H. Con. Res. 178 Agreed to June 13, 1996

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Concurrent Resolution

Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal

year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1997.

The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997 is hereby established

and that the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998

through 2002 are hereby set forth.

SEC. 2. 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.

Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.

Sec. 102. Debt increase.

Sec. 103. Social security.

Sec. 104. Major functional categories.

TITLE II—RECONCILIATION DIRECTIONS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

Sec. 202. Reconciliation in the Senate.

TITLE III—BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Discretionary spending limits.

Sec. 302. Budgetary treatment of the sale of Government assets.

Sec. 303. Budgetary treatment of direct student loans.

Sec. 304. Superfund reserve fund.

Sec. 305. Tax reserve fund in the Senate.

Sec. 306. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

Sec. 307. Government shutdown prevention allowance.

TITLE IV—SENSE OF CONGRESS, HOUSE, AND SENATE PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Sense of Congress on baselines.

Sec. 402. Sense of Congress on loan sales.

Sec. 403. Sense of Congress on changes in medicaid.

Sec. 404. Sense of Congress on impact of legislation on children.

Sec. 405. Sense of Congress on debt repayment.

Sec. 406. Sense of Congress on commitment to a balanced budget by fiscal year

2002.

Sec. 407. Sense of Congress that tax reductions should benefit working families.

Sec. 408. Sense of Congress on a bipartisan commission on the solvency of medicare. Sec. 409. Sense of Congress on medicare transfers.

Sec. 410. Sense of Congress regarding changes in the medicare program.
H. Con. Res.178—2

Sec. 411. Sense of Congress regarding revenue assumptions.

Sec. 412. Sense of Congress regarding domestic violence.

Sec. 413. Sense of Congress regarding student loans.

Sec. 414. Sense of Congress regarding additional charges under the medicare program.

Sec. 415. Sense of Congress regarding requirements that welfare recipients be

drug-free.

Sec. 416. Sense of Congress on an accurate index for inflation.

Sec. 417. Sense of Congress that the 1993 income tax increase on social security

benefits should be repealed.

Sec. 418. Sense of Congress regarding the Administration’s practice regarding the

prosecution of drug smugglers.

Sec. 419. Sense of Congress on corporate subsidies.

Sec. 420. Sense of Congress regarding welfare reform.

Sec. 421. Sense of Congress on FCC spectrum auctions.

Sec. 422. Sense of the House on emergencies.

Sec. 423. Sense of the Senate on funding to assist youth at risk.

Sec. 424. Sense of the Senate on long-term trends in budget estimates.

Sec. 425. Sense of the Senate on repeal of the gas tax.

Sec. 426. Sense of the Senate regarding the use of budgetary savings.

Sec. 427. Sense of the Senate regarding the transfer of excess Government computers to public schools.

Sec. 428. Sense of the Senate on Federal retreats.

Sec. 429. Sense of the Senate regarding the essential air service program of the Department of Transportation.

Sec. 430. Sense of the Senate regarding equal retirement savings for homemakers.

Sec. 431. Sense of the Senate on the National Institutes of Health funding for antiaddiction drugs.

Sec. 432. Sense of the Senate regarding the extension of the employer education assistance exclusion under section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code of

1986.

Sec. 433. Sense of the Senate regarding the Economic Development Administration

placing high priority on maintaining field-based economic development

representatives.

Sec. 434. Sense of the Senate on LIHEAP.

Sec. 435. Sense of the Senate on Davis-Bacon.

Sec. 436. Sense of the Senate on reimbursement of the United States for operations

Southern Watch and Provide Comfort.

Sec. 437. Sense of the Senate on solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

Sec. 438. Sense of the Senate on the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

Sec. 439. Sense of the Senate regarding the funding of Amtrak.

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: $1,083,728,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,130,269,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,177,467,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,231,178,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,290,661,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,359,046,000,000.

(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of

Federal revenues should be changed are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: ¥$16,627,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: ¥$18,280,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: ¥$20,890,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: ¥$20,620,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: ¥$20,436,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: ¥$14,849,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—3

(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: $108,053,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $113,226,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $119,361,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $125,737,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $131,641,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $138,131,000,000.

(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: $1,314,760,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,362,075,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,392,403,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,433,371,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,453,873,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,496,063,000,000.

