[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5086-5093]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 20--SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
   FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 THROUGH 2009

  Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on the Budget, reported the 
following original concurrent resolution:

                            S. Con. Res. 20

       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:

[[Page 5087]]

       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: $1,655,843,000,000.
       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 Supluses.--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 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:

[[Page 5088]]

       (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, $668,000,000.
       (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.

[[Page 5089]]

       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

[[Page 5090]]

       (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

[[Page 5091]]

     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 if 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

[[Page 5092]]

     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 nations' 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

[[Page 5093]]

       (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's 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 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 Senate.--It is the Sense of 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 GOVERNOR'S ISLAND.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that the sale of Governor's 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.

                          ____________________