H. Con. Res. 67 Agreed to June 29, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concur- ring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1996.

(a) DECLARATION.—The Congress determines and declares that

this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal

year 1996, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal

years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, as required by section 301 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and including the appropriate

levels for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.

Sec. 102. Debt increase.

Sec. 103. Social Security. Sec. 104. Major functional categories. Sec. 105. Reconciliation.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits.

Sec. 202. Extension of pay-as-you-go point of order. Sec. 203. Tax reserve fund in the Senate.

Sec. 204. Welfare reform reserve fund.

Sec. 205. Budget surplus allowance.

Sec. 206. Sale of government assets. Sec. 207. Credit reform and direct student loans.

Sec. 208. Extension of Budget Act 60-vote enforcement through 2002.

Sec. 209. Repeal of IRS allowance.

Sec. 210. Tax reduction contingent on balanced budget in the House of Representatives.

Sec. 211. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE III—SENSE OF THE CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND

SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of the Congress on the elimination of fraud, waste, and abuse in

the medicare system.

Sec. 302. Sense of Congress regarding privatization of the student loan marketing

association (Sallie Mae).

Sec. 303. Sense of the Congress regarding the debt limit.

Sec. 304. Sense of the Congress assumptions.

Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate that tax reductions should benefit working families.

Sec. 306. Sense of the Senate on the distribution of agriculture savings.

Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate on the establishment of a medicare solvency commission.

Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate regarding protection of children’s health.

Sec. 309. Sense of the Senate on the assumptions.

Sec. 310. House Statement on agriculture savings.
H. Con. Res. 67—2

Sec. 311. Sense of the House on baselines.

Sec. 312. Sense of the House regarding a commission on the solvency of the Federal

military and civil service retirement funds.

Sec. 313. Sense of the House regarding the repeal of House Rule XLIX.

Sec. 314. Sense of the House on emergencies.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal

years 1996, 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 1996: $1,042,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,082,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,134,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,186,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,245,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,313,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,384,200,000,000.

(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal

revenues should be changed are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $200,000,000. (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act

revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels

of Federal revenues are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $103,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $109,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $114,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $120,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $126,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $133,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $140,400,000,000. (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 1996: $1,285,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,324,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,362,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,396,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,445,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,476,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,518,800,000,000.

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

resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as

follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,288,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,316,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,338,200,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—3

Fiscal year 1999: $1,379,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,453,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,492,600,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1996: $245,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $234,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $204,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $192,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $181,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $140,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $108,400,000,000.

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

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $5,210,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $5,510,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $5,779,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $6,038,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $6,288,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $6,503,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $6,688,600,000,000.

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

new direct loan obligations are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $37,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $40,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $42,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $45,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $45,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $45,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $46,100,000,000. (7) PRIMARY LOAN GUARANTEE COMMITMENTS.—The appropriate levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as

follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $193,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $187,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $185,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $183,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $184,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $186,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $187,600,000,000.

SEC. 102. DEBT INCREASE.

The amounts of the increase in the public debt subject to

limitation are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $307,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $299,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $269,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $259,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $249,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $214,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $185,100,000,000.

SEC. 103. SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUES.—For purposes of Senate

enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal Old-
H. Con. Res. 67—4

Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability

Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $374,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $392,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $411,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $430,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $452,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $475,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $498,600,000,000.

(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 1996: $299,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $310,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $324,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $338,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $353,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $368,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $383,800,000,000.

SEC. 104. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate

levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct loan

obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal

years 1996 through 2002 for each major functional category are:

(1) National Defense (050):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $264,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $263,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $267,300,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $269,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $263,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $271,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $267,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $274,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $270,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res. 67—5

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $277,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $270,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $280,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $270,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,700,000,000.

(2) International Affairs (150):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

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

(B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,300,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—6

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

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0. (4) Energy (270):

Fiscal year 1996: (A) New budget authority, $4,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $4,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1997: (A) New budget authority, $4,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $3,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
H. Con. Res. 67—7

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $3,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

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

(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $19,200,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $18,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $18,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.

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

(6) Agriculture (350):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—8

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$5,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$5,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$5,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $11,600,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$5,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $11,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$5,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $11,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$5,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$5,700,000,000.