(3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.—For purposes of the enforcement

of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: $1,311,011,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,354,668,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,383,872,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,416,493,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,432,423,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,462,900,000,000.

(4) DEFICITS.—For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: $227,283,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $224,399,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $206,405,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $185,315,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $141,762,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $103,854,000,000.

(5) PUBLIC DEBT.—The appropriate levels of the public debt

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: $5,435,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $5,702,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $5,945,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $6,165,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $6,338,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $6,468,400,000,000.

(6) DIRECT LOAN OBLIGATIONS.—The appropriate levels of

total new direct loan obligations are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: $41,353,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $36,358,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $36,455,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $36,535,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $36,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $36,624,000,000.

(7) PRIMARY LOAN GUARANTEE COMMITMENTS.—The appropriate levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are

as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: $267,284,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $269,467,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $268,601,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—4

Fiscal year 2000: $268,489,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $270,244,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $270,948,000,000.

SEC. 102. DEBT INCREASE.

The amounts of the increase in the public debt subject to

limitation are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: $279,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $266,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $243,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $219,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $173,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $130,000,000,000.

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 OldAge and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability

Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997: $385,010,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $402,282,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $423,420,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $445,102,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $465,155,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $487,344,000,000.

(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: $357,596,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $374,931,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $393,137,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $412,438,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $433,311,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $455,165,000,000.

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, $265,583,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $264,146,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $268,198,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $263,018,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $270,797,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—5

(B) Outlays, $266,289,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$192,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $273,337,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $269,961,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$187,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $275,961,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $269,025,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$185,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $278,821,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $268,962,000,000.

(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, $14,308,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,201,000,000.

(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, $12,120,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,519,000,000.

(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, $11,095,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,520,000,000.

(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, $11,556,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,235,000,000.

(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, $11,664,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,022,000,000.

(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, $11,864,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,896,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $4,387,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—6

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,409,000,000.

(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $16,788,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,865,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $16,249,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,421,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $16,012,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,053,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $15,775,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,805,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,717,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $15,573,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,611,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

(4) Energy (270):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $3,728,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $3,080,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,033,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $2,830,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,328,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,039,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $2,512,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $1,758,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,045,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—7

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $2,272,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $1,351,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,036,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $2,385,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $1,329,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $2,069,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $874,000,000.

(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, $20,879,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $21,707,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $37,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $18,862,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,698,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $19,787,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,515,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $18,604,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,125,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $19,170,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,418,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $19,098,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,169,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.
H. Con. Res.178—8

(6) Agriculture (350):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $12,811,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,985,000,000.

(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, $12,122,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,220,000,000.

(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, $11,799,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,898,000,000.

(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, $11,146,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,268,000,000.

(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, $10,015,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,229,000,000.

(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, $9,627,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $7,822,000,000.

(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, $8,186,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,307,000,000.

(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, $9,561,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $5,746,000,000.

(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, $10,575,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,109,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,763,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$196,253,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:
H. Con. Res.178—9

(A) New budget authority, $12,543,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $7,414,000,000.

(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, $11,363,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $7,377,000,000.

(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, $11,695,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $7,312,000,000.

(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, $42,635,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $39,311,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $43,427,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $37,306,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $43,904,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $35,886,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $43,798,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $34,678,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $44,104,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $34,121,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $44,518,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $33,624,000,000.

(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, $8,218,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—10

(B) Outlays, $10,321,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,231,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$2,133,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $6,651,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,982,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,257,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$2,133,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $6,611,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,111,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,287,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,171,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $6,656,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $7,267,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,365,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,171,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $6,466,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,819,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,404,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$2,202,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $6,367,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,334,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,430,000,000.

(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, $48,983,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $49,964,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $17,469,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $47,428,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,758,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$19,760,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $48,197,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,761,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$20,854,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $48,931,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,319,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—11

(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$21,589,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $49,686,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,953,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$23,319,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $50,409,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $49,629,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$25,085,000,000.

