HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

761

1995 T69.13

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.

SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TAX

CUTS.

It is the sense of the Congress that changes

in tax laws which stimulate private investment of savings should be enacted if the deficit reduction targets in this resolution are

met.

SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EMERGENCIES.

It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should study alternative approaches to

budgeting for emergencies, establishing regular procedures and funds for paying for

emergencies.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DEBT

REDUCTION.

It is the sense of the Congress that eliminating the deficit by producing a balanced

budget is only the first step toward the ultimate goal of reducing and eventually eliminating the public debt.

SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TRUST

FUND SURPLUSES.

Congress finds that all recent year Federal

budgets, as well as both fiscal year 1996 budget resolutions reported out by the Budget

Committees of the House of Representatives

and the Senate, have masked the magnitude

of annual deficits by counting various trust

fund surpluses. Therefore, it is the sense of

the Congress that upon reaching a balance in

the Federal budget, the Government should

move toward balance without consideration

of trust fund surpluses.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LOCKBOX.

(a) It is the sense of the Congress that:

(1) The current practice of reallocating for

other spending purposes spending cuts made

during floor consideration of appropriations

bills should be ended.

(2) A ‘‘Deficit Reduction Lock-Box’’ should

be established to collect these spending reductions.

(3) These spending reductions should be

used for deficit or debt reduction.

(b) To facilitate Deficit Reduction LockBox compliance by the Committees on Appropriations, the Congressional Budget Office shall score all general appropriation

measures and have such score card published

in the Congressional Record.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FIREWALLS.

It is the sense of the Congress that the discretionary spending totals for defense, international, and domestic spending should be

enforced through spending limits for each

category with firewalls to prevent funds

from being shifted between categories.

SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

It is the sense of the Congress that, in

order to ensure that a balanced budget is

achieved by 2002 and remain in balance

thereafter, strict enforcement should be enacted. Such language should—

(1) require the Federal Government to

reach a balanced Federal budget by fiscal

year 2002 and remain in balance thereafter;

(2) establish procedures for developing honest, accurate, and accepted budget estimates;

(3) require that the President propose annual budgets that would achieve a balanced

Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 and for

each year thereafter, use accurate assumptions;

(4) require the Committees on the Budget

of the House of Representatives and Senate

to report budget resolutions that achieve a

balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2002

and for each year thereafter, using accurate

assumptions; øand¿

(5) establish a comprehensive system of

budgetary enforcement to ensure that the

levels of discretionary spending, mandatory

spending, and revenues in this resolution are

met.

SEC. 12. 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

(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. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEDICAID BLOCK GRANTS.

It is the Sense of Congress that Medicaid

block grants should be distributed based on a

formula that takes into account the proportion of individuals with income below the

poverty level in each State.

Yeas ....... 100

It was decided in the Nays ...... 325 ! negative ....................... Answered

present 1

T69.13 [Roll No. 342]

AYES—100

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bevill

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Cardin

Chapman

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Condit

Conyers

Cramer

Danner

Davis

de la Garza

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Dooley

Doyle

Duncan

Eshoo

Fazio

Furse

Geren

Gibbons

Gunderson

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Harman

Hayes

Hefner

Horn

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Kennedy (MA)

Kennelly

Klug

LaFalce

Laughlin

Lincoln

Lipinski

Luther

McCarthy

McHale

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Minge

Montgomery

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Oberstar

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Pallone

Payne (VA)

Peterson (FL)

Peterson (MN)

Pomeroy

Poshard

Quinn

Richardson

Roemer

Rose

Roukema

Sabo

Sawyer

Schroeder

Scott

Sisisky

Skaggs

Slaughter

Spratt

Stark

Stenholm

Tanner

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Thornton

Upton

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Watt (NC)

Wynn

NOES—325

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Becerra

Bereuter

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bryant (TX)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clay

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Coleman

Collins (GA)

Collins (IL)

Collins (MI)

Combest

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Coyne

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Deal

DeFazio

DeLauro

DeLay

Dellums

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Doggett

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Dunn

Durbin

Edwards

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

Engel

English

Ensign

Evans

Everett

Ewing

Farr

Fattah

Fawell

Fields (LA)

Fields (TX)

Filner

Flake

Flanagan

Foglietta

Foley

Forbes

Ford

Fowler

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gejdenson

Gekas

Gephardt

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Gingrich

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon
JOURNAL OF THE

762

T69.14 MAY 18

Goss

Graham

Green

Greenwood

Gutierrez

Gutknecht

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (FL)

Hastings (WA)

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hinchey

Hobson

Hoekstra

Holden

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnson, Sam

Johnston

Jones

Kanjorski

Kasich

Kelly

Kennedy (RI)

Kildee

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Lantos

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Lazio

Leach

Levin

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (GA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Longley

Lowey

Lucas

Maloney

Manton

Manzullo

Markey

Martinez

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McDermott

McHugh

McInnis

McKeon

McKinney

Menendez

Metcalf

Meyers

Mfume

Mica

Miller (CA)

Miller (FL)

Mineta

Mink

Moakley

Molinari

Mollohan

Moorhead

Myers

Myrick

Nadler

Neal

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Obey

Owens

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (NJ)

Pelosi

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Reed

Regula

Reynolds

Riggs

Rivers

Roberts

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roth

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Rush

Salmon

Sanders

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Schumer

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stockman

Stokes

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Talent

Tate

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thompson

Thornberry

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torres

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Velazquez

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Waters

Watts (OK)

Waxman

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Yates

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

Kaptur

NOT VOTING—9

Berman

Bono

Hoke

Kleczka

McIntosh

Rangel

Serrano

Smith (MI)

Torricelli

So the amendment in the nature of a

subsitute was not agreed to.

After some further time,

T69.14 RECORDED VOTE

A recorded vote by electronic device

was ordered in the Committee of the

Whole on the following amendment in

the nature of a substitute submitted by

Mr. NEUMANN:

Strike out all after the resolving clause

and insert in lieu thereof the following:

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

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: $1,056,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,057,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,096,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,138,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,187,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,240,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,300,500,000,000.

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

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $13,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: ¥$26,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: ¥$38,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: ¥$48,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: ¥$57,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: ¥$70,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: ¥$80,500,000,000.

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: $101,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $105,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $110,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $115,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $120,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $125,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $130,900,000,000.

(2) The appropriate levels of total new

budget authority are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,219,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,236,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,251,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,253,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,275,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,312,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,359,600,000,000.

(3) The appropriate levels of total budget

outlays are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,238,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,245,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,251,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,233,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,260,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,302,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,352,400,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1996: $182,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $188,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $154,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $94,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $73,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $62,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $51,900,000,000.

(5) The appropriate levels of the public

debt are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $5,214,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $5,470,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $5,697,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $5,896,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $6,081,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $6,157,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $6,216,000,000,000.

(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,

$18,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $170,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$17,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $167,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$16,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $165,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$15,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $162,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$14,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $159,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$14,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $159,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New direct loan obligations,

$14,200,000,000.

(B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $159,400,000.000.

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, $261,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $260,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.

(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, $260,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $260,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $260,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.

(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, $265,000,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $270,000,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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