`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 20 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]





                                                        Calendar No. 64

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 20

                          [Report No. 106-27]

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
                  for fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 19, 1999

                         Placed on the calendar





                                                        Calendar No. 64
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 20

                          [Report No. 106-27]

Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
                  for fiscal years 2000 through 2009.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 19, 1999

Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on the Budget, reported the following 
original concurrent resolution; which was read twice and placed on the 
                                calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
                  for fiscal years 2000 through 2009.

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

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 fiscal year 2000 surplus.
Sec. 202. Reserve fund for agriculture.
Sec. 203. Tax reduction reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 204. Clarification on the application of section 202 of H. Con. 
                            Res. 67.
Sec. 205. Emergency designation point of order.
Sec. 206. Authority to provide committee allocations.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for use of OCS receipts.
Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for managed care plans that 
                            agree to provide additional services to the 
                            elderly.
Sec. 209. Reserve fund for Medicare and prescription drugs.
Sec. 210. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
            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 the sale of Governor's Island.
Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate on Pell Grant funding.

                      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: $1,435,214,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,158,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,531,015,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $1,584,969,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $1,648,259,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $1,681,438,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $1,735,646,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $1,805,517,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $1,868,515,000,000.
            (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
        revenues should be changed are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $0.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $-7,433,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $-53,118,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $-32,303,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $-49,180,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $-62,637,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $-109,275,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $-135,754,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $-150,692,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $-177,195,000,000.
    (2) New Budget Authority.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as 
follows:
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,931,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,456,294,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,487,477,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,560,513,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $1,612,278,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $1,665,843,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $1,697,402,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $1,752,567,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $1,813,739,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $1,873,969,000,000.
    (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: $1,435,214,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,158,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2003: $1,531,015,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2004: $1,582,070,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2005: $1,638,428,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2006: $1,666,608,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2007: $1,715,883,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2008: $1,780,697,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2009: $1,840,699,000,000.
    (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, $21,520,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $22,244,000,000.
            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, $9,864,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $4,470,000,000.
            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, $250,873,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $257,033,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $263,620,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $266,577,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $276,386,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $276,176,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2004:
                    (A) New budget authority, $285,576,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $285,388,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2005:
                    (A) New budget authority, $297,942,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $298,128,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2006:
                    (A) New budget authority, $304,155,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $304,593,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2007:
                    (A) New budget authority, $310,047,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $310,948,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2008:
                    (A) New budget authority, $323,315,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $324,766,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2009:
                    (A) New budget authority, $333,562,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $335,104,000,000.
    (14) Social Security (650):
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,239,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,348,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,768,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,750,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,573,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $15,555,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $16,299,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $16,281,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2004:
                    (A) New budget authority, $17,087,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,069,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2005:
                    (A) New budget authority, $17,961,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $17,943,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2006:
                    (A) New budget authority, $18,895,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $18,877,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2007:
                    (A) New budget authority, $19,907,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $19,889,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2008:
                    (A) New budget authority, $21,033,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $21,015,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2009:
                    (A) New budget authority, $22,233,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $22,215,000,000.
    (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $44,724,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $45,064,000,000.
            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.
    (16) Administration of Justice (750):
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $23,434,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $25,349,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $24,656,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $25,117,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $24,657,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $24,932,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2003:
                    (A) New budget authority, $24,561,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $24,425,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2004:
                    (A) New budget authority, $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.
    (17) General Government (800):
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,339,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,476,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,916,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $12,605,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,080,000,000.
                    (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.
    (18) 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.
    (19) Allowances (920):
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$8,033,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$8,094,000,000.
            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.
    (20) 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, $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.

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 A FISCAL YEAR 2000 SURPLUS.

    (a) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for Fiscal 
Year 2000.--Pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office shall update its economic 
and budget forecast for fiscal year 2000 by July 15, 1999.
    (b) Reporting a Surplus.--If the report provided pursuant to 
subsection (a) estimates an on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2000, the 
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the adjustments as 
provided in subsection (c).
    (c) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
take the amount of the on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 estimated 
in the report submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and--
            (1) reduce the on-budget revenue aggregate by that amount 
        for fiscal year 2000;
            (2) provide for or increase the on-budget surplus levels 
        used for determining compliance with the pay-as-you-go 
        requirements of section 202 of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) 
        by that amount for fiscal year 2000; and
            (3) adjust the instruction in sections 104(1) and 105(1) of 
        this resolution to--
                    (A) reduce revenues by that amount for fiscal year 
                2000; and
                    (B) increase the reduction in revenues for the 
                period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and for the 
                period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009 by that 
                amount.
    (d) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised aggregates and other levels 
under subsection (c) shall be considered for the purposes of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as aggregates and other levels 
contained in this resolution.

SEC. 202. 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. 203. 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.

SEC. 204. 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. 205. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER.

    (a) Point of Order.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, a point of order 
may be made by a Senator against an emergency designation in that 
measure and if the Presiding Officer sustains that point of order, that 
provision making such a designation shall be stricken from the measure 
and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
    (b) Definition of an Emergency Requirement.--A provision shall be 
considered an emergency designation if it designates any item an 
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
    (c) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or suspended in 
the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members, 
duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of 
order raised under this section.
    (d) Form of the Point of Order.--A point of order under this 
section may be raised by a Senator as provided in section 313(e) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    (e) Conference Reports.--If a point of order is sustained under 
this section against a conference report the report shall be disposed 
of as provided in section 313(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, except that there shall be no limit on debate.

SEC. 206. 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. 207. 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. 208. 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. 209. 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. 210. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

            TITLE III--SENSE OF 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-opertion 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 SALE OF GOVERNORS ISLAND.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this resolution 
assume that the sale of Governors Island should be completed prior to 
the end of fiscal year 2000.

SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PELL GRANT FUNDING.

    (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 the 
levels in this resolution assume that--
            (1) the President's proposed reductions in the Pell Grant 
        program are incompatible with his proposed $125 increase in the 
        Pell Grant maximum award;
            (2) the President's proposed reductions should be rejected; 
        and
            (3) within the discretionary allocation provided to the 
        Appropriations Committee, the maximum grant award should be 
        raised, to the maximum extent practicable and funding for the 
        Pell Grant program should be higher than the level requested by 
        the President.`