(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):

Fiscal year 1996: (A) New budget authority, $2,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$6,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$123,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $1,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$123,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$6,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$123,100,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—9

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$4,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$123,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $2,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$123,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$123,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$3,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$123,100,000,000.

(8) Transportation (400):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $36,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $38,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1997: (A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $37,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $42,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $34,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $42,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $33,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $42,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $32,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—10

(B) Outlays, $32,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.

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

(9) Community and Regional Development (450):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $6,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $7,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $6,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $6,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,200,000,000.

(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services

(500):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $53,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $13,600,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$16,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $47,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,900,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—11

(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,300,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$15,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $47,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $19,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$15,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $21,800,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$14,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $49,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $21,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$15,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $48,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $22,000,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$15,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $48,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $47,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $22,200,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$16,600,000,000.

(11) Health (550):

Fiscal year 1996:

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

(B) Outlays, $121,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $127,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $127,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $131,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $131,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $135,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $135,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res. 67—12

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $140,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $139,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $144,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $144,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $149,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $149,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$300,000,000.

(12) Medicare (570):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $176,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $173,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $184,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $182,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $194,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $192,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $205,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $203,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $216,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $214,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $231,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $229,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $249,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $247,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(13) Income Security (600):
H. Con. Res. 67—13

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $225,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $227,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $231,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $236,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $250,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $245,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $253,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $255,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $269,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $269,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $274,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $274,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $288,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $288,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

(14) Social Security (650):

Fiscal year 1996: (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res. 67—14

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $37,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $36,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$26,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $37,900,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$21,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $38,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $38,400,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$19,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $38,800,000,000.

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

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$18,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $39,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $40,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$19,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—15

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$19,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $40,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $41,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$20,600,000,000.

(16) Administration of Justice (750):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $19,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $18,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $19,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $20,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $21,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $20,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $20,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0. (17) General Government (800):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—16

(B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(18) Net Interest (900):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $298,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $298,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997: (A) New budget authority, $310,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $310,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $319,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $319,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $331,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $331,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $342,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $342,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $349,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $349,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $357,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $357,600,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 67—17

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(19) The corresponding levels of gross interest on the public

debt are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $369,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $381,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $390,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $404,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $416,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $426,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $436,100,000,000.

(20) Allowances (920):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$6,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$4,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$6,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$6,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$5,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, ¥$4,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, ¥$3,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$4,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, ¥$3,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$4,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, ¥$3,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$4,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$33,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$33,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$34,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$34,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res. 67—18

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$35,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$35,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$37,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$37,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$41,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$41,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION.

(a) RECONCILIATION OF SPENDING REDUCTIONS.— (1) SENATE COMMITTEES.—Not later than September 22,

1995, the committees named in this subsection shall submit

their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of

the Senate. After receiving those recommendations, the

Committee on the Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations without any

substantive revision.

(A) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FOR- ESTRY.—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 $2,503,000,000 in

fiscal year 1996, $29,059,000,000 for the period of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $48,402,000,000 for the

period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(B) COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES.—The Senate

Committee on Armed Services shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to

reduce outlays $1,571,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

$1,888,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $2,199,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2002.

(C) COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN

AFFAIRS.—The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs shall report changes in laws within

its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $481,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $1,698,000,000 for
H. Con. Res. 67—19

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$2,391,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2002.

(D) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND

TRANSPORTATION.—The Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to

reduce outlays $114,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

$9,088,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $15,036,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2002.

(E) COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.—

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

provide direct spending to reduce outlays $354,000,000 in

fiscal year 1996, $4,292,000,000 for the period of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $4,001,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(F) COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS.—

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

provide direct spending to reduce outlays $118,000,000 in

fiscal year 1996, $1,308,000,000 for the period of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $2,250,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(G) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—(i) The Senate Committee on Finance shall report changes in laws within its

jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays

$15,328,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $272,974,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$530,359,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2002.

(ii) The Senate Committee on Finance shall report

changes in laws to increase the statutory limit on the

public debt to not more than $5,500,000,000,000.

(H) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.—The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit

$524,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $5,357,000,000 for the

period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$9,844,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2002.

(I) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.—The Senate

Committee on the Judiciary shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to

reduce outlays $0 in fiscal year 1996, $238,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$476,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2002.

