 needs

17 comprehensive reform; and

18 (2) Congress should move expeditiously to con19 sider comprehensive proposals to reform the Internal

20 Revenue Code of 1986.

21 SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DAVIS22 BACON.

23 It is the sense of the Senate that in carrying out the

24 assumptions in this budget resolution, the Senate will con-
95

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 sider reform of the Davis-Bacon Act as an alternative to

2 repeal.

3 SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ACCESS TO

4 ITEMS AND SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE PRO5 GRAM.

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

7 (1) Total hospital operating margins with re8 spect to items and services provided to medicare bene9 ficiaries are expected to decline from 4.3 percent in

10 fiscal year 1997 to 0.1 percent in fiscal year 1999.

11 (2) Total operating margins for small rural hos12 pitals are expected to decline from 4.2 percent in fis13 cal year 1998 to negative 5.6 percent in fiscal year

14 2002, a 233 percent decline.

15 (3) The Congressional Budget Office recently has

16 estimated that the amount of savings to the medicare

17 program in fiscal years 1998 through 2002 by reason

18 of the amendments to that program contained in the

19 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is $88,500,000 more

20 than the amount of savings to the program by reason

21 of those amendments that the Congressional Budget

22 Office estimated for those fiscal years immediately

23 prior to the enactment of that Act.
96

HCON 68 EAS1S

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

2 that the provisions contained in this budget resolution as3 sume that the Senate should—

4 (1) consider whether the amendments to the

5 medicare program contained in the Balanced Budget

6 Act of 1997 have had an adverse impact on access to

7 items and services under that program; and

8 (2) if it is determined that additional resources

9 are available, additional budget authority and out10 lays shall be allocated to address the unintended con11 sequences of change in medicare program policy made

12 by the Balanced Budget Act, including inpatient and

13 outpatient hospital services, to ensure fair and equi14 table access to all items and services under the pro15 gram.

16 SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING AUTISM.

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

18 (1) Infantile autism and autism spectrum dis19 orders are biologically-based neurodevelopmental dis20 eases that cause severe impairments in language and

21 communication and generally manifest in young chil22 dren sometime during the first two years of life.

23 (2) Best estimates indicate that 1 in 500 chil24 dren born today will be diagnosed with an autism
97

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 spectrum disorder and that 400,000 Americans have

2 autism or an autism spectrum disorder.

3 (3) There is little information on the prevalence

4 of autism and other pervasive developmental disabil5 ities in the United States. There have never been any

6 national prevalence studies in the United States, and

7 the two studies that were conducted in the 1980s ex8 amined only selected areas of the country. Recent

9 studies in Canada, Europe, and Japan suggest that

10 the prevalence of classic autism alone may be 300

11 percent to 400 percent higher than previously esti12 mated.

13 (4) Three quarters of those with infantile autism

14 spend their adult lives in institutions or group homes,

15 and usually enter institutions by the age of 13.

16 (5) The cost of caring for individuals with au17 tism and autism spectrum disorder is great, and is

18 estimated to be $13,300,000,000 per year solely for di19 rect costs.

20 (6) The rapid advancements in biomedical

21 science suggest that effective treatments and a cure for

22 autism are attainable if—

23 (A) there is appropriate coordination of the

24 efforts of the various agencies of the Federal Gov-
98

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 ernment involved in biomedical research on au2 tism and autism spectrum disorders;

3 (B) there is an increased understanding of

4 autism and autism spectrum disorders by the

5 scientific and medical communities involved in

6 autism research and treatment; and

7 (C) sufficient funds are allocated to re8 search.

9 (7) The discovery of effective treatments and a

10 cure for autism will be greatly enhanced when sci11 entists and epidemiologists have an accurate under12 standing of the prevalence and incidence of autism.

13 (8) Recent research suggests that environmental

14 factors may contribute to autism. As a result, contrib15 uting causes of autism, if identified, may be prevent16 able.

17 (9) Finding the answers to the causes of autism

18 and related developmental disabilities may help re19 searchers to understand other disorders, ranging from

20 learning problems, to hyperactivity, to communica21 tions deficits that affect millions of Americans.

22 (10) Specifically, more knowledge is needed

23 concerning—

24 (A) the underlying causes of autism and au25 tism spectrum disorders, how to treat the under-
99

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 lying abnormality or abnormalities causing the

2 severe symptoms of autism, and how to prevent

3 these abnormalities from occurring in the future;

4 (B) the epidemiology of, and the identifica5 tion of risk factors for, infantile autism and au6 tism spectrum disorders;

7 (C) the development of methods for early

8 medical diagnosis and functional assessment of

9 individuals with autism and autism spectrum

10 disorders, including identification and assess11 ment of the subtypes within the autism spectrum

12 disorders, for the purpose of monitoring the

13 course of the disease and developing medically

14 sound strategies for improving the outcomes of

15 such individuals;

16 (D) existing biomedical and diagnostic data

17 that are relevant to autism and autism spectrum

18 disorders for dissemination to medical personnel,

19 particularly pediatricians, to aid in the early

20 diagnosis and treatment of this disease; and

21 (E) the costs incurred in educating and car22 ing for individuals with autism and autism

23 spectrum disorders.

24 (11) In 1998, the National Institutes of Health

25 announced a program of research on autism and au-
100

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 tism spectrum disorders. A sufficient level of funding

2 should be made available for carrying out the pro3 gram.

4 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen5 ate that the assumptions underlying this resolution assume

6 that additional resources will be targeted towards autism

7 research through the National Institutes of Health and the

8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

9 SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON WOMEN’S ACCESS TO

10 OBSTETRIC AND GYNECOLOGICAL SERVICES.

11 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that:

12 (1) In the One Hundred Fifth Congress, the

13 House of Representatives acted favorably on The Pa14 tient Protection Act (H.R. 4250), which included pro15 visions which required health plans to allow women

16 direct access to a participating physician who spe17 cializes in obstetrics and gynecological services.

18 (2) Women’s health historically has received little

19 attention.

20 (3) Access to an obstetrician-gynecologist im21 proves the health care of a woman by providing rou22 tine and preventive health care throughout the wom23 en’s lifetime, encompassing care of the whole patient,

24 while also focusing on the female reproductive system.
101

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (4) 60 percent of all office visits to obstetrician2 gynecologists are for preventive care.

3 (5) Obstetrician-gynecologists are uniquely quali4 fied on the basis of education and experience to pro5 vide basic women’s health care services.

6 (6) While more than 36 States have acted to pro7 mote residents’ access to obstetrician-gynecologists,

8 patients in other States or in federally-governed

9 health plans are not protected from access restrictions

10 or limitations.

11 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen12 ate that the provisions in this concurrent resolution on the

13 budget assume that the Congress shall enact legislation that

14 requires health plans to provide women with direct access

15 to a participating provider who specializes in obstetrics and

16 gynecological services.

17 SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LIHEAP.

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

19 (1) home energy assistance for working and low20 income families with children, the elderly on fixed in21 comes, the disabled, and others who need such aid is

22 a critical part of the social safety net in cold-weather

23 areas during the winter, and a source of necessary

24 cooling aid during the summer;
102

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) the Low Income Home Energy Assistance

2 Program (LIHEAP) is a highly targeted, cost-effective

3 way to help millions of low-income Americans pay

4 their home energy bills. More than two-thirds of

5 LIHEAP-eligible households have annual incomes of

6 less than $8,000, approximately one-half have annual

7 incomes below $6,000; and

8 (3) LIHEAP funding has been substantially re9 duced in recent years, and cannot sustain further

10 spending cuts if the program is to remain a viable

11 means of meeting the home heating and other energy12 related needs of low-income families, especially those

13 in cold-weather States.

