JOURNAL OF THE

774

T69.17 MAY 18

and $5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1996, $5,100,000,000 in budget authority and

$5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997,

$5,100,000,000 in budget authority and

$5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998,

$5,100,000,000 in budget authority and

$5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999,

$5,100,000,000 in budget authority and

$5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000,

$5,100,000,000 in budget authority and

$5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001,

and $5,100,000,000 in budget authority and

$5,100,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(h) The House Committee on the Judiciary

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays

as follows: $43,000,000 in budget authority and

$43,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$43,000,000 in budget authority and $43,000,000

in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $43,000,000 in

budget authority and $43,000,000 in outlays in

fiscal year 1998, $43,000,000 in budget authority and $43,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1999, $43,000,000 in budget authority and

$43,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000,

$43,000,000 in budget authority and $43,000,000

in outlays in fiscal year 2001, and $43,000,000

in budget authority and $43,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

(j) The House Committee on Resources

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays

as follows: $1,250,000,000 in budget authority

and $1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1996, $1,250,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997,

$1,250,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998,

$1,250,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999,

$1,250,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000,

$1,250,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001,

and $1,250,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,250,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(l) The House Committee on Small Business shall report changes in laws within its

jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: $14,285,000 in budget authority and $14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1996, $14,285,000 in budget authority and

$14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997,

$14,285,000 in budget authority and $14,285,000

in outlays in fiscal year 1998, $14,285,000 in

budget authority and $14,285,000 in outlays in

fiscal year 1999, $14,285,000 in budget authority and $14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year

2000, $14,285,000 in budget authority and

$14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, and

$14,285,000 in budget authority and $14,285,000

in fiscal year 2002.

(m) The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

provide direct spending sufficient to reduce

budget authority and outlays as follows:

$1,340,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,340,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$1,336,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997,

$1,336,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998,

$1,336,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999,

$1,336,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000,

$1,336,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001,

and $1,336,000,000 in budget authority and

$1,336,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(o) The House Committee on Ways and

Means shall report changes in laws within its

jurisdiction sufficient to increase revenues,

as follows: $17,800,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

$30,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,

$64,600,000,000 in fiscal year 1998,

$103,130,000,000 in fiscal year 1999,

$115,930,000,000 in fiscal year 2000,

$183,774,000,000 in fiscal year 2001, and

$195,520,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

(p) 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 and the term ‘‘new budget authority’’

has the meaning given to such term in section 3(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Yeas ....... 56

It was decided in the Nays ...... 367 ! negative ....................... Answered

present 1

T69.17 [Roll No. 344]

AYES—56

Becerra

Bonior

Brown (FL)

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Collins (IL)

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Coyne

DeFazio

Dellums

Dixon

Engel

Fattah

Fields (LA)

Filner

Foglietta

Ford

Frank (MA)

Gonzalez

Green

Hastings (FL)

Hilliard

Hinchey

Jackson-Lee

Johnson, E. B.

Lewis (GA)

Martinez

McDermott

McKinney

Meek

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mink

Nadler

Oberstar

Owens

Payne (NJ)

Rangel

Reynolds

Sabo

Sanders

Scott

Serrano

Stark

Stokes

Thompson

Torres

Tucker

Velazquez

Waters

Watt (NC)

Woolsey

Wynn

Yates

NOES—367

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Allard

Andrews

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Baldacci

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Barrett (WI)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Borski

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brown (OH)

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bryant (TX)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Cardin

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Coleman

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeLauro

DeLay

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dicks

Dingell

Doggett

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Durbin

Edwards

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Eshoo

Evans

Everett

Ewing

Farr

Fawell

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Furse

Gallegly

Ganske

Gejdenson

Gekas

Gephardt

Geren

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutierrez

Gutknecht

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Harman

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hoyer

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, Sam

Johnston

Jones

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kasich

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaFalce

LaHood

Lantos

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Levin

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Lipinski

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Longley

Lowey

Lucas

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Manzullo

Markey

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHale

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Meehan

Menendez

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Mineta

Minge

Moakley

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Neal

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Pallone

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Pomeroy

Porter

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Reed

Regula

Richardson

Riggs

Rivers

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Schroeder

Schumer

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skeen

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Thornton

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torricelli

Traficant

Upton

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Wyden

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

Bishop

NOT VOTING—10

Archer

Berman

Flake

Kleczka

Livingston

McNulty

Mollohan

Rush

Towns

Waxman

So the amendment was not agreed to.

The SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

When Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 149,

reported the bill back to the House

with an amendment adopted by the

Committee.

The previous question having been

ordered by said resolution.

Pursuant to House Resolution 149,

the following amendment was considered as adopted:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the

Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996.

The Congress determines and declares that

this resolution is the concurrent resolution

on the budget for fiscal year 1996, including
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

775

1995 T69.17

the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal

years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, as

required by section 301 of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1995, October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997,

October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, October 1,

2000, and October 1, 2001:

(1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,057,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,058,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,099,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,138,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,189,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,247,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,316,600,000,000.

and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $14,987,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: ¥$24,393,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: ¥$34,772,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: ¥$48,354,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: ¥$58,836,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: ¥$69,275,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: ¥$71,859,000,000.

and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $103,815,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $108,986,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $114,877,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $120,698,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $126,893,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $133,590,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $140,425,000,000.

(2) The appropriate levels of total new

budget authority are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,285,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,321,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,355,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,388,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,421,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,459,800,000,000.

(3) The appropriate levels of total budget

outlays are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,287,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,313,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,326,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,363,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,400,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,414,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,437,300,000,000.

(4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: ¥$229,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: ¥$255,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: ¥$227,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: ¥$224,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: ¥$211,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: ¥$167,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: ¥$120,700,000,000.

(5) The appropriate levels of the public

debt are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $5,195,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $5,516,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $5,809,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $6,099,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $6,374,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $6,614,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $6,806,100,000,000.

(6) The appropriate levels of total Federal

credit activity for the fiscal years beginning

on October 1, 1995, October 1, 1996, October 1,

1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, October

1, 2000, and October 1, 2001 are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$37,600,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $193,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$40,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $187,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$42,300,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $185,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$45,700,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $183,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$45,800,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $184,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$45,800,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $186,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$46,100,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $187,600,000,000.

SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that

the appropriate levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and new secondary 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, $267,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $265,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $269,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $265,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $277,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $265,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $281,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $271,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $287,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $279,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $287,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $279,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $287,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $279,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(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, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $9,700,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(3) General Science, Space, and Technology

(250):

Fiscal year 1996:

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

(B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary 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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

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

(B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
JOURNAL OF THE

776

T69.17 MAY 18

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(4) Energy (270):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $4,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

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

(B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

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

(B) Outlays, $2,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(5) Natural Resources and Environment

(300):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$100,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$100,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$100,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$100,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$100,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $18,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$100,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$100,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(6) Agriculture (350):

Fiscal year 1996:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,500,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,500,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

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

(B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$10,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,600,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $7,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$10,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $123,100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $2,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$4,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $123,100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.

(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.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

777

1995 T69.17

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $1,900,000,000.

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $123,100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $123,100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(8) Transportation (400):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $40,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $42,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $37,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $35,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $34,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $43,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $34,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$200,000,000.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(9) Community and Regional Development

(450):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$2,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(10) Education, Training, Employment, and

Social Services (500):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $45,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $52,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$13,600,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

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

(B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$16,300,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $15,900,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $44,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $44,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$19,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $15,200,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $45,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$21,800,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $14,300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $45,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$21,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $15,000,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$22,000,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $15,800,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$22,200,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $16,600,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(11) Health (550):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $121,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $122,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $127,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $127,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $132,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $132,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $136,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $136,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $141,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $141,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $146,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $146,200,000,000.
JOURNAL OF THE

778

T69.17 MAY 18

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $149,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $148,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(12) Medicare (570):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $177,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $175,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $186,600,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $195,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $194,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $206,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $203,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $214,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $212,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $224,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $222,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $234,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $232,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(13) Income Security (600):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $222,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $225,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

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

(B) Outlays, $235,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $248,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $243,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $255,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $254,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $265,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $267,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $267,600,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $277,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $279,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(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.

(E) New secondary 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.

(E) New secondary 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.

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

(E) New secondary 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.

(E) New secondary 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.

(E) New secondary 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.

(E) New secondary 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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $38,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $21,600,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,000,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $19,700,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

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

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $39,200,000,000.

