```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 178 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                          May 23, 1996.
      Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives 
(H. Con. Res. 178) entitled ``Concurrent resolution establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for the fiscal 
years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.'', 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 1997.

    (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that this 
resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
1997, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998, 
1999, 2000, and 2001, as required by section 301 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, and including the appropriate levels for fiscal 
year 2002.
    (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 1997.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Debt increase.
Sec. 103. Social Security.
Sec. 104. Major functional categories.
Sec. 105. Reconciliation.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 202. Tax reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 203. Superfund reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 204. Scoring of emergency legislation.
Sec. 205. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

 TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of the Congress on sale of Government assets.
Sec. 302. Sense of the Congress that tax reductions should benefit 
                            working families.
Sec. 303. Sense of the Congress on a Bipartisan Commission on the 
                            Solvency of Medicare.
Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate on considering a change in the minimum 
                            wage in the Senate.
Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate on long term projections in budget 
                            estimates.
Sec. 306. Sense of the Congress on medicare transfers.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate on repeal of the gas tax.
Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on medicare trustees report.
Sec. 309. Sense of the Congress regarding changes in the medicare 
                            program.
Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on funding to assist youth at risk.
Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate regarding the use of budgetary savings.
Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate regarding the transfer of excess 
                            Government computers to public schools.
Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on Federal retreats.
Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate regarding the essential air service 
                            program of the Department of 
                            Transportation.
Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate regarding equal retirement savings for 
                            homemakers.
Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Institute of Drug 
                            Abuse.
Sec. 317. Sense of the Senate regarding the extension of the employer 
                            education assistance exclusion under 
                            section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
                            1986.
Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate regarding the Economic Development 
                            Administration placing high priority on 
                            maintaining field-based economic 
                            development representatives.
Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate regarding revenue assumptions.
Sec. 320. Sense of the Senate regarding domestic violence.
Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate regarding student loans.
Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate regarding reduction of the national debt.
Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate regarding hungry or homeless children.
Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate on LIHEAP.
Sec. 325. Sense of the Congress regarding additional charges under the 
                            medicare program.
Sec. 326. Sense of the Congress regarding nursing home standards.
Sec. 327. Sense of the Congress concerning nursing home care.
Sec. 328. Sense of the Congress regarding requirements that welfare 
                            recipients be drug-free.
Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate on Davis-Bacon.
Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate on Davis-Bacon.
Sec. 331. Sense of Congress on reimbursement of the United States for 
                            Operations Southern Watch and Provide 
                            Comfort.
Sec. 332. Accurate index for inflation.
Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate on solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.
Sec. 334. Sense of the Congress that the 1993 income tax increase on 
                            social security benefits should be 
                            repealed.
Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate regarding the Administration's practice 
                            regarding the prosecution of drug 
                            smugglers.
Sec. 336. Corporate subsidies and sale of Government assets.
Sec. 337. Sense of the Senate on the Presidential Election Campaign 
                            Fund.
Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate regarding welfare reform.
Sec. 339. A resolution regarding the Senate's support for Federal, 
                            State, and local law enforcement.
Sec. 340. Sense of the Senate regarding the funding of Amtrak.
Sec. 341. Sense of the Senate--Truth in Budgeting.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

    The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal years 
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
            (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
        this resolution--
                    (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are 
                as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: $1,086,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $1,129,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $1,176,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,229,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,289,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,359,100,000,000.
                    (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of 
                Federal revenues should be changed are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: -$14,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: -$18,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: -$22,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: -$21,900,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: -$21,500,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: -$14,800,000,000.
                    (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions 
                Act revenues for hospital insurance within the 
                recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: $108,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $113,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $119,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $125,500,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $131,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $137,700,000,000.
            (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 1997: $1,323,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $1,361,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $1,392,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,433,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,454,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,499,100,000,000.
            (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
        this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays 
        are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: $1,318,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $1,353,500,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $1,382,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $1,415,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $1,433,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $1,467,400,000,000.
            (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
        resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: $232,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $223,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $206,300,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $185,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $143,500,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $108,300,000,000.
            (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
        are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: $5,449,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $5,722,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $5,975,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $6,207,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $6,398,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $6,550,500,000,000.
            (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
        total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: $41,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $36,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $36,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $36,500,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $36,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $36,600,000,000.
            (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
        levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
        follows:
                    Fiscal year 1997: $267,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1998: $267,800,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 1999: $268,600,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2000: $269,700,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2001: $270,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2002: $271,300,000,000.

SEC. 102. DEBT INCREASE.

    The amounts of the increase in the public debt subject to 
limitation are as follows:
            Fiscal year 1997: $290,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998: $277,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999: $256,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000: $236,100,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001: $193,300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002: $155,400,000,000.

SEC. 103. SOCIAL SECURITY.

    (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate enforcement 
under sections 302, 602, 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 1997: $384,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998: $401,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999: $422,800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000: $444,200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001: $463,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002: $485,700,000,000.
    (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate enforcement 
under sections 302, 602, 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 1997: $310,400,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998: $323,000,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999: $335,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000: $349,300,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001: $363,900,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002: $378,800,000,000.

SEC. 104. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

    The 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 1997 through 
2002 for each major functional category are:
    (1) National Defense (050):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $265,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $263,700,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $800,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $267,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $262,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $200,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $269,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $265,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $192,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $271,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $268,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $187,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $274,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $267,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $185,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $276,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $267,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $183,000,000.
    (2) International Affairs (150):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,333,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $18,110,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,342,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $18,262,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,358,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $18,311,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,346,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $18,311,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,395,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $18,409,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,387,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $18,409,000,000.
    (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (4) Energy (270):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $3,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,033,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $2,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,039,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $2,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,045,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $1,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,036,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $2,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $1,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,031,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $20,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $21,500,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $37,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $20,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $20,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $19,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (6) Agriculture (350):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,794,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $5,870,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,346,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $6,637,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,743,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $6,586,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,736,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $6,652,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,595,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $6,641,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,570,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $6,709,000,000.
    (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$2,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,856,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $197,340,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $5,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,787,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $196,750,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,763,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $196,253,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $7,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,759,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $195,883,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,745,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $195,375,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,740,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $194,875,000,000.
    (8) Transportation (400):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $42,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $37,000,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $43,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $35,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $34,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $33,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,222,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $2,133,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $9,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,242,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $2,133,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $8,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,265,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $2,171,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $7,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,288,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $2,171,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $7,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,317,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $2,202,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,343,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $2,202,000,000.
    (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $51,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $51,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $15,469,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $49,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $48,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,040,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $14,760,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $50,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $49,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,781,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $13,854,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $51,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $50,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,884,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $14,589,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $50,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $23,978,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $15,319,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $52,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $25,127,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $16,085,000,000.
    (11) Health (550):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $131,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $132,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $187,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $137,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $137,800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $94,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $144,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $144,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $152,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $152,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $160,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $159,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $167,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $166,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (12) Medicare (570):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $193,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $191,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $205,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $204,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $216,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $214,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $227,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $225,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $239,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $237,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $253,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $251,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (13) Income Security (600):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $232,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $240,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $241,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $245,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $246,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $253,000,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $264,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $264,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $264,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $268,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $282,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $281,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (14) Social Security (650):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $12,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $39,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $39,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $935,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $26,362,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $962,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $25,925,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $38,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $987,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $25,426,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $38,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $40,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,021,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $24,883,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $38,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $37,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,189,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $24,298,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $39,000,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,194,000,000.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
                $23,668,000,000.
    (16) Administration of Justice (750):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
        Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
        Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (17) General Government (800):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (18) Net Interest (900):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, $282,800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $282,800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, $289,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $289,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, $293,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $293,200,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, $294,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $294,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, $298,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $298,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, $303,400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $303,400,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (19) The corresponding levels of gross interest on the public debt 
are as follows:
            Fiscal year 1997: $348,234,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1998: $351,240,000,000.
            Fiscal year 1999: $348,465,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2000: $349,951,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2001: $351,311,000,000.
            Fiscal year 2002: $352,756,000,000.
    (20) Allowances (920):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$1,600,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$400,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$300,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$1,200,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$3,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$3,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
    (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
            Fiscal year 1997:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$43,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$43,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1998:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$35,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$35,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 1999:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$34,900,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$34,900,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2000:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$36,700,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$36,700,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2001:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$38,500,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$38,500,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
            Fiscal year 2002:
                    (A) New budget authority, -$40,100,000,000.
                    (B) Outlays, -$40,100,000,000.
                    (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
                    (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION.

    (a) First Reconciliation of Spending Reductions.--
            (1) Senate committees.--Not later than June 14, 1996, the 
        committees named in this subsection shall submit their 
        recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 
        After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the 
        Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill 
        carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
        revision.