14 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—The assumptions under15 lying this budget resolution assume that it is the sense of

16 the Senate that the funds made available for LIHEAP for

17 fiscal year 2000 will not be less than the current services

18 for LIHEAP in fiscal year 1999.

19 SEC. 332. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TRANSPORTATION

20 FIREWALLS.

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

22 (1) domestic firewalls greatly limit funding flexi23 bility as Congress manages budget priorities in a fis24 cally constrained budget;
103

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) domestic firewalls inhibit congressional over2 sight of programs and organizations under such pro3 tections;

4 (3) domestic firewalls mask mandatory spending

5 under the guise of discretionary spending, thereby

6 presenting a distorted picture of overall discretionary

7 spending;

8 (4) domestic firewalls impede the ability of Con9 gress to react to changing circumstances or to fund

10 other equally important programs;

11 (5) the Congress implemented ‘‘domestic discre12 tionary budget firewalls’’ for approximately 70 per13 cent of function 400 spending in the One Hundred

14 Fifth Congress;

15 (6) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating

16 in the House of Representatives were to be enacted,

17 firewalled spending would exceed 100 percent of total

18 function 400 spending called for under this resolu19 tion; and

20 (7) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating

21 in the House of Representatives were to be enacted,

22 drug interdiction activities by the Coast Guard, Na23 tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration activi24 ties, rail safety inspections, Federal support for Am25 trak, all National Transportation Safety Board ac-
104

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 tivities, Pipeline and Hazardous materials safety pro2 grams, and Coast Guard search and rescue activities

3 would be drastically cut or eliminated.

4 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen5 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that no addi6 tional firewalls should be enacted for function 400 transpor7 tation activities.

8 SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING EXISTING,

9 EFFECTIVE PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS BE10 FORE CREATING NEW PROGRAMS.

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

12 (1) the establishment of new categorical funding

13 programs has led to proposed cuts in the Preventive

14 Health and Health Services Block Grant to States for

15 broad, public health missions;

16 (2) Preventive Health and Health Services Block

17 Grant dollars fill gaps in the otherwise-categorical

18 funding States and localities receive, funding such

19 major public health threats as cardiovascular disease,

20 injuries, emergency medical services and poor diet, for

21 which there is often no other source of funding;

22 (3) in 1981, Congress consolidated a number of

23 programs, including certain public health programs,

24 into block grants for the purpose of best advancing the
105

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 health, economics and well-being of communities

2 across the country;

3 (4) the Preventive Health and Health Services

4 Block Grant can be used for programs for screening,

5 outreach, health education and laboratory services;

6 (5) the Preventive Health and Health Services

7 Block Grant gives States the flexibility to determine

8 how funding available for this purpose can be used to

9 meet each State’s preventive health priorities;

10 (6) the establishment of new public health pro11 grams that compete for funding with the Preventive

12 Health and Health Services Block Grant could result

13 in the elimination of effective, localized public health

14 programs in every State.

15 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen16 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

17 pursuant to this resolution assume that there shall be a con18 tinuation of the level of funding support for existing public

19 health programs, specifically the Prevention Block Grant,

20 prior to the funding of new public health programs.

21 SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING

22 FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

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

24 (1) In the Individuals with Disabilities Edu25 cation Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) (referred to in this
106

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 resolution as the ‘‘Act’’), Congress found that improv2 ing educational results for children with disabilities

3 is an essential element of our national policy of en4 suring equality of opportunity, full participation,

5 independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for

6 individuals with disabilities.

7 (2) In the Act, the Secretary of Education is in8 structed to make grants to States to assist them in

9 providing special education and related services to

10 children with disabilities.

11 (3) The Act represents a commitment by the Fed12 eral Government to fund 40 percent of the average

13 per-pupil expenditure in public elementary and sec14 ondary schools in the United States.

15 (4) The budget submitted by the President for

16 fiscal year 2000 ignores the commitment by the Fed17 eral Government under the Act to fund special edu18 cation and instead proposes the creation of new pro19 grams that limit the manner in which States may

20 spend the limited Federal education dollars received.

21 (5) The budget submitted by the President for

22 fiscal year 2000 fails to increase funding for special

23 education, and leaves States and localities with an

24 enormous unfunded mandate to pay for growing spe25 cial education costs.
107

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen2 ate that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that

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

4 1400 et seq.) should be fully funded at the originally prom5 ised level before any funds are appropriated for new edu6 cation programs.

7 SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF

8 SOCIAL SECURITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO BE9 COME DISABLED.

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

11 (1) in addition to providing retirement income,

12 Social Security also protects individuals from the loss

13 of income due to disability;

14 (2) according to the most recent report from the

15 Social Security Board of Trustees nearly 1 in 7 So16 cial Security beneficiaries, 6,000,000 individuals in

17 total, were receiving benefits as a result of disability;

18 (3) more than 60 percent of workers have no

19 long-term disability insurance protection other than

20 that provided by Social Security;

21 (4) according to statistics from the Society of Ac22 tuaries, the odds of a long-term disability versus

23 death are 2.7 to 1 at age 27, 3.5 to 1 at age 42, and

24 2.2 to 1 at age 52; and
108

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (5) in 1998, the average monthly benefit for a

2 disabled worker was $722.

3 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen4 ate that levels in the resolution assume that—

5 (1) Social Security plays a vital role in pro6 viding adequate income for individuals who become

7 disabled;

8 (2) individuals who become disabled face cir9 cumstances much different than those who rely on So10 cial Security for retirement income;

11 (3) Social Security reform proposals that focus

12 too heavily on retirement income may adversely affect

13 the income protection provided to individuals with

14 disabilities; and

15 (4) Congress and the President should take these

16 factors into account when considering proposals to re17 form the Social Security program.

18 SEC. 336. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING

19 FOR INTENSIVE FIREARMS PROSECUTION

20 PROGRAMS.

21 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

22 (1) gun violence in America, while declining

23 somewhat in recent years, is still unacceptably high;
109

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) keeping firearms out of the hands of crimi2 nals can dramatically reduce gun violence in Amer3 ica;

4 (3) States and localities often do not have the in5 vestigative or prosecutorial resources to locate and

6 convict individuals who violate their firearms laws.

