[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7379-7395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 H. CON. RES. 68--CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2000

  On March 25, 1999, the Senate passed H. Con. Res. 68, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000. Printing of the 
resolution on April 14, 1999, failed to reflect the Senate amendment 
thereto. H. Con. Res. 68, as amended, follows:

       Resolved, That the resolution from the House of 
     Representatives (H. Con. Res. 68) entitled ``Concurrent 
     resolution establishing the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2000 and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2009.'', do pass with the following amendment:
         Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

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

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

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

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Reserve fund for agriculture.
Sec. 202. Tax reduction reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 203. Clarification on the application of section 202 of H. Con. 
              Res. 67.
Sec. 204. Emergency designation point of order.
Sec. 205. Authority to provide committee allocations.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for use of OCS receipts.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for managed care plans that 
              agree to provide additional services to the elderly.
Sec. 208. Reserve fund for medicare and prescription drugs.
Sec. 209. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to foster the employment and 
              independence of individuals with disabilities.

            TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of the Senate on marriage penalty.
Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate on improving security for United States 
              diplomatic missions.
Sec. 303. Sense of the Senate on access to medicare home health 
              services.
Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate regarding the deductibility of health 
              insurance premiums of the self-employed.
Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate that tax reductions should go to working 
              families.
Sec. 306. Sense of the Senate on the National Guard.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate on effects of Social Security reform on 
              women.
Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on increased funding for the national 
              institutes of health.
Sec. 309. Sense of Congress on funding for Kyoto protocol 
              implementation prior to Senate ratification.
Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on Federal research and development 
              investment.
Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate on counter-narcotics funding.
Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate regarding tribal colleges.
Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on the Social Security surplus.
Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate on need-based student financial aid 
              programs.
Sec. 315. Findings; sense of Congress on the protection of the Social 
              Security surpluses.
Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate on providing adequate funding for United 
              States international leadership.
Sec. 317. Sense of the Senate that the Federal Government should not 
              invest the Social Security Trust Funds in private 
              financial markets.
Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate concerning on-budget surplus.
Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate on TEA-21 funding and the States.
Sec. 320. Sense of the Senate that agricultural risk management 
              programs should benefit livestock producers.
Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate regarding the modernization and 
              improvement of the medicare program.
Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate on providing tax relief to all Americans 
              by returning non-Social Security surplus to taxpayers.
Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate regarding tax incentives for education 
              savings.
Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate that the One Hundred Sixth Congress, 
              First Session should reauthorize funds for the Farmland 
              Protection Program.
Sec. 325. Sense of the Senate on tax cuts for lower and middle income 
              taxpayers.
Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate regarding reform of the Internal Revenue 
              Code of 1986.
Sec. 327. Sense of the Senate regarding Davis-Bacon.
Sec. 328. Sense of the Senate regarding access to items and services 
              under medicare program.
Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate concerning autism.
Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate on women's access to obstetric and 
              gynecological services.
Sec. 331. Sense of the Senate on LIHEAP.
Sec. 332. Sense of the Senate on transportation firewalls.
Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate on funding existing, effective public 
              health programs before creating new programs.
Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate concerning funding for special education.
Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate on the importance of Social Security for 
              individuals who become disabled.
Sec. 336. Sense of the Senate regarding funding for intensive firearms 
              prosecution programs.
Sec. 337. Honest reporting of the deficit.
Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate concerning fostering the employment and 
              independence of individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 339. Sense of the Senate regarding asset-building for the working 
              poor.
Sec. 340. Sense of the Senate that the provisions of this resolution 
              assume that it is the policy of the United States to 
              provide as soon as is technologically possible an 
              education for every American child that will enable each 
              child to effectively meet the challenges of the twenty-
              first century.
Sec. 341. Sense of the Senate concerning exemption of agricultural 
              commodities and products, medicines, and medical products 
              from unilateral economic sanctions.
Sec. 342. Sense of the Senate regarding capital gains tax fairness for 
              family farmers.
Sec. 343. Budgeting for the Defense Science and Technology Program.
Sec. 344. Sense of the Senate concerning funding for the Urban Parks 
              and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program.
Sec. 345. Sense of the Senate on social promotion.
Sec. 346. Sense of the Senate on women and Social Security reform.
Sec. 347. Sense of the Congress regarding South Korea's international 
              trade practices on pork and beef.
Sec. 348. Sense of the Senate regarding support for State and local law 
              enforcement.
Sec. 349. Sense of the Senate on merger enforcement by Department of 
              Justice.
Sec. 350. Sense of the Senate to create a task force to pursue the 
              creation of a natural disaster reserve fund.
Sec. 351. Sense of the Senate concerning Federal tax relief.
Sec. 352. Sense of the Senate on eliminating the marriage penalty and 
              across-the-board income tax rate cuts.
Sec. 353. Sense of the Senate on importance of funding for embassy 
              security.
Sec. 354. Sense of the Senate on funding for after school education.