(J) COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES.—

The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

provide direct spending to reduce outlays $809,000,000 in

fiscal year 1996, $6,956,000,000 for the period of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $10,779,000,000 for the

period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
H. Con. Res. 67—20

(K) COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS.—The Senate

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in

laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending

to reduce outlays $274,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

$3,614,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $6,392,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2002.

(2) HOUSE COMMITTEES.—

(A) GENERAL RULES.—(i) Not later than September 22,

1995, the House committees named in clauses (i) through

(xii) of subparagraph (B) shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the

Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive

revision.

(ii) Each committee named in clauses (i) through (xi)

of subparagraph (B) shall report changes in laws within

its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the

total level of direct spending for that committee for—

(I) fiscal year 1996,

(II) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year

1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000, and

(III) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year

1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,

does not exceed the total level of direct spending in that

period in the clause applicable to that committee.

(iii) Each committee named in clauses (i)(II), (iv)(II),

(v)(II), and (vi)(II) of subparagraph (B) shall report changes

in laws within its jurisdiction as set forth in the clause

applicable to that committee.

(iv) The Committee on Ways and Means shall carry out subparagraph (B)(xii). (B) COMMITTEE AMOUNTS.—(i)(I) The House Committee

on Agriculture: $10,506,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1996, $44,741,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $59,232,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1996 through 2002. (II) In addition to the changes in law reported pursuant to subclause (I), the House Committee on Agriculture shall

report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide

direct spending (other than that defined within subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) such that the

total level of direct spending (as so defined) for that committee does not exceed: $26,748,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

year 1996, $133,246,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $192,270,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1996 through 2002.

(ii) The House Committee on Banking and Financial

Services: ¥$13,087,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

¥$50,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and ¥$65,112,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(iii) The House Committee on Commerce:

$285,537,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$1,592,240,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through
H. Con. Res. 67—21

2000, and $2,361,708,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1996 through 2002.

(iv)(I) The House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities: $16,026,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

year 1996, $77,346,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $110,936,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1996 through 2002.

(II) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant

to subclause (I), the House Committee on Economic and

Educational Opportunities shall report program changes

in laws within its jurisdiction that would result in a reduction in outlays as follows: ¥$720,000,000 in fiscal year

1996, ¥$5,810,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000,

and ¥$8,770,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(v)(I) The House Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight: $57,743,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1996, $310,364,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $449,583,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1996 through 2002.

(II) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant

to subclause (I), the House Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight shall report changes in laws within

its jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by: $85,000,000

in fiscal year 1996, $775,000,000 in fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $1,127,000,000 in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(vi)(I) The House Committee on International Relations: $14,243,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$62,072,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $83,221,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002. (II) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant to subclause (I), the House Committee on International

Relations shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by: $1,000,000 in fiscal

year 1996, $14,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000,

and $22,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2002. (vii) The House Committee on the Judiciary:

$2,580,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$13,734,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $19,530,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002. (viii) The House Committee on National Security:

$39,601,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$226,931,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $331,210,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(ix) The House Committee on Resources:

$1,535,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$7,816,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2000,

and $12,871,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2002.

(x) The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: $16,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$83,070,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $116,811,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.
H. Con. Res. 67—22

(xi) The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs:

$19,041,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$106,163,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $154,864,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(xii)(I) 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 for—

(aa) fiscal year 1996,

(bb) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year

1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000, and

(cc) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year

1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,

does not exceed the following level in that period:

$349,172,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$2,010,751,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $3,002,706,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1996 through 2002.

(II) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall

report changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that

the total level of revenues for that committee for fiscal

year 2000 is not less than $1,304,215,000,000 and for fiscal

years 1996 through 2002 is not less than

$17,938,254,000,000.

(III) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall

report changes in laws to increase the statutory limit on

the public debt to not more than $5,500,000,000,000.

(C) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this paragraph, 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. (b) RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN THE SENATE.— (1) CERTIFICATION.—In the Senate, upon the certification

pursuant to section 205(a) of this resolution, the Senate

Committee on Finance shall submit its recommendations pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Senate Committee on the Budget.