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $19,900,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $40,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $41,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$1,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,600,000,000.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(16) Administration of Justice (750):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $16,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $16,600,000,000.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

779

1995 T69.17

(B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(17) General Government (800):

Fiscal year 1996:

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

(B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(18) Net Interest (900):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $295,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $295,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $304,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $304,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $308,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $308,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $314,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $314,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $320,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $320,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $322,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $322,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(19) Allowances (920):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$1,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$2,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$34,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$34,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary 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.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$37,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$37,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 1999:

(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.

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$38,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$38,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, ¥$37,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, ¥$39,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
JOURNAL OF THE

780

T69.17 MAY 18

SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

(a)(1) Not later than July 14, 1995, the

House committees named in paragraphs (1)

through (12) of subsection (b) of this section

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.

(2) Each committee named in paragraphs

(1) through (11) of subsection (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—

(A) fiscal year 1996,

(B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal

year 1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000,

and

(C) 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 paragraph applicable to that committee.

(3) Each committee named in paragraphs

(2)(B), (4)(B), (5)(B), and (6)(B) of subsection

(b) shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction as set forth in the paragraph applicable to that committee.

(4) The Committee on Ways and Means

shall carry out subsection (b)(12).

(b)(1) The House Committee on Agriculture: $35,824,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

year 1996, $171,886,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $263,102,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(2)(A) The House Committee on Banking

and Financial Services: ¥$12,897,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal year 1996, ¥$43,065,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

¥$57,184,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

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 1996,

¥$100,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000,

and ¥$260,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through

2002.

(3) The House Committee on Commerce:

$293,665,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$1,726,600,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $2,625,094,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(4)(A) The House Committee on Economic

and Educational Opportunities: $13,727,000,000

in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $61,570,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$95,520,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(B) In addition to changes in law reported

pursuant to subparagraph (A), 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,

¥$5,908,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and ¥$9,018,000,000 in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(5)(A) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: $57,725,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal year 1996, $313,647,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$455,328,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(B) In addition to changes in law reported

pursuant to subparagraph (A), the House

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall report changes in laws within its

jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by:

¥$988,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

¥$9,618,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and ¥$14,740,000,000 in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(6)(A) The House Committee on International Relations: $14,246,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal year 1996, $62,076,000,000 in outlays in

fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$83,206,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(B) In addition to changes in law reported

pursuant to subparagraph (A), the House

Committee on International Relations shall

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by:

¥$19,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

¥$95,000,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and ¥$123,000,000 in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(7) The House Committee on the Judiciary:

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

$14,043,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $20,029,000,000 in outlays in

fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(8) The House Committee on National Security: $38,769,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1996, $224,682,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $328,334,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(9) The House Committee on Resources:

$1,558,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,

$6,532,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $12,512,000,000 in outlays in

fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(10) The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: $16,636,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal year 1996, $83,227,000,000 in

outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$117,079,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(11) The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: $19,041,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year

1996, $105,965,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $154,054,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(12)(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 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 following level in that

period: $356,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

year 1996, $2,152,905,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $3,297,787,000,000

in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(B) In addition to changes in law reported

pursuant to subparagraph (A), 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—

(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,

is not less than the following amount in that

period: $1,027,612,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

$5,371,087,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through

2000, and $7,836,405,000,000 in fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(c)(1) Not later than September 14, 1995, the

House committees named in paragraphs (2)

and (3) shall submit their recommendations

to the House Committee on the Budget.

After receiving those recommendations, the

House Budget Committee shall report to the

House a reconciliation bill carrying out all

such recommendations without any substantive revisions.

(2) In addition to changes in laws reported

pursuant to subsection (b)(3), 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

for—

(A) fiscal year 1996,

(B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal

year 1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000,

and

(C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal

year 1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,

does not exceed the following level in that

period: $287,165,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

year 1996, $1,592,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $2,338,694,000,000

in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(3) In addition to changes in laws reported

pursuant to subsection (b)(12), 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—

(A) fiscal year 1996,

(B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal

year 1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000,

and

(C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal

year 1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,

does not exceed the following level in that

period: $349,836,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

year 1996, $2,018,505,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $3,009,387,000,000

in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(d) 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. 5. AGRICULTURAL SAVINGS.

Congress 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 mechanisms to average tax loads over strong and

weak income years; and

(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. 6. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

(a) SENSE OF 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 sale.

(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—For purposes

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

781

1995 T69.17

amounts realized from sales of assets shall

be scored with respect to the level of budget

authority, outlays, or revenues.