[[Page 7380]]

Sec. 355. Sense of the Senate concerning recovery of funds by the 
              Federal Government in tobacco-related litigation.
Sec. 356. Sense of the Senate on offsetting inappropriate emergency 
              spending.
Sec. 357. Findings; sense of Congress on the President's fiscal year 
              2000 budget proposal to tax association investment 
              income.
Sec. 358. Sense of the Senate regarding funding for counter-narcotics 
              initiatives.
Sec. 359. Sense of the Senate on modernizing America's schools.
Sec. 360. Sense of the Senate concerning funding for the land and water 
              conservation fund.
Sec. 361. Sense of the Senate regarding support for Federal, State and 
              local law enforcement and for the Violent Crime Reduction 
              Trust Fund.
Sec. 362. Sense of the Senate regarding Social Security notch babies.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

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

     SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 2000 through 2009 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $328,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $329,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $330,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $333,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $318,041,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,716,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,494,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,834,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,054,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,880,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.

[[Page 7381]]

       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,768,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$163,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$84,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,243,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$319,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,453,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,431,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,137,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$76,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,067,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,579,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,466,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,738,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,536,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,252,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,553,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,145,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,162,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,223,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,188,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,859,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,824,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,022,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,640,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,033,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,273,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,042,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $688,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,295,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,648,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,891,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,144,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,051,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,059,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $173,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $185,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $212,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $228,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $228,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,348,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $285,541,000,000.

[[Page 7382]]

       (B) Outlays, $284,941,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $208,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,252,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $250,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,558,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,574,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,188,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $306,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $394,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,249,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $299,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $312,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,102,000,000.
       (14) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,064,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,327,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,844,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,803,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,150,000,000.
       (15) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,434,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,657,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,932,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,996,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,720,000,000.
       (16) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,916,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,906,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,064,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,931,000,000.
       (17) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,855,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,177,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,001,000,000.
       (18) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,279,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,889,000,000.
       (19) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40,426,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,084,000,000.

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

       Not later than June 18, 1999, the Senate Committee on 
     Finance shall report to the Senate a

[[Page 7383]]

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

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

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

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 204. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER.

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

     SEC. 205. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.

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

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, spending aggregates and 
     other appropriate budgetary levels

[[Page 7384]]

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

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

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

     SEC. 209. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

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

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

            TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) under current law, the self-employed do not enjoy 
     parity with their corporate competitors with respect to the 
     tax deductibility of their health insurance premiums;
       (2) this April, the self-employed will only be able to 
     deduct only 45 percent of their health insurance premiums for 
     the tax year 1998;
       (3) the following April, the self-employed will be able to 
     take a 60-percent deduction for their health insurance 
     premiums for the tax year 1999;
       (4) it will not be until 2004 that the self-employed will 
     be able to take a full 100-percent deduction for their health 
     insurance premiums for the tax year 2003;
       (5) the self-employed's health insurance premiums are 
     generally over 30 percent higher than the health insurance 
     premiums of group health plans;
       (6) the increased cost coupled with the less favorable tax 
     treatment makes health insurance less affordable for the 
     self-employed;
       (7) these disadvantages are reflected in the higher rate of 
     uninsured among the self-employed which stands at 24.1 
     percent compared