                    (A) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and 
                forestry.--The Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
                Nutrition, and Forestry shall report changes in laws 
                within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
                (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget 
                and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
                outlays $1,994,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 
                $29,376,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
                through 2002.
                    (B) Committee on finance.--The Senate Committee on 
                Finance shall report changes in laws within its 
                jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined 
                in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and 
                Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
                outlays $95,402,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
                1997 through 2002.
    (b) Final Reconciliation of Spending Reductions.--
            (1) Senate committees.--If legislation is enacted pursuant 
        to subsection (a), then no later than July 12, 1996, the 
        committees named in this subsection shall submit their 
        recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 
        After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the 
        Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill 
        carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
        revision.
                    (A) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and 
                forestry.--The Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
                Nutrition, and Forestry shall report changes in laws 
                within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
                (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget 
                and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
                outlays $86,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 
                $251,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
                through 2002.
                    (B) Committee on armed services.--The Senate 
                Committee on Armed Services shall report changes in 
                laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
                spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the 
                Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
                1985) to reduce outlays $79,000,000,000 in fiscal year 
                1997 and $649,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
                years 1997 through 2002.
                    (C) Committee on banking, housing, and urban 
                affairs.--The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
                Urban Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
                jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined 
                in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and 
                Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
                outlays $3,628,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 
                $3,605,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
                through 2002.
                    (D) Committee on commerce, science, and 
                transportation.--The Senate Committee on Commerce, 
                Science, and Transportation shall report changes in 
                laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
                spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the 
                Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
                1985) to reduce outlays $0 in fiscal year 1997 and 
                $19,396,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
                through 2002.
                    (E) Committee on energy and natural resources.--The 
                Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall 
                report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
                provide direct spending (as defined in section 
                250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
                Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $84,000,000 in 
                fiscal year 1997 and $1,433,000,000 for the period of 
                fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
                    (F) Committee on environment and public works.--The 
                Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works shall 
                report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
                provide direct spending (as defined in section 
                250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
                Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $87,000,000 in 
                fiscal year 1997 and $2,212,000,000 for the period of 
                fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
                    (G) Committee on Finance.--The Senate Committee on 
                Finance shall report changes in laws within its 
                jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined 
                in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and 
                Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
                outlays $6,716,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 
                $169,707,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
                through 2002.
                    (H) Committee on governmental affairs.--The Senate 
                Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes 
                in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit 
                $955,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $8,789,000,000 for 
                the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
                    (I) Committee on the judiciary.--The Senate 
                Committee on the Judiciary shall report changes in laws 
                within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
                (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget 
                and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
                outlays $0 in fiscal year 1997 and $476,000,000 for the 
                period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
                    (J) Committee on labor and human resources.--The 
                Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources shall 
                report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
                provide direct spending (as defined in section 
                250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
                Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $725,000,000 in 
                fiscal year 1997 and $3,097,000,000 for the period of 
                fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
                    (K) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Senate 
                Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in 
                laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
                spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the 
                Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
                1985) to reduce outlays $175,000,000 in fiscal year 
                1997 and $5,198,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
                1997 through 2002.
    (c) Reconciliation of Revenue Reductions.--
            (1) Senate committee.--If the legislation is enacted 
        pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), then no later than 
        September 18, 1996, the Committee on Finance shall report to 
        the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws 
        within its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by not 
        more than $15,359,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 
        $116,104,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 
        2002 and reduce outlays $1,692,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 
        $11,524,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 
        2002.
    (d) Treatment of Reconciliation Bills for Prior Surplus.--For 
purposes of section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th 
Congress), legislation which reduces revenues pursuant to a 
reconciliation instruction contained in subsection (c) shall be taken 
together with all other legislation enacted pursuant to the 
reconciliation instructions contained in this resolution when 
determining the deficit effect of such legislation.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

    (a) Definition.--As used in this section and for the purposes of 
allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary category, the 
term ``discretionary spending limit'' means--
            (1) with respect to fiscal year 1997--
                    (A) for the defense category $266,362,000,000 in 
                new budget authority and $264,568,000,000 in outlays; 
                and
                    (B) for the nondefense category $227,845,000,000 in 
                new budget authority and $270,923,000,000 in outlays;
            (2) with respect to fiscal year 1998--
                    (A) for the defense category $267,831,000,000 in 
                new budget authority and $262,962,000,000 in outlays; 
                and
                    (B) for the nondefense category $221,322,000,000 in 
                new budget authority and $258,698,000,000 in outlays;
            (3) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary 
        category $493,221,000,000 in new budget authority and 
        $525,742,000,000 in outlays;
            (4) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary 
        category $500,037,000,000 in new budget authority and 
        $525,071,000,000 in outlays;
            (5) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary 
        category $492,468,000,000 in new budget authority and 
        $517,708,000,000 in outlays; and
            (6) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary 
        category $501,177,000,000 in new budget authority and 
        $515,979,000,000 in outlays;
as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency 
appropriations.
    (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
        shall not be in order in the Senate to consider--
                    (A) a revision of this resolution or any concurrent 
                resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998 (or 
                amendment, motion, or conference report on such a 
                resolution) that provides discretionary spending in 
                excess of the sum of the defense and nondefense 
                discretionary spending limits for such fiscal year;
                    (B) any concurrent resolution on the budget for 
                fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, 
                motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that 
                provides discretionary spending in excess of the 
                discretionary spending limit for such fiscal year; or
                    (C) any appropriations bill or resolution (or 
                amendment, motion, or conference report on such 
                appropriations bill or resolution) for fiscal year 
                1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 that would exceed 
                any of the discretionary spending limits in this 
                section or suballocations of those limits made pursuant 
                to section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
                1974.
            (2) Exception.--
                    (A) In general.--This section shall not apply if a 
                declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a 
                joint resolution pursuant to section 258 of the 
                Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
                1985 has been enacted.
                    (B) Enforcement of discretionary limits in fy 
                1997.--Until the enactment of reconciliation 
                legislation pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of 
                section 105 of this resolution and for purposes of the 
                application of paragraph (1), only subparagraph (C) of 
                paragraph (1) shall apply to fiscal year 1997.
    (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate 
only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 
chosen and sworn.
    (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the Chair 
relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to 1 hour, 
to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the 
manager of the concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the 
case may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the 
Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to 
sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised 
under this section.
    (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this section, 
the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new entitlement authority, 
and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of 
estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

SEC. 202. TAX RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

    (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending aggregates may 
be reduced and allocations may be revised for legislation that reduces 
revenues by providing family tax relief, fuel tax relief, and 
incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic 
growth if such legislation will not increase the deficit for--
            (1) fiscal year 1997;
            (2) the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2001; or
            (3) the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
    (b) Revised Allocations.--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 sections 302(a) and 602(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 committee shall 
report appropriately revised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) 
and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 
section.

SEC. 203. SUPERFUND RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

    (a) In General.--After the enactment of legislation that reforms 
the Superfund program and extends Superfund taxes, in the Senate, 
budget authority and outlays allocated to the Committee on 
Appropriations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate functional levels, the appropriate 
budget aggregates, and the discretionary spending limits in section 201 
of this resolution may be revised to provide additional budget 
authority and the outlays flowing from that budget authority for the 
Superfund program, pursuant to this section.
    (b) Deficit Neutral Adjustments.--
            (1) Allocations.--
                    (A) Committee allocations.--In the Senate, upon 
                reporting of an appropriations measure, or when a 
                conference committee submits a conference report 
                thereon, that appropriates funds for the Superfund 
                program in excess of $1,302,000,000, the chairman of 
                the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may submit 
                revised allocations, functional levels, budget 
                aggregates, and discretionary spending limits to carry 
                out this section that adds to such allocations, levels, 
                aggregates, and limits an amount that is equal to such 
                excess. These revised allocations, levels, aggregates, 
                and limits shall be considered for the purposes of the 
                Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations, 
                levels, aggregates, and limits contained in this 
                resolution.
                    (B) Committee suballocations.--The Committee on 
                Appropriations of the Senate may report appropriately 
                revised suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) 
                and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
                following the revision of the allocations pursuant to 
                subparagraph (A).
            (2) Limitations.--The adjustments under this subsection 
        shall not exceed--
                    (A) the net revenue increase for a fiscal year 
                resulting from the enactment of legislation that 
                extends Superfund taxes; and
                    (B) $898,000,000 in budget authority for a fiscal 
                year and the outlays flowing from such budget authority 
                in all fiscal years.