7 Even when they do win convictions, States and local8 ities often lack the jail space to hold such convicts for

9 their full prison terms;

10 (4) there are a number of Federal laws on the

11 books which are designed to keep firearms out of the

12 hands of criminals. These laws impose mandatory

13 minimum sentences upon individuals who use fire14 arms to commit crimes of violence and convicted fel15 ons caught in possession of a firearm;

16 (5) the Federal Government does have the re17 sources to investigate and prosecute violations of these

18 Federal firearms laws. The Federal Government also

19 has enough jail space to hold individuals for the

20 length of their mandatory minimum sentences;

21 (6) an effort to aggressively and consistently

22 apply these Federal firearms laws in Richmond, Vir23 ginia, has cut violent crime in that city. This pro24 gram, called Project Exile, has produced 288 indict25 ments during its first two years of operation and has
110

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 been credited with contributing to a 15 percent de2 crease in violent crimes in Richmond during the same

3 period. In the first three-quarters of 1998, homicides

4 with a firearm in Richmond were down 55 percent

5 compared to 1997;

6 (7) the fiscal year 1999 Commerce-State-Justice

7 Appropriations Act provided $1,500,000 to hire addi8 tional Federal prosecutors and investigators to enforce

9 Federal firearms laws in Philadelphia. The Philadel10 phia project—called Operation Cease Fire—started

11 on January 1, 1999. Since it began, the project has

12 resulted in 31 indictments of 52 defendants on fire13 arms violations. The project has benefited from help

14 from the Philadelphia Police Department and the Bu15 reau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which was not

16 paid for out of the $1,500,000 grant;

17 (8) in 1993, the office of the United States Attor18 ney for the Western District of New York teamed up

19 with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office,

20 the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department, the Roch21 ester Police Department, and others to form a Violent

22 Crimes Task Force. In 1997, the Task Force created

23 an Illegal Firearms Suppression Unit, whose mission

24 is to use prosecutorial discretion to bring firearms

25 cases in the judicial forum where penalties for gun
111

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 violations would be the strictest. The Suppression

2 Unit has been involved in three major prosecutions of

3 interstate gun-purchasing activities and currently has

4 30 to 40 open single-defendant felony gun cases;

5 (9) Senator Hatch has introduced legislation to

6 authorize Project CUFF, a Federal firearms prosecu7 tion program;

8 (10) the Administration has requested

9 $5,000,000 to conduct intensive firearms prosecution

10 projects on a national level;

11 (11) given that at least $1,500,000 is needed to

12 run an effective program in one American city—

13 Philadelphia—$5,000,000 is far from enough funding

14 to conduct such programs nationally.

15 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen16 ate that function 750 in the budget resolution assumes that

17 $50,000,000 will be provided in fiscal year 2000 to conduct

18 intensive firearms prosecution projects to combat violence

19 in the 25 American cities with the highest crime rates.

20 SEC. 337. HONEST REPORTING OF THE DEFICIT.

21 It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this reso22 lution assume the following:

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—Effective for fiscal year 2001,

24 the President’s budget and the budget report of CBO

25 required under section 202(e) of the Congressional
112

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Budget Act of 1974 and the concurrent resolution on

2 the budget should include—

3 (A) the receipts and disbursements totals of

4 the on-budget trust funds, including the projected

5 levels for at least the next 5 fiscal years; and

6 (B) the deficit or surplus excluding the on7 budget trust funds, including the projected levels

8 for at least the next 5 fiscal years.

9 (2) ITEMIZATION.—Effective for fiscal year 2001,

10 the President’s budget and the budget report of CBO

11 required under section 202(e) of the Congressional

12 Budget Act of 1974 should include an itemization of

13 the on-budget trust funds for the budget year, includ14 ing receipts, outlays, and balances.

15 SEC. 338. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FOSTERING

16 THE EMPLOYMENT AND INDEPENDENCE OF

17 INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

18 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following find19 ings:

20 (1) Health care is important to all Americans.

21 (2) Health care is particularly important to in22 dividuals with disabilities and special health care

23 needs who often cannot afford the insurance available

24 to them through the private market, are uninsurable

25 by the plans available in the private sector, or are at
113

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 great risk of incurring very high and economically

2 devastating health care costs.

3 (3) Americans with significant disabilities often

4 are unable to obtain health care insurance that pro5 vides coverage of the services and supports that enable

6 them to live independently and enter or rejoin the

7 workforce. Coverage for personal assistance services,

8 prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, and

9 basic health care are powerful and proven tools for

10 individuals with significant disabilities to obtain and

11 retain employment.

12 (4) For individuals with disabilities, the fear of

13 losing health care and related services is one of the

14 greatest barriers keeping the individuals from maxi15 mizing their employment, earning potential, and

16 independence.

17 (5) Individuals with disabilities who are bene18 ficiaries under title II or XVI of the Social Security

19 Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq., 1381 et seq.) risk losing

20 medicare or medicaid coverage that is linked to their

21 cash benefits, a risk that is an equal, or greater, work

22 disincentive than the loss of cash benefits associated

23 with working.

(6) Currently, less than 1 24 ⁄2 of 1 percent of Social

25 Security disability insurance (SSDI) and supple-
114

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 mental security income (SSI) beneficiaries cease to

2 receive benefits as a result of employment.

3 (7) Beneficiaries have cited the lack of adequate

4 employment training and placement services as an

5 additional barrier to employment.

(8) If an additional 1 6 ⁄2 of 1 percent of the cur7 rent Social Security disability insurance (SSDI) and

8 supplemental security income (SSI) recipients were to

9 cease receiving benefits as a result of employment, the

10 savings to the Social Security Trust Funds in cash

11 assistance would total $3,500,000,000 over the

12 worklife of the individuals.

13 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen14 ate that the provisions of this resolution assume that the

15 Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (S. 331, 106th

16 Congress) will be passed by the Senate and enacted early

17 this year, and thereby provide individuals with disabilities

18 with the health care and employment preparation and

19 placement services that will enable those individuals to re20 duce their dependency on cash benefit programs.

21 SEC. 339. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ASSET-BUILD22 ING FOR THE WORKING POOR.

23 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds the following:
115

HCON 68 EAS1S

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

2 percent of African American households have no or

3 negative financial assets.

4 (2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live

5 in households with no financial assets, including 40

6 percent of Caucasian children and 75 percent of Afri7 can American children.

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

9 more tools for empowerment, incentives which encour10 age asset-building should be established.

11 (4) Across the Nation, numerous small public,

12 private, and public-private asset-building incentives,

13 including individual development accounts, are dem14 onstrating success at empowering low-income workers.

15 (5) Middle and upper income Americans cur16 rently benefit from tax incentives for building assets.

17 (6) The Federal Government should utilize the

18 Federal tax code to provide low-income Americans

19 with incentives to work and build assets in order to

20 escape poverty permanently.

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

22 that the provisions of this resolution assume that Congress

23 should modify the Federal tax law to include provisions

24 which encourage low-income workers and their families to

25 save for buying a first home, starting a business, obtaining
116

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 an education, or taking other measures to prepare for the

2 future.

3 SEC. 340. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF

4 THIS RESOLUTION ASSUME THAT IT IS THE

5 POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE

6 AS SOON AS IS TECHNOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE

7 AN EDUCATION FOR EVERY AMERICAN CHILD

8 THAT WILL ENABLE EACH CHILD TO EFFEC9 TIVELY MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THE

10 TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.

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

12 (1) Pell Grants require an increase of

13 $5,000,000,000 per year to fund the maximum award

14 established in the Higher Education Act Amendments

15 of 1998;

16 (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education

17 Act needs at least $13,000,000,000 more per year to

18 fund the Federal commitment to fund 40 percent of

19 the excess costs for special education services;

20 (3) title I needs at least $4,000,000,000 more per

21 year to serve all eligible children;

22 (4) over $11,000,000,000 over the next six years

23 will be required to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce

24 class size to an average of 18 in grades 1–3;
117

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (5) according to the General Accounting Office,

2 it will cost $112,000,000,000 just to bring existing

3 school buildings up to good overall condition. Accord4 ing to GAO, one-third of schools serving 14,000,000

5 children require extensive repair or replacement of

6 one or more of their buildings. GAO also found that

7 almost half of all schools lack even the basic electrical

8 wiring needed to support full-scale use of computers;

9 (6) the Federal share of education spending has

10 declined from 11.9 percent in 1980 to 7.6 percent in

11 1998;

12 (7) Federal spending for education has declined

13 from 2.5 percent of all Federal spending in fiscal year

14 1980 to 2.0 percent in fiscal year 1999.