[[Page 7385]]

     with 18.2 percent for all wage and salaried workers, for 
     self-employed living at or below the poverty level the rate 
     of uninsured is 53.1 percent, for self-employed living at 100 
     through 199 percent of poverty the rate of uninsured is 47 
     percent, and for self-employed living at 200 percent of 
     poverty and above the rate of uninsured is 17.8 percent;
       (8) for some self-employed, such as farmers who face 
     significant occupational safety hazards, this lack of health 
     insurance affordability has even greater ramifications; and
       (9) this lack of full deductibility is also adversely 
     affecting the growing number of women who own small 
     businesses.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that tax relief 
     legislation should include parity between the self-employed 
     and corporations with respect to the tax treatment of health 
     insurance premiums.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the drug crisis facing the United States is a top 
     national security threat;
       (2) the spread of illicit drugs through United States 
     borders cannot be halted without an effective drug 
     interdiction strategy;

[[Page 7386]]

       (3) effective drug interdiction efforts have been shown to 
     limit the availability of illicit narcotics, drive up the 
     street price, support demand reduction efforts, and decrease 
     overall drug trafficking and use; and
       (4) the percentage change in drug use since 1992, among 
     graduating high school students who used drugs in the past 12 
     months, has substantially increased--marijuana use is up 80 
     percent, cocaine use is up 80 percent, and heroin use is up 
     100 percent.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals 
     included in this resolution assume the following:
       (1) All counter-narcotics agencies will be given a high 
     priority for fully funding their counter-narcotics mission.
       (2) Front line drug fighting agencies are dedicating more 
     resources for intentional efforts to continue restoring a 
     balanced drug control strategy. Congress should carefully 
     examine the reauthorization of the United States Customs 
     service and ensure they have adequate resources and authority 
     not only to facilitate the movement of internationally traded 
     goods but to ensure they can aggressively pursue their law 
     enforcement activities.
       (3) By pursuing a balanced effort which requires investment 
     in 3 key areas: demand reduction (such as education and 
     treatment); domestic law enforcement; and international 
     supply reduction, Congress believes we can reduce the number 
     of children who are exposed to and addicted to illegal drugs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7387]]

       (3) provides for a Senate super-majority point of order 
     against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
     report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything 
     other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or the reduction of the Federal debt held by 
     the public;
       (4) ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on 
     time; and
       (5) accommodates Social Security reform legislation.

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

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

     SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
                   SHOULD NOT INVEST THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST 
                   FUNDS IN PRIVATE FINANCIAL MARKETS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage provided under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial 
     security for retired and disabled individuals, as such 
     coverage protects those individuals against the financially 
     ruinous costs of a major illness.
       (2) Expenditures under the medicare program for hospital, 
     physician, and other essential health care services that are 
     provided to nearly 39,000,000 retired and disabled 
     individuals will be $232,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
       (3) During the nearly 35 years since the medicare program 
     was established, the Nation's health care delivery and 
     financing system has undergone major transformations. 
     However, the medicare program has not kept pace with such 
     transformations.
       (4) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert 
     Reischauer has described the medicare program as it exists 
     today as failing on the following 4 key dimensions (known as 
     the ``Four I's''):
       (A) The program is inefficient.
       (B) The program is inequitable.
       (C) The program is inadequate.
       (D) The program is insolvent.
       (5) The President's budget framework does not devote 15 
     percent of the budget surpluses to the medicare program. The 
     Federal budget process does not provide a mechanism for 
     setting aside current surpluses for future obligations. As a 
     result, the notion of saving 15 percent of the surplus for 
     the medicare program cannot practically be carried out.
       (6) The President's budget framework would transfer to the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund more than 
     $900,000,000,000 over 15 years in new IOUs that must be 
     redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public, and these new 
     IOUs would increase the gross debt of the Federal Government 
     by the amounts transferred.
       (7) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the 
     transfers described in paragraph (6), which are strictly 
     intragovernmental, have no effect on the unified budget 
     surpluses or the on-budget surpluses and therefore have no 
     effect on the debt held by the public.
       (8) The President's budget framework does not provide 
     access to, or financing for, prescription drugs.
       (9) The Comptroller General of the United States has stated 
     that the President's medicare proposal does not constitute 
     reform of the program and ``is likely to create a public 
     misperception that something meaningful is being done to 
     reform the medicare program''.
       (10) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 enacted changes to the 
     medicare program which strengthen and extend the solvency of 
     that program.
       (11) The Congressional Budget Office has stated that 
     without the changes made to the medicare program by the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the depletion of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would now be imminent.
       (12) The President's budget proposes to cut medicare 
     program spending by $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, primarily 
     through reductions in payments to providers under that 
     program.
       (13) The recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
     Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
     of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (14) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new 
     prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries 
     within a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the 
     medicare program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by

