H. Con. Res. 84 Agreed to June 5, 1997

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Concurrent Resolution

Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal

year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999,

2000, 2001, and 2002.

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1998.

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

this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal

year 1998 including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal

years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 as required by section 301 of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this

concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.

Sec. 102. Social Security.

Sec. 103. Major functional categories.

Sec. 104. Reconciliation in the Senate.

Sec. 105. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits.

Sec. 202. Allowance for the IMF.

Sec. 203. Allowance for section 8 housing assistance.

Sec. 204. Separate environmental allocation.

Sec. 205. Priority Federal land acquisitions and exchanges.

Sec. 206. Allowance for arrearages.

Sec. 207. Intercity passenger rail reserve fund for fiscal years 1998–2002.

Sec. 207A. Intercity passenger rail reserve fund in the Senate for fiscal years

1998–2002.

Sec. 208. Mass transit reserve fund in the Senate for fiscal years 1998–2002.

Sec. 209. Highway reserve fund in the Senate for fiscal years 1998–2002.

Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund in the House for surface transportation.

Sec. 211. Sale of Government assets.

Sec. 212. Determinations of budgetary levels; reversals.

Sec. 213. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

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

Subtitle A—Sense of the Congress

Sec. 301. Sense of the Congress on repayment of the Federal debt.

Sec. 302. Sense of the Congress on tax cuts.

Sec. 303. Sense of the Congress that the 10-year revenue loss from the tax relief

package shall not exceed $250,000,000,000.

Subtitle B—Sense of the House

Sec. 306. Sense of the House on Commission on Long-Term Budgetary Problems.
H. Con. Res. 84—2

Sec. 307. Sense of the House on corporate welfare.

Sec. 308. Sense of the House on baselines.

Sec. 309. Sense of the House on family violence option clarifying amendment.

Subtitle C—Sense of the Senate

Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate on long term entitlement reforms, including accuracy

in determining changes in the cost of living.

Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate on tactical fighter aircraft programs.

Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate regarding children’s health coverage.

Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate on a Medicaid per capita cap.

Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate that added savings go to deficit reduction.

Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate on fairness in Medicare.

Sec. 317. Sense of the Senate regarding assistance to Lithuania and Latvia.

Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate regarding a National Commission on Higher

Education.

Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate on lockbox.

Sec. 320. Sense of the Senate on the earned income credit.

Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate supporting long-term entitlement reforms.

Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate on disaster assistance funding.

Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate on enforcement of bipartisan budget agreement.

Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Institutes of Health.

Sec. 325. Sense of the Senate regarding certain elderly legal aliens.

Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate regarding retroactive taxes.

Sec. 327. Sense of the Senate on Social Security and balancing the budget.

Sec. 328. Sense of the Senate supporting sufficient funding for veterans programs

and benefits.

Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate on family violence option clarifying amendment.

Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate regarding assistance to Amtrak.

Sec. 331. Sense of the Senate regarding the protection of children’s health.

Sec. 332. Sense of the Senate on depositing all Federal gasoline taxes into the

Highway Trust Fund.

Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate on early childhood education.

Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate concerning Highway Trust Fund.

Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate concerning tax incentives for the cost of postsecondary education.

Sec. 336. Sense of the Senate on additional tax cuts.

Sec. 337. Sense of the Senate regarding truth in budgeting and spectrum auctions.

Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate on highway demonstration projects.

Sec. 339. Sense of the Senate regarding the use of budget savings.

Sec. 340. Sense of the Senate regarding the value of the Social Security system for

future retirees.

Sec. 341. Sense of the Senate on economic growth dividend protection.

Sec. 342. Sense of the Senate supporting Federal, State, and local law enforcement

officers.

Sec. 343. Sense of the Senate regarding parental involvement in prevention of drug

use by children.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal

years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:

(1) FEDERAL REVENUES.—For purposes of the enforcement of

this resolution—

(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as

follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $1,199,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,241,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,285,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,343,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,600,000,000.