SEC. 204. SCORING OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

    Notwithstanding section 606(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the determinations under sections 302, 303, 311, and 602 of 
such Act shall take into account any new budget authority, new 
entitlement authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit effects as a 
consequence of the provisions of sections 251(b)(2)(D) and 252(e) of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 205. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

 TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND SENATE

SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

    (a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the prohibition on scoring asset sales has discouraged 
        the sale of assets that can be better managed by the private 
        sector and generate receipts to reduce the Federal budget 
        deficit;
            (2) the President's fiscal year 1997 budget included 
        $3,900,000,000 in receipts from asset sales and proposed a 
        change in the asset sale scoring rule to allow the proceeds 
        from these sales to be scored;
            (3) assets should not be sold if such sale would increase 
        the budget deficit over the long run; and
            (4) the asset sale scoring prohibition should be repealed 
        and consideration should be given to replacing it with a 
        methodology that takes into account the long-term budgetary 
        impact of asset sales.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term ``sale of 
an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under section 250(c)(21) of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT TAX REDUCTIONS SHOULD BENEFIT 
              WORKING FAMILIES.

    It is the sense of the Congress 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. 303. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON THE 
              SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the Trustees of medicare have concluded that ``the 
        medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present 
        form'';
            (2) the Trustees of medicare concluded in 1995 that ``the 
        Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays inpatient hospital 
        expenses, will be able to pay benefits for only about 7 years 
        and is severely out of financial balance in the long range'';
            (3) preliminary data made available to the Congress 
        indicate that the Hospital Trust Fund will go bankrupt in the 
        year 2001, rather than the year 2002, as predicted last year;
            (4) the Public Trustees of medicare have concluded that 
        ``the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund shows a rate 
        of growth of costs which is clearly unsustainable'';
            (5) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform 
        concluded that, absent long-term changes in medicare, projected 
        medicare outlays will increase from about 4 percent of the 
        payroll tax base today to over 15 percent of the payroll tax 
        base by the year 2030;
            (6) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform 
        recommended, by a vote of 30 to 1, that spending and revenues 
        available for medicare must be brought into long-term balance; 
        and
            (7) in the most recent Trustees' report, the Public 
        Trustees of medicare ``strongly recommend that the crisis 
        presented by the financial condition of the medicare trust 
        funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis, including 
        a review of the program's financing methods, benefit 
        provisions, and delivery mechanisms.''.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that in 
order to meet the aggregates and levels in this budget resolution--
            (1) a special bipartisan commission should be established 
        immediately to make recommendations concerning the most 
        appropriate response to the short-term solvency and long-term 
        sustainability issues facing the medicare program; and
            (2) the commission should report to Congress its 
        recommendations prior to the adoption of a concurrent budget 
        resolution for fiscal year 1998 in order that the committees of 
        jurisdiction may consider these recommendations in fashioning 
        an appropriate congressional response.

SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CONSIDERING A CHANGE IN THE MINIMUM 
              WAGE IN THE SENATE.

    It is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) proposals to increase the minimum wage have important 
        economic and budgetary consequences, as there are about 
        3,600,000 workers at or below the minimum wage under current 
        law, according to the Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'');
            (2) S. 413, a bill to increase the minimum wage, would 
        increase costs for State and local governments by 
        $1,030,000,000 over the period 1996 to 2000, according to the 
        CBO, and would, therefore, violate section 425(a)(2) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 regarding unfunded 
        intergovernmental mandates;
            (3) S. 413 would increase costs for the private sector by 
        $12,300,000,000 over the period 1996 to 2000 and would reduce 
        jobs by between 100,000 and 500,000, according to the CBO;
            (4) increasing the minimum wage would have significant 
        interactions with other Federal spending and tax programs, 
        including welfare programs and the earned income credit;
            (5) States have the authority to increase the minimum wage 
        in their States, and, as of February 1996, 10 States, plus 
        Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., had minimum wages above the 
        Federal minimum wage;
            (6) although raising the minimum wage will increase incomes 
        for some workers, it is a poorly targeted approach to helping 
        poor and low-income families because--
                    (A) it will eliminate jobs for some minimum- and 
                low-wage workers;
                    (B) 85 percent of workers in poor families are paid 
                more than the minimum wage, and nearly 60 percent are 
                paid more than $5.25 per hour, according to the CBO;
                    (C) most minimum wage workers are not poor, with 
                some 70 percent in households with incomes above 150 
                percent of the poverty line, according to the CBO; and
                    (D) most minimum wage workers do not stay at the 
                minimum wage very long, with two-thirds getting a pay 
                raise within the first year, according to the CBO;
            (7) the best approach to increasing wages and incomes for 
        working families is to promote policies that enhance economic 
        growth and job creation, such as increasing net national 
        savings and investment by balancing the Federal budget and 
        promoting private savings and investment through fundamental 
        tax reform;
            (8) legislation to change the minimum wage should be 
        considered in the Senate in an orderly manner as part of the 
        regular consideration of matters related to the budget and the 
        economy and not as an unscheduled amendment to unrelated 
        legislation;
            (9) there are important issues which should be considered 
        in the same legislation and in conjunction with proposals to 
        raise the minimum wage, such as allowing for improvements in 
        the workplace by enabling cooperative efforts between labor and 
        management as provided for in S. 295, the Team Work for 
        Employees and Management Act of 1995, and maintaining a 
        training wage to minimize job loss for new entrants into the 
        job market; and
            (10) the Senate should schedule consideration of 
        legislation that addresses in the same bill, as a single 
        proposal, the minimum wage and the provisions of S. 295 no 
        later than the month of June 1996.

SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG-TERM PROJECTIONS IN BUDGET 
              ESTIMATES.

    It is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the report accompanying a concurrent resolution on the 
        budget should include an analysis, prepared after consultation 
        with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, of the 
        concurrent resolution's impact on revenues and outlays for 
        entitlements for the period of 30 fiscal years; and
            (2) the President should include in his budget each year, 
        an analysis of the budget's impact on revenues and outlays for 
        entitlements for the period of 30 fiscal years, and that the 
        President should also include generational accounting 
        information each year in the President's budget.

SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON MEDICARE TRANSFERS.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
            (1) home health care provides a broad spectrum of health 
        and social services to approximately 3,500,000 medicare 
        beneficiaries in the comfort of their homes;
            (2) the President has proposed reimbursing the first 100 
        home health care visits after a hospital stay through medicare 
        part A and reimbursing all other visits through medicare part 
        B, shifting responsibility for $55,000,000,000 of spending from 
        the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to the general revenues that 
        pay for medicare part B;
            (3) such a transfer does nothing to control medicare 
        spending, and is merely a bookkeeping change which artificially 
        extends the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
            (4) this transfer of funds camouflages the need to make 
        changes in the medicare program to ensure the long-term 
        solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which the 
        Congressional Budget Office now states will become bankrupt in 
        the year 2001, a year earlier than projected in the 1995 report 
        by the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust 
        Funds;
            (5) Congress will be breaking a commitment to the American 
        people if it does not act to ensure the solvency of the entire 
        medicare program in both the short- and long-term;
            (6) the President's proposal would force those in need of 
        chronic care services to rely upon the availability of general 
        revenues to provide financing for these services, making them 
        more vulnerable to benefits changes than under current law; and
            (7) according to the National Association of Home Care, 
        shifting medicare home care payments from part A to part B 
        would deemphasize the importance of home care by eliminating 
        its status as part of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, 
        thereby undermining access to the less costly form of care.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that in meeting 
the spending targets specified in the budget resolution, Congress 
should not accept the President's proposal to transfer spending from 
one part of medicare to another in its efforts to preserve, protect, 
and improve the medicare program.

SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REPEAL OF THE GAS TAX.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the President originally proposed a $72,000,000,000 
        energy excise tax (the so-called BTU tax) as part of the 
        Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) which 
        included a new tax on transportation fuels;
            (2) in response to opposition in the Senate to the BTU tax, 
        the President and the Congress adopted instead a new 4.3 cents 
        per gallon transportation fuels tax as part of OBRA 93, which 
        represented a 30 percent increase in the existing motor fuels 
        tax;
            (3) the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax has cost American 
        motorists an estimated $14,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000 since 
        it went into effect on October 1, 1993;
            (4) the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax is regressive, 
        creating a larger financial impact on lower and middle income 
        motorists than on upper income motorists;
            (5) the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax imposes a 
        disproportionate burden on rural citizens who do not have 
        access to public transportation services, and who must rely on 
        their automobiles and drive long distances, to work, to shop, 
        and to receive medical care;
            (6) the average American faces a substantial tax burden, 
        and the increase of this tax burden through the OBRA 93 
        transportation fuels tax represented and continues to represent 
        an inappropriate and unwarranted means of reducing the Nation's 
        budget deficit;
            (7) retail gasoline prices in the United States have 
        increased an average of 19 cents per gallon since the beginning 
        of the year to the highest level since the Persian Gulf War, 
        and the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax exacerbates the impact 
        of this price increase on consumers;
            (8) continuation of the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax 
        will exacerbate the impact on consumers of any future gasoline 
        price spikes that result from market conditions; and
            (9) the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution will assume a 
        net tax cut totaling $122,000,000,000 over six years, which 
        exceeds the revenue impact of a repeal of the OBRA 93 
        transportation fuels tax, and will establish a reserve fund 
        which may be used to provide other forms of tax relief, 
        including relief from the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax, on 
        a deficit neutral basis.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
revenue levels and procedures in this resolution provide that--
            (1) the Congress and the President should immediately 
        approve legislation to repeal the 4.3 cents per gallon 
        transportation fuels tax contained in the Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1993 through the end of 1996;
            (2) the Congress and the President should approve, through 
        the fiscal year 1997 budget process, legislation to permanently 
        repeal the 4.3 cents per gallon transportation fuels tax 
        contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; and
            (3) the savings generated by the repeal of the 4.3 cents 
        per gallon transportation fuels tax contained in OBRA 93 should 
        be fully passed on to consumers.