(11) Health (550):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $133,228,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $133,172,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$187,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $140,343,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $140,728,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$94,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $146,103,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $146,246,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $152,405,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $152,317,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $158,848,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $158,509,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $164,380,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $163,912,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

(12) Medicare (570):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $192,835,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $191,151,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res.178—12

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $207,412,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $205,687,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $218,091,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $215,819,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $230,596,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $228,847,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $243,192,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $241,458,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $253,649,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $251,248,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(13) Income Security (600):

Fiscal year 1997: (A) New budget authority, $230,233,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $239,737,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $241,766,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $244,694,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $246,842,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $253,422,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $265,119,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $265,209,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.
H. Con. Res.178—13

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $264,868,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $268,404,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $283,450,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $280,388,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

(14) Social Security (650):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $7,813,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,001,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $8,476,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,213,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $9,219,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,922,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $9,979,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,662,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $10,775,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,458,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $11,607,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,290,000,000.

(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, $38,463,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $39,561,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $935,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$26,362,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:
H. Con. Res.178—14

(A) New budget authority, $38,552,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $39,313,000,000.

(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, $38,179,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $38,644,000,000.

(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, $38,186,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $39,886,000,000.

(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, $38,382,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $37,265,000,000.

(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, $39,318,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $39,602,000,000.

(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, $20,924,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,540,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $22,320,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $21,397,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $23,264,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,331,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $23,278,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,966,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $20,330,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,281,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—15

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $20,315,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,267,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

(17) General Government (800):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $12,353,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,186,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $14,097,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,275,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $13,288,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,461,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $13,609,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,675,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $13,262,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,185,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $13,209,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,831,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

(18) Net Interest (900):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $282,591,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $282,591,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $289,121,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $289,121,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res.178—16

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $292,939,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $292,939,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $294,426,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $294,426,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $298,531,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $298,531,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $302,932,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $302,932,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

(19) Allowances (920):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$465,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,867,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$1,921,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,217,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,084,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,085,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,340,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,413,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,552,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,401,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.
H. Con. Res.178—17

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,898,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,863,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$45,334,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$45,334,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $7,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$35,539,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$35,539,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,350,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$34,727,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$34,727,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,505,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,505,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$38,277,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$38,277,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$39,940,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$39,940,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

TITLE II—RECONCILIATION

DIRECTIONS

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) SUBMISSIONS.—

(1) WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM AND TAX RELIEF.—

Not later than June 13, 1996, the House committees named

in subsection (b) shall submit their recommendations to provide

direct spending and revenues to the Committee on the Budget

of the House of Representatives. After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the Budget shall report to
H. Con. Res.178—18

the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive revision.

(2) MEDICARE PRESERVATION.—Not later than July 18,

1996, the House committees named in subsection (c) shall submit their recommendations to provide direct spending to the

Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives.

After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the

Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying

out all such recommendations without any substantive revision.

(3) TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS DIRECT SPENDING REFORMS.—

Not later than September 6, 1996, the House committees named

in subsection (d) shall submit their recommendations to provide

direct spending, deficit reduction, and revenues to the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives. After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the Budget shall

report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such

recommendations without any substantive revision.

(b) INSTRUCTIONS FOR WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM AND

TAX RELIEF.—

(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.—The House Committee

on Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total level

of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$35,609,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $36,625,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $216,316,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.—The House Committee on

Commerce shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $326,354,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $473,718,000,000 in outlays

for fiscal year 2002, and $2,395,231,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1997 through 2002.

(3) COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNI- TIES.—The House Committee on Economic and Educational

Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total level

of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$15,808,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $19,670,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $105,331,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(4) COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.—(A) The House

Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that

the total level of direct spending for that committee does not

exceed: $381,199,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,

$563,607,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$2,810,569,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than $122,400,000,000 for fiscal years 1997

through 2002.

(c) INSTRUCTIONS FOR MEDICARE PRESERVATION.—

(1) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.—The House Committee on

Commerce shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $319,554,000,000
H. Con. Res.178—19

in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $420,915,000,000 in outlays

for fiscal year 2002, and $2,237,231,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1997 through 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.—The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within

its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total

level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$374,399,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,

$510,804,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$2,652,569,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(d) INSTRUCTIONS FOR TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS DIRECT SPENDING REFORMS.—

(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.—The House Committee

on Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total level

of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$35,599,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $36,614,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $216,251,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES.—

(A) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide

direct spending such that the total level of direct spending

for that committee does not exceed: ¥$12,645,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, ¥$5,775,000,000 in outlays for fiscal

year 2002, and ¥$41,639,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1997 through 2002.

