```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 68 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  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:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000.

    (a) Declaration.--
            (1) In general.--Congress determines and declares that this 
        resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
        fiscal year 2000 including the appropriate budgetary levels for 
        fiscal years 2001 through 2009 as authorized by section 301 of 
        the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
            (2) Fiscal year 1999 budget resolution.--S. Res. 312, 
        approved October 21, 1998, (105th Congress) shall be considered 
        to be the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
        1999.
    (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this concurrent 
resolution is as follows:

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

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social Security.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.
Sec. 104. Reconciliation of revenue reductions in the Senate.
Sec. 105. Reconciliation of revenue reductions in the House of 
                            Representatives.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. 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.
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.
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 
                            across-the-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.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

    The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal years 
2000 through 2009:
            (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
        this resolution--
                    (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are 
                as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,979,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,014,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $1,585,969,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $1,649,259,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $1,682,788,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $1,737,451,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $1,807,417,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $1,870,513,000,000.
                    (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of 
                Federal revenues should be changed are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2001: -$6,716,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: -$52,284,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: -$31,305,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: -$48,180,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: -$61,637,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: -$107,925,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: -$133,949,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: -$148,792,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: -$175,197,000,000.
            (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
        of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget 
        authority are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,931,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,457,294,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,488,477,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,561,513,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $1,613,278,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $1,666,843,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $1,698,902,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $1,754,567,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $1,815,739,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $1,875,969,000,000.
            (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
        this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays 
        are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,292,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,931,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,992,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,014,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,070,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $1,639,428,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $1,667,958,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $1,717,688,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $1,782,597,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $1,842,697,000,000.
            (4) Deficits or surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement 
        of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits or surpluses 
        are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: -$6,313,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $2,899,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $9,831,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $14,830,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $19,763,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $24,820,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $27,816,000,000.
            (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
        are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $5,635,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $5,716,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $5,801,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $5,885,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $5,962,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $6,029,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $6,088,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $6,138,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $6,175,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $6,203,500,000,000.
            (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of the 
        debt held by the public are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $3,510,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $3,377,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $3,236,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $3,088,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $2,926,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $2,742,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $2,544,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $2,329,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $2,099,500,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $1,861,100,000,000.

SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

    (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate enforcement 
under sections 302, and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
the amounts of revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as 
follows:
            Fiscal year 2000: $468,020,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001: $487,744,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002: $506,293,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003: $527,326,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2004: $549,876,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2005: $576,840,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2006: $601,834,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2007: $628,277,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2008: $654,422,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2009: $681,313,000,000.
    (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate enforcement 
under sections 302, and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
the amounts of outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as 
follows:
            Fiscal year 2000: $327,256,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001: $339,789,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002: $350,127,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003: $362,197,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2004: $375,253,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2005: $389,485,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2006: $404,596,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2007: $420,616,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2008: $438,132,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2009: $459,496,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

    Congress determines and declares that the appropriate levels of new 
budget authority, budget outlays, new direct loan obligations, and new 
primary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 2000 through 2009 
for each major functional category are:
            (1) National Defense (050):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $288,812,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $274,567,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $303,616,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $285,949,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $308,175,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $291,714,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $318,277,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $303,642,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $327,166,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $313,460,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $328,370,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $316,675,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $329,600,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $315,111,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $330,870,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $313,687,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $332,176,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $317,103,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $333,452,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $318,041,000,000.
            (2) International Affairs (150):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,511,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $14,850,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,716,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $15,362,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $11,985,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $14,781,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $13,590,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $14,380,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,494,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $14,133,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,651,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,807,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,834,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,513,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,929,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,352,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,998,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,181,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,962,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,054,000,000.
            (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,955,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $18,214,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,946,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,907,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,880,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,784,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,772,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
            (4) Energy (270):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $49,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$650,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$1,435,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$3,136,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$163,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,138,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$84,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,243,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$319,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,381,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$447,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,452,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$452,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,453,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$506,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,431,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$208,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,137,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$76,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,067,000,000.
            (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $21,720,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,444,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $21,183,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $21,729,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $20,747,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $21,023,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,479,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,579,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,492,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,503,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,536,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,429,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,566,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,466,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,667,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,425,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,658,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,361,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $23,041,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,738,000,000.
            (6) Agriculture (350):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,831,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,660,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $13,519,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $11,279,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $11,288,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,536,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $11,955,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $10,252,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,072,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $10,526,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $10,553,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,882,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $10,609,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,083,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $10,711,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,145,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $10,763,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,162,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $10,853,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,223,000,000.
            (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $9,664,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $4,270,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $10,620,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $5,754,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,450,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $10,188,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $14,529,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $10,875,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $13,859,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $10,439,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,660,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,437,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,635,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,130,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,666,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $8,879,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,642,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $8,450,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $13,415,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $8,824,000,000.
            (8) Transportation (400):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $51,325,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $45,333,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $51,128,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $47,711,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $51,546,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $47,765,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $52,477,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,720,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $52,580,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,207,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $52,609,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,022,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $52,640,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $45,990,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $52,673,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $45,990,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $52,707,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,007,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $52,742,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,033,000,000.
            (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $5,343,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $10,273,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,704,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $7,517,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,889,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $4,667,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,042,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $2,964,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,037,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $2,120,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,030,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,234,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,027,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $931,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,021,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $795,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,019,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $724,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $2,013,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $688,000,000.
            (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
        (500):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $67,373,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $63,994,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $66,549,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $65,355,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $67,295,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $66,037,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $73,334,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $68,531,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $76,648,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $72,454,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $77,464,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $75,891,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $78,229,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $77,189,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $79,133,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $78,119,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $80,144,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $79,109,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $80,051,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $79,059,000,000.
            (11) Health (550):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $156,181,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $152,986,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $164,089,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $162,357,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $173,330,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $173,767,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $184,679,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $185,330,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $197,893,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $198,499,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $212,821,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $212,637,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $228,379,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $228,323,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $246,348,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $245,472,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $265,160,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $264,420,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $285,541,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $284,941,000,000.
            (12) Medicare (570):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $208,652,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $208,698,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $222,104,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $222,252,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $230,593,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $230,222,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $250,743,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $250,871,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $268,558,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $268,738,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $295,574,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $295,188,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $306,772,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $306,929,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $337,566,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $337,761,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $365,642,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $365,225,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $394,078,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $394,249,000,000.
            (13) Income Security (600):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $244,390,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $248,088,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $251,873,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $257,750,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $264,620,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $267,411,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $277,386,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $277,175,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $286,576,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $286,388,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $298,942,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $299,128,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $305,655,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $305,943,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $312,047,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $312,753,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $325,315,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $326,666,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $335,562,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $337,102,000,000.
            (14) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $46,724,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $47,064,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $44,255,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $44,980,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $44,728,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $45,117,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $45,536,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,024,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $45,862,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,327,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $48,341,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $48,844,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $46,827,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $47,373,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $47,377,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $45,803,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $47,959,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $48,505,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $48,578,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $49,150,000,000.
            (15) Administration of Justice (750):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $23,434,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,349,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,656,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,117,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,657,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,932,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,561,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,425,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,467,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,356,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,355,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,242,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,242,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,121,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,114,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,996,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $23,989,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,885,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $23,833,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,720,000,000.
            (16) General Government (800):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,339,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,476,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $11,916,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $12,605,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,080,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $12,282,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,083,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $12,150,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,099,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $12,186,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,112,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $11,906,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,134,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $11,839,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,150,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $11,873,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,169,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $12,064,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $12,178,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $11,931,000,000.
            (17) Net Interest (900):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, $275,682,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $275,682,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, $271,443,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $271,443,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, $267,855,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $267,855,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, $265,573,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $265,573,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, $263,835,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $263,835,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, $261,411,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $261,411,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, $259,195,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $259,195,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, $257,618,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $257,618,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, $255,177,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $255,177,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, $253,001,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $253,001,000,000.
            (18) Allowances (920):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$10,033,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$10,094,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$8,480,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$12,874,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$6,437,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$19,976,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$4,394,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$4,835,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$4,481,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$5,002,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$4,515,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$5,067,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$4,619,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$5,192,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$5,210,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$5,780,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$5,279,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$5,851,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$5,316,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$5,889,000,000.
            (19) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
                    Fiscal year 2000:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$34,260,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$34,260,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$36,876,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$36,876,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$43,626,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$43,626,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$37,464,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$37,464,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$37,559,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$37,559,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$38,497,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$38,497,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$39,178,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$39,178,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$40,426,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$40,426,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$41,237,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$41,237,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$42,084,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$42,084,000,000.

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

    Not later than June 18, 1999, the Senate Committee on Finance shall 
report to the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws 
within its jurisdiction necessary--
            (1) to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in fiscal year 
        2000, $138,485,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
        through 2004, and $765,985,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
        years 2000 through 2009; and
            (2) to decrease the statutory limit on the public debt to 
        not more than $5,865,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN THE HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES.

    Not later than June 11, 1999, the Committee on Ways and Means shall 
report to the House of Representatives a reconciliation bill proposing 
changes in laws within its jurisdiction necessary--
            (1) to reduce revenues by not more than $0 in fiscal year 
        2000, $142,034,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 
        through 2004, and $777,587,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
        years 2000 through 2009; and
            (2) to decrease the statutory limit on the public debt to 
        not more than $5,865,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

    (a) Adjustment.--If legislation is reported by the Senate Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry that provides risk management 
and income assistance for agriculture producers, the Chairman of the 
Senate Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of budget 
authority and outlays to that Committee by an amount that does not 
exceed--
            (1) $500,000,000 in budget authority and in outlays for 
        fiscal year 2000; and
            (2) $6,000,000,000 in budget authority and $5,165,000,000 
        in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; 
        and
            (3) $6,000,000,000 in budget authority and in outlays for 
        the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.
    (b) Limitation.--The Chairman shall not make the adjustments 
authorized in this section if legislation described in subsection (a) 
would cause an on-budget deficit when taken with all other legislation 
enacted for--
            (1) fiscal year 2000;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
    (c) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised allocations under subsection 
(a) shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 as allocations contained in this resolution.

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

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, the Chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget of the Senate may reduce the spending and revenue aggregates 
and may revise committee allocations for legislation that reduces 
revenues if such legislation will not increase the deficit for--
            (1) fiscal year 2000;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.
    (b) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised allocations and aggregates 
under subsection (a) shall be considered for the purposes of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates 
contained in this resolution.
    (c) Limitation.--This reserve fund will give priority to the 
following types of tax relief--
            (1) tax relief to help working families afford child care, 
        including assistance for families with a parent staying out of 
        the workforce in order to care for young children;
            (2) tax relief to help individuals and their families 
        afford the expense of long-term health care;
            (3) tax relief to ease the tax code's marriage penalties on 
        working families;
            (4) any other individual tax relief targeted exclusively 
        for families in the bottom 90 percent of the family income 
        distribution;
            (5) the extension of the Research and Experimentation tax 
        credit, the Work Opportunity tax credit, and other expiring tax 
        provisions, a number of which are important to help American 
        businesses compete in the modern international economy and to 
        help bring the benefits of a strong economy to disadvantaged 
        individuals and communities;
            (6) tax incentives to help small businesses; and
            (7) tax relief provided by accelerating the increase in the 
        deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-
        employed.

SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION ON THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 202 OF H. CON. 
              RES. 67.

    Section 202(b) of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the deficit'' and 
        inserting ``the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
        deficit''; and
            (2) in paragraph (6), by--
                    (A) striking ``increases the deficit'' and 
                inserting ``increases the on-budget deficit or causes 
                an on-budget deficit''; and
                    (B) striking ``increase the deficit'' and inserting 
                ``increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
                deficit''.

SEC. 204. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER.

    (a) Designations.--
            (1) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of 
        legislation as an emergency requirement under section 
        251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
        Deficit Control Act of 1985, the committee report and any 
        statement of managers accompanying that legislation shall 
        analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all the 
        criteria in paragraph (2).
            (2) Criteria.--
                    (A) In general.--The criteria to be considered in 
                determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax 
                change is an emergency requirement are whether it is--
                            (i) necessary, essential, or vital (not 
                        merely useful or beneficial);
                            (ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and 
                        not building up over time;
                            (iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling 
                        need requiring immediate action;
                            (iv) subject to subparagraph (B), 
                        unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; 
                        and
                            (v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
                    (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an 
                aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, 
                particularly when normally estimated in advance, is not 
                unforeseen.
            (3) Justification for failure to meet criteria.--If the 
        proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria 
        set forth in paragraph (2), the committee report or the 
        statement of managers, as the case may be, shall provide a 
        written justification of why the requirement should be accorded 
        emergency status.