(c) DEFINITION.—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 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. 7. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.

(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—(1) For purposes of

points of order under the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 and concurrent resolutions on the budget—

(A) the discretionary spending limits under

section 601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits

as cumulatively adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each outyear;

(B) the allocations to the Committee on

Appropriations under sections 302(a) and

602(a) of that Act; and

(C) the appropriate budgetary aggregates

in the most recently agreed to concurrent

resolution on the budget,

shall be adjusted to reflect the amounts of

additional new budget authority or additional outlays (as defined in paragraph (2))

reported by the Committee on Appropriations in appropriation Acts (or by the committee of conference on such legislation) for

the Internal Revenue Service compliance initiative activities in any fiscal year, but not

to exceed in any fiscal year $405,000,000 in

new budget authority and $405,000,000 in outlays.

(2) As used in this section, the terms ‘‘additional new budget authority’’ or ‘‘additional

outlays’’ shall mean, for any fiscal year,

budget authority or outlays (as the case may

be) in excess of the amounts requested for

that fiscal year for the Internal Revenue

Service in the President’s Budget for fiscal

year 1996.

(b) REVISED LIMITS, ALLOCATIONS, AND AGGREGATES.—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

submitted), the chairman of the Committee

on the Budget of the Senate or the House of

Representatives (as the case may be) shall

submit to that chairman’s respective House

appropriately revised—

(1) discretionary spending limits under section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 (and those limits as cumulatively

adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each

outyear;

(2) allocations to the Committee on Appropriations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of

that Act; and

(3) appropriate budgetary aggregates in the

most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

to carry out this subsection. These revised

discretionary spending limits, allocations,

and aggregates shall be considered for purposes of congressional enforcement under

that Act as the discretionary spending limits, allocations, and aggregates.

(c) REPORTING REVISED SUBALLOCATIONS.—

The Committees on Appropriations of the

Senate and 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 to carry out this section.

(d) CONTINGENCIES.—

(1) The Internal Revenue Service and the

Department of the Treasury have certified

that they are firmly committed to the principles of privacy, confidentiality, courtesy,

and protection of taxpayer rights. To this

end, the Internal Revenue Service and the

Department of the Treasury have explicitly

committed to initiate and implement educational programs for any new employees

hired as a result of the compliance initiative

made possible by this section.

(2) This section shall not apply to any additional new budget authority or additional

outlays unless—

(A) the chairmen of the Budget Committees certify, based upon information from

the Congressional Budget Office, the General

Accounting Office, and the Internal Revenue

Service (as well as from any other sources

they deem relevant), that such budget authority or outlays will not increase the total

of the Federal budget deficits over the next

five years; and

(B) any funds made available pursuant to

such budget authority or outlays are available only for the purpose of carrying out Internal Revenue Service compliance initiative

activities.

SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The 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 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.

(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 CONGRESS.—It is the sense of

the Congress 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. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EMERGENCIES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress 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 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 CONGRESS.—It is the sense of

Congress 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.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRIVATIZATION OF THE STUDENT LOAN

MARKETING ASSOCIATION (SALLIE

MAE).

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that:

(1) The Student Loan Marketing Association was established in 1972 as a governmentsponsored corporation dedicated to ensuring

adequate private sector funding for federally

guaranteed education loans.

(2) Since 1972, student loan volume has

grown from $1,000,000,000 a year to

$25,000,000,000 a year. The Student Loan Marketing Association was instrumental in fostering this expansion of the student loan

program.

(3) With securitization and 42 secondary

markets, there currently exist numerous alternatives for lenders wishing to sell or liquidate their portfolios of student loans.

(4) Maintaining Student Loan Marketing

Association as a Government-sponsored enterprise exposes taxpayers to an unnecessary

liability.

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

Congress that the Student Loan Marketing

Association should be restructured as a private corporation.

SEC. 11. SENSE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

REGARDING DEBT REPAYMENT.

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) the Congress has a basic moral and ethical responsibility to future generations to

repay the Federal debt;

(2) the Congress should enact a plan that

balances the budget, and then also develops

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. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REPEAL OF HOUSE RULE XLIX AND THE

LEGAL LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) rule XLIX of the Rules of House of Representatives (popularly known as the Gephardt rule) should be repealed;

(2) the fiscal year 1996 reconciliation bill

should be enacted into law before passage of

the debt limit extension; and

(3) the debt limit should only be set at levels, and for durations, that help assure a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 or sooner.

SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE

BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR DIRECT LOANS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that the

Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 understates the cost to the Government of direct

loans because administrative costs are not

included in the net present value calculation

of Federal direct loan subsidy costs.

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

the Congress that the cost of a direct loan

should be the net present value, at the time

the direct loan is disbursed, of the following

cash flows for the estimated life of the loan:

(1) Loan disbursement.

(2) Repayments of principal.

(3) Interest costs 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) In the case of a direct loan made pursuant to a program for which the Congressional Budget Office estimates that for the

coming fiscal year (or any prior fiscal year)

loan commitments will equal or exceed

$5,000,000,000, direct expenses, including expenses arising from—

(A) activities related to credit extension,

loan origination, and loan servicing;

(B) payments to contractors, other Government entities, and program participants;

(C) management of contractors;

(D) collection of delinquents loans; and

(E) write-off and close-out of loans.

SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING

COMMISSION ON THE SOLVENCY OF

THE FEDERAL MILITARY AND CIVIL

SERVICE RETIREMENT FUNDS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that the

Federal retirement system, for both military

and civil service retirees, currently has liabilities of $1.1 trillion, while holding assets

worth $340 billion and anticipating employee

contributions of $220 billion, which leaves an

unfunded liability of $540 billion.

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

the Congress that a high-level commission
JOURNAL OF THE

782

T69.18 MAY 18

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.

The question being put,

Will the House agree to said concurrent resolution, as amended?

The SPEAKER announced that pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV the yeas

and nays were ordered, and the call was

taken by electronic device.

It was decided in the Yeas ....... 238 ! affirmative ................... Nays ...... 193

T69.18 [Roll No. 345]

YEAS—238

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Davis

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Gingrich

Goodlatte

Goodling

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Morella

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Petri

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roth

Roukema

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Skeen

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Upton

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—193

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bevill

Bishop

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Chapman

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Cramer

Danner

de la Garza

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Dooley

Doyle

Durbin

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Flanagan

Foglietta

Ford

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gonzalez

Gordon

Green

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hamilton

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hayes

Hefner

Hilliard

Hinchey

Holden

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klink

LaFalce

Lantos

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lipinski

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moran

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pomeroy

Poshard

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roemer

Rose

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skelton

Slaughter

Spratt

Stark

Stenholm

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Tanner

Tejeda

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

NOT VOTING—4

Berman

Collins (IL)

Kleczka

McNulty

So the concurrent resolution, as

amended, was agreed to.

Ordered, That the Clerk request the

concurrence of the Senate in said concurrent resolution.

T69.19 PERMISSION TO FILE REPORT

On motion of Mr. GILMAN, by unanimous consent, the Committee on International Relations was granted permission until midnight, Friday, May 19,

1995, to file a report on the bill (H.R.

1516) to consolidate the foreign affairs

agencies of the United States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for

fiscal years 1996 and 1997; to responsibly reduce the authorizations of appropriations for United States foreign

assistance programs for fiscal years

1996 and 1997, and for other purposes.

T69.20 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER

AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON

H.R. 1158

Mr. DREIER, by direction of the

Committee on Rules, called up the following resolution (H. Res. 151):

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the

conference report to accompany the bill

(H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental

appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1995, and for other

purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration

are waived. The conference report shall be

considered as read.

When said resolution was considered.

After debate,

On motion of Mr. DREIER, the previous question was ordered on the resolution to its adoption or rejection and

under the operation thereof, the resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider the vote

whereby said resolution was agreed to

was, by unanimous consent, laid on the

table.

T69.21 MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the President of the United States was communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin

Thomas, one of his secretaries.

T69.22 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. LIVINGSTON, pursuant to House

Resolution 151, called up the following

conference report (Rept. No. 104–124):

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.

1158) ‘‘making emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1995, and for other

purposes,’’ having met, after full and free

conference, have agreed to recommend and

do recommend to their respective Houses as

follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and

agree to the same with an amendment, as

follows:

In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted

by said amendment, insert:

That the following sums are appropriated,

out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance, for anti-terrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from the

tragedy that occurred at Oklahoma City, and

making rescissions for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1995, and for other purposes,

namely:

TITLE I—SUPPLEMENTALS AND

RESCISSIONS

CHAPTER I