(B) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

would reduce the deficit by: $0 in fiscal year 1997, $115,000,000

for fiscal year 2002, and $305,000,000 in fiscal years 1997

through 2002.

(3) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.—The House Committee on

Commerce shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $318,054,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $415,290,000,000 in outlays

for fiscal year 2002, and $2,216,885,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1997 through 2002.

(4) COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNI- TIES.—The House Committee on Economic and Educational

Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total level

of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$15,025,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $18,963,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $101,660,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(5) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT.—

(A) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

provide direct spending such that the total level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: $65,164,000,000 in

outlays for fiscal year 1997, $82,594,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 2002, and $442,230,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1997 through 2002.

(B) The House Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
H. Con. Res.178—20

that would reduce the deficit by: $201,000,000 in fiscal year

1997, $590,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $2,837,000,000

in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(6) COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.—The House

Committee on International Relations shall report changes in

laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such

that the total level of direct spending for that committee does

not exceed: $13,025,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,

$10,311,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$67,953,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(7) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.—The House Committee

on the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total level

of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$2,784,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $4,586,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $26,482,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(8) COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.—The House

Committee on National Security shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that

the total level of direct spending for that committee does not

exceed: $39,787,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,

$49,774,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$271,815,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(9) COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES.—The House Committee on

Resources shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $2,115,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $2,048,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 2002, and $11,652,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1997 through 2002.

(10) COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE.—The House Committee on

Science shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $40,000,000 in

outlays for fiscal year 1997, $46,000,000 in outlays for fiscal

year 2002, and $242,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997

through 2002.

(11) COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUC- TURE.—The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $18,315,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $18,001,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 2002, and $107,328,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1997 through 2002.

(12) COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS.—The House

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that

the total level of direct spending for that committee does not

exceed: $21,375,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,

$22,217,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$130,468,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(13) COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.—(A) The House

Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that

the total level of direct spending for that committee does not
H. Con. Res.178—21

exceed: $372,342,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,

$508,107,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$2,638,057,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

(B)(i) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall

report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to

reduce revenues by not more than $113,838,000,000 in fiscal

years 1997 through 2002.

(ii) If a reconciliation bill referred to in subsection (a)(1)

is enacted into law, then the revenue amount set forth in

clause (i) shall be adjusted to reflect the revenue provisions

of that Act.

(e) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘direct

spending’’ has the meaning given to such term in section 250(c)(8)

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) FIRST RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS.—Not later than June

21, 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.

(1) 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 $1,974,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,

$26,169,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through

2002, and $5,967,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—(A) 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 $260,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,

$98,321,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through

2002, and $36,578,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(B) The Committee on Finance shall report changes in

laws within its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by

not more than $122,400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1997 through 2002.

(b) SECOND RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS.—No later than July

24, 1996, the Committee on Finance shall report to the Senate

a reconciliation bill proposing 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 $6,800,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,

$158,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002,

and $52,803,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(c) THIRD RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS.—No later than

September 18, 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.
H. Con. Res.178—22

(1) 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 $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,

$65,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002,

and $11,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(2) 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 in fiscal

year 1997, $649,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997

through 2002, and $166,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(3) 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 reduce the deficit by $3,628,000,000 in fiscal year

1997, $3,605,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through

2002, and $462,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(4) 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 $19,396,000,000 for the period of

fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $5,649,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

(5) 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

$90,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $1,512,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $72,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

(6) 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, $2,184,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $392,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

(7) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—(A) The Senate Committee

on Finance shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that reduce the deficit by $3,639,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,

$23,184,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through

2002, and $4,121,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(B) The Committee on Finance shall report changes in

laws within its jurisdiction to reduce revenues for the period

of fiscal years 1997 through 2002 by not more than the amount

specified in subsection (a)(2)(B) reduced by the amount that

legislation enacted pursuant to subsection (a) reduced revenues

for that period of fiscal years.
H. Con. Res.178—23

(8) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.—The Senate

Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in

laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit

$1,101,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $8,801,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $1,492,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

(9) 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 $476,000,000 for the period of fiscal

years 1997 through 2002 and $119,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(10) 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

$783,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $3,671,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $707,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