    (b) Point of Order.--
            (1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
        resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, upon a 
        point of order being made by a Senator against any provision in 
        that measure designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
        section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and 
        Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the Presiding Officer 
        sustains that point of order, that provision along with the 
        language making the designation shall be stricken from the 
        measure and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
            (2) General point of order.--A point of order under this 
        subsection may be raised by a Senator as provided in section 
        313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
            (3) Conference reports.--If a point of order is sustained 
        under this subsection against a conference report the report 
        shall be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 205. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.

    In the event there is no joint explanatory statement accompanying a 
conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2000, and in conformance with section 302(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
House of Representatives and of the Senate shall submit for printing in 
the Congressional Record allocations consistent with the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, as passed by the House 
of Representatives and of the Senate.

SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR USE OF OCS RECEIPTS.

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, spending aggregates and other 
appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted and allocations 
may be revised for legislation that would use proceeds from Outer 
Continental Shelf leasing and production to fund historic preservation, 
recreation and land, water, fish, and wildlife conservation efforts and 
to support coastal needs and activities, provided that, to the extent 
that this concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the 
costs of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation will not 
increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously passed 
deficit reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
            (1) fiscal year 2000;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
    (b) Revised Allocations.--
            (1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
        legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
        Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the Senate 
        appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels 
        and aggregates to carry out this section. These revised 
        allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall be 
        considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
        contained in this resolution.
            (2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the Chairman of the 
        Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment 
        under this section for legislation in furtherance of the 
        purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an 
        amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such 
        submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate 
        appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels 
        and aggregates to carry out this section. These revised 
        allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall be 
        considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
        contained in this resolution.
    (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate committees 
shall report appropriately revised allocations pursuant to section 
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 
section.

SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MANAGED CARE PLANS THAT 
              AGREE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY.

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, spending aggregates and other 
appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted and allocations 
may be revised for legislation to provide: additional funds for 
medicare managed care plans agreeing to serve elderly patients for at 
least 2 years and whose reimbursement was reduced because of the risk 
adjustment regulations, provided that to the extent that this 
concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the costs of that 
legislation, the enactment of that legislation will not increase (by 
virtue of either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit 
reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
            (1) fiscal year 2000;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
    (b) Revised Allocations.--
            (1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
        legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
        Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the Senate 
        appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional level 
        and spending aggregates to carry out this section. These 
        revised allocations, functional levels, and spending aggregates 
        shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and 
        aggregates contained in this resolution.
            (2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the Chairman of the 
        Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment 
        under this section for legislation in furtherance of the 
        purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an 
        amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such 
        submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate 
        appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels 
        and spending aggregates to carry out this section. These 
        revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall be 
        considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
        contained in this resolution.
    (d) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate committees 
shall report appropriately revised allocations pursuant to section 
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 
section.

SEC. 208. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

    (a) Adjustment.--If legislation is reported by the Senate Committee 
on Finance that significantly extends the solvency of the Medicare 
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund without the use of transfers of new 
subsidies from the general fund, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget may change committee allocations and spending aggregates if such 
legislation will not cause an on-budget deficit for--
            (1) fiscal year 2000;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
    (b) Prescription Drug Benefit.--The adjustments made pursuant to 
subsection (a) may be made to address the cost of the prescription drug 
benefit.
    (c) Budgetary Enforcement.--The revision of allocations and 
aggregates made under this section shall be considered for the purposes 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates 
contained in this resolution.

SEC. 209. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

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

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending aggregates and 
other appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted and 
allocations may be revised for legislation that finances disability 
programs designed to allow individuals with disabilities to become 
employed and remain independent: Provided, That, to the extent that 
this concurrent resolution on the budget does not include the costs of 
that legislation, the enactment of that legislation will not increase 
(by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously-passed deficit 
reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
            (1) fiscal year 2000;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
    (b) Revised Allocations.--
            (1) Adjustments for legislation.--Upon the consideration of 
        legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
        Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the Senate 
        appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels 
        and aggregates to carry out this section. These revised 
        allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall be 
        considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
        contained in this resolution.
            (2) Adjustments for amendments.--If the chairman of the 
        Committee on the Budget of the Senate submits an adjustment 
        under this section for legislation in furtherance of the 
        purpose described in subsection (a), upon the offering of an 
        amendment to that legislation that would necessitate such 
        submission, the Chairman shall submit to the Senate 
        appropriately-revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels 
        and aggregates to carry out this section. These revised 
        allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall be 
        considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
        contained in this resolution.
    (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate committees 
shall report appropriately-revised allocations pursuant to section 
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 
section.

            TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

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

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) differences in income tax liabilities caused by marital 
        status are embodied in a number of tax code provisions 
        including separate rate schedules and standard deductions for 
        married couples and single individuals;
            (2) according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 42 
        percent of married couples incurred ``marriage penalties'' 
        under the tax code in 1996, averaging nearly $1,400;
            (3) measured as a percent of income, marriage penalties are 
        largest for low-income families, as couples with incomes below 
        $20,000 who incurred a marriage penalty in 1996 were forced to 
        pay nearly 8 percent more of their income in taxes than if they 
        had been able to file individual returns;
            (4) empirical evidence indicates that the marriage penalty 
        may affect work patterns, particularly for a couple's second 
        earner, because higher rates reduce after-tax wages and may 
        cause second earners to work fewer hours or not at all, which, 
        in turn, reduces economic efficiency; and
            (5) the tax code should not improperly influence the choice 
        of couples with regard to marital status by having the combined 
        Federal income tax liability of a couple be higher if they are 
        married than if they are single.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that significantly reducing or eliminating the 
marriage penalty should be a component of any tax cut package reported 
by the Finance Committee and passed by Congress during the fiscal year 
2000 budget reconciliation process.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPROVING SECURITY FOR UNITED STATES 
              DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this resolution 
assume that there is an urgent and ongoing requirement to improve 
security for United States diplomatic missions and personnel abroad, 
which should be met without compromising existing budgets for 
International Affairs (function 150).

SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ACCESS TO MEDICARE HOME HEALTH 
              SERVICES.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) medicare home health services provide a vitally 
        important option enabling homebound individuals to stay in 
        their own homes and communities rather than go into 
        institutionalized care; and
            (2) implementation of the Interim Payment System and other 
        changes to the medicare home health benefit have exacerbated 
        inequalities in payments for home health services between 
        regions, limiting access to these services in many areas and 
        penalizing efficient, low-cost providers.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate the levels 
in this resolution assume that the Senate should act to ensure fair and 
equitable access to high quality home health services.

SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF HEALTH 
              INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF THE SELF-EMPLOYED.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) under current law, the self-employed do not enjoy 
        parity with their corporate competitors with respect to the tax 
        deductibility of their health insurance premiums;
            (2) this April, the self-employed will only be able to 
        deduct only 45 percent of their health insurance premiums for 
        the tax year 1998;
            (3) the following April, the self-employed will be able to 
        take a 60-percent deduction for their health insurance premiums 
        for the tax year 1999;
            (4) it will not be until 2004 that the self-employed will 
        be able to take a full 100-percent deduction for their health 
        insurance premiums for the tax year 2003;
            (5) the self-employed's health insurance premiums are 
        generally over 30 percent higher than the health insurance 
        premiums of group health plans;
            (6) the increased cost coupled with the less favorable tax 
        treatment makes health insurance less affordable for the self-
        employed;
            (7) these disadvantages are reflected in the higher rate of 
        uninsured among the self-employed which stands at 24.1 percent 
        compared with 18.2 percent for all wage and salaried workers, 
        for self-employed living at or below the poverty level the rate 
        of uninsured is 53.1 percent, for self-employed living at 100 
        through 199 percent of poverty the rate of uninsured is 47 
        percent, and for self-employed living at 200 percent of poverty 
        and above the rate of uninsured is 17.8 percent;
            (8) for some self-employed, such as farmers who face 
        significant occupational safety hazards, this lack of health 
        insurance affordability has even greater ramifications; and
            (9) this lack of full deductibility is also adversely 
        affecting the growing number of women who own small businesses.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that tax relief legislation should 
include parity between the self-employed and corporations with respect 
to the tax treatment of health insurance premiums.

SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT TAX REDUCTIONS SHOULD GO TO WORKING 
              FAMILIES.

    It is the sense of the Senate that this concurrent resolution on 
the budget assumes any reductions in taxes should be structured to 
benefit working families by providing family tax relief and incentives 
to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth.

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

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the Army National Guard relies heavily upon thousands 
        of full-time employees, Military Technicians and Active Guard/
        Reserves, to ensure unit readiness throughout the Army National 
        Guard;
            (2) these employees perform vital day-to-day functions, 
        ranging from equipment maintenance to leadership and staff 
        roles, that allow the drill weekends and annual active duty 
        training of the traditional Guardsmen to be dedicated to 
        preparation for the National Guard's warfighting and peacetime 
        missions;
            (3) when the ability to provide sufficient Active Guard/
        Reserves and Technicians end strength is reduced, unit 
        readiness, as well as quality of life for soldiers and families 
        is degraded;
            (4) the Army National Guard, with agreement from the 
        Department of Defense, requires a minimum essential requirement 
        of 23,500 Active Guard/Reserves and 25,500 Technicians; and
            (5) the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Army 
        National Guard provides resources sufficient for approximately 
        21,807 Active Guard/Reserves and 22,500 Technicians, end 
        strength shortfalls of 3,000 and 1,693, respectively.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional totals in the budget resolution assume that the Department 
of Defense will give priority to providing adequate resources to 
sufficiently fund the Active Guard/Reserves and Military Technicians at 
minimum required levels.

SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EFFECTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM ON 
              WOMEN.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the Social Security benefit structure is of particular 
        importance to low-earning wives and widows, with 63 percent of 
        women beneficiaries aged 62 or older receiving wife's or 
        widow's benefits;
            (2) three-quarters of unmarried and widowed elderly women 
        rely on Social Security for more than half of their income;
            (3) without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty 
        rate among women would have been 52.2 percent, and among widows 
        would have been 60.6 percent;
            (4) women tend to live longer and tend to have lower 
        lifetime earnings than men do;
            (5) women spend an average of 11.5 years out of their 
        careers to care for their families, and are more likely to work 
        part-time than full-time; and
            (6) during these years in the workforce, women earn an 
        average of 70 cents for every dollar men earn.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that--
            (1) women face unique obstacles in ensuring retirement 
        security and survivor and disability stability;
            (2) Social Security plays an essential role in guaranteeing 
        inflation-protected financial stability for women throughout 
        their entire old age; and
            (3) the Congress and the President should take these 
        factors into account when considering proposals to reform the 
        Social Security system.

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL 
              INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the National Institutes of Health is the Nation's 
        foremost research center;
            (2) the Nation's commitment to and investment in biomedical 
        research has resulted in better health and an improved quality 
        of life for all Americans;
            (3) continued biomedical research funding must be ensured 
        so that medical doctors and scientists have the security to 
        commit to conducting long-term research studies;
            (4) funding for the National Institutes of Health should 
        continue to increase in order to prevent the cessation of 
        biomedical research studies and the loss of medical doctors and 
        research scientists to private research organizations; and
            (5) the National Institutes of Health conducts research 
        protocols without proprietary interests, thereby ensuring that 
        the best health care is researched and made available to the 
        Nation.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that there shall be a continuation of the pattern of 
budgetary increases for biomedical research.

SEC. 309. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FUNDING FOR KYOTO PROTOCOL 
              IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO SENATE RATIFICATION.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) The agreement signed by the Administration on November 
        12, 1998, regarding legally binding commitments on greenhouse 
        gas reductions is inconsistent with the provisions of S. Res. 
        98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which passed the Senate 
        unanimously.
            (2) The Administration has agreed to allowing at least 2 
        additional years for negotiations on the Buenos Aires Action 
        Plan to determine the provisions of several vital aspects of 
        the Treaty for the United States, including emissions trading 
        schemes, carbon sinks, a clean development mechanism, and 
        developing Nation participation.
            (3) The Administration has not submitted the Kyoto Protocol 
        to the Senate for ratification and has indicated it has no 
        intention to do so in the foreseeable future.
            (4) The Administration has pledged to Congress that it 
        would not implement any portion of the Kyoto Protocol prior to 
        its ratification in the Senate.