15 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen16 ate that the provisions of this resolution assume that it is

17 the policy of the United States to provide as soon as is tech18 nologically possible an education for every American child

19 that will enable each child to effectively meet the challenges

20 of the twenty-first century.

21 SEC. 341. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING EXEMPTION

22 OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND PROD23 UCTS, MEDICINES, AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS

24 FROM UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.

25 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
118

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) prohibiting or otherwise restricting the dona2 tion or sale of agricultural commodities or products,

3 medicines, or medical products in order to unilater4 ally sanction a foreign government for actions or

5 policies that the United States finds objectionable un6 necessarily harms innocent populations in the tar7 geted country and rarely causes the sanctioned gov8 ernment to alter its actions or policies;

9 (2) for the United States as a matter of policy

10 to deny access to agricultural commodities or prod11 ucts, medicines, or medical products by innocent men,

12 women, and children in other countries weakens the

13 international leadership and moral authority of the

14 United States; and

15 (3) unilateral sanctions on the sale or donation

16 of agricultural commodities or products, medicines, or

17 medical products needlessly harm agricultural pro18 ducers and workers employed in the agricultural or

19 medical sectors in the United States by foreclosing

20 markets for the commodities, products, or medicines.

21 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen22 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

23 pursuant to this resolution assume that the President

24 should—
119

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) subject to paragraph (2), exempt agricultural

2 commodities and products, medicines, and medical

3 products from any unilateral economic sanction im4 posed on a foreign government; and

5 (2) apply the sanction to the commodities, prod6 ucts, or medicines if the application is necessary—

7 (A) for health or safety reasons; or

8 (B) due to a domestic shortage of the com9 modities, products, or medicines.

10 SEC. 342. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CAPITAL

11 GAINS TAX FAIRNESS FOR FAMILY FARMERS.

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

13 (1) one of the most popular provisions included

14 in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 permits many

15 families to exclude from Federal income taxes up to

16 $500,000 of gain from the sale of their principal resi17 dences;

18 (2) under current law, family farmers are not

19 able to take full advantage of this $500,000 capital

20 gains exclusion that families living in urban or sub21 urban areas enjoy on the sale of their homes;

22 (3) for most urban and suburban residents, their

23 homes are their major financial asset and as a result

24 such families, who have owned their homes through

25 many years of appreciation, can often benefit from a
120

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 large portion of this new $500,000 capital gains ex2 clusion;

3 (4) most family farmers plow any profits they

4 make back into the whole farm rather than into the

5 house which holds little or no value;

6 (5) unfortunately, farm families receive little

7 benefit from this capital gains exclusion because the

8 Internal Revenue Service separates the value of their

9 homes from the value of the land the homes sit on;

10 (6) we should recognize in our tax laws the

11 unique character and role of our farm families and

12 their important contributions to our economy, and

13 allow them to benefit more fully from the capital

14 gains tax exclusion that urban and suburban home15 owners already enjoy; and

16 (7) we should expand the $500,000 capital gains

17 tax exclusion to cover sales of the farmhouse and the

18 surrounding farmland over their lifetimes.

19 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen20 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that if we pass

21 tax relief measures in accordance with the assumptions in

22 the budget resolution, we should ensure that such legislation

23 removes the disparity between farm families and their

24 urban and suburban counterparts with respect to the new

25 $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for principal residence
121

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 sales by expanding it to cover gains from the sale of farm2 land along with the sale of the farmhouse.

3 SEC. 343. BUDGETING FOR THE DEFENSE SCIENCE AND

4 TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

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

6 for National Defense (function 050) for fiscal years 2000

7 through 2008 assume funding for the Defense Science and

8 Technology Program that is consistent with section 214 of

9 the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act

10 for Fiscal Year 1999, which expresses a sense of the Congress

11 that for each of those fiscal years it should be an objective

12 of the Secretary of Defense to increase the budget request

13 for the Defense Science and Technology Program by at least

14 2 percent over inflation.

15 SEC. 344. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING

16 FOR THE URBAN PARKS AND RECREATION

17 RECOVERY (UPARR) PROGRAM.

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

19 (1) every analysis of national recreation issues

20 in the last 3 decades has identified the importance of

21 close-to-home recreation opportunities, particularly

22 for residents in densely-populated urban areas;

23 (2) the Land and Water Conservation Fund

24 grants program under the Land and Water Conserva25 tion Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–4 et seq.) was
122

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 established partly to address the pressing needs of

2 urban areas;

3 (3) the National Urban Recreation Study of

4 1978 and the President’s Commission on Americans

5 Outdoors of 1987 revealed that critical urban recre6 ation resources were not being addressed;

7 (4) older city park structures and infrastructures

8 worth billions of dollars are at risk because govern9 ment incentives favored the development of new areas

10 over the revitalization of existing resources, ranging

11 from downtown parks established in the 19th century

12 to neighborhood playgrounds and sports centers built

13 from the 1920’s to the 1950’s;

14 (5) the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery

15 (UPARR) program, established under the Urban Park

16 and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501

17 et seq.), authorized $725,000,000 to provide matching

18 grants and technical assistance to economically dis19 tressed urban communities;

20 (6) the purposes of the UPARR program is to

21 provide direct Federal assistance to urban localities

22 for rehabilitation of critically needed recreation facili23 ties, and to encourage local planning and a commit24 ment to continuing operation and maintenance of

25 recreation programs, sites, and facilities; and
123

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (7) funding for UPARR is supported by a wide

2 range of organizations, including the National Asso3 ciation of Police Athletic Leagues, the Sporting Goods

4 Manufacturers Association, the Conference of Mayors,

5 and Major League Baseball.

6 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen7 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

8 pursuant to this resolution assume that Congress considers

9 the UPARR program to be a high priority, and should ap10 propriate such amounts as are necessary to carry out the

11 Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program

12 established under the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery

13 Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).

14 SEC. 345. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL PROMOTION.

15 It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions un16 derlying the functional totals in this resolution assume that

17 funds will be provided for legislation—

18 (1) to provide remedial educational and other

19 instructional interventions to assist public elementary

20 and secondary school students in meeting achievement

21 levels; and

22 (2) to terminate practices which advance stu23 dents from one grade to the next who do not meet

24 State achievement standards in the core academic

25 curriculum.
124

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 SEC. 346. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON WOMEN AND SOCIAL

2 SECURITY REFORM.

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

4 (1) without Social Security benefits, the elderly

5 poverty rate among women would have been 52.2 per6 cent, and among widows would have been 60.6 per7 cent;

8 (2) women tend to live longer and tend to have

9 lower lifetime earnings than men do;

10 (3) during their working years, women earn an

11 average of 70 cents for every dollar men earn; and

12 (4) women spend an average of 11.5 years out of

13 their careers to care for their families, and are more

14 likely to work part-time than full-time.

15 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen16 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that—

17 (1) women face unique obstacles in ensuring re18 tirement security and survivor and disability sta19 bility;

20 (2) Social Security plays an essential role in

21 guaranteeing inflation-protected financial stability

22 for women throughout their old age;

23 (3) the Congress and the Administration should

24 act, as part of Social Security reform, to ensure that

25 widows and other poor elderly women receive more

26 adequate benefits that reduce their poverty rates and
125

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 that women, under whatever approach is taken to re2 form Social Security, should receive no lesser a share

3 of overall federally-funded retirement benefits than

4 they receive today; and

5 (4) the sacrifice that women make to care for

6 their family should be recognized during reform of So7 cial Security and that women should not be penalized

8 by taking an average of 11.5 years out of their careers

9 to care for their family.