After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the

Budget shall add these recommendations to the recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and report a reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations without

any substantive revision. (2) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—Not later than five days after the certification made pursuant to section 205(a), the Senate

Committee on Finance shall report changes in laws within

its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by not more than

$50,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $245,000,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS

AND RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) DEFINITION.—As used in this section and for the purposes

of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the
H. Con. Res. 67—23

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary category,

the term ‘‘discretionary spending limit’’ means—

(1) with respect to fiscal year 1996—

(A) for the defense category $265,406,000,000 in new

budget authority and $264,043,000,000 in outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category $219,668,000,000 in

new budget authority and $267,725,000,000 in outlays;

(2) with respect to fiscal year 1997—

(A) for the defense category $267,962,000,000 in new

budget authority and $265,734,000,000 in outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category $214,468,000,000 in

new budget authority and $254,561,000,000 in outlays;

(3) with respect to fiscal year 1998—

(A) for the defense category $269,731,000,000 in new

budget authority and $264,531,000,000 in outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category $220,961,000,000 in

new budget authority and $248,101,000,000 in outlays;

(4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary

category $482,207,000,000 in new budget authority and

$510,482,000,000 in outlays;

(5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary

category $489,379,000,000 in new budget authority and

$514,234,000,000 in outlays;

(6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary

category $496,601,000,000 in new budget authority and

$516,403,000,000 in outlays; and

(7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary

category $498,837,000,000 in new budget authority and

$515,075,000,000 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) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal

year 1996, 1997, or 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

years 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, motion,

or conference report on such a resolution) that provides

discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary spending limit for such fiscal year; or

(C) any appropriations bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such appropriations

bill or resolution) for fiscal year 1995, 1996, 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
H. Con. Res. 67—24

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has

been enacted.

(B) ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY LIMITS.—Paragraph (1)(A) and the application of paragraph (1)(B) to

fiscal years 1997 through 2002 shall not take effect until

the enactment of a reconciliation bill pursuant to section

105 of this resolution.

(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 this

section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new entitlement

authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on

the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget

of the Senate.

SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER.

(a) PURPOSE.—The Senate declares that it is essential to—

(1) ensure continued compliance with the balanced budget

plan set forth in this resolution; and

(2) continue the pay-as-you-go enforcement system.

(b) POINT OF ORDER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Senate

to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that

would increase the deficit for any one of the three applicable

time periods as measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).

(2) APPLICABLE TIME PERIODS.—For purposes of this subsection the term ‘‘applicable time period’’ means any one of

the three following periods:

(A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted

concurrent resolution on the budget.

(B) The period of the first five fiscal years covered

by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the

budget.

(C) The period of the five fiscal years following the

first five fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted

concurrent resolution on the budget.

(3) DIRECT-SPENDING LEGISLATION.—For purposes of this

subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term

‘‘direct-spending legislation’’ means any bill, joint resolution,

amendment, motion, or conference report that affects direct

spending as that term is defined by and interpreted for purposes

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

of 1985.

(4) EXCLUSION.—For purposes of this subsection, the terms

‘‘direct-spending legislation’’ and ‘‘revenue legislation’’ do not

include—

(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or
H. Con. Res. 67—25

(B) any provision of legislation that affects the full

funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance

guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment

of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

(5) BASELINE.—Estimates prepared pursuant to this section

shall—

(A) use the baseline used for the most recently adopted

concurrent resolution on the budget; and

(B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections

(b) through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal years

beyond those covered by that concurrent resolution on the

budget.

(6) PRIOR SURPLUS.—If direct spending or revenue legislation increases the deficit when taken individually, then it must

also increase the deficit when taken together with all direct

spending and revenue legislation enacted since the beginning

of the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline under

paragraph (5)(A), except that the direct spending or revenue

effects resulting from legislation enacted pursuant to the reconciliation instructions included in that concurrent resolution

on the budget shall not be available.

(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 bill or joint resolution, as the

case may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members

of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the

Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point

of order raised under this section.

(e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For purposes of this

section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and revenues

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

made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. (f) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 23 of House Concurrent

Resolution 218 (103d Congress) is repealed. (g) SUNSET.—Subsections (a) through (e) of this section shall

expire September 30, 2002.

SEC. 203. TAX RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, on or after October 1, 1995,

revenue and spending aggregates shall be reduced and allocations

may be revised for legislation that reduces revenues within a

committee’s jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of

conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, to the

extent that the costs of such legislation are not included in this

concurrent resolution on the budget, the enactment of such legislation will not increase the deficit in this resolution for—

(1) fiscal year 1996;

(2) the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000; or

(3) the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting of legislation

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon the submission of a

conference report on such legislation (if a conference report is
H. Con. Res. 67—26

submitted), 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 concurrent resolution on the budget.