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MEDICARE TRUSTEES REPORT.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the Trustees of the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) 
        Trust Fund serve as fiduciaries for one of the Federal 
        Government's most important programs, and as fiduciaries 
        provide critically important information each year to the 
        Congress and the public on the financial status of the Medicare 
        HI Fund;
            (2) the Trustees are required to issue a report on the 
        financial status of the medicare HI Trust Fund by April 1 of 
        each year;
            (3) the April 1995 Trustees Report stated that the Medicare 
        HI Trust Fund would go bankrupt in the year 2002, but in 1995 
        the Congress and the President could not agree on a plan to 
        extend the solvency of the medicare program;
            (4) in 1996, the Congress and the public require timely 
        information on the full and exact nature of medicare's 
        financial condition in order to understand what actions must be 
        taken to extend the solvency of the of the Medicare HI Trust 
        Fund; and
            (5) despite the April 1 deadline, the 1996 Medicare 
        Trustees Report has not yet been issued, and each day of delay 
        further jeopardizes Congress' ability to respond appropriately 
        to forestall the program's bankruptcy.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
levels in this budget resolution assume that--
            (1) the Medicare Trustees should discharge their fiduciary 
        and statutory responsibilities and issue their 1996 report as 
        soon as possible; and
            (2) in light of the Trustees' delay thus far, the Chief 
        Actuary of the Medicare Trust Fund should share with Congress 
        immediately any preliminary information on the current 
        financial status of the Trust Fund.

SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING CHANGES IN THE MEDICARE 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that, in achieving the spending 
levels specified in this resolution--
            (1) the public trustees of medicare have concluded that 
        ``the medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present 
        form'';
            (2) the President has said his goal is to keep the medicare 
        hospital insurance trust fund solvent for more than a decade, 
        but his budget transfers $55,000,000,000 of home health 
        spending from medicare part A to medicare part B;
            (3) the transfer of home health spending threatens the 
        delivery of home health services to 3.5 million medicare 
        beneficiaries;
            (4) such a transfer increases the burden on general 
        revenues, including income taxes paid by working Americans, by 
        $55,000,000,000;
            (5) such a transfer artificially inflates the solvency of 
        the medicare hospital insurance trust fund, misleading the 
        Congress, medicare beneficiaries, and working taxpayers;
            (6) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has 
        certified that, without such a transfer, the President's budget 
        extends the solvency of the hospital insurance trust fund for 
        only one additional year; and
            (7) without misleading transfers, the President's budget 
        therefore fails to achieve his own stated goal for the medicare 
        hospital insurance trust fund.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that, 
in achieving the spending levels specified in this resolution, the 
Congress assumes that the Congress would--
            (1) keep the medicare hospital insurance trust fund solvent 
        for more than a decade, as recommended by the President; and
            (2) accept the President's proposed level of medicare part 
        B savings of $44,100,000,000 over the period 1997 through 2002; 
        but would
            (3) reject the President's proposal to transfer home health 
        spending from one part of medicare to another, which threatens 
        the delivery of home health care services to 3.5 million 
        medicare beneficiaries, artificially inflates the solvency of 
        the medicare hospital insurance trust fund, and increases the 
        burden on general revenues, including income taxes paid by 
        working Americans, by $55,000,000,000.

SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING TO ASSIST YOUTH AT RISK.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) there is an increasing prevalence of violence and drug 
        use among this country's youth;
            (2) recognizing the magnitude of this problem the Federal 
        Government must continue to maximize efforts in addressing the 
        increasing prevalence of violence and drug use among this 
        country's youth, with necessary adherence to budget guidelines;
            (3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 
        between 1985 and 1994, juvenile arrests for violent crime 
        increased by 75 percent nationwide;
            (4) the United States Attorney General reports that 20 
        years ago, fewer than half our cities reported gang activity 
        and now, a generation later, reasonable estimates indicate that 
        there are more than 500,000 gang members in more than 16,000 
        gangs on the streets of our cities resulting in more than 
        580,000 gang-related crimes in 1993;
            (5) the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and 
        Delinquency Prevention reports that in 1994, law enforcement 
        agencies made over 2,700,000 arrests of persons under age 18, 
        with juveniles accounting for 19 percent of all violent crime 
        arrests across the country;
            (6) the Congressional Task Force on National Drug Policy 
        recently set forth a series of recommendations for 
        strengthening the criminal justice and law enforcement effort, 
        including domestic prevention efforts reinforcing the idea that 
        prevention begins at home;
            (7) the Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that 
        between 1991 and 1995, marijuana use among 8th, 10th, and 12th 
        graders has increased and is continuing to spiral upward; and
            (8) the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention reports that 
        in 1993, substance abuse played a role in over 70 percent of 
        rapes, over 60 percent of incidents of child abuse, and almost 
        60 percent of murders nationwide.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional totals underlying this concurrent resolution on the budget 
assume that--
            (1) sufficient funding should be provided to programs which 
        assist youth at risk to reduce illegal drug use and the 
        incidence of youth crime and violence;
            (2) priority should be given to determine ``what works'' 
        through scientifically recognized, independent evaluations of 
        existing  programs to maximize the Federal investment; and
            (3) efforts should be made to ensure coordination and 
        eliminate duplication among federally supported at-risk youth 
        programs. 

SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF BUDGETARY SAVINGS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) in August of 1994, the Bipartisan Commission on 
        Entitlement and Tax Reform issued an Interim Report to the 
        President, which found that, ``To ensure that today's debt and 
        spending commitments do not unfairly burden America's children, 
        the Government must act now. A bipartisan coalition of 
        Congress, led by the President, must resolve the long-term 
        imbalance between the Government's entitlement promises and the 
        funds it will have available to pay for them'';
            (2) unless the Congress and the President act together in a 
        bipartisan way, overall Federal spending is projected by the 
        Commission to rise from the current level of slightly over 22 
        percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States 
        (hereafter in this section referred as ``GDP'') to over 37 
        percent of GDP by the year 2030;
            (3) the source of that growth is not domestic discretionary 
        spending, which is approximately the same portion of GDP now as 
        it was in 1969, the last time at which the Federal budget was 
        in balance;
            (4) mandatory spending was only 29.6 percent of the Federal 
        budget in 1963, but is estimated to account for 72 percent of 
        the Federal budget in the year 2003;
            (5) social security, medicare and medicaid, together with 
        interest on the national debt, are the largest sources of the 
        growth of mandatory spending;
            (6) ensuring the long-term future of the social security 
        system is essential to protecting the retirement security of 
        the American people;
            (7) the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to begin 
        spending more than it takes in by approximately the year 2013, 
        with Federal budget deficits rising rapidly thereafter unless 
        appropriate policy changes are made;
            (8) ensuring the future of medicare and medicaid is 
        essential to protecting access to high-quality health care for 
        senior citizens and poor women and children;
            (9) Federal health care expenses have been rising at double 
        digit rates, and are projected to triple to 11 percent of GDP 
        by the year 2030 unless appropriate policy changes are made; 
        and
            (10) due to demographic factors, Federal health care 
        expenses are projected to double by the year 2030, even if 
        health care cost inflation is restrained after 1999, so that 
        costs for each person of a given age grow no faster than the 
        economy.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that budget 
savings in the mandatory spending area should be used--
            (1) to protect and enhance the retirement security of the 
        American people by ensuring the long-term future of the social 
        security system;
            (2) to protect and enhance the health care security of 
        senior citizens and poor Americans by ensuring the long-term 
        future of medicare and medicaid; and
            (3) to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline, to 
        ensure that the level of private investment necessary for long-
        term economic growth and prosperity is available.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF EXCESS 
              GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

    (a) Assumptions.--The figures contained in this resolution are 
based on the following assumptions:
            (1) America's children must obtain the necessary skills and 
        tools needed to succeed in the technologically advanced 21st 
        century;
            (2) Executive Order 12999 outlines the need to make modern 
        computer technology an integral part of every classroom, 
        provide teachers with the professional development they need to 
        use new technologies effectively, connect classrooms to the 
        National Information Infrastructure, and encourage the creation 
        of excellent education software;
            (3) many private corporations have donated educational 
        software to schools, which are lacking the necessary computer 
        hardware to utilize this equipment;
            (4) current inventories of excess Federal Government 
        computers are being conducted in each Federal agency; and
            (5) there is no current communication being made between 
        Federal agencies with this excess equipment and the schools in 
        need of these computers.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional totals and reconciliation instructions in this budget 
resolution assume that the General Services Administration should place 
a high priority on facilitating direct transfer of excess Federal 
Government computers to public schools and community-based educational 
organizations.

SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FEDERAL RETREATS.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the 
functional totals in this resolution assume that all Federal agencies 
will refrain from using Federal funds for expenses incurred during 
training sessions or retreats off of Federal property, unless Federal 
property is not available.

SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE 
              PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) the essential air service program of the Department of 
        Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, 
        United States Code--
                    (A) provides essential airline access to isolated 
                rural communities across the United States;
                    (B) is necessary for the economic growth and 
                development of rural communities;
                    (C) connects small rural communities to the 
                national air transportation system of the United 
                States;
                    (D) is a critical component of the national 
                transportation system of the United States; and
                    (E) provides air service to 108 communities in 30 
                States; and
            (2) the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive 
        Airline Industry established under section 204 of the Airport 
        and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal 
        Transportation Act of 1992 recommended maintaining the 
        essential air service program with a sufficient level of 
        funding to continue to provide air service to small 
        communities.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
essential air service program of the Department of Transportation under 
subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, should 
receive a sufficient level of funding to continue to provide air 
service to small rural communities that qualify for assistance under 
the program.

SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EQUAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS FOR 
              HOMEMAKERS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the assumptions of this budget 
resolution take into account that--
            (1) by teaching and feeding our children and caring for our 
        elderly, American homemakers are an important, vital part of 
        our society;
            (2) homemakers retirement needs are the same as all 
        Americans, and thus they need every opportunity to save and 
        invest for retirement;
            (3) because they are living on a single income, homemakers 
        and their spouses often have less income for savings;
            (4) individual retirement accounts are provided by the 
        Congress in the Internal Revenue Code to assist Americans for 
        retirement savings;
            (5) currently, individual retirement accounts permit 
        workers other than homemakers to make deductible contributions 
        of $2,000 a year, but limit homemakers to deductible 
        contributions of $250 a year;
            (6) limiting homemakers individual retirement account 
        contributions to an amount less than the contributions of other 
        workers discriminates against homemakers.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
revenue level assumed in this budget resolution provides for 
legislation to make individual retirement account deductible 
contribution limits for homemakers equal to the individual retirement 
account deductible contribution limits for all other American workers, 
and that the Congress and the President should immediately approve such 
legislation in the appropriate reconciliation vehicle.

SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DRUG 
              ABUSE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) The National Institute on Drug Abuse (hereafter 
        referred to in this section as ``NIDA'') a part of the National 
        Institutes of Health (hereafter referred to in this section as 
        ``NIH'') supports over 85 percent of the world's drug abuse 
        research that has totally revolutionized our understanding of 
        addiction.
            (2) One of NIDA's most significant areas of research has 
        been the identification of the neurobiological bases of all 
        aspects of addiction, including craving.
            (3) In 1993, NIDA announced that approval had been granted 
        by the Food and Drug Administration of a new medication for the 
        treatment of heroin and other opiate addiction which breaks the 
        addict of daily drug-seeking behavior and allows for greater 
        compliance because the patient does not need to report to a 
        clinic each day to have the medication administered.
            (4) Among NIDA's most remarkable accomplishments of the 
        past year is the successful immunization of animals against the 
        psycho-stimulant effects of cocaine.
            (5) NIDA has also recently announced that it is making 
        substantial progress that is critical in directing their 
        efforts to identify potential anti-cocaine medications. For 
        example, NIDA researchers have recently shown that activation 
        in the brain of one type of dopamine receptor suppresses drug-
        seeking behavior and relapse, whereas activation of another, 
        triggers drug-seeking behavior.
            (6) NIDA's efforts to speed up research to stem the tide of 
        drug addition is in the best interest of all Americans.
            (7) State and local governments spend billions of dollars 
        to incarcerate persons who commit drug related offenses.
            (8) A 1992 National Report by the Bureau of Justice 
        Statistics revealed that more than 3 out of 4 jail inmates 
        reported drug use in their lifetime, more than 40 percent had 
        used drugs in the month before their offense with 27 percent 
        under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense. A 
        significant number said they were trying to get money for drugs 
        when they committed their crime.
            (9) More than 60 percent of juveniles and young adults in 
        State-operated juvenile institutions reported using drugs once 
        a week or more for at least a month some time in the past, and 
        almost 40 percent reported being under the influence of drugs 
        at the time of their offense.
            (10) This concurrent resolution proposes that budget 
        authority for the NIH (including NIDA) be held constant at the 
        fiscal year 1996 level of $11,950,000,000 through fiscal year 
        2002.
            (11) At such appropriation level, it would be impossible 
        for NIH and NIDA to maintain research momentum through research 
        project grants.
            (12) Level funding for NIH in fiscal year 1997 would reduce 
        the number of competing research project grants by nearly 500, 
        from 6,620 in fiscal year 1996 to approximately 6,120 competing 
        research project grants, reducing NIH's ability to maintain 
        research momentum and to explore new ideas in research.
            (13) NIH is the world's preeminent research institution 
        dedicated to the support of science inspired by and focused on 
        the challenges of human illness and health.
            (14) NIH programs are instrumental in improving the quality 
        of life for Americans through improving health and reducing 
        monetary and personal costs of illnesses.
            (15) The discovery of an anti-addiction drug to block the 
        craving of illicit addictive substances will benefit all of 
        American society.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
amounts appropriated for the National Institutes of Health--
            (1) for fiscal year 1997 should be increased by a minimum 
        of $33,000,000;
            (2) for fiscal year 1998 should be increased by a minimum 
        of $67,000,000;
            (3) for fiscal year 1999 should be increased by a minimum 
        of $100,000,000;
            (4) for fiscal year 2000 should be increased by a minimum 
        of $100,000,000;
            (5) for fiscal year 2001 should be increased by a minimum 
        of $100,000,000; and
            (6) for fiscal year 2002 should be increased by a minimum 
        of $100,000,000;
above its fiscal year 1996 appropriation for additional research into 
an anti-addiction drug to block the craving of illicit addictive 
substances.

SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF THE EMPLOYER 
              EDUCATION ASSISTANCE EXCLUSION UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE 
              INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) since 1978, over 7,000,000 American workers have 
        benefited from the employer education assistance exclusion 
        under section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by being 
        able to improve their education and acquire new skills without 
        having to pay taxes on the benefit;
            (2) American companies have benefited by improving the 
        education and skills of their employees who in turn can 
        contribute more to their company;
            (3) the American economy becomes more globally competitive 
        because an educated workforce is able to produce more and to 
        adapt more rapidly to changing technologies;
            (4) American companies are experiencing unprecedented 
        global competition and the value and necessity of life-long 
        education for their employees has increased;
            (5) the employer education assistance exclusion was first 
        enacted in 1978;
            (6) the exclusion has been extended 7 previous times;
            (7) the last extension expired December 31, 1994; and
            (8) the exclusion has received broad bipartisan support.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
revenue level assumed in the Budget Resolution accommodate an extension 
of the employer education assistance exclusion under section 127 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from January 1, 1995, through December 
31, 1996.

SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
              ADMINISTRATION PLACING HIGH PRIORITY ON MAINTAINING 
              FIELD-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVES.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
            (1) The Economic Development Administration plays a crucial 
        role in helping economically disadvantaged regions of the 
        United States develop infrastructure that supports and promotes 
        greater economic activity and growth, particularly in nonurban 
        regions.
            (2) The Economic Development Administration helps to 
        promote industrial park development, business incubators, water 
        and sewer system improvements, vocational and technical 
        training facilities, tourism development strategies, technical 
        assistance and capacity building for local governments, 
        economic adjustment strategies, revolving loan funds, and other 
        projects which the private sector has not generated or will not 
        generate without some assistance from the Government through 
        the Economic Development Administration.
            (3) The Economic Development Administration maintains 6 
        regional offices which oversee staff that are designated field-
        based representatives of the Economic Development 
        Administration, and these field-based representatives provide 
        valuable expertise and counseling on economic planning and 
        development to nonurban communities.