(11) 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 $126,000,000

in fiscal year 1997, $5,271,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1997 through 2002, and $1,418,000,000 in fiscal year 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 III—BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. 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 $264,968,000,000 in outlays; and (B) for the nondefense category $230,988,000,000 in

new budget authority and $273,644,000,000 in outlays;

(2) with respect to fiscal year 1998—

(A) for the defense category $268,971,000,000 in new

budget authority and $263,862,000,000 in outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category $224,746,000,000 in

new budget authority and $263,093,000,000 in outlays;

(3) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary category $491,268,000,000 in new budget authority and

$525,485,000,000 in outlays;
H. Con. Res.178—24

(4) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary category $498,589,000,000 in new budget authority and

$525,251,000,000 in outlays;

(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary category $491,117,000,000 in new budget authority and

$516,223,000,000 in outlays; and

(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary category $500,592,000,000 in new budget authority and

$514,219,000,000 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 appropriation bill or resolution (or amendment,

motion, or conference report on such appropriation 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), (b), and (c) of section 202

of this resolution and for purposes of the application of

paragraph (1), only subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) shall

apply, and it shall apply only for 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 threefifths 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 subsection (b), the levels of new budget authority and outlays for
H. Con. Res.178—25

a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made

by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

SEC. 302. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE SALE OF GOVERNMENT

ASSETS.

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of 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) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—(1) For the purposes of any

concurrent resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974, amounts realized from sales of assets shall be scored

with respect to the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.

(2) 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) For purposes of this section, 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. 303. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF DIRECT STUDENT LOANS.

For the purposes of any concurrent resolution on the budget

and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of a direct

loan under the Federal direct student loan program shall be the

net present value, at the time when the direct loan is disbursed,

of the following cash flows for the estimated life of the loan—

(1) loan disbursements;

(2) repayments of principal;

(3) payments of interest and other payments by or to the

Government over the life of the loan after adjusting for estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other recoveries; and

(4) direct expenses, including—

(A) activities related to credit extension, loan origination, loan servicing, management of contractors, and payments to contractors, other government entities, and program participants;

(B) collection of delinquent loans; and

(C) writeoff and closeout of loans.

SEC. 304. SUPERFUND RESERVE FUND.

(a) DEFICIT NEUTRAL ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HOUSE.—

(1) COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.—In the House of Representatives—

(A) after the enactment of a superfund bill that reforms

the Superfund program to facilitate the clean up of hazardous waste sites and extends Superfund taxes; and
H. Con. Res.178—26

(B) upon the reporting of an appropriation measure

(or submission of 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 that House

may submit revised allocations, functional levels, budget aggregates, and discretionary spending limits to carry out this section

by an amount not to exceed the excess subject to the limitation.

These revisions shall be considered for the purposes of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations, levels,

aggregates, and limits contained in this resolution.

(2) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on

Appropriations of the House of Representatives 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 allocations to that committee

pursuant to paragraph (1).

(3) LIMITATIONS.—The adjustments under this subsection

shall not exceed the lesser of—

(A) the net revenue increase for a fiscal year resulting

from the enactment of legislation that extends Superfund

taxes; or

(B) $898,000,000 in budget authority for a fiscal year

and the outlays flowing from such budget authority in

all fiscal years.

(3) READJUSTMENTS.—In the House of Representatives, any

adjustments made under this subsection for any appropriations

measure or any conference report thereon may be readjusted

if that measure is not enacted into law.

(b) DEFICIT NEUTRAL ADJUSTMENTS IN THE SENATE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, after the enactment of

legislation that reforms the Superfund program and extends

Superfund taxes, 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 subsection.

(2) DEFICIT NEUTRAL ADJUSTMENTS.— (A) ALLOCATIONS.— (i) 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.
H. Con. Res.178—27

(ii) 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 clause (i).

(B) LIMITATIONS.—The adjustments under this subsection shall not exceed—

(i) the net revenue increase for a fiscal year resulting from the enactment of legislation that extends

Superfund taxes; and (ii) $898,000,000 in budget authority for a fiscal

year and the outlays flowing from such budget authority in all fiscal years.