(c) REPORTING REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—The appropriate

committee shall report appropriately revised allocations pursuant

to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to carry out this section.

SEC. 204. WELFARE REFORM RESERVE FUND.

(a) IN GENERAL.—

(1) DIRECT SPENDING.—In the Senate and the House of

Representatives, budget authority and outlays, and (in the

House) entitlement authority, allocated to a committee may

be revised, pursuant to subsection (b)(1), for legislation in that

committee’s jurisdiction that has the effect of reducing direct

spending for a welfare program and authorizes an increase

in discretionary spending for that welfare program, if that

committee reports such legislation.

(2) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—In the Senate and the

House of Representatives, budget authority and outlays allocated to the Committee on Appropriations, and (in the Senate)

the discretionary spending limits in section 201 of this resolution, may be increased, pursuant to subsection (b)(2), for an

appropriation measure that provides new discretionary budget

authority for a welfare program pursuant to authority provided

in legislation described in paragraph (1), if the Committee

on Appropriations reports such an appropriation measure.

(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.— (1) DIRECT SPENDING.—Upon reporting of legislation pursu- ant to subsection (a)(1) and again upon submission of a conference report on such legislation, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House or Senate (whichever is appropriate) may submit to that House revised allocations under

sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 to carry out this section. Such revised allocations shall

be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 to be the allocations under this concurrent budget

resolution. In the Senate, the revision shall reflect that amount

of the direct spending savings estimated to result from such

legislation to the extent they exceed the savings assumed in

this concurrent resolution on the budget.

(2) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—Upon reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a)(2) and again upon the submission of a conference report on such legislation, the chairman

of the Committee on the Budget of the House or Senate (whichever is appropriate) may submit to that House revised allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 and revised discretionary spending limits.

The revision shall reflect that amount of the new discretionary

budget authority provided for the welfare program up to the

level authorized in the legislation reported pursuant to subsection (a)(1), except that the budget authority and outlay revi-
H. Con. Res. 67—27

sions shall not exceed the adjustments made pursuant to paragraph (1) for that welfare program. Such revised allocations

and discretionary spending limits shall be considered, for the

purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to be the

allocations and spending limits under this concurrent resolution

on the budget.

(c) COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.—The Committees on

Appropriations 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 subsection (b)(2), to carry out this section.

SEC. 205. BUDGET SURPLUS ALLOWANCE.

(a) CBO CERTIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE SUBMISSIONS.—

(1) SUBMISSION OF LEGISLATION.—Upon the submission of

legislative recommendations pursuant to section 105(a) and

prior to the submission of a conference report on legislation

reported pursuant to section 105, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives (as the case may be) shall submit such recommendations

to the Congressional Budget Office.

(2) BASIS OF ESTIMATES.—For the purposes of preparing

an estimate pursuant to this subsection, the Congressional

Budget Office shall include the budgetary impact of all legislation enacted to date, use the economic and technical assumptions underlying this resolution, and assume compliance with

the total discretionary spending levels assumed in this resolution unless superseded by law. (3) ESTIMATE OF LEGISLATION.—The Congressional Budget

Office shall provide an estimate to the Chairman of the Budget

Committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives

(as the case may be) and certify whether the legislative recommendations would balance the total budget by fiscal year

2002.

(4) CERTIFICATION.—If the Congressional Budget Office certifies that such legislative recommendations would balance the

total budget by fiscal year 2002, the Chairman shall submit

such certification in his respective House.

(b) PROCEDURE IN THE SENATE.— (1) ADJUSTMENTS.—For the purposes of points of order

under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and this concurrent

resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary allocations

and aggregates shall be revised to be consistent with the

instructions set forth in section 105(b) for legislation that

reduces revenues by providing family tax relief and incentives

to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic

growth.

(2) REVISED AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation pursuant to section 105(b) and again upon the submission

of a conference report on such legislation, the Chairman of

the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit appropriately revised budgetary allocations and aggregates.