            (5) Congress agrees that Federal expenditures are required 
        and appropriate for activities which both improve the 
        environment and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those 
        activities include programs to promote energy efficient 
        technologies, encourage technology development that reduces or 
        sequesters greenhouse gases, encourage the development and use 
        of alternative and renewable fuel technologies, and other 
        programs justifiable independent of the goals of the Kyoto 
        Protocol.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the levels 
in this resolution assume that funds should not be provided to put into 
effect the Kyoto Protocol prior to its Senate ratification in 
compliance with the requirements of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution and 
consistent with previous Administration assurances to Congress.

SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
              INVESTMENT.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) A dozen internationally, prestigious economic studies 
        have shown that technological progress has historically been 
        the single most important factor in economic growth, having 
        more than twice the impact of labor or capital.
            (2) The link between economic growth and technology is 
        evident: our dominant high technology industries are currently 
        responsible for 80 percent of the value of today's stock 
        market, \1/3\ of our economic output, and half of our economic 
        growth. Furthermore, the link between Federal funding of 
        research and development (R&D) and market products is 
        conclusive: 70 percent of all patent applications cite 
        nonprofit or federally-funded research as a core component to 
        the innovation being patented.
            (3) The revolutionary high technology applications of today 
        were spawned from scientific advances that occurred in the 
        1960's, when the Government intensively funded R&D. In the 3 
        decades since then, our investment in R&D as a fraction of 
        Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has dropped to half its former 
        value. As a fraction of the Federal budget, the investment in 
        civilian R&D has dropped to only \1/3\ its value in 1965.
            (4) Compared to other foreign nation's investment in 
        science and technology, American competitiveness is slipping: 
        an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 
        report notes that 14 countries now invest more in basic and 
        fundamental research as a fraction of GDP than the United 
        States.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that the Federal investment in R&D 
should be preserved and increased in order to ensure long-term United 
States economic strength. Funding for Federal agencies performing basic 
scientific, medical, and precompetitive engineering research pursuant 
to the Balanced Budget Agreement Act of 1997 should be a priority for 
the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees this year, within the 
Budget as established by this Committee, in order to achieve a goal of 
doubling the Federal investment in R&D over an 11 year period.

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

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the drug crisis facing the United States is a top 
        national security threat;
            (2) the spread of illicit drugs through United States 
        borders cannot be halted without an effective drug interdiction 
        strategy;
            (3) effective drug interdiction efforts have been shown to 
        limit the availability of illicit narcotics, drive up the 
        street price, support demand reduction efforts, and decrease 
        overall drug trafficking and use; and
            (4) the percentage change in drug use since 1992, among 
        graduating high school students who used drugs in the past 12 
        months, has substantially increased--marijuana use is up 80 
        percent, cocaine use is up 80 percent, and heroin use is up 100 
        percent.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
assumptions underlying the functional totals included in this 
resolution assume the following:
            (1) All counter-narcotics agencies will be given a high 
        priority for fully funding their counter-narcotics mission.
            (2) Front line drug fighting agencies are dedicating more 
        resources for intentional efforts to continue restoring a 
        balanced drug control strategy. Congress should carefully 
        examine the reauthorization of the United States Customs 
        service and ensure they have adequate resources and authority 
        not only to facilitate the movement of internationally traded 
        goods but to ensure they can aggressively pursue their law 
        enforcement activities.
            (3) By pursuing a balanced effort which requires investment 
        in 3 key areas: demand reduction (such as education and 
        treatment); domestic law enforcement; and international supply 
        reduction, Congress believes we can reduce the number of 
        children who are exposed to and addicted to illegal drugs.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRIBAL COLLEGES.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) more than 26,500 students from 250 tribes nationwide 
        attend tribal colleges. The colleges serve students of all 
        ages, many of whom are moving from welfare to work. The vast 
        majority of tribal college students are first-generation 
        college students;
            (2) while annual appropriations for tribal colleges have 
        increased modestly in recent years, core operation funding 
        levels are still about \1/2\ of the $6,000 per Indian student 
        level authorized by the Tribally Controlled College or 
        University Act;
            (3) although tribal colleges received a $1,400,000 increase 
        in funding in fiscal year 1999, because of rising student 
        populations, these institutions faced an actual per-student 
        decrease in funding over fiscal year 1998; and
            (4) per student funding for tribal colleges is only about 
        63 percent of the amount given to mainstream community colleges 
        ($2,964 per student at tribal colleges versus $4,743 per 
        student at mainstream community colleges).
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) this resolution recognizes the funding difficulties 
        faced by tribal colleges and assumes that priority 
        consideration will be provided to them through funding for the 
        Tribally Controlled College and University Act, the 1994 Land 
        Grant Institutions, and title III of the Higher Education Act; 
        and
            (2) the levels in this resolution assume that such priority 
        consideration reflects Congress' intent to continue work toward 
        current statutory Federal funding goals for the tribal 
        colleges.

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

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
            (1) according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
        January 1999 ``Economic and Budget Outlook,'' the Social 
        Security Trust Fund is projected to incur annual surpluses of 
        $126,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, $137,000,000,000 in 
        fiscal year 2000, $144,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001, 
        $153,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, $161,000,000,000 in 
        fiscal year 2003, and $171,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
            (2) the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution crafted by 
        Chairman Domenici assumes that Trust Fund surpluses will be 
        used to reduce publicly-held debt and for no other purposes, 
        and calls for the enactment of statutory legislation that would 
        enforce this assumption;
            (3) the President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal not 
        only fails to call for legislation that will ensure annual 
        Social Security surpluses are used strictly to reduce publicly-
        held debt, but actually spends a portion of these surpluses on 
        non-Social Security programs;
            (4) using CBO's re-estimate of his budget proposal, the 
        President would spend approximately $40,000,000,000 of the 
        Social Security surplus in fiscal year 2000 on non-Social 
        Security programs; $41,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001; 
        $24,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002; $34,000,000,000 in fiscal 
        year 2003; and $20,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2004; and
            (5) spending any portion of an annual Social Security 
        surplus on non-Social Security programs is wholly-inconsistent 
        with efforts to preserve and protect Social Security for future 
        generations.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that Congress shall reject any budget that would 
spend any portion of the Social Security surpluses generated in any 
fiscal year for any Federal program other than Social Security.

SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NEED-BASED STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 
              PROGRAMS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) public investment in higher education yields a return 
        of several dollars for each dollar invested;
            (2) higher education promotes economic opportunity for 
        individuals, as recipients of bachelor's degrees earn an 
        average of 75 percent per year more than those with high school 
        diplomas and experience half as much unemployment as high 
        school graduates;
            (3) higher education promotes social opportunity, as 
        increased education is correlated with reduced criminal 
        activity, lessened reliance on public assistance, and increased 
        civic participation;
            (4) a more educated workforce will be essential for 
        continued economic competitiveness in an age where the amount 
        of information available to society will double in a matter of 
        days rather than months or years;
            (5) access to a college education has become a hallmark of 
        American society, and is vital to upholding our belief in 
        equality of opportunity;
            (6) for a generation, the Federal Pell Grant has served as 
        an established and effective means of providing access to 
        higher education for students with financial need;
            (7) over the past decade, Pell Grant awards have failed to 
        keep pace with inflation, eroding their value and threatening 
        access to higher education for the Nation's neediest students;
            (8) grant aid as a portion of all students financial aid 
        has fallen significantly over the past 5 years;
            (9) the Nation's neediest students are now borrowing 
        approximately as much as its wealthiest students to finance 
        higher education; and
            (10) the percentage of freshmen attending public and 
        private 4-year institutions from families below national median 
        income has fallen since 1981.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that within 
the discretionary allocation provided to the Committee on 
Appropriations of the Senate for function 500--
            (1) the maximum amount of Federal Pell Grants should be 
        increased by $400;
            (2) funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational 
        Opportunity Grants Program should be increased by $65,000,000;
            (3) funding for the Federal capital contributions under the 
        Federal Perkins Loan Program should be increased by 
        $35,000,000;
            (4) funding for the Leveraging Educational Assistance 
        Partnership Program should be increased by $50,000,000;
            (5) funding for the Federal Work-Study Program should be 
        increased by $64,000,000;
            (6) funding for the Federal TRIO Programs should be 
        increased by $100,000,000.

SEC. 315. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIAL 
              SECURITY SURPLUSES.

    (a) The Congress finds that--
            (1) Congress and the President should balance the budget 
        excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security Trust 
        Funds;
            (2) reducing the Federal debt held by the public is a top 
        national priority, strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, as 
        evidenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comment 
        that debt reduction ``is a very important element in sustaining 
        economic growth'', as well as President Clinton's comments that 
        it ``is very, very important that we get the Government debt 
        down'' when referencing his own plans to use the budget surplus 
        to reduce Federal debt held by the public;
            (3) according to the Congressional Budget Office, balancing 
        the budget excluding the surpluses generated by the Social 
        Security Trust Funds will reduce debt held by the public by a 
        total of $1,723,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009, 
        $417,000,000,000, or 32 percent, more than it would be reduced 
        under the President's fiscal year 2000 budget submission;
            (4) further, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
        that the President's budget would actually spend 
        $40,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses in fiscal year 
        2000 on new spending programs, and spend $158,000,000,000 of 
        the Social Security surpluses on new spending programs from 
        fiscal year 2000 through 2004; and
            (5) Social Security surpluses should be used for Social 
        Security reform or to reduce the debt held by the public and 
        should not be used for other purposes.
    (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals in this 
concurrent resolution on the budget assume that Congress shall pass 
legislation which--
            (1) reaffirms the provisions of section 13301 of the 
        Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that provides that 
        the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security Trust 
        Funds shall not be counted for the purposes of the budget 
        submitted by the President, the congressional budget, or the 
        Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and 
        provides for a point of order within the Senate against any 
        concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment thereto, or a 
        conference report thereon that violates that section;
            (2) mandates that the Social Security surpluses are used 
        only for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
        Security reform or to reduce the Federal debt held by the 
        public, and not spent on non-Social Security programs or used 
        to offset tax cuts;
            (3) provides for a Senate super-majority point of order 
        against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
        report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything 
        other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
        Security reform or the reduction of the Federal debt held by 
        the public;
            (4) ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on 
        time; and
            (5) accommodates Social Security reform legislation.

SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR UNITED 
              STATES INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) United States international leadership is essential to 
        maintaining security and peace for all Americans;
            (2) such leadership depends on effective diplomacy as well 
        as a strong military;
            (3) effective diplomacy requires adequate resources both 
        for embassy security and for international programs;
            (4) in addition to building peace, prosperity and democracy 
        around the world, programs in the International Affairs (150) 
        account serve United States interests by ensuring better jobs 
        and a higher standard of living, promoting the health of our 
        citizens and preserving our natural environment, and protecting 
        the rights and safety of those who travel or do business 
        overseas;
            (5) real spending for International Affairs has declined 
        more than 50 percent since the mid-1980s, at the same time that 
        major new challenges and opportunities have arisen from the 
        disintegration of the Soviet Union and the worldwide trends 
        toward democracy and free markets;
            (6) current ceilings on discretionary spending will impose 
        severe additional cuts in funding for International Affairs; 
        and
            (7) improved security for United States diplomatic missions 
        and personnel will place further strain on the International 
        Affairs budget absent significant additional resources.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that additional budgetary resources 
should be identified for function 150 to enable successful 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.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the 
functional totals in this resolution assume that the Federal Government 
should not directly invest contributions made to the Federal Old-Age 
and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 401) in private financial markets.

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

    (a) It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions in this 
resolution assume that if the Congressional Budget Office determines 
there is an on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2000, $2,000,000,000 of 
that surplus will be restored to the programs cut in function 920.
    (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying 
this budget resolution assume that none of these offsets will come from 
defense or veterans, and to the extent possible should come from 
administrative functions.

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

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) on May 22, 1998, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the 
        conference committee report on H.R. 2400, the Transportation 
        Equity Act for the 21st Century, in a 88-5 roll call vote;
            (2) also on May 22, 1998, the House of Representatives 
        approved the conference committee report on this bill in a 297-
        86 recorded vote;
            (3) on June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed this bill 
        into law, thereby making it Public Law 105-178;
            (4) the TEA-21 legislation was a comprehensive 
        reauthorization of Federal highway and mass transit programs, 
        which authorized approximately $216,000,000,000 in Federal 
        transportation spending over the next 6 fiscal years;
            (5) section 1105 of this legislation called for any excess 
        Federal gasoline tax revenues to be provided to the States 
        under the formulas established by the final version of TEA-21; 
        and
            (6) the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request 
        contained a proposal to distribute approximately $1,000,000,000 
        in excess Federal gasoline tax revenues that was not consistent 
        with the provisions of section 1105 of TEA-21 and would deprive 
        States of needed revenues.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and any legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that the President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal 
to change the manner in which any excess Federal gasoline tax revenues 
are distributed to the States will not be implemented, but rather any 
of these funds will be distributed to the States pursuant to section 
1105 of TEA-21.