SEC. 305. 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 may 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. 306. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title—

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate

and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such

they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,

or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such

rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they

are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either

House to change those rules (so far as they relate to that

House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same

extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

SEC. 307. GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PREVENTION ALLOWANCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the House of Representatives for consideration of a conference report, or in the Senate, the fiscal year

1997 outlay allocation made pursuant to sections 302(a) and 602(a)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committees on

Appropriations, the fiscal year 1997 outlay aggregate, the fiscal
H. Con. Res.178—28

year 1997 discretionary limit on nondefense outlays and other

appropriate aggregates may be increased for a resolution making

continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997. These revised allocations, aggregates, and limits shall be considered for all purposes

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, aggregates,

and limits contained in this resolution and shall remain in effect

for the consideration of any fiscal year 1997 appropriations measure.

(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—In the Senate, upon the consideration of a motion to proceed or an agreement to proceed to a

resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997,

or in the House of Representatives, upon the filing of a conference

report thereon, that complies with the fiscal year 1997 discretionary

limit on nondefense budget authority, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the appropriate House may submit a revised

outlay allocation for such committee and appropriately revised

aggregates and limits to carry out this section.

(c) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on Appropriations of the appropriate House 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 allocations pursuant to this section.

(d) LIMITATIONS.—The adjustments made under this section shall not exceed $1,337,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997.

TITLE IV—SENSE OF CONGRESS,

HOUSE, AND SENATE PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that:

(1) Baselines are projections of future spending if existing

policies remain unchanged.

(2) Under baseline assumptions, spending automatically

rises with inflation even if such increases are not mandated

under existing law.

(3) Baseline budgeting is inherently biased against policies

that would reduce the projected growth in spending because

such policies are depicted as spending reductions from an

increasing baseline.

(4) The baseline concept has encouraged Congress to

abdicate its constitutional obligation to control the public purse

for those programs which are automatically funded.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

baseline budgeting should be replaced with a budgetary model

that requires justification of aggregate funding levels and maximizes

congressional accountability for Federal spending.

SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LOAN SALES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that:

(1) The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees

on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government have

stated that ‘‘more consideration should be given to the sale

of nonperforming loans held not only by HUD, but by all

Federal agencies that provide credit programs’’ and directed

the Office of Management and Budget to direct Federal agencies

to evaluate the value of their credit programs and develop

a plan for the privatization of such credit programs.
H. Con. Res.178—29

(2) The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,

Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies has directed

that the Small Business Administration should study and

report to Congress on the feasibility of private servicing of

SBA loan activities.

(3) The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,

and Related Agencies previously directed the Farmers Home

Administration to ‘‘explore the potential savings that might

occur from contract centralized servicing’’.

(4) The Committee on Agriculture of the House has consistently urged the Secretary of Agriculture to explore contracting

out loan servicing operations.

(5) The General Accounting Office has found that ‘‘Allowing

the public and private sectors to compete for the centralized

servicing (of loans) could mean reaping the benefits of the

competitive marketplace—greater efficiency, increased focus on

customer needs, increased innovation, and improved morale.’’.

(6) The House Committee on Small Business has recommended ‘‘that 40 percent of the loan servicing portfolio (for

Disaster Loans) be privatized’’.

(7) The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 1997 proposes

to review options for improving the quality of loan portfolio

management including contracting to the private sector.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

the appropriate committees of the House and the Senate should

report legislation authorizing the sale of such loan assets as they

deem appropriate in order to contribute to Government downsizing,

administrative cost savings, and improved services to borrowers.

SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHANGES IN MEDICAID.

It is the sense of Congress that any legislation changing the

medicaid program pursuant to this resolution should—

(1) guarantee coverage for low-income children, pregnant

women, the elderly, and the disabled as described in the

National Governors’ Association February 6, 1996, policy on

reforming medicaid, which was endorsed unanimously by our

Nation’s Governors;

(2) maintain the medicaid program as a matching program

while providing a fairer and more equitable formula for calculating the matching rate;

(3) reject any illusory financing schemes;

(4) continue existing law for Federal minimum quality

standards for nursing homes and the enforcement of those

standards;

(5) continue Federal rules that prevent wives or husbands

from being required to impoverish themselves in order to obtain

and keep medicaid benefits for their spouse requiring nursing

home care and continue existing prohibitions against the States

requiring the adult children of institutionalized patients from

having to contribute to the cost of nursing facility services;

and

(6) provide coverage of medicare premiums and cost-sharing

payments for low-income seniors consistent with the unanimous

National Governors’ Association medicaid policy.
H. Con. Res.178—30

SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON CHILDREN.