(3) EFFECT OF REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—

Revised allocations and aggregates submitted under paragraph

(2) shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained

in this resolution.
H. Con. Res. 67—28

(c) CONTINGENCIES.—This section shall not apply unless the reconciliation legislation— (1) complies with the sum of the reconciliation directives

for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002 provided in

section 105(a); and

(2) would balance the total budget for fiscal year 2002 and the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this section, the term

‘‘balance the total budget’’ means total outlays are less than or

equal to total revenues for a fiscal year or a period of fiscal years.

SEC. 206. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

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

(1) the prohibition on scoring asset sales has discouraged the sale of assets that can be better managed by the private

sector and generate receipts to reduce the Federal budget deficit;

(2) the President’s fiscal year 1996 budget included $8,000,000,000 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.—For purposes of any concurrent resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of

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

with respect to the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues. (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘sale of an asset’’ shall have the same meaning as under section 250(c)(21)

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. (d) TREATMENT OF LOAN ASSETS.—For the 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. 207. CREDIT REFORM AND 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.

(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
H. Con. Res. 67—29

(C) writeoff and closeout of loans.

SEC. 208. EXTENSION OF BUDGET ACT 60-VOTE ENFORCEMENT

THROUGH 2002.

Notwithstanding section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as amended by sections

13112(b) and 13208(b)(3) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990),

the second sentence of section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 (except insofar as it relates to section 313 of that

Act) and the final sentence of section 904(d) of that Act (except

insofar as it relates to section 313 of that Act) shall continue

to have effect as rules of the Senate through (but no later than)

September 30, 2002.

SEC. 209. REPEAL OF IRS ALLOWANCE.

Section 25 of House Concurrent Resolution 218 (103d Congress, 2d Session) is repealed.

SEC. 210. TAX REDUCTION CONTINGENT ON BALANCED BUDGET IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

(a) ESTIMATES AND CERTIFICATION.— (1) ESTIMATES.—Upon reporting a reconciliation bill to carry out this resolution, the chairman of the Committee on

the Budget of the House shall submit such legislation to the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office (hereinafter in this

section referred to as the ‘‘Director’’). The Director shall provide

an estimate of whether the enactment of the bill, as reported,

would result in a balanced total budget by fiscal year 2002.

(2) CERTIFICATION.—(A) If the enactment of the bill as

estimated by the Director would so balance the budget, the

chairman of the Committee on the Budget is authorized to

so certify.

(B) If the enactment of the bill as estimated by the Director

would not so balance the budget, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall notify the chairman of the Committee

on Rules. The Committee on Rules may recommend to the

House a resolution providing for the consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of

the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on the Budget,

modified by amendments to achieve a balanced budget by fiscal

year 2002 and amendments described in section 310(d) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as an original bill for purposes of amendment.

(C) If the Committee on Rules so recommends, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall submit the substitute text to the Director, who shall provide an estimate

of whether the substitute text would balance the total budget

by fiscal year 2002. If the enactment of the bill as estimated

by the Director would so balance the budget, the chairman

of the Committee on the Budget is authorized to so certify.

(3) BASIS OF ESTIMATE.—In preparing any estimate under

this section, the Director shall include the budgetary impact

of all legislation enacted through the date of submission of

that estimate and of all legislation incorporated by reference

in the reconciliation bill, use the economic and technical

assumptions underlying this resolution, assume compliance

with the total discretionary levels assumed in this resolution

unless superseded by law, and include changes in outlays and
H. Con. Res. 67—30

revenues estimated to result from the economic impact of balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the

Congressional Budget Office in Table B–4 in Appendix B of

its Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal

Year 1996.

(b) PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—

(1) ADJUSTMENTS.—Upon certification by the chairman of

the Committee on the Budget of the House under subsection

(a), the chairman shall submit a report to the House that

revises the appropriate budgetary allocations, aggregates, and

totals to be consistent with the instructions set forth in section

105(a)(2)(B)(xii)(II).

(2) EFFECT OF REVISED ALLOCATIONS, AGGREGATES, AND

TOTALS.—In the House of Representatives, revised allocations,

aggregates, and totals submitted under paragraph (1) shall

be deemed as the allocations, aggregates, and totals contained

in this resolution for all purposes under the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974.

(3) STATEMENT REGARDING POINT OF ORDER.—If the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget does not certify

a balanced budget by 2002, then the reconciliation bill to carry

out this resolution would be subject to a point of order under

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 211. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

The Congress adopts the provisions of this title—

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

and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such

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

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

rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they

are inconsistent therewith; and

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

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

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

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

TITLE III—SENSE OF THE CONGRESS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND

SENATE

SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON THE ELIMINATION OF FRAUD,

WASTE, AND ABUSE IN THE MEDICARE SYSTEM.