SEC. 320. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT AGRICULTURAL RISK MANAGEMENT 
              PROGRAMS SHOULD BENEFIT LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) extremes in weather-related and natural conditions have 
        a profound impact on the economic viability of producers;
            (2) these extremes, such as drought, excessive rain and 
        snow, flood, wind, insect infestation are certainly beyond the 
        control of livestock producers;
            (3) these extremes do not impact livestock producers within 
        a State, region or the Nation in the same manner or during the 
        same time frame or for the same duration of time;
            (4) the livestock producers have few effective risk 
        management tools at their disposal to adequately manage the 
        short and long term impacts of weather-related or natural 
        disaster situations; and
            (5) ad hoc natural disaster assistance programs, while 
        providing some relief, are not sufficient to meet livestock 
        producers' needs for rational risk management planning.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that any 
consideration of reform of Federal crop insurance and risk management 
programs should include the needs of livestock producers.

SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE MODERNIZATION AND 
              IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) The health insurance coverage provided under the 
        medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial 
        security for retired and disabled individuals, as such coverage 
        protects those individuals against the financially ruinous 
        costs of a major illness.
            (2) Expenditures under the medicare program for hospital, 
        physician, and other essential health care services that are 
        provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired and disabled individuals 
        will be $232,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
            (3) During the nearly 35 years since the medicare program 
        was established, the Nation's health care delivery and 
        financing system has undergone major transformations. However, 
        the medicare program has not kept pace with such 
        transformations.
            (4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert 
        Reischauer has described the medicare program as it exists 
        today as failing on the following 4 key dimensions (known as 
        the ``Four I's''):
                    (A) The program is inefficient.
                    (B) The program is inequitable.
                    (C) The program is inadequate.
                    (D) The program is insolvent.
            (5) The President's budget framework does not devote 15 
        percent of the budget surpluses to the medicare program. The 
        Federal budget process does not provide a mechanism for setting 
        aside current surpluses for future obligations. As a result, 
        the notion of saving 15 percent of the surplus for the medicare 
        program cannot practically be carried out.
            (6) The President's budget framework would transfer to the 
        Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund more than 
        $900,000,000,000 over 15 years in new IOUs that must be 
        redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting 
        benefits, or borrowing more from the public, and these new IOUs 
        would increase the gross debt of the Federal Government by the 
        amounts transferred.
            (7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the 
        transfers described in paragraph (6), which are strictly 
        intragovernmental, have no effect on the unified budget 
        surpluses or the on-budget surpluses and therefore have no 
        effect on the debt held by the public.
            (8) The President's budget framework does not provide 
        access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.
            (9) The Comptroller General of the United States has stated 
        that the President's medicare proposal does not constitute 
        reform of the program and ``is likely to create a public 
        misperception that something meaningful is being done to reform 
        the medicare program''.
            (10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted changes to the 
        medicare program which strengthen and extend the solvency of 
        that program.
            (11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that 
        without the changes made to the medicare program by the 
        Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the depletion of the Federal 
        Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would now be imminent.
            (12) The President's budget proposes to cut medicare 
        program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, primarily 
        through reductions in payments to providers under that program.
            (13) The recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
        Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
        of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan Commission 
        on the Future of Medicare.
            (14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new 
        prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries 
        within a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the 
        medicare program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal 
        Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by 
        raising taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the 
        public.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions contained in this budget resolution assume the following:
            (1) This resolution does not adopt the President's 
        proposals to reduce medicare program spending by 
        $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, nor does this resolution adopt 
        the President's proposal to spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare 
        program funds on unrelated programs.
            (2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital 
        Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by 
        raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or 
        borrowing more from the public.
            (3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend 
        the solvency of the medicare program and to ensure that 
        benefits under that program will be available to beneficiaries 
        in the future.
            (4) The American public will be well and fairly served in 
        this undertaking if the medicare program reform proposals are 
        considered within a framework that is based on the following 5 
        key principles offered in testimony to the Senate Committee on 
        Finance by the Comptroller General of the United States:
                    (A) Affordability.
                    (B) Equity.
                    (C) Adequacy.
                    (D) Feasibility.
                    (E) Public acceptance.
            (5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman 
        Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for the 
        neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially 
        improves the solvency of the medicare program without 
        transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new 
        IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting 
        benefits, or borrowing more from the public.
            (6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
        bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen of the National 
        Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
            (7) Congress should continue to work with the President as 
        he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the 
        medicare program.

SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO ALL AMERICANS 
              BY RETURNING NON-SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS TO TAXPAYERS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) Every cent of Social Security surplus should be 
        reserved to pay Social Security benefits, for Social Security 
        reform, or to pay down the debt held by the public and not be 
        used for other purposes.
            (2) Medicare should be fully funded.
            (3) Even after safeguarding Social Security and medicare, a 
        recent Congressional Research Service study found that an 
        average American family will pay $5,307 more in taxes over the 
        next 10 years than the Government needs to operate.
            (4) The Administration's budget returns none of the excess 
        surplus back to the taxpayers and instead increases net taxes 
        and fees by $96,000,000,000 over 10 years.
            (5) The burden of the Administration's tax increases falls 
        disproportionately on low- and middle-income taxpayers. A 
        recent Tax Foundation study found that individuals with incomes 
        of less than $25,000 would bear 38.5 percent of the increased 
        tax burden, while taxpayers with incomes between $25,000 and 
        $50,000 would pay 22.4 percent of the new taxes.
            (6) The budget resolution returns most of the non-Social 
        Security surplus to those who worked so hard to produce it by 
        providing $142,000,000,000 in real tax relief over 5 years and 
        almost $800,000,000,000 in tax relief over 10 years.
            (7) The budget resolution builds on the following tax 
        relief since 1995:
                    (A) In 1996, Congress provided, and the President 
                signed, tax relief for small business and health care-
                related tax relief.
                    (B) In 1997, Congress once again pushed for tax 
                relief in the context of a balanced budget, and 
                President Clinton signed into law a $500 per child tax 
                credit, expanded individual retirement accounts and the 
                new Roth IRA, a cut in the capital gains tax rate, 
                education tax relief, and estate tax relief.
                    (C) In 1998, Congress pushed for reform of the 
                Internal Revenue Service, and provided tax relief for 
                America's farmers.
            (8) Americans deserve further tax relief because they are 
        still overpaying. They deserve a refund. Federal taxes 
        currently consume nearly 21 percent of national income, the 
        highest percentage since World War II. Families are paying more 
        in Federal, State, and local taxes than for food, clothing, and 
        shelter combined.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the levels in this resolution assume that the Senate 
        not only puts a priority on protecting Social Security and 
        medicare and reducing the Federal debt, but also on middle-
        class tax relief by returning some of the non-Social Security 
        surplus to those from whom it was taken; and
            (2) such middle-class tax relief could include broad-based 
        tax relief, marriage penalty relief, retirement savings 
        incentives, estate tax relief, savings and investment 
        incentives, health care-related tax relief, education-related 
        tax relief, and tax simplification proposals.

SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX INCENTIVES FOR EDUCATION 
              SAVINGS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) families in the United States have accrued more college 
        debt in the 1990s than during the previous 3 decades combined; 
        and
            (2) families should have every resource available to them 
        to meet the rising cost of higher education.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that additional tax incentives should be provided for 
education savings, including--
            (1) excluding from gross income distributions from 
        qualified State tuition plans; and
            (2) providing a tax deferral for private prepaid tuition 
        plans in years 2000 through 2003 and excluding from gross 
        income distributions from such plans in years 2004 and after.

SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS, 
              FIRST SESSION SHOULD REAUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR THE FARMLAND 
              PROTECTION PROGRAM.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings--
            (1) nineteen States and dozens of localities have spent 
        nearly $1,000,000,000 to protect over 600,000 acres of 
        important farmland;
            (2) the Farmland Protection Program has provided cost-
        sharing for 19 States and dozens of localities to protect over 
        123,000 acres on 432 farms since 1996;
            (3) the Farmland Protection Program has generated new 
        interest in saving farmland in communities around the country;
            (4) the Farmland Protection Program represents an 
        innovative and voluntary partnership, rewards local ingenuity, 
        and supports local priorities;
            (5) the Farmland Protection Program is a matching grant 
        program that is completely voluntary in which the Federal 
        Government does not acquire the land or easement;
            (6) funds authorized for the Farmland Protection Program 
        were expended at the end of fiscal year 1998, and no funds were 
        appropriated in fiscal year 1999;
            (7) the United States is losing two acres of our best 
        farmland to development every minute of every day;
            (8) these lands produce three quarters of the fruits and 
        vegetables and over one half of the dairy in the United States.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional totals contained in this resolution assume that the One 
Hundred Sixth Congress, First Session will reauthorize funds for the 
Farmland Protection Program.

SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX CUTS FOR LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME 
              TAXPAYERS.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this resolution 
assume that Congress will not approve an across-the-board cut in income 
tax rates, or any other tax legislation, that would provide 
substantially more benefits to the top 10 percent of taxpayers than to 
the remaining 90 percent.

SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REFORM OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE 
              CODE OF 1986.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (referred to in this 
        section as the ``tax code'') is unnecessarily complex and 
        burdensome, consisting of 2,000 pages of tax code, and 
        resulting in 12,000 pages of regulations and 200,000 pages of 
        court proceedings;
            (2) the complexity of the tax code results in taxpayers 
        spending approximately 5,400,000,000 hours and $200,000,000,000 
        on tax compliance each year;
            (3) the impact of the complexity of the tax code is 
        inherently inequitable, rewarding taxpayers which hire 
        professional tax preparers and penalizing taxpayers which seek 
        to comply with the tax code without professional assistance;
            (4) the percentage of the income of an average family of 
        four that is paid for taxes has grown significantly, comprising 
        nearly 40 percent of the family's earnings, a percentage which 
        represents more than a family spends in the aggregate on food, 
        clothing, and housing;
            (5) the total amount of Federal, State, and local tax 
        collections in 1998 increased approximately 5.7 percent over 
        such collections in 1997;
            (6) the tax code penalizes saving and investment by 
        imposing tax on these important activities twice while 
        promoting consumption by only taxing income used for 
        consumption once;
            (7) the tax code stifles economic growth by discouraging 
        work and capital formation through high tax rates;
            (8) Congress and the President have found it necessary on 
        several occasions to enact laws to protect taxpayers from 
        abusive actions and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service 
        in enforcement of the tax code; and
            (9) the complexity of the tax code is largely responsible 
        for the growth in size of the Internal Revenue Service.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that --
            (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 needs comprehensive 
        reform; and
            (2) Congress should move expeditiously to consider 
        comprehensive proposals to reform the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986.

SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DAVIS-BACON.

    It is the sense of the Senate that in carrying out the assumptions 
in this budget resolution, the Senate will consider reform of the 
Davis-Bacon Act as an alternative to repeal.

SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ACCESS TO ITEMS AND SERVICES 
              UNDER MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) Total hospital operating margins with respect to items 
        and services provided to medicare beneficiaries are expected to 
        decline from 4.3 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 0.1 percent in 
        fiscal year 1999.
            (2) Total operating margins for small rural hospitals are 
        expected to decline from 4.2 percent in fiscal year 1998 to 
        negative 5.6 percent in fiscal year 2002, a 233 percent 
        decline.
            (3) The Congressional Budget Office recently has estimated 
        that the amount of savings to the medicare program in fiscal 
        years 1998 through 2002 by reason of the amendments to that 
        program contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is 
        $88,500,000 more than the amount of savings to the program by 
        reason of those amendments that the Congressional Budget Office 
        estimated for those fiscal years immediately prior to the 
        enactment of that Act.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions contained in this budget resolution assume that the Senate 
should--
            (1) consider whether the amendments to the medicare program 
        contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have had an 
        adverse impact on access to items and services under that 
        program; and
            (2) if it is determined that additional resources are 
        available, additional budget authority and outlays shall be 
        allocated to address the unintended consequences of change in 
        medicare program policy made by the Balanced Budget Act, 
        including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, to ensure 
        fair and equitable access to all items and services under the 
        program.

SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING AUTISM.

    (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Infantile autism and autism spectrum disorders are 
        biologically-based neurodevelopmental diseases that cause 
        severe impairments in language and communication and generally 
        manifest in young children sometime during the first two years 
        of life.
            (2) Best estimates indicate that 1 in 500 children born 
        today will be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and 
        that 400,000 Americans have autism or an autism spectrum 
        disorder.