[[Page 7388]]

     raising taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the 
     public.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions contained in this budget resolution 
     assume the following:
       (1) This resolution does not adopt the President's 
     proposals to reduce medicare program spending by 
     $19,400,000,000 over 10 years, nor does this resolution adopt 
     the President's proposal to spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare 
     program funds on unrelated programs.
       (2) Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or 
     borrowing more from the public.
       (3) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend 
     the solvency of the medicare program and to ensure that 
     benefits under that program will be available to 
     beneficiaries in the future.
       (4) The American public will be well and fairly served in 
     this undertaking if the medicare program reform proposals are 
     considered within a framework that is based on the following 
     5 key principles offered in testimony to the Senate Committee 
     on Finance by the Comptroller General of the United States:
       (A) Affordability.
       (B) Equity.
       (C) Adequacy.
       (D) Feasibility.
       (E) Public acceptance.
       (5) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman 
     Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for the 
     neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially 
     improves the solvency of the medicare program without 
     transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new 
     IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public.
       (6) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen of the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (7) Congress should continue to work with the President as 
     he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the 
     medicare program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7389]]

       (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 needs comprehensive 
     reform; and
       (2) Congress should move expeditiously to consider 
     comprehensive proposals to reform the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING AUTISM.

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

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

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

     SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LIHEAP.

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) domestic firewalls greatly limit funding flexibility as 
     Congress manages budget priorities in a fiscally constrained 
     budget;
       (2) domestic firewalls inhibit congressional oversight of 
     programs and organizations under such protections;
       (3) domestic firewalls mask mandatory spending under the 
     guise of discretionary spending, thereby presenting a 
     distorted picture of overall discretionary spending;
       (4) domestic firewalls impede the ability of Congress to 
     react to changing circumstances or to fund other equally 
     important programs;
       (5) the Congress implemented ``domestic discretionary 
     budget firewalls'' for approximately 70 percent of function 
     400 spending in the One Hundred Fifth Congress;
       (6) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating in the 
     House of Representatives were

[[Page 7390]]

     to be enacted, firewalled spending would exceed 100 percent 
     of total function 400 spending called for under this 
     resolution; and
       (7) if the aviation firewall proposal circulating in the 
     House of Representatives were to be enacted, drug 
     interdiction activities by the Coast Guard, National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration activities, rail safety 
     inspections, Federal support for Amtrak, all National 
     Transportation Safety Board activities, Pipeline and 
     Hazardous materials safety programs, and Coast Guard search 
     and rescue activities would be drastically cut or eliminated.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that no additional 
     firewalls should be enacted for function 400 transportation 
     activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 337. HONEST REPORTING OF THE DEFICIT.

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

[[Page 7391]]

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

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

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

     SEC. 340. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS 
                   RESOLUTION ASSUME THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AS SOON AS IS 
                   TECHNOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE AN EDUCATION FOR EVERY 
                   AMERICAN CHILD THAT WILL ENABLE EACH CHILD TO 
                   EFFECTIVELY MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THE TWENTY-
                   FIRST CENTURY.