It is the sense of the Congress that, in order to meet the

aggregate levels in this budget resolution—

(1) the committees of jurisdiction should give high priority

to proposals that identify, eliminate, and recover funds

expended from the medicare trust funds due to fraud and

abuse in the medicare program in order to address the longterm solvency of medicare; and

(2) any funds recovered from enhanced antifraud and abuse

efforts should be used to enhance the solvency of medicare.
H. Con. Res. 67—31

SEC. 302. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRIVATIZATION OF THE

STUDENT LOAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION (SALLIE MAE).

It is the sense of the Congress that the Student Loan Marketing

Association should be restructured as a private corporation.

SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE DEBT LIMIT.

It is the sense of the Congress that—

(1) the reconciliation legislation under section 105 of this

budget resolution should be enacted prior to passage of legislation that will extend the public debt limit; and

(2) the extension of the public debt should be set at levels

and for durations that ensure a balanced budget by fiscal

year 2002, consistent with this budget resolution.

SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ASSUMPTIONS.

It is the sense of the Congress that the aggregates and functional levels included in this budget resolution assume that—

(1) Federal programs should be restructured to meet identified priorities in the most effective and efficient manner, to

eliminate obsolete programs, and to reduce duplication;

(2) Federal programs should be reviewed to determine

whether they are more appropriately the responsibility of the

States and, for programs that should be under State responsibility, that—

(A) Federal funding of these programs should be provided in a manner that rewards work, promotes families,

and provides a helping hand during times of crisis;

(B) the programs should be returned in the form of

block grants that provide maximum flexibility to the States

and localities to ensure the maximum benefit at the least

cost to the American taxpayer; (C) Federal funds should not supplant existing expenditures by other sources, both public and private; and (D) the Federal interest in the program should be

protected with adequate safeguards, such as auditing or

maintenance of effort provisions, and that Federal goals

and principles may be appropriate;

(3) Congress should examine Federal functions to determine those that could be more conveniently, efficiently, and

effectively performed by the private sector and, in order to

facilitate the privatization of these functions—

(A) provisions of law that prohibit or ‘‘lockout’’ the

private sector from competing for the provision of certain

services should be eliminated;

(B) section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 should be repealed or

modified to permit the sale of assets when appropriate

to privatization goals;

(C) each Federal agency and department should be

encouraged to develop and evaluate privatization initiatives; and

(D) the ‘‘Common Rule’’, modified by Executive Order

12803, should be modified to delete grant repayment provisions which restrict local governments and prevent private

sector investments in Federal-aid facilities;

(4) Congress, in fulfilling its responsibility to future generations, should—
H. Con. Res. 67—32

(A) enact a plan that balances the budget by 2002

and develop a regimen for paying off the Federal debt;

and

(B) once the budget is in balance, use the surpluses

to implement that regimen;

(5) in considering child nutrition programs—

(A) reductions in nutrition program spending should

be achieved without compromising the nutritional wellbeing of program recipients;

(B) school lunches should continue to meet minimal

nutrition requirements and should not have to compete

with alternative foods of minimal nutritional value during

lunch hours; and

(C) the content of the Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC) food package should continue to be based on scientific

evidence; and

(6) science and technology development are critical to

sustainable long-term economic growth and priority should be

given to Federal funding for science and basic and applied

research.

SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT TAX REDUCTIONS SHOULD

BENEFIT WORKING FAMILIES.

It is the sense of the Senate that this concurrent resolution

on the budget assumes any reductions in taxes should be structured

to benefit working families by providing family tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic

growth.

SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE SAVINGS.

It is the sense of the Senate that, in response to the reconciliation instructions in section 105 of this resolution, the Senate

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry should provide

that no more than 20 percent of the savings be achieved in commodity programs.

SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEDICARE SOLVENCY COMMISSION.