            (3) There is little information on the prevalence of autism 
        and other pervasive developmental disabilities in the United 
        States. There have never been any national prevalence studies 
        in the United States, and the two studies that were conducted 
        in the 1980s examined only selected areas of the country. 
        Recent studies in Canada, Europe, and Japan suggest that the 
        prevalence of classic autism alone may be 300 percent to 400 
        percent higher than previously estimated.
            (4) Three quarters of those with infantile autism spend 
        their adult lives in institutions or group homes, and usually 
        enter institutions by the age of 13.
            (5) The cost of caring for individuals with autism and 
        autism spectrum disorder is great, and is estimated to be 
        $13,300,000,000 per year solely for direct costs.
            (6) The rapid advancements in biomedical science suggest 
        that effective treatments and a cure for autism are attainable 
        if--
                    (A) there is appropriate coordination of the 
                efforts of the various agencies of the Federal 
                Government involved in biomedical research on autism 
                and autism spectrum disorders;
                    (B) there is an increased understanding of autism 
                and autism spectrum disorders by the scientific and 
                medical communities involved in autism research and 
                treatment; and
                    (C) sufficient funds are allocated to research.
            (7) The discovery of effective treatments and a cure for 
        autism will be greatly enhanced when scientists and 
        epidemiologists have an accurate understanding of the 
        prevalence and incidence of autism.
            (8) Recent research suggests that environmental factors may 
        contribute to autism. As a result, contributing causes of 
        autism, if identified, may be preventable.
            (9) Finding the answers to the causes of autism and related 
        developmental disabilities may help researchers to understand 
        other disorders, ranging from learning problems, to 
        hyperactivity, to communications deficits that affect millions 
        of Americans.
            (10) Specifically, more knowledge is needed concerning--
                    (A) the underlying causes of autism and autism 
                spectrum disorders, how to treat the underlying 
                abnormality or abnormalities causing the severe 
                symptoms of autism, and how to prevent these 
                abnormalities from occurring in the future;
                    (B) the epidemiology of, and the identification of 
                risk factors for, infantile autism and autism spectrum 
                disorders;
                    (C) the development of methods for early medical 
                diagnosis and functional assessment of individuals with 
                autism and autism spectrum disorders, including 
                identification and assessment of the subtypes within 
                the autism spectrum disorders, for the purpose of 
                monitoring the course of the disease and developing 
                medically sound strategies for improving the outcomes 
                of such individuals;
                    (D) existing biomedical and diagnostic data that 
                are relevant to autism and autism spectrum disorders 
                for dissemination to medical personnel, particularly 
                pediatricians, to aid in the early diagnosis and 
                treatment of this disease; and
                    (E) the costs incurred in educating and caring for 
                individuals with autism and autism spectrum disorders.
            (11) In 1998, the National Institutes of Health announced a 
        program of research on autism and autism spectrum disorders. A 
        sufficient level of funding should be made available for 
        carrying out the program.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
assumptions underlying this resolution assume that additional resources 
will be targeted towards autism research through the National 
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention.

SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON WOMEN'S ACCESS TO OBSTETRIC AND 
              GYNECOLOGICAL SERVICES.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
            (1) In the One Hundred Fifth Congress, the House of 
        Representatives acted favorably on The Patient Protection Act 
        (H.R. 4250), which included provisions which required health 
        plans to allow women direct access to a participating physician 
        who specializes in obstetrics and gynecological services.
            (2) Women's health historically has received little 
        attention.
            (3) Access to an obstetrician-gynecologist improves the 
        health care of a woman by providing routine and preventive 
        health care throughout the women's lifetime, encompassing care 
        of the whole patient, while also focusing on the female 
        reproductive system.
            (4) 60 percent of all office visits to obstetrician-
        gynecologists are for preventive care.
            (5) Obstetrician-gynecologists are uniquely qualified on 
        the basis of education and experience to provide basic women's 
        health care services.
            (6) While more than 36 States have acted to promote 
        residents' access to obstetrician-gynecologists, patients in 
        other States or in federally-governed health plans are not 
        protected from access restrictions or limitations.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that the 
Congress shall enact legislation that requires health plans to provide 
women with direct access to a participating provider who specializes in 
obstetrics and gynecological services.

SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LIHEAP.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) home energy assistance for working and low-income 
        families with children, the elderly on fixed incomes, the 
        disabled, and others who need such aid is a critical part of 
        the social safety net in cold-weather areas during the winter, 
        and a source of necessary cooling aid during the summer;
            (2) the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 
        is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help millions of 
        low-income Americans pay their home energy bills. More than 
        two-thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have annual incomes of 
        less than $8,000, approximately one-half have annual incomes 
        below $6,000; and
            (3) LIHEAP funding has been substantially reduced in recent 
        years, and cannot sustain further spending cuts if the program 
        is to remain a viable means of meeting the home heating and 
        other energy-related needs of low-income families, especially 
        those in cold-weather States.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--The assumptions underlying this budget 
resolution assume that it is the sense of the Senate that the funds 
made available for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2000 will not be less than 
the current services for LIHEAP in fiscal year 1999.

SEC. 332. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TRANSPORTATION FIREWALLS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) domestic firewalls greatly limit funding flexibility as 
        Congress manages budget priorities in a fiscally constrained 
        budget;
            (2) domestic firewalls inhibit congressional oversight of 
        programs and organizations under such protections;
            (3) domestic firewalls mask mandatory spending under the 
        guise of discretionary spending, thereby presenting a distorted 
        picture of overall discretionary spending;
            (4) domestic firewalls impede the ability of Congress to 
        react to changing circumstances or to fund other equally 
        important programs;
            (5) the Congress implemented ``domestic discretionary 
        budget firewalls'' for approximately 70 percent of function 400 
        spending in the One Hundred Fifth Congress;
            (6) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating in the 
        House of Representatives were to be enacted, firewalled 
        spending would exceed 100 percent of total function 400 
        spending called for under this resolution; and
            (7) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating in the 
        House of Representatives were to be enacted, drug interdiction 
        activities by the Coast Guard, National Highway Traffic Safety 
        Administration activities, rail safety inspections, Federal 
        support for Amtrak, all National Transportation Safety Board 
        activities, Pipeline and Hazardous materials safety programs, 
        and Coast Guard search and rescue activities would be 
        drastically cut or eliminated.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that no additional firewalls should be 
enacted for function 400 transportation activities.

SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING EXISTING, EFFECTIVE PUBLIC 
              HEALTH PROGRAMS BEFORE CREATING NEW PROGRAMS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the establishment of new categorical funding programs 
        has led to proposed cuts in the Preventive Health and Health 
        Services Block Grant to States for broad, public health 
        missions;
            (2) Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant 
        dollars fill gaps in the otherwise-categorical funding States 
        and localities receive, funding such major public health 
        threats as cardiovascular disease, injuries, emergency medical 
        services and poor diet, for which there is often no other 
        source of funding;
            (3) in 1981, Congress consolidated a number of programs, 
        including certain public health programs, into block grants for 
        the purpose of best advancing the health, economics and well-
        being of communities across the country;
            (4) the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant 
        can be used for programs for screening, outreach, health 
        education and laboratory services;
            (5) the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant 
        gives States the flexibility to determine how funding available 
        for this purpose can be used to meet each State's preventive 
        health priorities;
            (6) the establishment of new public health programs that 
        compete for funding with the Preventive Health and Health 
        Services Block Grant could result in the elimination of 
        effective, localized public health programs in every State.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that there shall be a continuation of the level of 
funding support for existing public health programs, specifically the 
Prevention Block Grant, prior to the funding of new public health 
programs.

SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

    (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) In the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
        U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) (referred to in this resolution as the 
        ``Act''), Congress found that improving educational results for 
        children with disabilities is an essential element of our 
        national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full 
        participation, independent living, and economic self-
        sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.
            (2) In the Act, the Secretary of Education is instructed to 
        make grants to States to assist them in providing special 
        education and related services to children with disabilities.
            (3) The Act represents a commitment by the Federal 
        Government to fund 40 percent of the average per-pupil 
        expenditure in public elementary and secondary schools in the 
        United States.
            (4) The budget submitted by the President for fiscal year 
        2000 ignores the commitment by the Federal Government under the 
        Act to fund special education and instead proposes the creation 
        of new programs that limit the manner in which States may spend 
        the limited Federal education dollars received.
            (5) The budget submitted by the President for fiscal year 
        2000 fails to increase funding for special education, and 
        leaves States and localities with an enormous unfunded mandate 
        to pay for growing special education costs.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
budgetary levels in this resolution assume that part B of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) should be 
fully funded at the originally promised level before any funds are 
appropriated for new education programs.

SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR 
              INDIVIDUALS WHO BECOME DISABLED.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) in addition to providing retirement income, Social 
        Security also protects individuals from the loss of income due 
        to disability;
            (2) according to the most recent report from the Social 
        Security Board of Trustees nearly 1 in 7 Social Security 
        beneficiaries, 6,000,000 individuals in total, were receiving 
        benefits as a result of disability;
            (3) more than 60 percent of workers have no long-term 
        disability insurance protection other than that provided by 
        Social Security;
            (4) according to statistics from the Society of Actuaries, 
        the odds of a long-term disability versus death are 2.7 to 1 at 
        age 27, 3.5 to 1 at age 42, and 2.2 to 1 at age 52; and
            (5) in 1998, the average monthly benefit for a disabled 
        worker was $722.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that levels 
in the resolution assume that--
            (1) Social Security plays a vital role in providing 
        adequate income for individuals who become disabled;
            (2) individuals who become disabled face circumstances much 
        different than those who rely on Social Security for retirement 
        income;
            (3) Social Security reform proposals that focus too heavily 
        on retirement income may adversely affect the income protection 
        provided to individuals with disabilities; and
            (4) Congress and the President should take these factors 
        into account when considering proposals to reform the Social 
        Security program.

SEC. 336. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR INTENSIVE FIREARMS 
              PROSECUTION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) gun violence in America, while declining somewhat in 
        recent years, is still unacceptably high;
            (2) keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals can 
        dramatically reduce gun violence in America;
            (3) States and localities often do not have the 
        investigative or prosecutorial resources to locate and convict 
        individuals who violate their firearms laws. Even when they do 
        win convictions, States and localities often lack the jail 
        space to hold such convicts for their full prison terms;
            (4) there are a number of Federal laws on the books which 
        are designed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. 
        These laws impose mandatory minimum sentences upon individuals 
        who use firearms to commit crimes of violence and convicted 
        felons caught in possession of a firearm;
            (5) the Federal Government does have the resources to 
        investigate and prosecute violations of these Federal firearms 
        laws. The Federal Government also has enough jail space to hold 
        individuals for the length of their mandatory minimum 
        sentences;
            (6) an effort to aggressively and consistently apply these 
        Federal firearms laws in Richmond, Virginia, has cut violent 
        crime in that city. This program, called Project Exile, has 
        produced 288 indictments during its first two years of 
        operation and has been credited with contributing to a 15 
        percent decrease in violent crimes in Richmond during the same 
        period. In the first three-quarters of 1998, homicides with a 
        firearm in Richmond were down 55 percent compared to 1997;
            (7) the fiscal year 1999 Commerce-State-Justice 
        Appropriations Act provided $1,500,000 to hire additional 
        Federal prosecutors and investigators to enforce Federal 
        firearms laws in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia project--called 
        Operation Cease Fire--started on January 1, 1999. Since it 
        began, the project has resulted in 31 indictments of 52 
        defendants on firearms violations. The project has benefited 
        from help from the Philadelphia Police Department and the 
        Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which was not paid for 
        out of the $1,500,000 grant;
            (8) in 1993, the office of the United States Attorney for 
        the Western District of New York teamed up with the Monroe 
        County District Attorney's Office, the Monroe County Sheriff's 
        Department, the Rochester Police Department, and others to form 
        a Violent Crimes Task Force. In 1997, the Task Force created an 
        Illegal Firearms Suppression Unit, whose mission is to use 
        prosecutorial discretion to bring firearms cases in the 
        judicial forum where penalties for gun violations would be the 
        strictest. The Suppression Unit has been involved in three 
        major prosecutions of interstate gun-purchasing activities and 
        currently has 30 to 40 open single-defendant felony gun cases;
            (9) Senator Hatch has introduced legislation to authorize 
        Project CUFF, a Federal firearms prosecution program;
            (10) the Administration has requested $5,000,000 to conduct 
        intensive firearms prosecution projects on a national level;
            (11) given that at least $1,500,000 is needed to run an 
        effective program in one American city--Philadelphia--
        $5,000,000 is far from enough funding to conduct such programs 
        nationally.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
function 750 in the budget resolution assumes that $50,000,000 will be 
provided in fiscal year 2000 to conduct intensive firearms prosecution 
projects to combat violence in the 25 American cities with the highest 
crime rates.