            (4) The Economic Development Administration Regional 
        Centers are located in the urban areas of Austin, Seattle, 
        Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
            (5) Because of a 37-percent reduction in approved funding 
        for salaries and expenses from fiscal year 1995, the Economic 
        Development Administration has initiated staff reductions 
        requiring the elimination of 8 field-based positions. The 
        field-based economic development representative positions that 
        are either being eliminated or not replaced after voluntary 
        retirement and which currently interact with nonurban 
        communities on economic development efforts cover the States of 
        New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Illinois, 
        Indiana, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and North Carolina.
            (6) These staff cutbacks will adversely affect States with 
        very low per-capita personal income, including New Mexico which 
        ranks 47th in the Nation in per-capita personal income, 
        Oklahoma ranking 46th, North Dakota ranking 42nd, Arizona 
        ranking 35th, Maine ranking 34th, and North Carolina ranking 
        33rd.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional totals and reconciliations instructions underlying this 
budget resolution assume that--
            (1) it is regrettable that the Economic Development 
        Administration has elected to reduce field-based economic 
        development representatives who are fulfilling the Economic 
        Development Administration's mission of interacting with and 
        counseling nonurban communities in economically disadvantaged 
        regions of the United States;
            (2) the Economic Development Administration should take all 
        necessary and appropriate actions to ensure that field-based 
        economic development representation receives high priority; and
            (3) the Economic Development Administration should 
        reconsider the planned termination of field-based economic 
        development representatives responsible for States that are 
        economically disadvantaged, and that this reconsideration take 
        place without delay.

SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
            (1) Corporations and individuals have clear responsibility 
        to adhere to environmental laws. When they do not, and 
        environmental damage results, the Federal and State governments 
        may impose fines and penalties, and assess polluters for the 
        cost of remediation.
            (2) Assessment of these costs is important in the 
        enforcement process. They appropriately penalize wrongdoing. 
        They discourage future environmental damage. They ensure that 
        taxpayers do not bear the financial brunt of cleaning up after 
        damages done by polluters.
            (3) In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in 
        Prince William Sound, Alaska, for example, the corporate 
        settlement with the Federal Government totaled $900,000,000.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
assumptions in this resolution assume an appropriate amount of revenues 
per year through legislation that will not allow deductions for fines 
and penalties arising from a failure to comply with Federal or State 
environmental or health protection laws.

SEC. 320. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

    The assumptions underlying functional totals and reconciliation 
instructions in this budget resolution include:
            (1) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
                    (A) Violence against women is the leading cause of 
                physical injury to women. The Department of Justice 
                estimates that over 1 million violent crimes against 
                women are committed by domestic partners annually.
                    (B) Domestic violence dramatically affects the 
                victim's ability to participate in the workforce. A 
                University of Minnesota survey reported that one-
                quarter of battered women surveyed had lost a job 
                partly because of being abused and that over half of 
                these women had been harassed by their abuser at work.
                    (C) Domestic violence is often intensified as women 
                seek to gain economic independence through attending 
                school or job training programs. Batterers have been 
                reported to prevent women from attending such programs 
                or sabotage their efforts at self-improvement.
                    (D) Nationwide surveys of service providers 
                prepared by the Taylor Institute of Chicago, Document, 
                for the first time, the interrelationship between 
                domestic violence and welfare by showing that between 
                50 percent and 80 percent of women in welfare to work 
                programs are current or past victims of domestic 
                violence.
                    (E) The American Psychological Association has 
                reported that violence against women is usually 
                witnessed by their children, who as a result can suffer 
                severe psychological, cognitive and physical damage and 
                some studies have found that children who witness 
                violence in their homes have a greater propensity to 
                commit violent acts in their homes and communities when 
                they become adults.
                    (F) Over half of the women surveyed by the Taylor 
                Institute stayed with their batterers because they 
                lacked the resources to support themselves and their 
                children. The surveys also found that the availability 
                of economic support is a critical factor in women's 
                ability to leave abusive situations that threaten 
                themselves and their children.
                    (G) Proposals to restructure the welfare programs 
                may impact the availability of the economic support and 
                the safety net necessary to enable poor women to flee 
                abuse without risking homelessness and starvation for 
                their families.
            (2) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
        that:
                    (A) No welfare reform provision should be enacted 
                by Congress unless and until Congress considers whether 
                such welfare reform provisions would exacerbate 
                violence against women and their children, further 
                endanger women's lives, make it more difficult for 
                women to escape domestic violence, or further punish 
                women victimized by violence.
                    (B) Any welfare reform measure enacted by Congress 
                should require that any welfare to work, education, or 
                job placement programs implemented by the States 
                address the impact of domestic violence on welfare 
                recipients.

SEC. 321. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING STUDENT LOANS

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) over the last 60 years, education and advancements in 
        knowledge have accounted for 37 percent of our nation's 
        economic growth;
            (2) a college degree significantly increases job stability, 
        resulting in an unemployment rate among college graduates less 
        than half that of those with high school diplomas;
            (3) a person with a bachelor's degree will average 50-55 
        percent more in lifetime earnings than a person with a high 
        school diploma;
            (4) education is a key to providing alternatives to crime 
        and violence, and is a cost-effective strategy for breaking 
        cycles of poverty and moving welfare recipients to work;
            (5) a highly educated populace is necessary to the 
        effective functioning of democracy and to a growing economy, 
        and the opportunity to gain a college education helps advance 
        the American ideals of progress and social equality;
            (6) a highly educated and flexible work force is an 
        essential component of economic growth and competitiveness;
            (7) for many families, Federal Student Aid Programs make 
        the difference in the ability of students to attend college;
            (8) in 1994, nearly 6 million postsecondary students 
        received some kind of financial assistance to help them pay for 
        the costs of schooling;
            (9) since 1988, college costs have risen by 54 percent, and 
        student borrowing has increased by 219 percent; and
            (10) in fiscal year 1996, the Balanced Budget Act achieved 
        savings without reducing student loan limits or increasing fees 
        to students or parents.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
aggregates and functional levels included in this budget resolution 
assume that savings in student loans can be achieved without any 
program change that would increase costs to students and parents or 
decrease accessibility to student loans.

SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT.

    (a) The Senate finds that--
            (1) S. Con. Res. 57 projects a public debt in fiscal year 
        1997 of $5,400,000,000,000;
            (2) S. Con. Res. 57 projects that the public debt will be 
        $6,500,000,000,000 in the fiscal year 2002 when the budget 
        resolution projects a unified budget surplus; and
            (3) this accumulated debt represents a significant 
        financial burden that will require excessive taxation and lost 
        economic opportunity for future generations of the United 
        States.
    (b) It is the sense of the Senate that any comprehensive 
legislation sent to the President that balances the budget by a certain 
date and that is agreed to by the Congress and the President shall also 
contain a strategy for reducing the national debt of the United States.

SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING HUNGRY OR HOMELESS CHILDREN.

    (a) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions in this 
budget resolution assume that Congress will not enact or adopt any 
legislation that would increase the number of children who are hungry 
or homeless.
    (b) It is the sense of Congress that the assumptions in this budget 
resolution assume that in the event legislation enacted to comply with 
this resolution results in an increase in the number of hungry or 
homeless children by the end of fiscal year 1997, the Congress would 
revisit the provisions of said legislation which caused such increase 
and would, as soon as practicable thereafter, adopt legislation which 
would halt any continuation of such increase.

SEC. 324. 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) 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, more than 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 1997 will be not less than 
the actual expenditures made for LIHEAP in fiscal year 1996.

SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ADDITIONAL CHARGES UNDER THE 
              MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) senior citizens must spend more than 1 dollar in 5 of 
        their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need;
            (2) \2/3\ of spending under the medicare program under 
        title XVIII of the Social Security Act is for senior citizens 
        with annual incomes of less than $15,000;
            (3) senior citizens cannot afford physician fee mark-ups 
        that are not covered under the medicare program or premium 
        overcharges; and
            (4) senior citizens enrolling in private insurance plans 
        receiving medicare capitation payments are currently protected 
        against excess charges by health providers and additional 
        premium charges by the plan for services covered under the 
        medicare program.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It the sense of the Congress that any 
reconciliation bill considered during the second session of the 104th 
Congress should maintain the existing prohibitions against additional 
charges by providers under the medicare program under title XVIII of 
the Social Security Act (``balance billing''), and any premium 
surcharges for services covered under such program that are levied on 
senior citizens enrolled in private insurance plans in lieu of 
conventional medicare.

SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING NURSING HOME STANDARDS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) prior to the enactment of subtitle C of title IV of the 
        Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, deplorable 
        conditions and shocking abuse of senior citizens and the 
        disabled in nursing homes was widespread; and
            (2) the enactment and implementation of such subtitle has 
        brought major improvements in nursing home conditions and 
        substantially reduced abuse of senior citizens.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It the sense of the Congress that any 
reconciliation bill considered during the second session of the 104th 
Congress should not include any changes in Federal nursing home quality 
standards or the Federal enforcement of such standards.

SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING NURSING HOME CARE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) under current Federal law--
                    (A) protections are provided under the medicaid 
                program under title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
                prevent the impoverishment of spouses of nursing home 
                residents;
                    (B) prohibitions exist under such program to 
                prevent the charging of adult children of nursing home 
                residents for the cost of the care of such residents;
                    (C) prohibitions exist under such program to 
                prevent a State from placing a lien against the home of 
                a nursing home resident, if that home was occupied by a 
                spouse or dependent child; and
                    (D) prohibitions exist under such program to 
                prevent a nursing home from charging amounts above the 
                medicaid recognized charge for medicaid patients or 
                requiring a commitment to make private payments prior 
                to receiving medicaid coverage as a condition of 
                admission; and
            (2) family members of nursing home residents are generally 
        unable to afford the high cost of nursing home care, which 
        ranges between $30,000 and $60,000 a year.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
provisions of the medicaid program under title XIX of the Social 
Security Act that protect families of nursing home residents from 
experiencing financial ruin as the price of securing needed care for 
their loved ones should be retained, including--
            (1) spousal impoverishment rules;
            (2) prohibitions against charging adult children of nursing 
        home patients for the cost of their care;
            (3) prohibitions against liens on the homes of nursing home 
        residents occupied by a spouse or dependent child; and
            (4) prohibitions against nursing homes requiring private 
        payments prior to medicaid coverage as a condition of admission 
        or allowing charges in addition to medicaid payments for 
        covered patients.

SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS THAT WELFARE 
              RECEIPTS BE DRUG-FREE.

    In recognition of the fact that American workers are required to be 
drug-free in the workplace, it is the sense of the Congress that this 
concurrent resolution on the budget assumes that the States may require 
welfare recipients to be drug-free as a condition for receiving such 
benefits and that random drug testing may be used to enforce such 
requirements.

SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the committee report on this 
resolution, it is the sense of the Senate that the provisions in this 
resolution do not assume the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.

SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the committee report on this 
resolution, it is the sense of the Senate that the provisions in this 
resolution assume reform of the Davis-Bacon Act.

SEC. 331. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REIMBURSEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR 
              OPERATIONS SOUTHERN WATCH AND PROVIDE COMFORT.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
            (1) as of May 1996, the United States has spent 
        $2,937,000,000 of United States taxpayer funds since the 
        conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991 for the singular purpose of 
        protecting the Kurdish and Shiite population from Iraqi 
        aggression;
            (2) the President's defense budget request for 1997 
        includes an additional $590,100,000 for Operations Southern 
        Watch and Provide Comfort, both of which are designed to 
        restrict Iraqi military aggression against the Kurdish and 
        Shiite people of Iraq;
            (3) costs for these military operations constitute part of 
        the continued budget deficit of the United States; and
            (4) United Nations Security Council Resolution 986 (1995) 
        (referred to as ``SCR 986'') would allow Iraq to sell up to 
        $1,000,000,000 in petroleum and petroleum products every 90 
        days, for an initial period of 180 days.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution 
assume that--
            (1) the President should instruct the United States 
        Permanent Representative to the United Nations to ensure any 
        subsequent extension of authority beyond the 180 days 
        originally provided by SCR 986, specifically mandates and 
        authorizes the reimbursement of the United States for costs 
        associated with Operations Southern Watch and Provide Comfort 
        out of revenues generated by any sale of petroleum or 
        petroleum-related products originating from Iraq;
            (2) in the event that the United States Permanent 
        Representative to the United Nations fails to modify the terms 
        of any subsequent resolution extending the authority granted by 
        SCR 986 as called for in paragraph (1), the President should 
        reject any United Nations' action or resolution seeking to 
        extend the terms of the oil sale beyond the 180 days authorized 
        by SCR 986;
            (3) the President should take the necessary steps to ensure 
        that--
                    (A) any effort by the United Nations to temporarily 
                lift the trade embargo for humanitarian purposes, 
                specifically the sale of petroleum or petroleum 
                products, restricts all revenues from such sale from 
                being diverted to benefit the Iraqi military; and
                    (B) the temporary lifting of the trade embargo does 
                not encourage other countries to take steps to begin 
                promoting commercial relations with the Iraqi military 
                in expectation that sanctions will be permanently 
                lifted; and
            (4) revenues reimbursed to the United States from the oil 
        sale authorized by SCR 986, or any subsequent action or 
        resolution, should be used to reduce the Federal budget 
        deficit.

SEC. 332. ACCURATE INDEX FOR INFLATION.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) a significant portion of Federal expenditures and 
        revenues are indexed to measurements of inflation; and
            (2) a variety of inflation indices exist which vary 
        according to the accuracy with which such indices measure 
        increases in the cost of living; and
            (3) Federal Government usage of inflation indices which 
        overstate true inflation has the demonstrated effect of 
        accelerating Federal spending, increasing the Federal budget 
        deficit, increasing Federal borrowing, and thereby enlarging 
        the projected burden on future American taxpayers.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
assumptions underlying this budget resolution include that all Federal 
spending and revenues which are indexed for inflation should be 
calibrated by the most accurate inflation indices which are available 
to the Federal Government.

SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOLVENCY OF THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that repeal of certain provisions 
from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 would move the 
insolvency date of the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund forward by a full year.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that no 
provisions in this Budget Resolution should worsen the solvency of the 
Medicare Trust Fund.

SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE 1993 INCOME TAX INCREASE ON 
              SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE REPEALED.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that the assumptions underlying this 
resolution include that--
            (1) the fiscal year 1994 budget proposal of President 
        Clinton to raise Federal income taxes on the Social Security 
        benefits of senior citizens with income as low as $25,000, and 
        those provisions of the fiscal year 1994 recommendations of the 
        Budget Resolution and the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
        Act in which the One Hundred Third Congress voted to raise 
        Federal income taxes on the Social Security benefits of senior 
        citizens with income as low as $34,000 should be repealed;
            (2) the Senate Budget Resolution should reflect President 
        Clinton's statement that he believed he raised Federal taxes 
        too much in 1993; and
            (3) the Budget Resolution should react to President 
        Clinton's fiscal year 1997 budget which documents the fact that 
        in the history of the United States, the total tax burden has 
        never been greater than it is today, therefore
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that the 
assumptions underlying this Resolution include--
            (1) that raising Federal income taxes in 1993 on the Social 
        Security benefits of middle-class individuals with income as 
        low as $34,000 was a mistake;
            (2) that the Federal income tax hike on Social Security 
        benefits imposed in 1993 by the One Hundred Third Congress and 
        signed into law by President Clinton should be repealed; and
            (3) President Clinton should work with the Congress to 
        repeal the 1993 Federal income tax hike on Social Security 
        benefits in a manner that would not adversely affect the Social 
        Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, and 
        should ensure that such repeal is coupled with offsetting 
        reductions in Federal spending.

SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION'S PRACTICE 
              REGARDING THE PROSECUTION OF DRUG SMUGGLERS.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) drug use is devastating to the Nation, particularly 
        among juveniles, and has led juveniles to become involved in 
        interstate gangs and to participate in violent crime;
            (2) drug use has experienced a dramatic resurgence among 
        our youth;
            (3) the number of youths aged 12-17 using marijuana has 
        increased from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994, and 
        the category of ``recent marijuana use'' increased a staggering 
        200 percent among 14- to 15-year-olds over the same period;
            (4) since 1992, there has been a 52 percent jump in the 
        number of high school seniors using drugs on a monthly basis, 
        even as worrisome declines are noted in peer disapproval of 
        drug use;
            (5) 1 in 3 high school students uses marijuana;
            (6) 12- to 17-year-olds who use marijuana are 85 percent 
        more likely to graduate to cocaine than those who abstain from 
        marijuana;
            (7) juveniles who reach 21 without ever having used drugs 
        almost never try them later in life;
            (8) the latest results from the Drug Abuse Warning Network 
        show that marijuana-related episodes jumped 39 percent and are 
        running at 155 percent above the 1990 level, and that 
        methamphetamine cases have risen 256 percent over the 1991 
        level;
            (9) between February 1993 and February 1995 the retail 
        price of a gram of cocaine fell from $172 to $137, and that of 
        a gram of heroin also fell from $2,032 to $1,278;
            (10) it has been reported that the Department of Justice, 
        through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of 
        California, has adopted a policy of allowing certain foreign 
        drug smugglers to avoid prosecution altogether by being 
        released to Mexico;
            (11) it has been reported that in the past year 
        approximately 2,300 suspected narcotics traffickers were taken 
        into custody for bringing illegal drugs across the border, but 
        approximately one in four were returned to their country of 
        origin without being prosecuted;
            (12) it has been reported that the United States Customs 
        Service is operating under guidelines limiting any prosecution 
        in marijuana cases to cases involving 125 pounds of marijuana 
        or more;
            (13) it has been reported that suspects possessing as much 
        as 32 pounds of methamphetamine and 37,000 Quaalude tablets, 
        were not prosecuted but were, instead, allowed to return to 
        their countries of origin after their drugs and vehicles were 
        confiscated;
            (14) it has been reported that after a seizure of 158 
        pounds of cocaine, one defendant was cited and released because 
        there was no room at the Federal jail and charges against here 
        were dropped;
            (15) it has been reported that some smugglers have been 
        caught two or more times--even in the same week--yet still were 
        not prosecuted;
            (16) the number of defendants prosecuted for violations of 
        the Federal drug laws has dropped from 25,033 in 1992 to 22,926 
        in 1995;
            (17) this Congress has increased the funding of the Federal 
        Bureau of Prisons by 11.7 percent over the 1995 appropriations 
        level; and
            (18) this Congress has increased the funding of the 
        Immigration and Naturalization Service by 23.5 percent over the 
        1995 appropriations level.