10 SEC. 347. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING SOUTH KO11 REA’S INTERNATIONAL TRADE PRACTICES ON

12 PORK AND BEEF.

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

14 (1) Asia is the largest regional export market for

15 America’s farmers and ranchers, traditionally pur16 chasing approximately 40 percent of all United States

17 agricultural exports;

18 (2) the Department of Agriculture forecasts that

19 over the next year American agricultural exports to

20 Asian countries will decline by several billion dollars

21 due to the Asian financial crisis;

22 (3) the United States is the producer of the safest

23 agricultural products from farm to table, customizing

24 goods to meet the needs of customers worldwide, and
126

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 has established the image and reputation as the

2 world’s best provider of agricultural products;

3 (4) American farmers and ranchers, and more

4 specifically, American pork and beef producers, are

5 dependent on secure, open, and competitive Asian ex6 port markets for their product;

7 (5) United States pork and beef producers not

8 only have faced the adverse effects of depreciated and

9 unstable currencies and lowered demand due to the

10 Asian financial crisis, but also have been confronted

11 with South Korea’s pork subsidies and its failure to

12 keep commitments on market access for beef;

13 (6) it is the policy of the United States to pro14 hibit South Korea from using United States and

15 International Monetary Fund assistance to subsidize

16 targeted industries and compete unfairly for market

17 share against United States products;

18 (7) the South Korean Government has been sub19 sidizing its pork exports to Japan, resulting in a 973

20 percent increase in its exports to Japan since 1992,

21 and a 71 percent increase in the last year;

22 (8) pork already comprises 70 percent of South

23 Korea’s agriculture exports to Japan, yet the South

24 Korean Government has announced plans to invest

25 100,000,000,000 won in its agricultural sector in
127

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 order to flood the Japanese market with even more

2 South Korean pork;

3 (9) the South Korean Ministry of Agriculture

4 and Fisheries reportedly has earmarked

5 25,000,000,000 won for loans to Korea’s pork proc6 essors in order for them to purchase more Korean

7 pork and to increase exports to Japan;

8 (10) any export subsidies on pork, including

9 those on exports from South Korea to Japan, would

10 violate South Korea’s international trade agreements

11 and may be actionable under the World Trade Orga12 nization;

13 (11) South Korea’s subsidies are hindering

14 United States pork and beef producers from capturing

15 their full potential in the Japanese market, which is

16 the largest export market for United States pork and

17 beef, importing nearly $700,000,000 of United States

18 pork and over $1,500,000,000 of United States beef

19 last year alone;

20 (12) under the United States-Korea 1993 Record

21 of Understanding on Market Access for Beef, which

22 was negotiated pursuant to a 1989 GATT Panel deci23 sion against Korea, South Korea was allowed to delay

24 full liberalization of its beef market (in an exception

25 to WTO rules) if it would agree to import increasing
128

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 minimum quantities of beef each year until the year

2 2001;

3 (13) South Korea fell woefully short of its beef

4 market access commitment for 1998; and

5 (14) United States pork and beef producers are

6 not able to compete fairly with Korean livestock pro7 ducers, who have a high cost of production, because

8 South Korea has violated trade agreements and im9 plemented protectionist policies.

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

11 Congress that the Congress—

12 (1) believes strongly that while a stable global

13 marketplace is in the best interest of America’s farm14 ers and ranchers, the United States should seek a mu15 tually beneficial relationship without hindering the

16 competitiveness of American agriculture;

17 (2) calls on South Korea to abide by its trade

18 commitments;

19 (3) calls on the Secretary of the Treasury to in20 struct the United States Executive Director of the

21 International Monetary Fund to promote vigorously

22 policies that encourage the opening of markets for beef

23 and pork products by requiring South Korea to abide

24 by its existing international trade commitments and

25 to reduce trade barriers, tariffs, and export subsidies;
129

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (4) calls on the President and the Secretaries of

2 Treasury and Agriculture to monitor and report to

3 Congress that resources will not be used to stabilize

4 the South Korean market at the expense of United

5 States agricultural goods or services; and

6 (5) requests the United States Trade Representa7 tive and the United States Department of Agriculture

8 to pursue the settlement of disputes with the Govern9 ment of South Korea on its failure to abide by its

10 international trade commitments on beef market ac11 cess, to consider whether Korea’s reported plans for

12 subsidizing its pork industry would violate any of its

13 international trade commitments, and to determine

14 what impact Korea’s subsidy plans would have on

15 United States agricultural interests, especially in

16 Japan.

17 SEC. 348. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPPORT

18 FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

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

20 (1) as national crime rates are beginning to fall

21 as a result of State and local efforts, with Federal

22 support, it is important for the Federal Government

23 to continue its support for State and local law en24 forcement;
130

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) Federal support is crucial to the provision of

2 critical crime fighting programs;

3 (3) Federal support is also essential to the provi4 sion of critical crime fighting services and the effec5 tive administration of justice in the States, such as

6 State and local crime laboratories and medical exam7 iners’ offices;

8 (4) current needs exceed the capacity of State

9 and local crime laboratories to process their forensic

10 examinations, resulting in tremendous backlogs that

11 prevent the swift administration of justice and im12 pede fundamental individual rights, such as the right

13 to a speedy trial and to exculpatory evidence;

14 (5) last year, Congress passed the Crime Identi15 fication Technology Act of 1998, which authorizes

16 $250,000,000 each year for 5 years to assist State and

17 local law enforcement agencies in developing and in18 tegrating their anticrime technology systems, and in

19 upgrading their forensic laboratories and information

20 and communications infrastructures upon which these

21 crime fighting systems rely; and

22 (6) the Federal Government must continue efforts

23 to significantly reduce crime by maintaining Federal

24 funding for State and local law enforcement, and

25 wisely targeting these resources.
131

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen2 ate that the provisions of this resolution assume that—

3 (1) the amounts made available for fiscal year

4 2000 to assist State and local law enforcement efforts

5 should be comparable to or greater than amounts

6 made available for that purpose for fiscal year 1999;

7 (2) the amounts made available for fiscal year

8 2000 for crime technology programs should be used to

9 further the purposes of the program under section 102

10 of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998

11 (42 U.S.C. 14601); and

12 (3) Congress should consider legislation that spe13 cifically addresses the backlogs in State and local

14 crime laboratories and medical examiners’ offices.

15 SEC. 349. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MERGER ENFORCE16 MENT BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

17 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

18 (1) the Antitrust Division of the Department of

19 Justice is charged with the civil and criminal enforce20 ment of the antitrust laws, including review of cor21 porate mergers likely to reduce competition in par22 ticular markets, with a goal to promote and protect

23 the competitive process;

24 (2) the Antitrust Division requests a 16 percent

25 increase in funding for fiscal year 2000;
132

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (3) justification for such an increase is based, in

2 part, on increasingly numerous and complex merger

3 filings pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust

4 Improvements Act of 1976;

5 (4) the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improve6 ments Act of 1976 sets value thresholds which trigger

7 the requirement for filing premerger notification;

8 (5) the number of merger filings under the Hart9 Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976,

10 which the Department, in conjunction with the Fed11 eral Trade Commission, is required to review, in12 creased by 38 percent in fiscal year 1998;

13 (6) the Department expects the number of merger

14 filings to increase in fiscal years 1999 and 2000;

15 (7) the value thresholds, which relate to both the

16 size of the companies involved and the size of the

17 transaction, under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust

18 Improvements Act of 1976 have not been adjusted

19 since passage of that Act.