SEC. 337. HONEST REPORTING OF THE DEFICIT.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this resolution 
assume the following:
            (1) In general.--Effective for fiscal year 2001, the 
        President's budget and the budget report of CBO required under 
        section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the 
        concurrent resolution on the budget should include--
                    (A) the receipts and disbursements totals of the 
                on-budget trust funds, including the projected levels 
                for at least the next 5 fiscal years; and
                    (B) the deficit or surplus excluding the on-budget 
                trust funds, including the projected levels for at 
                least the next 5 fiscal years.
            (2) Itemization.--Effective for fiscal year 2001, the 
        President's budget and the budget report of CBO required under 
        section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 should 
        include an itemization of the on-budget trust funds for the 
        budget year, including receipts, outlays, and balances.

SEC. 338. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FOSTERING THE EMPLOYMENT AND 
              INDEPENDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
            (1) Health care is important to all Americans.
            (2) Health care is particularly important to individuals 
        with disabilities and special health care needs who often 
        cannot afford the insurance available to them through the 
        private market, are uninsurable by the plans available in the 
        private sector, or are at great risk of incurring very high and 
        economically devastating health care costs.
            (3) Americans with significant disabilities often are 
        unable to obtain health care insurance that provides coverage 
        of the services and supports that enable them to live 
        independently and enter or rejoin the workforce. Coverage for 
        personal assistance services, prescription drugs, durable 
        medical equipment, and basic health care are powerful and 
        proven tools for individuals with significant disabilities to 
        obtain and retain employment.
            (4) For individuals with disabilities, the fear of losing 
        health care and related services is one of the greatest 
        barriers keeping the individuals from maximizing their 
        employment, earning potential, and independence.
            (5) Individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries 
        under title II or XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 
        et seq., 1381 et seq.) risk losing medicare or medicaid 
        coverage that is linked to their cash benefits, a risk that is 
        an equal, or greater, work disincentive than the loss of cash 
        benefits associated with working.
            (6) Currently, less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of Social 
        Security disability insurance (SSDI) and supplemental security 
        income (SSI) beneficiaries cease to receive benefits as a 
        result of employment.
            (7) Beneficiaries have cited the lack of adequate 
        employment training and placement services as an additional 
        barrier to employment.
            (8) If an additional \1/2\ of 1 percent of the current 
        Social Security disability insurance (SSDI) and supplemental 
        security income (SSI) recipients were to cease receiving 
        benefits as a result of employment, the savings to the Social 
        Security Trust Funds in cash assistance would total 
        $3,500,000,000 over the worklife of the individuals.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions of this resolution assume that the Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999 (S. 331, 106th Congress) will be passed by the 
Senate and enacted early this year, and thereby provide individuals 
with disabilities with the health care and employment preparation and 
placement services that will enable those individuals to reduce their 
dependency on cash benefit programs.

SEC. 339. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE WORKING 
              POOR.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) 33 percent of all American households and 60 percent of 
        African American households have no or negative financial 
        assets.
            (2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in 
        households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of 
        Caucasian children and 75 percent of African American children.
            (3) In order to provide low-income families with more tools 
        for empowerment, incentives which encourage asset-building 
        should be established.
            (4) Across the Nation, numerous small public, private, and 
        public-private asset-building incentives, including individual 
        development accounts, are demonstrating success at empowering 
        low-income workers.
            (5) Middle and upper income Americans currently benefit 
        from tax incentives for building assets.
            (6) The Federal Government should utilize the Federal tax 
        code to provide low-income Americans with incentives to work 
        and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions of this resolution assume that Congress should modify the 
Federal tax law to include provisions which encourage low-income 
workers and their families to save for buying a first home, starting a 
business, obtaining an education, or taking other measures to prepare 
for the future.

SEC. 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.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) Pell Grants require an increase of $5,000,000,000 per 
        year to fund the maximum award established in the Higher 
        Education Act Amendments of 1998;
            (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act needs 
        at least $13,000,000,000 more per year to fund the Federal 
        commitment to fund 40 percent of the excess costs for special 
        education services;
            (3) title I needs at least $4,000,000,000 more per year to 
        serve all eligible children;
            (4) over $11,000,000,000 over the next six years will be 
        required to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size to an 
        average of 18 in grades 1-3;
            (5) according to the General Accounting Office, it will 
        cost $112,000,000,000 just to bring existing school buildings 
        up to good overall condition. According to GAO, one-third of 
        schools serving 14,000,000 children require extensive repair or 
        replacement of one or more of their buildings. GAO also found 
        that almost half of all schools lack even the basic electrical 
        wiring needed to support full-scale use of computers;
            (6) the Federal share of education spending has declined 
        from 11.9 percent in 1980 to 7.6 percent in 1998;
            (7) Federal spending for education has declined from 2.5 
        percent of all Federal spending in fiscal year 1980 to 2.0 
        percent in fiscal year 1999.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the 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.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) prohibiting or otherwise restricting the donation or 
        sale of agricultural commodities or products, medicines, or 
        medical products in order to unilaterally sanction a foreign 
        government for actions or policies that the United States finds 
        objectionable unnecessarily harms innocent populations in the 
        targeted country and rarely causes the sanctioned government to 
        alter its actions or policies;
            (2) for the United States as a matter of policy to deny 
        access to agricultural commodities or products, medicines, or 
        medical products by innocent men, women, and children in other 
        countries weakens the international leadership and moral 
        authority of the United States; and
            (3) unilateral sanctions on the sale or donation of 
        agricultural commodities or products, medicines, or medical 
        products needlessly harm agricultural producers and workers 
        employed in the agricultural or medical sectors in the United 
        States by foreclosing markets for the commodities, products, or 
        medicines.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that the President should--
            (1) subject to paragraph (2), exempt agricultural 
        commodities and products, medicines, and medical products from 
        any unilateral economic sanction imposed on a foreign 
        government; and
            (2) apply the sanction to the commodities, products, or 
        medicines if the application is necessary--
                    (A) for health or safety reasons; or
                    (B) due to a domestic shortage of the commodities, 
                products, or medicines.

SEC. 342. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CAPITAL GAINS TAX FAIRNESS FOR 
              FAMILY FARMERS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) one of the most popular provisions included in the 
        Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 permits many families to exclude 
        from Federal income taxes up to $500,000 of gain from the sale 
        of their principal residences;
            (2) under current law, family farmers are not able to take 
        full advantage of this $500,000 capital gains exclusion that 
        families living in urban or suburban areas enjoy on the sale of 
        their homes;
            (3) for most urban and suburban residents, their homes are 
        their major financial asset and as a result such families, who 
        have owned their homes through many years of appreciation, can 
        often benefit from a large portion of this new $500,000 capital 
        gains exclusion;
            (4) most family farmers plow any profits they make back 
        into the whole farm rather than into the house which holds 
        little or no value;
            (5) unfortunately, farm families receive little benefit 
        from this capital gains exclusion because the Internal Revenue 
        Service separates the value of their homes from the value of 
        the land the homes sit on;
            (6) we should recognize in our tax laws the unique 
        character and role of our farm families and their important 
        contributions to our economy, and allow them to benefit more 
        fully from the capital gains tax exclusion that urban and 
        suburban homeowners already enjoy; and
            (7) we should expand the $500,000 capital gains tax 
        exclusion to cover sales of the farmhouse and the surrounding 
        farmland over their lifetimes.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that if we pass tax relief measures in 
accordance with the assumptions in the budget resolution, we should 
ensure that such legislation removes the disparity between farm 
families and their urban and suburban counterparts with respect to the 
new $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for principal residence sales 
by expanding it to cover gains from the sale of farmland along with the 
sale of the farmhouse.

SEC. 343. BUDGETING FOR THE DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels for 
National Defense (function 050) for fiscal years 2000 through 2008 
assume funding for the Defense Science and Technology Program that is 
consistent with section 214 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, which expresses a sense of the 
Congress that for each of those fiscal years it should be an objective 
of the Secretary of Defense to increase the budget request for the 
Defense Science and Technology Program by at least 2 percent over 
inflation.

SEC. 344. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR THE URBAN PARKS 
              AND RECREATION RECOVERY (UPARR) PROGRAM.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) every analysis of national recreation issues in the 
        last 3 decades has identified the importance of close-to-home 
        recreation opportunities, particularly for residents in 
        densely-populated urban areas;
            (2) the Land and Water Conservation Fund grants program 
        under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
        U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.) was established partly to address the 
        pressing needs of urban areas;
            (3) the National Urban Recreation Study of 1978 and the 
        President's Commission on Americans Outdoors of 1987 revealed 
        that critical urban recreation resources were not being 
        addressed;
            (4) older city park structures and infrastructures worth 
        billions of dollars are at risk because government incentives 
        favored the development of new areas over the revitalization of 
        existing resources, ranging from downtown parks established in 
        the 19th century to neighborhood playgrounds and sports centers 
        built from the 1920's to the 1950's;
            (5) the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) 
        program, established under the Urban Park and Recreation 
        Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), authorized 
        $725,000,000 to provide matching grants and technical 
        assistance to economically distressed urban communities;
            (6) the purposes of the UPARR program is to provide direct 
        Federal assistance to urban localities for rehabilitation of 
        critically needed recreation facilities, and to encourage local 
        planning and a commitment to continuing operation and 
        maintenance of recreation programs, sites, and facilities; and
            (7) funding for UPARR is supported by a wide range of 
        organizations, including the National Association of Police 
        Athletic Leagues, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 
        the Conference of Mayors, and Major League Baseball.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that Congress considers the UPARR program to be a 
high priority, and should appropriate such amounts as are necessary to 
carry out the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program 
established under the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 
(16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).

SEC. 345. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL PROMOTION.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the 
functional totals in this resolution assume that funds will be provided 
for legislation--
            (1) to provide remedial educational and other instructional 
        interventions to assist public elementary and secondary school 
        students in meeting achievement levels; and
            (2) to terminate practices which advance students from one 
        grade to the next who do not meet State achievement standards 
        in the core academic curriculum.

SEC. 346. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON WOMEN AND SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty 
        rate among women would have been 52.2 percent, and among widows 
        would have been 60.6 percent;
            (2) women tend to live longer and tend to have lower 
        lifetime earnings than men do;
            (3) during their working years, women earn an average of 70 
        cents for every dollar men earn; and
            (4) women spend an average of 11.5 years out of their 
        careers to care for their families, and are more likely to work 
        part-time than full-time.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that--
            (1) women face unique obstacles in ensuring retirement 
        security and survivor and disability stability;
            (2) Social Security plays an essential role in guaranteeing 
        inflation-protected financial stability for women throughout 
        their old age;
            (3) the Congress and the Administration should act, as part 
        of Social Security reform, to ensure that widows and other poor 
        elderly women receive more adequate benefits that reduce their 
        poverty rates and that women, under whatever approach is taken 
        to reform Social Security, should receive no lesser a share of 
        overall federally-funded retirement benefits than they receive 
        today; and
            (4) the sacrifice that women make to care for their family 
        should be recognized during reform of Social Security and that 
        women should not be penalized by taking an average of 11.5 
        years out of their careers to care for their family.