    (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--(1) the 
functional totals underlying this resolution assume that the Attorney 
General promptly should investigate this matter and report, within 30 
days, to the Chair of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary; 
and
    (2) the Attorney General should ensure that cases involving the 
smuggling of drugs into the United States are vigorously prosecuted.

SEC. 336. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES AND SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

    (a) Corporate Subsidies.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
functional levels and aggregates in this budget resolution assume 
that--
            (1) the Federal budget contains tens of billions of dollars 
        in payments, benefits and programs that primarily assist 
        profit-making enterprises and industries rather than provide a 
        clear and compelling public interest;
            (2) corporate subsidies can provide unfair competitive 
        advantages to certain industries and industry segments;
            (3) at a time when millions of Americans are being asked to 
        sacrifice in order to balance the budget, the corporate sector 
        should bear its share of the burden; and
            (4) Federal payments, benefits, and programs which 
        predominantly benefit a particular industry or segment of an 
        industry, rather than provide a clear and compelling public 
        benefit, should be reformed or terminated in order to provide 
        additional tax relief, deficit reduction, or to achieve the 
        savings necessary to meet this resolution's instructions and 
        levels.
    (b) Sale of Government Assets.--
            (1) Budgetary treatment.--
                    (A) In general.--For the purposes of any concurrent 
                resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget 
                Act of 1974, no amounts realized from the sale of an 
                asset shall be scored with respect to the level of 
                budget authority, outlays, or revenues if such sale 
                would cause an increase in the deficit as calculated 
                pursuant to subparagraph (B).
                    (B) Calculation of net present value.--The deficit 
                estimate of an asset sale shall be the net present 
                value of the cash flow from--
                            (i) proceeds from the asset sale;
                            (ii) future receipts that would be expected 
                        from continued ownership of the asset by the 
                        Government; and
                            (iii) expected future spending by the 
                        Government at a level necessary to continue to 
                        operate and maintain the asset to generate the 
                        receipts estimated pursuant to clause (ii).
            (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under 
        section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
        Control Act of 1985.
            (3) Treatment of loan assets.--For the purposes of this 
        subsection, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a loan 
        shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act 
        of 1990.

SEC. 337. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
              FUND.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the 
functional totals in this resolution assume that when the Finance 
Committee meets its outlay and revenue obligations under this 
resolution the committee should not make any changes in the 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund or its funding mechanism and should 
meet its revenue and outlay targets through other programs within its 
jurisdiction.

SEC. 338. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING WELFARE REFORM.

    (a) The Senate finds that--
            (1) S. Con. Res. 57 assumes substantial savings from 
        welfare reform; and
            (2) children born out of wedlock are five times more likely 
        to be poor and about ten times more likely to be extremely poor 
        and therefore are more likely to receive welfare benefits than 
        children from two parent families; and
            (3) high rates of out-of-wedlock births are associated with 
        a host of other social pathologies; for example, children of 
        single mothers are twice as likely to drop out of high school; 
        boys whose fathers are absent are more likely to engage in 
        criminal activities; and girls in single-parent families are 
        three times more likely to have children out of wedlock 
        themselves; therefore
    (b) It is the sense of the Senate that any comprehensive 
legislation sent to the President that balances the budget by a certain 
date and that includes welfare reform provisions and that is agreed to 
by the Congress and the President shall also contain to the maximum 
extent possible a strategy for reducing the rate of out-of-wedlock 
births and encouraging family formation.

SEC. 339. A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SENATE'S SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL, 
              STATE, AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 
        provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
        freedoms and security;
            (2) law enforcement officers deserve our appreciation and 
        support;
            (3) law enforcement officers and agencies are under 
        increasing attacks, both to their physical safety and to their 
        reputations;
            (4) Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts need 
        increased financial commitment from the Federal Government for 
        funding and financial assistance and not the slashing of our 
        commitment to law enforcement if they are to carry out their 
        efforts to combat violent crime;
            (5) the President's fiscal year 1996 budget requested an 
        increase of 14.8 percent for the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation, 10 percent for United States Attorneys, and 
        $4,000,000 for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces; 
        while this Congress has increased funding for the Federal 
        Bureau of Investigation by 10.8 percent, 8.4 percent for United 
        States Attorneys, and a cut of $15,000,000 for Organized Crime 
        Drug Enforcement Task Forces;
            (6) on May 16, 1996, the House of Representatives has 
        nonetheless voted to slash $300,000,000 from the President's 
        $5,000,000,000 budget request for the Violent Crime Reduction 
        Trust Fund for fiscal year 1997 in House Concurrent Resolution 
        178; and
            (7) the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund as adopted by 
        the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 fully 
        funds the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
        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 
the Federal Government's commitment to fund Federal law enforcement 
programs and programs to assist State and local efforts shall be 
maintained and funding for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund shall 
not be cut as the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives 
would require.

SEC. 340. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE FUNDING OF AMTRAK.

    (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
            (1) a capital funding stream is essential to the ability of 
        the National Rail Passenger Corporation (``Amtrak'') to reduce 
        its dependence on Federal operating support; and
            (2) Amtrak needs a secure source of financing, no less 
        favorable than provided to other modes of transportation, for 
        capital improvements.
    (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) revenues attributable to one-half cent per gallon of 
        the excise taxes imposed on gasoline, special motor fuel, and 
        diesel fuel from the Mass Transit Account should be dedicated 
        to a new Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund during the period 
        January 1, 1997, through September 30, 2001;
            (2) revenues would not be deposited in the Intercity 
        Passenger Rail Trust Fund during any fiscal year to the extent 
        that the deposit is estimated to result in available revenues 
        in the Mass Transit Account being insufficient to satisfy that 
        year's estimated appropriation levels;
            (3) monies in the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund 
        should be generally available to fund, on a reimbursement 
        basis, capital expenditures incurred by Amtrak; and
            (4) amounts to fund capital expenditures related to rail 
        operations should be set aside for each State that has not had 
        Amtrak service in such State for the preceding year.

SEC. 341. SENSE OF THE SENATE--TRUTH IN BUDGETING.

    It is the sense of the Senate that:
            (1) The Congressional Budget Office has scored revenue 
        expected to be raised from the auction of Federal 
        Communications Commission licenses for various services;
            (2) For budget scoring purposes, the Congress has assumed 
        that such auctions would occur in a prompt and expeditious 
        manner and that revenue raised by such auctions would flow to 
        the Federal treasury;
            (3) The Resolution assumes that the revenue to be raised 
        from auctions totals billions of dollars;
            (4) The Resolution makes assumptions that services would be 
        auctioned where the Federal Communications Commission has not 
        yet conducted auctions for such services, such as Local 
        Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), licenses for paging 
        services, final broadband PCS licenses, narrow band PCS 
        licenses, licenses for unserved cellular, and Digital Audio 
        Radio (DARS), and other subscription services, revenue from 
        which has been assumed in Congressional budgetary calculations 
        and in determining the level of the deficit; and
            (5) The Commission's service rules can dramatically affect 
        license values and auction revenues and therefore the 
        Commission should act expeditiously and without further delay 
        to conduct auctions of licenses in a manner that maximizes 
        revenue, increases efficiency, and enhances competition for any 
        service for which auction revenues have been scored by the 
        Congressional Budget Office and/or counted for budgetary 
        purposes in an Act of Congress.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session 

                            H. CON. RES. 178

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT

HCON 178 EAS----2
HCON 178 EAS----3
HCON 178 EAS----4
HCON 178 EAS----5
HCON 178 EAS----6
HCON 178 EAS----7
HCON 178 EAS----8
HCON 178 EAS----9
HCON 178 EAS----10
```