20 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen21 ate that the Antitrust Division needs adequate resources

22 and that the levels in this resolution assume the Division

23 will have such adequate resources, including necessary in24 creases in funding, notwithstanding any report language

25 to the contrary, to enable it to meet its statutory require-
133

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 ments, including those related to reviewing and inves2 tigating increasingly numerous and complex mergers, but

3 that Congress should pursue consideration of modest, budget

4 neutral, adjustments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust

5 Improvements Act of 1976 to account for inflation in the

6 value thresholds of the Act, and in so doing, ensure that

7 the Antitrust Division’s resources are focused on matters

8 and transactions most deserving of the Division’s attention.

9 SEC. 350. SENSE OF THE SENATE TO CREATE A TASK FORCE

10 TO PURSUE THE CREATION OF A NATURAL

11 DISASTER RESERVE FUND.

12 (a) It is the sense of the Senate that a task force be

13 created for the purpose of studying the possibility of cre14 ating a reserve fund for natural disasters. The task force

15 should be composed of three Senators appointed by the Ma16 jority Leader, and two Senators appointed by the Minority

17 Leader. The task force should also be composed of three

18 members appointed by the Speaker of the House, and two

19 members appointed by the Minority Leader in the House.

20 (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the task force make

21 a report to the appropriate committees in Congress within

22 90 days of being convened. The report should be available

23 for the purposes of consideration during comprehensive

24 overhaul of budget procedures.
134

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 SEC. 351. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FEDERAL

2 TAX RELIEF.

3 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following find4 ings:

5 (1) The Congressional Budget Office has reported

6 that payroll taxes will exceed income taxes for 74 per7 cent of all taxpayers in 1999.

8 (2) The Federal Government will collect nearly

9 $50,000,000,000 in income taxes this year through its

10 practice of taxing the income Americans sacrifice to

11 the Government in the form of Social Security pay12 roll taxes.

13 (3) American taxpayers are currently shoul14 dering the heaviest tax burden since 1944.

15 (4) According to the nonpartisan Tax Founda16 tion, the median dual-income family sacrificed a

17 record 37.6 percent of its income to the Government

18 in 1997.

19 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen20 ate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals

21 in this resolution assume that a significant portion of the

22 tax relief will be devoted to working families who are dou23 ble-taxed by—

24 (1) providing taxpayers with an above-the-line

25 income tax deduction for the Social Security payroll
135

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 taxes they pay so that they no longer pay income

2 taxes on such payroll taxes, and/or

3 (2) gradually reducing the lowest marginal in4 come tax rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, and/or

5 (3) other tax reductions that do not reduce the

6 tax revenue devoted to the Social Security Trust

7 Fund.

8 SEC. 352. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ELIMINATING THE

9 MARRIAGE PENALTY AND ACROSS-THE10 BOARD INCOME TAX RATE CUTS.

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

12 (1) the institution of marriage is the cornerstone

13 of the family and civil society;

14 (2) strengthening of the marriage commitment

15 and the family is an indispensable step in the re16 newal of America’s culture;

17 (3) the Federal income tax punishes marriage by

18 imposing a greater tax burden on married couples

19 then on their single counterparts;

20 (4) America’s tax code should give each married

21 couple the choice to be treated as one economic unit,

22 regardless of which spouse earns the income; and

23 (5) all American taxpayers are responsible for

24 any budget surplus and deserve broad-based tax relief
136

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 after the Social Security Trust Fund has been pro2 tected.

3 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen4 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that Congress

5 should eliminate the marriage penalty in a manner that

6 treats all married couples equally, regardless of which

7 spouse earns the income.

8 SEC. 353. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPORTANCE OF

9 FUNDING FOR EMBASSY SECURITY.

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

11 (1) Enhancing security at United States diplo12 matic missions overseas is essential to protect United

13 States Government personnel serving on the front

14 lines of our national defense;

15 (2) 80 percent of United States diplomatic mis16 sions do not meet current security standards;

17 (3) the Accountability Review Boards on the

18 Embassy Bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam

19 recommended that the Department of State spend

20 $1,400,000,000 annually on embassy security over

21 each of the next 10 years;

22 (4) the amount of spending recommended for em23 bassy security by the Accountability Review Boards is

24 approximately 36 percent of the operating budget re-
137

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 quested for the Department of State in fiscal year

2 2000; and

3 (5) the funding requirements necessary to im4 prove security for United States diplomatic missions

5 and personnel abroad cannot be borne within the cur6 rent budgetary resources of the Department of State.

7 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen8 ate that the budgetary levels in this budget resolution as9 sume that as the Congress contemplates changes in the Con10 gressional Budget Act of 1974 to reflect projected on-budget

11 surpluses, provisions similar to those set forth in section

12 314(b) of that Act should be considered to ensure adequate

13 funding for enhancements to the security of United States

14 diplomatic missions.

15 SEC. 354. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR AFTER

16 SCHOOL EDUCATION.

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

18 (1) The demand for after school education is very

19 high. In fiscal year 1998 the Department of Edu20 cation’s after school grant program was the most com21 petitive in the Department’s history. Nearly 2,000

22 school districts applied for over $540,000,000.

23 (2) After school programs help to fight juvenile

24 crime. Law enforcement statistics show that youth

25 who are ages 12 through 17 are most at risk of com-
138

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 mitting violent acts and being victims of violent acts

2 between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. After school pro3 grams have been shown to reduce juvenile crime,

4 sometimes by up to 75 percent according to the Na5 tional Association of Police Athletic and Activity

6 Leagues.

7 (3) After school programs can improve edu8 cational achievement. They ensure children have safe

9 and positive learning environments in the after school

10 hours. In the Sacramento START after school pro11 gram 75 percent of the students showed an increase

12 in their grades.

13 (4) After school programs have widespread sup14 port. Over 90 percent of the American people support

15 such programs. Over 450 of the Nation’s leading po16 lice chiefs, sheriffs, and prosecutors, along with presi17 dents of the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Inter18 national Union of Police Associations support govern19 ment funding of after school programs. And many of

20 our Nation’s governors endorse increasing the number

21 of after school programs through a Federal of State

22 partnership.

23 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen24 ate that the levels in this resolution assume that Congress
139

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 will provide $600,000,000 for the President’s after school

2 initiative in fiscal year 2000.

3 SEC. 355. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING RECOVERY

4 OF FUNDS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN

5 TOBACCO-RELATED LITIGATION.

6 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the

7 ‘‘Federal Tobacco Recovery and Medicare Prescription

8 Drug Benefit Resolution of 1999’’.

9 (b) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following find10 ings:

11 (1) The President, in his January 19, 1999

12 State of the Union address—

13 (A) announced that the Department of Jus14 tice would develop a litigation plan for the Fed15 eral Government against the tobacco industry;

16 (B) indicated that any funds recovered

17 through such litigation would be used to

18 strengthen the medicare program under title

19 XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

20 1395 et seq.); and

21 (C) urged Congress to pass legislation to in22 clude a prescription drug benefit in the medicare

23 program.
140

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (2) The traditional medicare program does not

2 include most outpatient prescription drugs as part of

3 its benefit package.

4 (3) Prescription drugs are a central element in

5 improving quality of life and in routine health main6 tenance.

7 (4) Prescription drugs are a key component to

8 early health care intervention strategies for the elder9 ly.

10 (5) Eighty percent of retired individuals take at

11 least 1 prescription drug every day.