SEC. 347. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING SOUTH KOREA'S INTERNATIONAL 
              TRADE PRACTICES ON PORK AND BEEF.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
            (1) Asia is the largest regional export market for 
        America's farmers and ranchers, traditionally purchasing 
        approximately 40 percent of all United States agricultural 
        exports;
            (2) the Department of Agriculture forecasts that over the 
        next year American agricultural exports to Asian countries will 
        decline by several billion dollars due to the Asian financial 
        crisis;
            (3) the United States is the producer of the safest 
        agricultural products from farm to table, customizing goods to 
        meet the needs of customers worldwide, and has established the 
        image and reputation as the world's best provider of 
        agricultural products;
            (4) American farmers and ranchers, and more specifically, 
        American pork and beef producers, are dependent on secure, 
        open, and competitive Asian export markets for their product;
            (5) United States pork and beef producers not only have 
        faced the adverse effects of depreciated and unstable 
        currencies and lowered demand due to the Asian financial 
        crisis, but also have been confronted with South Korea's pork 
        subsidies and its failure to keep commitments on market access 
        for beef;
            (6) it is the policy of the United States to prohibit South 
        Korea from using United States and International Monetary Fund 
        assistance to subsidize targeted industries and compete 
        unfairly for market share against United States products;
            (7) the South Korean Government has been subsidizing its 
        pork exports to Japan, resulting in a 973 percent increase in 
        its exports to Japan since 1992, and a 71 percent increase in 
        the last year;
            (8) pork already comprises 70 percent of South Korea's 
        agriculture exports to Japan, yet the South Korean Government 
        has announced plans to invest 100,000,000,000 won in its 
        agricultural sector in order to flood the Japanese market with 
        even more South Korean pork;
            (9) the South Korean Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 
        reportedly has earmarked 25,000,000,000 won for loans to 
        Korea's pork processors in order for them to purchase more 
        Korean pork and to increase exports to Japan;
            (10) any export subsidies on pork, including those on 
        exports from South Korea to Japan, would violate South Korea's 
        international trade agreements and may be actionable under the 
        World Trade Organization;
            (11) South Korea's subsidies are hindering United States 
        pork and beef producers from capturing their full potential in 
        the Japanese market, which is the largest export market for 
        United States pork and beef, importing nearly $700,000,000 of 
        United States pork and over $1,500,000,000 of United States 
        beef last year alone;
            (12) under the United States-Korea 1993 Record of 
        Understanding on Market Access for Beef, which was negotiated 
        pursuant to a 1989 GATT Panel decision against Korea, South 
        Korea was allowed to delay full liberalization of its beef 
        market (in an exception to WTO rules) if it would agree to 
        import increasing minimum quantities of beef each year until 
        the year 2001;
            (13) South Korea fell woefully short of its beef market 
        access commitment for 1998; and
            (14) United States pork and beef producers are not able to 
        compete fairly with Korean livestock producers, who have a high 
        cost of production, because South Korea has violated trade 
        agreements and implemented protectionist policies.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
the Congress--
            (1) believes strongly that while a stable global 
        marketplace is in the best interest of America's farmers and 
        ranchers, the United States should seek a mutually beneficial 
        relationship without hindering the competitiveness of American 
        agriculture;
            (2) calls on South Korea to abide by its trade commitments;
            (3) calls on the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the 
        United States Executive Director of the International Monetary 
        Fund to promote vigorously policies that encourage the opening 
        of markets for beef and pork products by requiring South Korea 
        to abide by its existing international trade commitments and to 
        reduce trade barriers, tariffs, and export subsidies;
            (4) calls on the President and the Secretaries of Treasury 
        and Agriculture to monitor and report to Congress that 
        resources will not be used to stabilize the South Korean market 
        at the expense of United States agricultural goods or services; 
        and
            (5) requests the United States Trade Representative and the 
        United States Department of Agriculture to pursue the 
        settlement of disputes with the Government of South Korea on 
        its failure to abide by its international trade commitments on 
        beef market access, to consider whether Korea's reported plans 
        for subsidizing its pork industry would violate any of its 
        international trade commitments, and to determine what impact 
        Korea's subsidy plans would have on United States agricultural 
        interests, especially in Japan.

SEC. 348. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPPORT FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) as national crime rates are beginning to fall as a 
        result of State and local efforts, with Federal support, it is 
        important for the Federal Government to continue its support 
        for State and local law enforcement;
            (2) Federal support is crucial to the provision of critical 
        crime fighting programs;
            (3) Federal support is also essential to the provision of 
        critical crime fighting services and the effective 
        administration of justice in the States, such as State and 
        local crime laboratories and medical examiners' offices;
            (4) current needs exceed the capacity of State and local 
        crime laboratories to process their forensic examinations, 
        resulting in tremendous backlogs that prevent the swift 
        administration of justice and impede fundamental individual 
        rights, such as the right to a speedy trial and to exculpatory 
        evidence;
            (5) last year, Congress passed the Crime Identification 
        Technology Act of 1998, which authorizes $250,000,000 each year 
        for 5 years to assist State and local law enforcement agencies 
        in developing and integrating their anticrime technology 
        systems, and in upgrading their forensic laboratories and 
        information and communications infrastructures upon which these 
        crime fighting systems rely; and
            (6) the Federal Government must continue efforts to 
        significantly reduce crime by maintaining Federal funding for 
        State and local law enforcement, and wisely targeting these 
        resources.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions of this resolution assume that--
            (1) the amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 to 
        assist State and local law enforcement efforts should be 
        comparable to or greater than amounts made available for that 
        purpose for fiscal year 1999;
            (2) the amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 for 
        crime technology programs should be used to further the 
        purposes of the program under section 102 of the Crime 
        Identification Technology Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601); and
            (3) Congress should consider legislation that specifically 
        addresses the backlogs in State and local crime laboratories 
        and medical examiners' offices.

SEC. 349. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MERGER ENFORCEMENT BY DEPARTMENT OF 
              JUSTICE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is 
        charged with the civil and criminal enforcement of the 
        antitrust laws, including review of corporate mergers likely to 
        reduce competition in particular markets, with a goal to 
        promote and protect the competitive process;
            (2) the Antitrust Division requests a 16 percent increase 
        in funding for fiscal year 2000;
            (3) justification for such an increase is based, in part, 
        on increasingly numerous and complex merger filings pursuant to 
        the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976;
            (4) the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
        1976 sets value thresholds which trigger the requirement for 
        filing premerger notification;
            (5) the number of merger filings under the Hart-Scott-
        Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, which the 
        Department, in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, 
        is required to review, increased by 38 percent in fiscal year 
        1998;
            (6) the Department expects the number of merger filings to 
        increase in fiscal years 1999 and 2000;
            (7) the value thresholds, which relate to both the size of 
        the companies involved and the size of the transaction, under 
        the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 have 
        not been adjusted since passage of that Act.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
Antitrust Division needs adequate resources and that the levels in this 
resolution assume the Division will have such adequate resources, 
including necessary increases in funding, notwithstanding any report 
language to the contrary, to enable it to meet its statutory 
requirements, including those related to reviewing and investigating 
increasingly numerous and complex mergers, but that Congress should 
pursue consideration of modest, budget neutral, adjustments to the 
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 to account for 
inflation in the value thresholds of the Act, and in so doing, ensure 
that the Antitrust Division's resources are focused on matters and 
transactions most deserving of the Division's attention.

SEC. 350. SENSE OF THE SENATE TO CREATE A TASK FORCE TO PURSUE THE 
              CREATION OF A NATURAL DISASTER RESERVE FUND.

    (a) It is the sense of the Senate that a task force be created for 
the purpose of studying the possibility of creating a reserve fund for 
natural disasters. The task force should be composed of three Senators 
appointed by the Majority Leader, and two Senators appointed by the 
Minority Leader. The task force should also be composed of three 
members appointed by the Speaker of the House, and two members 
appointed by the Minority Leader in the House.
    (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the task force make a report 
to the appropriate committees in Congress within 90 days of being 
convened. The report should be available for the purposes of 
consideration during comprehensive overhaul of budget procedures.

SEC. 351. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FEDERAL TAX RELIEF.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
            (1) The Congressional Budget Office has reported that 
        payroll taxes will exceed income taxes for 74 percent of all 
        taxpayers in 1999.
            (2) The Federal Government will collect nearly 
        $50,000,000,000 in income taxes this year through its practice 
        of taxing the income Americans sacrifice to the Government in 
        the form of Social Security payroll taxes.
            (3) American taxpayers are currently shouldering the 
        heaviest tax burden since 1944.
            (4) According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the median 
        dual-income family sacrificed a record 37.6 percent of its 
        income to the Government in 1997.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
that a significant portion of the tax relief will be devoted to working 
families who are double-taxed by--
            (1) providing taxpayers with an above-the-line income tax 
        deduction for the Social Security payroll taxes they pay so 
        that they no longer pay income taxes on such payroll taxes, 
        and/or
            (2) gradually reducing the lowest marginal income tax rate 
        from 15 percent to 10 percent, and/or
            (3) other tax reductions that do not reduce the tax revenue 
        devoted to the Social Security Trust Fund.

SEC. 352. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ELIMINATING THE MARRIAGE PENALTY AND 
              ACROSS-THE-BOARD INCOME TAX RATE CUTS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the institution of marriage is the cornerstone of the 
        family and civil society;
            (2) strengthening of the marriage commitment and the family 
        is an indispensable step in the renewal of America's culture;
            (3) the Federal income tax punishes marriage by imposing a 
        greater tax burden on married couples then on their single 
        counterparts;
            (4) America's tax code should give each married couple the 
        choice to be treated as one economic unit, regardless of which 
        spouse earns the income; and
            (5) all American taxpayers are responsible for any budget 
        surplus and deserve broad-based tax relief after the Social 
        Security Trust Fund has been protected.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that Congress should eliminate the 
marriage penalty in a manner that treats all married couples equally, 
regardless of which spouse earns the income.

SEC. 353. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING FOR EMBASSY 
              SECURITY.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) Enhancing security at United States diplomatic missions 
        overseas is essential to protect United States Government 
        personnel serving on the front lines of our national defense;
            (2) 80 percent of United States diplomatic missions do not 
        meet current security standards;
            (3) the Accountability Review Boards on the Embassy 
        Bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam recommended that the 
        Department of State spend $1,400,000,000 annually on embassy 
        security over each of the next 10 years;
            (4) the amount of spending recommended for embassy security 
        by the Accountability Review Boards is approximately 36 percent 
        of the operating budget requested for the Department of State 
        in fiscal year 2000; and
            (5) the funding requirements necessary to improve security 
        for United States diplomatic missions and personnel abroad 
        cannot be borne within the current budgetary resources of the 
        Department of State.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
budgetary levels in this budget resolution assume that as the Congress 
contemplates changes in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to reflect 
projected on-budget surpluses, provisions similar to those set forth in 
section 314(b) of that Act should be considered to ensure adequate 
funding for enhancements to the security of United States diplomatic 
missions.

SEC. 354. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR AFTER SCHOOL EDUCATION.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) The demand for after school education is very high. In 
        fiscal year 1998 the Department of Education's after school 
        grant program was the most competitive in the Department's 
        history. Nearly 2,000 school districts applied for over 
        $540,000,000.
            (2) After school programs help to fight juvenile crime. Law 
        enforcement statistics show that youth who are ages 12 through 
        17 are most at risk of committing violent acts and being 
        victims of violent acts between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. After 
        school programs have been shown to reduce juvenile crime, 
        sometimes by up to 75 percent according to the National 
        Association of Police Athletic and Activity Leagues.
            (3) After school programs can improve educational 
        achievement. They ensure children have safe and positive 
        learning environments in the after school hours. In the 
        Sacramento START after school program 75 percent of the 
        students showed an increase in their grades.
            (4) After school programs have widespread support. Over 90 
        percent of the American people support such programs. Over 450 
        of the Nation's leading police chiefs, sheriffs, and 
        prosecutors, along with presidents of the Fraternal Order of 
        Police, and the International Union of Police Associations 
        support government funding of after school programs. And many 
        of our Nation's governors endorse increasing the number of 
        after school programs through a Federal of State partnership.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution assume that Congress will provide 
$600,000,000 for the President's after school initiative in fiscal year 
2000.

SEC. 355. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING RECOVERY OF FUNDS BY THE 
              FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN TOBACCO-RELATED LITIGATION.

    (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Federal 
Tobacco Recovery and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Resolution of 
1999''.
    (b) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
            (1) The President, in his January 19, 1999 State of the 
        Union address--
                    (A) announced that the Department of Justice would 
                develop a litigation plan for the Federal Government 
                against the tobacco industry;
                    (B) indicated that any funds recovered through such 
                litigation would be used to strengthen the medicare 
                program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
                (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.); and
                    (C) urged Congress to pass legislation to include a 
                prescription drug benefit in the medicare program.
            (2) The traditional medicare program does not include most 
        outpatient prescription drugs as part of its benefit package.
            (3) Prescription drugs are a central element in improving 
        quality of life and in routine health maintenance.
            (4) Prescription drugs are a key component to early health 
        care intervention strategies for the elderly.
            (5) Eighty percent of retired individuals take at least 1 
        prescription drug every day.
            (6) Individuals 65 years of age or older represent 12 
        percent of the population of the United States but consume more 
        than \1/3\ of all prescription drugs consumed in the United 
        States.
            (7) Exclusive of health care-related premiums, prescription 
        drugs account for almost \1/3\ of the health care costs and 
        expenditures of elderly individuals.
            (8) Approximately 10 percent of all medicare beneficiaries 
        account for nearly 50 percent of all prescription drug spending 
        by the elderly.
            (9) Research and development on new generations of 
        pharmaceuticals represent new opportunities for healthier, 
        longer lives for our Nation's elderly.
            (10) Prescription drugs are among the key tools in every 
        health care professional's medical arsenal to help combat and 
        prevent the onset, recurrence, or debilitating effects of 
        illness and disease.