It is the sense of the Senate 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 on the most appropriate

response to the short-term solvency crisis facing medicare;

(2) the commission should report its recommendations

under paragraph (1) at the earliest possible date, in order

that the committees of jurisdiction may give due consideration

to those recommendations in fashioning their response pursuant

to section 105 of this resolution; and

(3) the commission should study, evaluate, and make recommendations to sustain the long-term viability of the medicare

system and should report those recommendations to Congress

by February 1, 1996.
H. Con. Res. 67—33

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PROTECTION OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH.

It is the sense of the Senate that, in meeting the aggregates

and levels in this resolution, the committees of jurisdiction of the

Senate—

(1) should give careful consideration to the impact of medicaid reform legislation on children’s health; and (2) should encourage States to place a priority on funding

for low-income pregnant women and children within any medicaid reform legislation that allows greater flexibility to the

States in the delivery of care and in controlling the rate of

growth in costs under the program.

SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE ASSUMPTIONS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the aggregates and functional

levels included in this budget resolution assume that—

(1) beginning with fiscal year 1997, the Federal government

should establish, implement, and maintain a uniform accounting system and provide financial statements in accordance with

accepted accounting principles under standards and interpretations recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board;

(2) Congress should revise the Internal Revenue Code to

ensure that very wealthy individuals are not able to reduce

or avoid United States income, estate or gift tax liability by

relinquishing their U.S. citizenship and, that, any savings

resulting from this revision should be used to reduce the deficit;

(3) in furtherance of the goals of the Decade of the Brain,

full funding should be provided for research on brain diseases

and disorders;

(4) the essential air service program should receive sufficient funding to continue to provide air service to small rural

communities;

(5) funds will be made available to reimburse States for

the costs of implementing the National Voter Registration Act

of 1993; and

(6) a temporary nonpartisan commission should be established to make recommendations concerning the appropriateness and accuracy of the methodology and calculations that

determine the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and those recommendations should be submitted to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics at the earliest possible date.

SEC. 310. HOUSE STATEMENT ON AGRICULTURE SAVINGS.

The House of Representatives shall re-examine budget reductions for agricultural programs in the United States Department

of Agriculture for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 unless the following

conditions are met:

(1) Land values on agricultural land on January 1, 1998,

are at least 95 percent of the same values on the date of

adoption of this resolution.

(2) There is enacted into law regulatory relief for the agricultural sector in the areas of wetlands regulation, the Endangered Species Act, private property rights and cost-benefit

analyses of proposed regulations.

(3) There is tax relief for producers in the form of capital

gains tax reduction, increased estate tax exemptions and
H. Con. Res. 67—34

mechanisms to average tax loads over strong and weak income

years.

(4) There is no government interference in the international

market in the form of agricultural trade embargoes in effect

and there is successful implementation and enforcement of

trade agreements, including the General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to lower export subsidies and reduce import

barriers to trade imposed by foreign governments.

SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON BASELINES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House of Representatives 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 provided

under current law;

(3) baseline budgeting is inherently biased against policies

that would reduce the projected growth in spending because

such policies are scored as a reduction from a rising baseline;

and

(4) the baseline concept has encouraged Congress to

abdicate its constitutional responsibility to control the public

purse for programs which are automatically funded under existing law.

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

Representatives that baseline budgeting should be replaced with

a form of budgeting that requires full justification and analysis

of budget proposals and maximizes congressional accountability

for public spending.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING A COMMISSION ON THE

SOLVENCY OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT FUNDS.

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

Federal retirement system, for both military and civil service retirees, currently has liabilities of $1,100,000,000,000, while holding

assets worth $340,000,000,000 and anticipating employee contributions of $220,000,000,000, which leaves an unfunded liability of

$540,000,000,000.

(b) SENSE OF HOUSE.—It is the sense of the House of Representatives that a high-level commission should be convened to study

the problems associated with the Federal retirement system and

make recommendations that will ensure the long-term solvency

of the military and civil service retirement funds.

SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE REPEAL OF HOUSE

RULE XLIX.

It is the sense of the House that rule XLIX of the Rules

of the House of Representatives (popularly known as the Gephardt

rule) should be repealed.

SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON EMERGENCIES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House of Representative 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
H. Con. Res. 67—35

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 funding as an emergency that is neither unforeseen nor a genuine emergency; and

(B) circumventing spending limits or passing controversial items that would not pass scrutiny in a free-standing

bill.

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

Congress should study alternative approaches to budgeting for

emergencies, including codifying the definition of an emergency

and establishing contingency funds to pay for emergencies.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.