12 (6) Individuals 65 years of age or older represent

13 12 percent of the population of the United States but

consume more than 1 14 ⁄3 of all prescription drugs con15 sumed in the United States.

16 (7) Exclusive of health care-related premiums,

prescription drugs account for almost 1 17 ⁄3 of the health

18 care costs and expenditures of elderly individuals.

19 (8) Approximately 10 percent of all medicare

20 beneficiaries account for nearly 50 percent of all pre21 scription drug spending by the elderly.

22 (9) Research and development on new genera23 tions of pharmaceuticals represent new opportunities

24 for healthier, longer lives for our Nation’s elderly.
141

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (10) Prescription drugs are among the key tools

2 in every health care professional’s medical arsenal to

3 help combat and prevent the onset, recurrence, or de4 bilitating effects of illness and disease.

5 (11) While possible Federal litigation against to6 bacco companies will take time to develop, Congress

7 should continue to work to address the immediate

8 need among the elderly for access to affordable pre9 scription drugs.

10 (12) Treatment of tobacco-related illness is esti11 mated to cost the medicare program approximately

12 $10,000,000,000 every year.

13 (13) In 1998, 50 States reached a settlement

14 with the tobacco industry for tobacco-related illness in

15 the amount of $206,000,000,000.

16 (14) Recoveries from possible Federal tobacco-re17 lated litigation, if successful, will likely be comparable

18 to or exceed the dollar amount recovered by the States

19 under the 1998 settlement.

20 (15) In the event Federal tobacco-related litiga21 tion is valid, undertaken and is successful, funds re22 covered under such litigation should first be used for

23 the purpose of strengthening the Federal Hospital In24 surance Trust Fund and second to finance a medicare

25 prescription drug benefit.
142

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (16) The scope of any medicare prescription

2 drug benefit should be as comprehensive as possible,

3 with drugs used in fighting tobacco-related illnesses

4 given a first priority.

5 (17) Most Americans want the medicare program

6 to cover the costs of prescription drugs.

7 (c) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen8 ate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals

9 in this resolution assume that funds recovered under any

10 tobacco-related litigation commenced by the Federal Gov11 ernment should be used first for the purpose of strength12 ening the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and sec13 ond to fund a medicare prescription drug benefit.

14 SEC. 356. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OFFSETTING INAPPRO15 PRIATE EMERGENCY SPENDING.

16 It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this reso17 lution assume that—

18 (1) some emergency expenditures made at the

19 end of the One Hundred Fifth Congress for fiscal year

20 1999 were inappropriately deemed as emergencies;

21 (2) Congress and the President should identify

22 these inappropriate expenditures and fully pay for

23 these expenditures during the fiscal year in which

24 they will be incurred; and
143

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (3) Congress should only apply the emergency

2 designation for occurrences that meet the criteria set

3 forth in the Congressional Budget Act.

4 SEC. 357. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PRESI5 DENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET PROPOSAL

6 TO TAX ASSOCIATION INVESTMENT INCOME.

7 (a) The Congress finds that:

8 (1) The President’s fiscal year 2000 Federal

9 budget proposal to impose a tax on the interest, divi10 dends, capital gains, rents, and royalties in excess of

11 $10,000 of trade associations and professional soci12 eties exempt under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal

13 Revenue Code of 1986 represents an unjust and un14 necessary penalty on legitimate association activities.

15 (2) At a time when the Government is projecting

16 on-budget surpluses of more than $800,000,000,000

17 over the next 10 years, the President proposes to in18 crease the tax burden on trade and professional asso19 ciations by $1,440,000,000 over the next 5 years.

20 (3) The President’s association tax increase pro21 posal will impose a tremendous burden on thousands

22 of small and mid-sized trade associations and profes23 sional societies.

24 (4) Under the President’s association tax in25 crease proposal, most associations with annual oper-
144

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 ating budgets of as low as $200,000 or more will be

2 taxed on investment income and as many as 70,000

3 associations nationwide could be affected by this pro4 posal.

5 (5) Associations rely on this targeted investment

6 income to carry out tax-exempt status related activi7 ties, such as training individuals to adapt to the

8 changing workplace, improving industry safety, pro9 viding statistical data, and providing community

10 services.

11 (6) Keeping investment income free from tax en12 courages associations to maintain modest surplus

13 funds that cushion against economic and fiscal

14 downturns.

15 (7) Corporations can increase prices to cover in16 creased costs, while small and medium sized local, re17 gional, and State-based associations do not have such

18 an option, and thus increased costs imposed by the

19 President’s association tax increase would reduce re20 sources available for the important standard setting,

21 educational training, and professionalism training

22 performed by associations.

23 (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals

24 in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that

25 Congress shall reject the President’s proposed tax increase
145

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 on investment income of associations as defined under sec2 tion 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

3 SEC. 358. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING

4 FOR COUNTER-NARCOTICS INITIATIVES.

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

6 (1) from 1985–1992, the Federal Government’s

7 drug control budget was balanced among education,

8 treatment, law enforcement, and international supply

9 reduction activities and this resulted in a 13-percent

10 reduction in total drug use from 1988 to 1991;

11 (2) since 1992, overall drug use among teens

12 aged 12 to 17 rose by 70 percent, cocaine and mari13 juana use by high school seniors rose 80 percent, and

14 heroin use by high school seniors rose 100 percent;

15 (3) during this same period, the Federal invest16 ment in reducing the flow of drugs outside our bor17 ders declined both in real dollars and as a proportion

18 of the Federal drug control budget;

19 (4) while the Federal Government works with

20 State and local governments and numerous private

21 organizations to reduce the demand for illegal drugs,

22 seize drugs, and break down drug trafficking organi23 zations within our borders, only the Federal Govern24 ment can seize and destroy drugs outside of our bor25 ders;
146

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (5) in an effort to restore Federal international

2 eradication and interdiction efforts, in 1998, Congress

3 passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination

4 Act which authorized an additional $2,600,000,000

5 over 3 years for international interdiction, eradi6 cation, and alternative development activities;

7 (6) Congress appropriated over $800,000,000 in

8 fiscal year 1999 for anti-drug activities authorized in

9 the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act; and

10 (7) the proposed Drug Free Century Act would

11 build upon many of the initiatives authorized in the

12 Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, includ13 ing additional funding for the Department of Defense

14 for counter-drug intelligence and related activities.

15 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen16 ate that the provisions of this resolution assume that—

17 (1) funding for Federal drug control activities

18 should be at a level higher than that proposed in the

19 President’s budget request for fiscal year 2000; and

20 (2) funding for Federal drug control activities

21 should allow for investments in programs authorized

22 in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act

23 and in the proposed Drug Free Century Act.
147

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 SEC. 359. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MODERNIZING AMER2 ICA’S SCHOOLS.

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

4 (1) The General Accounting Office has performed

5 a comprehensive survey of the Nation’s public elemen6 tary and secondary school facilities and has found se7 vere levels of disrepair in all areas of the United

8 States.

9 (2) The General Accounting Office has concluded

10 that more than 14,000,000 children attend schools in

11 need of extensive repair or replacement; 7,000,000

12 children attend schools with life safety code violations;

13 and 12,000,000 children attend schools with leaky

14 roofs.

15 (3) The General Accounting Office has found

16 that the problem of crumbling schools transcends de17 mographic and geographic boundaries. At 38 percent

18 of urban schools, 30 percent of rural schools, and 29

19 percent of suburban schools, at least 1 building is in

20 need of extensive repair or should be completely re21 placed.