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

     SEC. 341. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING EXEMPTION OF 
                   AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS, 
                   MEDICINES, AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS FROM UNILATERAL 
                   ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) every analysis of national recreation issues in the 
     last 3 decades has identified the importance of close-to-home 
     recreation opportunities,

[[Page 7392]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) as national crime rates are beginning to fall as a 
     result of State and local efforts, with Federal support, it 
     is important for the Federal Government to continue its 
     support for State and local law enforcement;
       (2) Federal support is crucial to the provision of critical 
     crime fighting programs;
       (3) Federal support is also essential to the provision of 
     critical crime fighting services and the effective 
     administration of justice in the States, such as State and 
     local crime laboratories and medical examiners' offices;
       (4) current needs exceed the capacity of State and local 
     crime laboratories to process their forensic examinations, 
     resulting in tremendous backlogs that prevent the swift 
     administration of justice and impede fundamental individual 
     rights, such as the right to a speedy trial and to 
     exculpatory evidence;
       (5) last year, Congress passed the Crime Identification 
     Technology Act of 1998, which authorizes $250,000,000 each 
     year for 5 years to assist State and local law enforcement 
     agencies in developing and integrating their anticrime 
     technology systems, and in upgrading their forensic 
     laboratories and information and communications 
     infrastructures upon which these crime fighting systems rely; 
     and
       (6) the Federal Government must continue efforts to 
     significantly reduce crime by maintaining Federal funding for 
     State and local law enforcement, and wisely targeting these 
     resources.

[[Page 7393]]

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) the amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 to 
     assist State and local law enforcement efforts should be 
     comparable to or greater than amounts made available for that 
     purpose for fiscal year 1999;
       (2) the amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 for 
     crime technology programs should be used to further the 
     purposes of the program under section 102 of the Crime 
     Identification Technology Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601); and
       (3) Congress should consider legislation that specifically 
     addresses the backlogs in State and local crime laboratories 
     and medical examiners' offices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Federal Tobacco Recovery and Medicare Prescription Drug 
     Benefit Resolution of 1999''.
       (b) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The President, in his January 19, 1999 State of the 
     Union address--
       (A) announced that the Department of Justice would develop 
     a litigation plan for the Federal Government against the 
     tobacco industry;
       (B) indicated that any funds recovered through such 
     litigation would be used to strengthen the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.); and
       (C) urged Congress to pass legislation to include a 
     prescription drug benefit in the medicare program.
       (2) The traditional medicare program does not include most 
     outpatient prescription drugs as part of its benefit package.
       (3) Prescription drugs are a central element in improving 
     quality of life and in routine health maintenance.
       (4) Prescription drugs are a key component to early health 
     care intervention strategies for the elderly.

[[Page 7394]]