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

Congress should not adopt or enact any legislation that will increase

the number of children who are hungry, homeless, poor, or medically

uninsured.

(b) LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IMPACT ON CHILDREN.— In the event legislation enacted to comply with this resolution

results in an increase in the number of hungry, homeless, poor,

or medically uninsured by the end of fiscal year 1997, Congress

shall revisit the provisions of such legislation which caused such

increase and shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, adopt legislation which would halt any continuation of such increase.

SEC. 405. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEBT REPAYMENT.

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) Congress has a basic moral and ethical responsibility

to future generations to repay the Federal debt;

(2) Congress should enact a plan that balances the budget

and also develop a regimen for paying off the Federal debt;

(3) after the budget is balanced, a surplus should be created

which can be used to begin paying off the debt; and

(4) such a plan should be formulated and implemented

so that this generation can save future generations from the

crushing burdens of the Federal debt.

SEC. 406. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMITMENT TO A BALANCED

BUDGET BY FISCAL YEAR 2002.

It is the sense of Congress that the President and Congress

should continue to adhere to the statutory commitment made by

both parties on November 20, 1995, to enact legislation to achieve

a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated

by the Congressional Budget Office.

SEC. 407. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT TAX REDUCTIONS SHOULD BENEFIT WORKING FAMILIES.

It is the sense of 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. 408. SENSE OF 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 Congress indicate

that the Hospital Insurance 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’’;
H. Con. Res.178—31

(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 CONGRESS.—It is the sense of 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 which do

not include tax increases in any form, including transfers of

spending from the Medicare Part A program to the Part B

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. 409. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MEDICARE TRANSFERS.

(a) FINDINGS.—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
H. Con. Res.178—32

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. 410. SENSE OF 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 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 CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that,

in achieving the spending levels specified in this resolution, Congress assumes that 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 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.
H. Con. Res.178—33

SEC. 411. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS.

(a) FINDINGS.—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 CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 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. 412. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

The assumptions underlying functional totals 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
H. Con. Res.178—34

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 CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 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. 413. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STUDENT LOANS.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress 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;

(10) in fiscal year 1996, the Balanced Budget Act achieved

savings without reducing student loan limits or increasing fees

to students or parents; and

(11) under this budget resolution student loans will

increase from $26.6 billion today to $37.4 billion in 2002; the

Congressional Budget Office projects that these are the exact

same levels that would occur under President Clinton’s student

loan policies.
H. Con. Res.178—35

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 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. 414. SENSE OF 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) fee-for-service cost increases have forced higher outof-pocket costs for seniors; and

(4) the current Medicare managed care experience has demonstrated that Medicare HMO enrollees face lower out-of-pocket

costs when they join HMO’s in competitive markets; also, over

one half of these enrollees pay no Medicare premiums and

receive extra benefits free of charge, such as prescription drugs

and eye glasses, due to competitive market forces.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that

any reconciliation bill considered during the second session of the

104th Congress should maintain Medicare beneficiaries right to

remain in the current Medicare fee-for-service program and also

should maintain the existing prohibitions against additional charges

by providers under the Medicare fee-for-service program under title

XVIII of the Social Security Act (‘‘balance billing’’), and that Medicare beneficiaries should be offered the greatest opportunity possible

to choose private plans that will offer lower out-of-pocket costs

than what they currently pay in the Medicare fee-for-service program, and to choose a health care delivery option that best meets

their needs.

SEC. 415. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS THAT

WELFARE RECIPIENTS 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 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. 416. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON AN ACCURATE INDEX FOR INFLATION.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) a significant portion of Federal expenditures and revenues are indexed to measurements of inflation;

(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.
H. Con. Res.178—36

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 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. 417. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE 1993 INCOME TAX INCREASE

ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE REPEALED.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds 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) President Clinton has stated that he believes 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.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of 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 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. 418. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION’S

PRACTICE REGARDING THE PROSECUTION OF DRUG

SMUGGLERS.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress 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;
H. Con. Res.178—37

(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 her 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 CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the function totals and aggregates underlying this resolution assume that the Attorney General should promptly 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.
H. Con. Res.178—38

SEC. 419. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CORPORATE SUBSIDIES.