            (11) While possible Federal litigation against tobacco 
        companies will take time to develop, Congress should continue 
        to work to address the immediate need among the elderly for 
        access to affordable prescription drugs.
            (12) Treatment of tobacco-related illness is estimated to 
        cost the medicare program approximately $10,000,000,000 every 
        year.
            (13) In 1998, 50 States reached a settlement with the 
        tobacco industry for tobacco-related illness in the amount of 
        $206,000,000,000.
            (14) Recoveries from possible Federal tobacco-related 
        litigation, if successful, will likely be comparable to or 
        exceed the dollar amount recovered by the States under the 1998 
        settlement.
            (15) In the event Federal tobacco-related litigation is 
        valid, undertaken and is successful, funds recovered under such 
        litigation should first be used for the purpose of 
        strengthening the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and 
        second to finance a medicare prescription drug benefit.
            (16) The scope of any medicare prescription drug benefit 
        should be as comprehensive as possible, with drugs used in 
        fighting tobacco-related illnesses given a first priority.
            (17) Most Americans want the medicare program to cover the 
        costs of prescription drugs.
    (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
that funds recovered under any tobacco-related litigation commenced by 
the Federal Government should be used first for the purpose of 
strengthening the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and second to 
fund a medicare prescription drug benefit.

SEC. 356. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OFFSETTING INAPPROPRIATE EMERGENCY 
              SPENDING.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this resolution 
assume that--
            (1) some emergency expenditures made at the end of the One 
        Hundred Fifth Congress for fiscal year 1999 were 
        inappropriately deemed as emergencies;
            (2) Congress and the President should identify these 
        inappropriate expenditures and fully pay for these expenditures 
        during the fiscal year in which they will be incurred; and
            (3) Congress should only apply the emergency designation 
        for occurrences that meet the criteria set forth in the 
        Congressional Budget Act.

SEC. 357. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 
              2000 BUDGET PROPOSAL TO TAX ASSOCIATION INVESTMENT 
              INCOME.

    (a) The Congress finds that:
            (1) The President's fiscal year 2000 Federal budget 
        proposal to impose a tax on the interest, dividends, capital 
        gains, rents, and royalties in excess of $10,000 of trade 
        associations and professional societies exempt under section 
        501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 represents an 
        unjust and unnecessary penalty on legitimate association 
        activities.
            (2) At a time when the Government is projecting on-budget 
        surpluses of more than $800,000,000,000 over the next 10 years, 
        the President proposes to increase the tax burden on trade and 
        professional associations by $1,440,000,000 over the next 5 
        years.
            (3) The President's association tax increase proposal will 
        impose a tremendous burden on thousands of small and mid-sized 
        trade associations and professional societies.
            (4) Under the President's association tax increase 
        proposal, most associations with annual operating budgets of as 
        low as $200,000 or more will be taxed on investment income and 
        as many as 70,000 associations nationwide could be affected by 
        this proposal.
            (5) Associations rely on this targeted investment income to 
        carry out tax-exempt status related activities, such as 
        training individuals to adapt to the changing workplace, 
        improving industry safety, providing statistical data, and 
        providing community services.
            (6) Keeping investment income free from tax encourages 
        associations to maintain modest surplus funds that cushion 
        against economic and fiscal downturns.
            (7) Corporations can increase prices to cover increased 
        costs, while small and medium sized local, regional, and State-
        based associations do not have such an option, and thus 
        increased costs imposed by the President's association tax 
        increase would reduce resources available for the important 
        standard setting, educational training, and professionalism 
        training performed by associations.
    (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals in this 
concurrent resolution on the budget assume that Congress shall reject 
the President's proposed tax increase on investment income of 
associations as defined under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986.

SEC. 358. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR COUNTER-NARCOTICS 
              INITIATIVES.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) from 1985-1992, the Federal Government's drug control 
        budget was balanced among education, treatment, law 
        enforcement, and international supply reduction activities and 
        this resulted in a 13-percent reduction in total drug use from 
        1988 to 1991;
            (2) since 1992, overall drug use among teens aged 12 to 17 
        rose by 70 percent, cocaine and marijuana use by high school 
        seniors rose 80 percent, and heroin use by high school seniors 
        rose 100 percent;
            (3) during this same period, the Federal investment in 
        reducing the flow of drugs outside our borders declined both in 
        real dollars and as a proportion of the Federal drug control 
        budget;
            (4) while the Federal Government works with State and local 
        governments and numerous private organizations to reduce the 
        demand for illegal drugs, seize drugs, and break down drug 
        trafficking organizations within our borders, only the Federal 
        Government can seize and destroy drugs outside of our borders;
            (5) in an effort to restore Federal international 
        eradication and interdiction efforts, in 1998, Congress passed 
        the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act which authorized an 
        additional $2,600,000,000 over 3 years for international 
        interdiction, eradication, and alternative development 
        activities;
            (6) Congress appropriated over $800,000,000 in fiscal year 
        1999 for anti-drug activities authorized in the Western 
        Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act; and
            (7) the proposed Drug Free Century Act would build upon 
        many of the initiatives authorized in the Western Hemisphere 
        Drug Elimination Act, including additional funding for the 
        Department of Defense for counter-drug intelligence and related 
        activities.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions of this resolution assume that--
            (1) funding for Federal drug control activities should be 
        at a level higher than that proposed in the President's budget 
        request for fiscal year 2000; and
            (2) funding for Federal drug control activities should 
        allow for investments in programs authorized in the Western 
        Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and in the proposed Drug Free 
        Century Act.

SEC. 359. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MODERNIZING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
            (1) The General Accounting Office has performed a 
        comprehensive survey of the Nation's public elementary and 
        secondary school facilities and has found severe levels of 
        disrepair in all areas of the United States.
            (2) The General Accounting Office has concluded that more 
        than 14,000,000 children attend schools in need of extensive 
        repair or replacement; 7,000,000 children attend schools with 
        life safety code violations; and 12,000,000 children attend 
        schools with leaky roofs.
            (3) The General Accounting Office has found that the 
        problem of crumbling schools transcends demographic and 
        geographic boundaries. At 38 percent of urban schools, 30 
        percent of rural schools, and 29 percent of suburban schools, 
        at least 1 building is in need of extensive repair or should be 
        completely replaced.
            (4) The condition of school facilities has a direct effect 
        on the safety of students and teachers and on the ability of 
        students to learn. Academic research has provided a direct 
        correlation between the condition of school facilities and 
        student achievement. At Georgetown University, researchers have 
        found the test scores of students assigned to schools in poor 
        condition can be expected to fall 10.9 percentage points below 
        the test scores of students in buildings in excellent 
        condition. Similar studies have demonstrated up to a 20 percent 
        improvement in test scores when students were moved from a poor 
        facility to a new facility.
            (5) The General Accounting Office has found most schools 
        are not prepared to incorporate modern technology in the 
        classroom. 46 percent of schools lack adequate electrical 
        wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. More than a 
        third of schools lack the requisite electrical power. 56 
        percent of schools have insufficient phone lines for modems.
            (6) The Department of Education has reported that 
        elementary and secondary school enrollment, already at a record 
        high level, will continue to grow over the next 10 years, and 
        that in order to accommodate this growth, the United States 
        will need to build an additional 6,000 schools.
            (7) The General Accounting Office has determined that the 
        cost of bringing schools up to good, overall condition to be 
        $112,000,000,000, not including the cost of modernizing schools 
        to accommodate technology, or the cost of building additional 
        facilities needed to meet record enrollment levels.
            (8) Schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for 
        Native American children are also in dire need of repair and 
        renovation. The General Accounting Office has reported that the 
        cost of total inventory repairs needed for BIA facilities is 
        $754,000,000. The December 1997 report by the Comptroller 
        General of the United States states that, ``Compared with other 
        schools nationally, BIA schools are generally in poorer 
        physical condition, have more unsatisfactory environmental 
        factors, more often lack key facilities requirements for 
        education reform, and are less able to support computer and 
        communications technology.
            (9) State and local financing mechanisms have proven 
        inadequate to meet the challenges facing today's aging school 
        facilities. Large numbers of local educational agencies have 
        difficulties securing financing for school facility 
        improvement.
            (10) The Federal Government has provided resources for 
        school construction in the past. For example, between 1933 and 
        1939, the Federal Government assisted in 70 percent of all new 
        school construction.
            (11) The Federal Government can support elementary and 
        secondary school facilities without interfering in issues of 
        local control, and should help communities leverage additional 
        funds for the improvement of elementary and secondary school 
        facilities.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
budgetary levels in this budget resolution assume that Congress will 
enact measures to assist school districts in modernizing their 
facilities, including--
            (1) legislation to allow States and school districts to 
        issue at least $24,800,000,000 worth of zero-interest bonds to 
        rebuild and modernize our Nation's schools, and to provide 
        Federal income tax credits to the purchasers of those bonds in 
        lieu of interest payments; and
            (2) appropriate funding for the Education Infrastructure 
        Act of 1994 during the period 2000 through 2004, which would 
        provide grants to local school districts for the repair, 
        renovation and construction of public school facilities.

SEC. 360. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR THE LAND AND WATER 
              CONSERVATION FUND.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) amounts in the land and water conservation fund finance 
        the primary Federal program for acquiring land for conservation 
        and recreation and for supporting State and local efforts for 
        conservation and recreation;
            (2) Congress has appropriated only $10,000,000,000 out of 
        the more than $21,000,000,000 covered into the fund from 
        revenues payable to the United States under the Outer 
        Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.); and
            (3) 38 Senators cosigned 2 letters to the Chairman and 
        Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget urging that the 
        land and water conservation fund be fully funded.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this 
resolution assume that Congress should appropriate $200,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 to provide financial assistance to the States under 
section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C 
460l-8), in addition to such amounts as are made available for Federal 
land acquisition under that Act for fiscal year 2000.

SEC. 361. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND 
              LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FOR THE VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION 
              TRUST FUND.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) our Federal, State and local law enforcement officers 
        provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
        freedom and safety, and with the support of Federal assistance 
        such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, the 
        Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, the COPS 
        Program, and the Byrne Grant Program, State and local law 
        enforcement officers have succeeded in reducing the national 
        scourge of violent crime, illustrated by a violent crime rate 
        that has dropped in each of the past four years;
            (2) assistance, such as the Violent Offender Incarceration/
        Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants, provided to State 
        corrections systems to encourage truth in sentencing laws for 
        violent offenders has resulted in longer time served by violent 
        criminals and safer streets for law abiding people across the 
        Nation;
            (3) through a comprehensive effort by State and local law 
        enforcement to attack violence against women, in concert with 
        the efforts of dedicated volunteers and professionals who 
        provide victim services, shelter, counseling and advocacy to 
        battered women and their children, important strides have been 
        made against the national scourge of violence against women;
            (4) despite recent gains, the violent crime rate remains 
        high by historical standards;
            (5) Federal efforts to investigate and prosecute 
        international terrorism and complex interstate and 
        international crime are vital aspects of a national anticrime 
        strategy, and should be maintained;
            (6) the recent gains by Federal, State and local law 
        enforcement in the fight against violent crime and violence 
        against women are fragile, and continued financial commitment 
        from the Federal Government for funding and financial 
        assistance is required to sustain and build upon these gains; 
        and
            (7) the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, enacted as a 
        part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
        1994, funds the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
        of 1994, the Violence against Women Act of 1994, and the 
        Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, without 
        adding to the Federal budget deficit.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
provisions and the functional totals underlying this resolution assume 
that the Federal Government's commitment to fund Federal law 
enforcement programs and programs to assist State and local efforts to 
combat violent crime shall be maintained, and that funding for the 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund shall continue to at least fiscal 
year 2005.

SEC. 362. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY NOTCH BABIES.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the Social Security Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-
        216) substantially altered the way Social Security benefits are 
        computed;
            (2) those amendments resulted in disparate benefits 
        depending upon the year in which a worker becomes eligible for 
        benefits; and
            (3) those individuals born between the years 1917 and 1926, 
        and who are commonly referred to as ``notch babies'' receive 
        benefits that are lower than those retirees who were born 
        before or after those years.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
Congress should reevaluate the benefits of workers who attain age 65 
after 1981 and before 1992.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 68

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT

HCON 68 EAS1S----2
HCON 68 EAS1S----3
HCON 68 EAS1S----4
HCON 68 EAS1S----5
HCON 68 EAS1S----6
HCON 68 EAS1S----7
HCON 68 EAS1S----8
HCON 68 EAS1S----9
HCON 68 EAS1S----10
HCON 68 EAS1S----11
HCON 68 EAS1S----12
HCON 68 EAS1S----13
HCON 68 EAS1S----14
HCON 68 EAS1S----15
```