22 (4) The condition of school facilities has a direct

23 effect on the safety of students and teachers and on

24 the ability of students to learn. Academic research has

25 provided a direct correlation between the condition of

26 school facilities and student achievement. At George-
148

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 town University, researchers have found the test scores

2 of students assigned to schools in poor condition can

3 be expected to fall 10.9 percentage points below the

4 test scores of students in buildings in excellent condi5 tion. Similar studies have demonstrated up to a 20

6 percent improvement in test scores when students

7 were moved from a poor facility to a new facility.

8 (5) The General Accounting Office has found

9 most schools are not prepared to incorporate modern

10 technology in the classroom. 46 percent of schools lack

11 adequate electrical wiring to support the full-scale use

12 of technology. More than a third of schools lack the

13 requisite electrical power. 56 percent of schools have

14 insufficient phone lines for modems.

15 (6) The Department of Education has reported

16 that elementary and secondary school enrollment, al17 ready at a record high level, will continue to grow

18 over the next 10 years, and that in order to accommo19 date this growth, the United States will need to build

20 an additional 6,000 schools.

21 (7) The General Accounting Office has deter22 mined that the cost of bringing schools up to good,

23 overall condition to be $112,000,000,000, not includ24 ing the cost of modernizing schools to accommodate
149

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 technology, or the cost of building additional facilities

2 needed to meet record enrollment levels.

3 (8) Schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

4 (BIA) for Native American children are also in dire

5 need of repair and renovation. The General Account6 ing Office has reported that the cost of total inventory

7 repairs needed for BIA facilities is $754,000,000. The

8 December 1997 report by the Comptroller General of

9 the United States states that, ‘‘Compared with other

10 schools nationally, BIA schools are generally in poor11 er physical condition, have more unsatisfactory envi12 ronmental factors, more often lack key facilities re13 quirements for education reform, and are less able to

14 support computer and communications technology.

15 (9) State and local financing mechanisms have

16 proven inadequate to meet the challenges facing to17 day’s aging school facilities. Large numbers of local

18 educational agencies have difficulties securing financ19 ing for school facility improvement.

20 (10) The Federal Government has provided re21 sources for school construction in the past. For exam22 ple, between 1933 and 1939, the Federal Government

23 assisted in 70 percent of all new school construction.

24 (11) The Federal Government can support ele25 mentary and secondary school facilities without inter-
150

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 fering in issues of local control, and should help com2 munities leverage additional funds for the improve3 ment of elementary and secondary school facilities.

4 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen5 ate that the budgetary levels in this budget resolution as6 sume that Congress will enact measures to assist school dis7 tricts in modernizing their facilities, including—

8 (1) legislation to allow States and school dis9 tricts to issue at least $24,800,000,000 worth of zero10 interest bonds to rebuild and modernize our Nation’s

11 schools, and to provide Federal income tax credits to

12 the purchasers of those bonds in lieu of interest pay13 ments; and

14 (2) appropriate funding for the Education Infra15 structure Act of 1994 during the period 2000 through

16 2004, which would provide grants to local school dis17 tricts for the repair, renovation and construction of

18 public school facilities.

19 SEC. 360. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING

20 FOR THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION

21 FUND.

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

23 (1) amounts in the land and water conservation

24 fund finance the primary Federal program for ac25 quiring land for conservation and recreation and for
151

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 supporting State and local efforts for conservation

2 and recreation;

3 (2) Congress has appropriated only

4 $10,000,000,000 out of the more than $21,000,000,000

5 covered into the fund from revenues payable to the

6 United States under the Outer Continental Shelf

7 Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.); and

8 (3) 38 Senators cosigned 2 letters to the Chair9 man and Ranking Member of the Committee on the

10 Budget urging that the land and water conservation

11 fund be fully funded.

12 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen13 ate that the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted

14 pursuant to this resolution assume that Congress should ap15 propriate $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 to provide fi16 nancial assistance to the States under section 6 of the Land

17 and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C 460l–

18 8), in addition to such amounts as are made available for

19 Federal land acquisition under that Act for fiscal year

20 2000.

21 SEC. 361. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPPORT

22 FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW EN23 FORCEMENT AND FOR THE VIOLENT CRIME

24 REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

25 (a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
152

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (1) our Federal, State and local law enforcement

2 officers provide essential services that preserve and

3 protect our freedom and safety, and with the support

4 of Federal assistance such as the Local Law Enforce5 ment Block Grant Program, the Juvenile Account6 ability Incentive Block Grant Program, the COPS

7 Program, and the Byrne Grant Program, State and

8 local law enforcement officers have succeeded in reduc9 ing the national scourge of violent crime, illustrated

10 by a violent crime rate that has dropped in each of

11 the past four years;

12 (2) assistance, such as the Violent Offender In13 carceration/Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants,

14 provided to State corrections systems to encourage

15 truth in sentencing laws for violent offenders has re16 sulted in longer time served by violent criminals and

17 safer streets for law abiding people across the Nation;

18 (3) through a comprehensive effort by State and

19 local law enforcement to attack violence against

20 women, in concert with the efforts of dedicated volun21 teers and professionals who provide victim services,

22 shelter, counseling and advocacy to battered women

23 and their children, important strides have been made

24 against the national scourge of violence against

25 women;
153

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 (4) despite recent gains, the violent crime rate

2 remains high by historical standards;

3 (5) Federal efforts to investigate and prosecute

4 international terrorism and complex interstate and

5 international crime are vital aspects of a national

6 anticrime strategy, and should be maintained;

7 (6) the recent gains by Federal, State and local

8 law enforcement in the fight against violent crime

9 and violence against women are fragile, and contin10 ued financial commitment from the Federal Govern11 ment for funding and financial assistance is required

12 to sustain and build upon these gains; and

13 (7) the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, en14 acted as a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law

15 Enforcement Act of 1994, funds the Violent Crime

16 Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Vio17 lence against Women Act of 1994, and the

18 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

19 1996, without adding to the Federal budget deficit.

20 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen21 ate that the provisions and the functional totals underlying

22 this resolution assume that the Federal Government’s com23 mitment to fund Federal law enforcement programs and

24 programs to assist State and local efforts to combat violent

25 crime shall be maintained, and that funding for the Violent
154

HCON 68 EAS1S

1 Crime Reduction Trust Fund shall continue to at least fis2 cal year 2005.

3 SEC. 362. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOCIAL SECU4 RITY NOTCH BABIES.

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

6 (1) the Social Security Amendments of 1977

7 (Public Law 95–216) substantially altered the way

8 Social Security benefits are computed;

9 (2) those amendments resulted in disparate bene10 fits depending upon the year in which a worker be11 comes eligible for benefits; and

12 (3) those individuals born between the years

13 1917 and 1926, and who are commonly referred to as

14 ‘‘notch babies’’ receive benefits that are lower than

15 those retirees who were born before or after those

16 years.

17 (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen18 ate that the Congress should reevaluate the benefits of work19 ers who attain age 65 after 1981 and before 1992.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 68

AMENDMENT
HCON 68 EAS1S——15

HCON 68 EAS1S——14HCON 68 EAS1S——13HCON 68 EAS1S——12HCON 68 EAS1S——11HCON 68 EAS1S——10HCON 68 EAS1S——9HCON 68 EAS1S——8HCON 68 EAS1S——7HCON 68 EAS1S——6HCON 68 EAS1S——5HCON 68 EAS1S——4HCON 68 EAS1S——3HCON 68 EAS1S——2