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

revenues should be changed are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $¥7,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $¥11,100,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—3

Fiscal year 2000: $¥22,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $¥22,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $¥19,900,000,000.

(C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act

revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels

of Federal revenues are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $113,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $119,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $125,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $130,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $136,800,000,000.

(2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—For purposes of the enforcement

of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $1,386,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,440,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,486,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,520,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,551,600,000,000.

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

resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as

follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $1,372,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,424,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,468,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,500,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,515,900,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998: $¥173,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $¥182,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $¥183,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $¥157,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $¥108,300,000,000.

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

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $5,593,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $5,841,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $6,088,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $6,307,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $6,481,200,000,000.

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

new direct loan obligations are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $34,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $33,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $34,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $36,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $37,400,000,000.

(7) PRIMARY LOAN GUARANTEE COMMITMENTS.—The appropriate

levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $315,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $324,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $328,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $332,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $335,300,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—4

SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

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

Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal OldAge and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability

Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $402,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $422,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $442,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $461,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $482,800,000,000.

(b) SOCIAL SECURITY OUTLAYS.—For purposes of Senate enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal Old-Age and

Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:

Fiscal year 1998: $317,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $330,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $343,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $358,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $372,500,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate

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

obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal

years 1998 through 2002 for each major functional category are:

(1) National Defense (050):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $268,200,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $270,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $265,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $274,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $268,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $270,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $289,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $272,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res. 84—5

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$1,100,000,000.

(2) International Affairs (150):

Fiscal year 1998:

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

(B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$12,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

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

(B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$13,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$13,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$13,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $14,200,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, $15,700,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—6

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(4) Energy (270):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $3,100,000,000.

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

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

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

Fiscal year 1999:

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

(B) Outlays, $2,400,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $3,200,000,000.

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

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

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $2,900,000,000.

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

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

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

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.

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

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

(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $23,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.

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

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

(6) Agriculture (350):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—7

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $9,600,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$6,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

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

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

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$6,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.

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

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$6,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $9,500,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$6,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$6,700,000,000.

(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $4,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $245,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $253,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$255,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$258,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—8

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$259,900,000,000.

(8) Transportation (400):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $46,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $40,900,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $46,600,000,000.

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

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

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $47,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $41,400,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $48,100,000,000.

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

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

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $49,200,000,000.

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

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

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

(9) Community and Regional Development (450):

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$2,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$2,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—9

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$2,500,000,000.

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

(500):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $60,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $56,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $12,300,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$20,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $60,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $59,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $13,100,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$21,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $61,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $60,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $13,900,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$23,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $63,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $61,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $14,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$24,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: (A) New budget authority, $63,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $62,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,400,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $25,700,000,000.

(11) Health (550):

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $137,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $137,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $145,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $144,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $154,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $153,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $163,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $163,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:
H. Con. Res. 84—10

(A) New budget authority, $172,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $171,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(12) Medicare (570):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $201,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $201,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $212,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $211,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $225,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $225,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $239,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $238,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $251,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $250,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(13) Income Security (600):

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $239,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $247,800,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $254,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $258,100,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $269,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $268,200,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $275,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $277,300,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $286,900,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—11

(B) Outlays, $285,200,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$100,000,000.

(14) Social Security (650):

Fiscal year 1998:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $40,500,000,000.

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

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $27,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $41,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $41,700,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $26,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $41,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$26,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $42,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $42,200,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$25,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $42,300,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 84—12

(B) Outlays, $42,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,

$25,100,000,000.

(16) Administration of Justice (750):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $24,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $24,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $24,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $25,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $24,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(17) General Government (800):

Fiscal year 1998: (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(18) Net Interest (900):
H. Con. Res. 84—13

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $296,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $296,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $304,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $304,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $305,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $305,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $303,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $303,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $303,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $303,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(19) Allowances (920):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $0.