It is the sense of Congress 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.

SEC. 420. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WELFARE REFORM.

(a) Congress finds that—

(1) this resolution assumes substantial savings from welfare reform;

(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.

(b) It is the sense of Congress 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 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. 421. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FCC SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.

It is the sense of Congress 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, 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) this resolution assumes that the revenue to be raised

from auctions totals billions of dollars;

(4) this 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
H. Con. Res.178—39

(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.

SEC. 422. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON EMERGENCIES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House of Representatives finds that:

(1) The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempted from

the discretionary spending limits and the Pay-As-You-Go

requirements for entitlement and tax legislation funding

requirements that are designated by Congress and the President as an emergency.

(2) Congress and the President have increasingly misused

the emergency designation by—

(A) designating as emergencies funding requirements

that are predictable and do not pose a threat to life, property, or national security,

(B) designating emergencies with the sole purpose of

circumventing statutory and congressional spending limitations, and

(C) adding to emergency legislation controversial items

that would not otherwise withstand public scrutiny.

(b) SENSE OF THE HOUSE.—It is the sense of the House of

Representatives that in order to balance the Federal budget Congress should consider alternative approaches to budgeting for emergencies, including codifying the definition of an emergency,

establishing contingency funds to pay for emergencies, and fully

offsetting the costs of emergencies with rescissions of spending

authority that would have been obligated but for the rescission.

SEC. 423. 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) in 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 and proven program effectiveness;

(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;
H. Con. Res.178—40

(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 function totals and aggregates underlying this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that—

(1) sufficient funding should be provided to programs of

proven program effectiveness 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

efforts should be made to reform those programs of no proven

benefit;

(3) efforts should be made to ensure coordination and eliminate duplication among federally supported at-risk youth programs; and

(4) special efforts should be made to increase successful

interdiction of the flow of illegal drugs into the United States

and into communities nationwide.

SEC. 424. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG-TERM TRENDS 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 likely budgetary trends

during the next 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 likely budgetary trends during

the next 30 fiscal years, and that the President should also

include generational accounting information each year in the

President’s budget.

SEC. 425. 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 Congress adopted instead a new 4.3

cents per gallon transportation fuels tax as part of OBRA
H. Con. Res.178—41

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) 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) 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. 426. 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
H. Con. Res.178—42

imbalance between the Government’s entitlement promises and

the funds it will have available to pay for them’’;

(2) unless 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 longterm economic growth and prosperity is available.

SEC. 427. 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;
H. Con. Res.178—43

(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 aggregates 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. 428. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FEDERAL RETREATS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying

the function totals and aggregates in this resolution assume that

all Federal agencies will refrain from using Federal funds for

expenses incurred during training sessions or retreats off Federal

property, unless Federal property is not available.

SEC. 429. 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.
H. Con. Res.178—44

SEC. 430. 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 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; and

(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 Congress and the President should immediately

approve such legislation in the appropriate reconciliation vehicle.

SEC. 431. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF

HEALTH FUNDING FOR ANTI-ADDICTION DRUGS.

It is the sense of the Senate that amounts appropriated for

the National Institutes of Health should provide funding for additional research on an anti-addiction drug to block the craving for

illicit addictive substances.

SEC. 432. 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;
H. Con. Res.178—45

(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. 433. 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 fieldbased 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 fieldbased 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.
H. Con. Res.178—46

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate that

the functional totals and aggregates 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. 434. 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. 435. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

Notwithstanding any provision of this resolution, it is the sense

of the Senate that the provisions in this resolution do not assume

the repeal but rather reform of the Davis-Bacon Act.

SEC. 436. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REIMBURSEMENT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR OPERATIONS SOUTHERN WATCH AND PROVIDE COMFORT.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate 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
H. Con. Res.178—47

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 SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate that

the assumptions underlying the function totals and aggregates 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. 437. 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. 438. 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
H. Con. Res.178—48

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund or its funding mechanism

and should meet its revenue and outlay targets through other

programs within its jurisdiction.

SEC. 439. 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;

(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; and

(5) funding provided by the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust

Fund shall be made available subject to appropriations and

shall not increase mandatory spending.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.