       (5) Eighty percent of retired individuals take at least 1 
     prescription drug every day.
       (6) Individuals 65 years of age or older represent 12 
     percent of the population of the United States but consume 
     more than \1/3\ of all prescription drugs consumed in the 
     United States.
       (7) Exclusive of health care-related premiums, prescription 
     drugs account for almost \1/3\ of the health care costs and 
     expenditures of elderly individuals.
       (8) Approximately 10 percent of all medicare beneficiaries 
     account for nearly 50 percent of all prescription drug 
     spending by the elderly.
       (9) Research and development on new generations of 
     pharmaceuticals represent new opportunities for healthier, 
     longer lives for our Nation's elderly.
       (10) Prescription drugs are among the key tools in every 
     health care professional's medical arsenal to help combat and 
     prevent the onset, recurrence, or debilitating effects of 
     illness and disease.
       (11) While possible Federal litigation against tobacco 
     companies will take time to develop, Congress should continue 
     to work to address the immediate need among the elderly for 
     access to affordable prescription drugs.
       (12) Treatment of tobacco-related illness is estimated to 
     cost the medicare program approximately $10,000,000,000 every 
     year.
       (13) In 1998, 50 States reached a settlement with the 
     tobacco industry for tobacco-related illness in the amount of 
     $206,000,000,000.
       (14) Recoveries from possible Federal tobacco-related 
     litigation, if successful, will likely be comparable to or 
     exceed the dollar amount recovered by the States under the 
     1998 settlement.
       (15) In the event Federal tobacco-related litigation is 
     valid, undertaken and is successful, funds recovered under 
     such litigation should first be used for the purpose of 
     strengthening the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and 
     second to finance a medicare prescription drug benefit.
       (16) The scope of any medicare prescription drug benefit 
     should be as comprehensive as possible, with drugs used in 
     fighting tobacco-related illnesses given a first priority.
       (17) Most Americans want the medicare program to cover the 
     costs of prescription drugs.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that funds recovered under any tobacco-
     related litigation commenced by the Federal Government should 
     be used first for the purpose of strengthening the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and second to fund a medicare 
     prescription drug benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The General Accounting Office has performed a 
     comprehensive survey of the Nation's public elementary and 
     secondary school facilities and has found severe levels of 
     disrepair in all areas of the United States.
       (2) The General Accounting Office has concluded that more 
     than 14,000,000 children attend schools in need of extensive 
     repair or replacement; 7,000,000 children attend schools with 
     life safety code violations; and 12,000,000 children attend 
     schools with leaky roofs.
       (3) The General Accounting Office has found that the 
     problem of crumbling schools transcends demographic and 
     geographic boundaries. At 38 percent of urban schools, 30 
     percent of rural schools, and 29 percent of suburban schools, 
     at least 1 building is in need of extensive repair or should 
     be completely replaced.
       (4) The condition of school facilities has a direct effect 
     on the safety of students and teachers and on the ability of 
     students to learn. Academic research has provided a direct 
     correlation between the condition of school facilities and 
     student achievement. At Georgetown University, researchers 
     have found the test scores of students assigned to schools in 
     poor condition can be expected to fall 10.9 percentage points 
     below the test scores of students in buildings in excellent 
     condition. Similar studies have demonstrated up to a 20 
     percent improvement in test scores when students were moved 
     from a poor facility to a new facility.
       (5) The General Accounting Office has found most schools 
     are not prepared to incorporate modern technology in the 
     classroom. 46 percent of schools lack adequate electrical 
     wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. More than 
     a third of schools lack the requisite electrical power. 56 
     percent of schools have insufficient phone lines for modems.
       (6) The Department of Education has reported that 
     elementary and secondary school enrollment, already at a 
     record high level, will continue to grow over the next 10 
     years, and that in order to accommodate this growth, the 
     United States will need to build an additional 6,000 schools.
       (7) The General Accounting Office has determined that the 
     cost of bringing schools up to good, overall condition to be 
     $112,000,000,000, not including the cost of modernizing 
     schools to accommodate technology, or the cost of building 
     additional facilities needed to meet record enrollment 
     levels.
       (8) Schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for 
     Native American children are also in dire need of repair and 
     renovation. The General Accounting Office has reported that 
     the cost of total inventory repairs needed for BIA facilities 
     is $754,000,000. The December 1997 report by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States states that, ``Compared with 
     other schools nationally, BIA schools are generally in poorer 
     physical condition, have more unsatisfactory environmental 
     factors, more often lack key facilities requirements for 
     education reform,

[[Page 7395]]

     and are less able to support computer and communications 
     technology.
       (9) State and local financing mechanisms have proven 
     inadequate to meet the challenges facing today's aging school 
     facilities. Large numbers of local educational agencies have 
     difficulties securing financing for school facility 
     improvement.
       (10) The Federal Government has provided resources for 
     school construction in the past. For example, between 1933 
     and 1939, the Federal Government assisted in 70 percent of 
     all new school construction.
       (11) The Federal Government can support elementary and 
     secondary school facilities without interfering in issues of 
     local control, and should help communities leverage 
     additional funds for the improvement of elementary and 
     secondary school facilities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budgetary levels in this budget resolution assume 
     that Congress will enact measures to assist school districts 
     in modernizing their facilities, including--
       (1) legislation to allow States and school districts to 
     issue at least $24,800,000,000 worth of zero-interest bonds 
     to rebuild and modernize our Nation's schools, and to provide 
     Federal income tax credits to the purchasers of those bonds 
     in lieu of interest payments; and
       (2) appropriate funding for the Education Infrastructure 
     Act of 1994 during the period 2000 through 2004, which would 
     provide grants to local school districts for the repair, 
     renovation and construction of public school facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          ____________________