(B) Outlays, $0.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999: (A) New budget authority, $0.

(B) Outlays, $0.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000: (A) New budget authority, $0.

(B) Outlays, $0.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001: (A) New budget authority, $0.

(B) Outlays, $0.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $0.

(B) Outlays, $0.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$41,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$41,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
H. Con. Res. 84—14

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, ¥$39,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$51,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$51,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

SEC. 104. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) RECONCILIATION OF SPENDING REDUCTIONS.—Not later than

June 13, 1997, the committees named in this subsection shall

submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget

of the Senate. After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill

carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive

revision.

(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY.—The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8)

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

of 1985) to increase outlays by not more than $300,000,000

in fiscal year 2002 and by not more than $1,500,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN

AFFAIRS.—The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit $434,000,000 in fiscal year 2002

and $1,590,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through

2002.

(3) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION.—The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit $14,849,000,000 in fiscal year 2002

and $26,496,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through

2002.

(4) COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.—

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall

report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct

spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays

$6,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $13,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
H. Con. Res. 84—15

(5) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—The Senate Committee on

Finance shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction—

(A) that provide direct spending (as defined in section

250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $40,911,000,000

in fiscal year 2002 and $100,646,000,000 for the period

of fiscal years 1998 through 2002; and

(B) to increase the statutory limit on the public debt

to not more than $5,950,000,000,000.

(6) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.—The Senate

Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in

laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit

$1,769,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $5,467,000,000 for the

period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(7) COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES.—The

Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays

$1,057,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $1,792,000,000 for the

period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined

in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $681,000,000

in fiscal year 2002 and $2,733,000,000 for the period of fiscal

years 1998 through 2002.

(b) RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS.—Not later than

June 20, 1997, the Senate Committee on Finance shall report

to the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws within

its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by not more than

$20,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $85,000,000,000 for the

period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(c) TREATMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL PAY-AS-YOU-GO.—For purposes of section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th

Congress), legislation which reduces revenues pursuant to a reconciliation instruction contained in subsection (b) shall be taken

together with all other legislation passed pursuant to the reconciliation instructions contained in this resolution when determining

the deficit effect of such legislation.

(d) CHILDREN’S HEALTH INITIATIVE.—

(1) DEFICIT NEUTRAL ADJUSTMENTS.—After the reporting

of reconciliation legislation pursuant to subsection (a), or after

the submission of a conference report thereon, and if the

Committee on Finance reduces outlays by an amount greater

than the outlay reduction that is required by subsection

(a)(5)(A), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of

the Senate, with the concurrence and agreement of the ranking

minority member, may submit in writing appropriately revised

(A) reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Finance

to reduce the deficit, (B) allocations, (C) limits, and (D) aggregates.

(2) FLEXIBILITY ON ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjustments made

pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed $2,300,000,000

in fiscal year 1998 and $16,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal
H. Con. Res. 84—16

years 1998 through 2002 and shall not cause an increase in

the deficit levels in this resolution.

SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to provide for

two separate reconciliation bills: the first for entitlement reform

and the second for tax relief.

(b) SUBMISSIONS.—

(1) ENTITLEMENT REFORMS.—Not later than June 13, 1997,

the House committees named in subsection (c) 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) TAX RELIEF AND MISCELLANEOUS REFORMS.—Not later

than June 14, 1997, the House committees named in subsection

(d) 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.

(c) INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO ENTITLEMENT REFORMS.—

(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.—The House Committee

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

of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $37,008,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $179,884,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES.— The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall

report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct

spending such that the total level of direct spending for that

committee does not exceed: ¥$8,435,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 1998, ¥$5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year

2002, and ¥$32,743,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998

through 2002.

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

Commerce shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $393,533,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $507,150,000,000 in outlays

for fiscal year 2002, and $2,259,294,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1998 through 2002.

(4) COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE.—The

House Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: $17,222,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year

1998, $17,673,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$89,528,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(5) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT.—

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

provide direct spending such that the total level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: $68,975,000,000 in
H. Con. Res. 84—17

outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 2002, and $375,722,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1998 through 2002.

(B) The House Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that would reduce the deficit by: $0 in fiscal year 1998,

$621,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,829,000,000 in fiscal

years 1998 through 2002.

(6) COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE.—The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $18,087,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,283,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 2002, and $88,711,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1998 through 2002.

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that

the total level of direct spending for that committee does not

exceed: $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998,

$24,563,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$117,959,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

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

Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending

for that committee does not exceed: $397,581,000,000 in outlays

for fiscal year 1998, $506,522,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year

2002, and $2,257,912,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998

through 2002.

(B) 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 is not less than:

$1,172,136,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998,

$1,382,679,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and

$6,358,388,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through

2002.

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

changes in laws within its jurisdiction to increase the statutory

limit on the public debt to not more than $5,950,000,000,000.

(d) INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO TAX RELIEF AND MISCELLANE- OUS REFORMS.— (1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.—The House Committee

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

of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:

$34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $37,008,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $179,884,000,000 in outlays

in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES.—

The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall

report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct

spending such that the total level of direct spending for that

committee does not exceed: ¥$8,435,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 1998, ¥$5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year

2002, and ¥$32,743,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998

through 2002.
H. Con. Res. 84—18

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

Commerce shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $393,533,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $507,150,000,000 in outlays

for fiscal year 2002, and $2,259,294,000,000 in outlays in fiscal

years 1998 through 2002.

(4) COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE.—The

House Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: $17,222,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year

1998, $17,673,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$89,528,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(5) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT.—

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

provide direct spending such that the total level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: $68,975,000,000 in

outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 2002, and $375,722,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1998 through 2002.

(B) The House Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that would reduce the deficit by: $0 in fiscal year 1998,

$621,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,829,000,000 in fiscal

years 1998 through 2002.

(6) COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE.—The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction

that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct

spending for that committee does not exceed: $18,087,000,000

in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,283,000,000 in outlays for

fiscal year 2002, and $88,711,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years

1998 through 2002.

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that

the total level of direct spending for that committee does not

exceed: $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998,

$24,563,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

$117,959,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

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

Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending

for that committee does not exceed: $397,581,000,000 in outlays

for fiscal year 1998, $506,522,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year

2002, and $2,257,912,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998

through 2002.

(B) 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 is not less than:

$1,164,736,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998,

$1,362,179,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and

$6,273,388,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through

2002.
H. Con. Res. 84—19

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

changes in laws within its jurisdiction to increase the statutory

limit on the public debt to not more than $5,950,000,000,000.

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

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

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

(f) CHILDREN’S HEALTH INITIATIVE.—If the Committees on Commerce and Ways and Means report recommendations pursuant to

their reconciliation instructions that, combined, provide an initiative

for children’s health that would increase the deficit by more than

$2.3 billion for fiscal year 1998, by more than $3.9 billion for

fiscal year 2002, and by more than $16 billion for the period

of fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the committees shall be deemed

to not have complied with their reconciliation instructions pursuant

to section 310(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS

AND RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) DISCRETIONARY LIMITS.—In the Senate, in this section and

for the purposes of allocations made for the discretionary category

pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974, the term ‘‘discretionary spending limit’’ means—

(1) with respect to fiscal year 1998— (A) for the defense category $269,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $266,823,000,000 in outlays; and (B) for the nondefense category $257,857,000,000 in new budget authority and $286,445,000,000 in outlays;

(2) with respect to fiscal year 1999— (A) for the defense category $271,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $266,518,000,000 in outlays; and (B) for the nondefense category $261,499,000,000 in new budget authority and $292,803,000,000 in outlays;

(3) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary category $537,193,000,000 in new budget authority and

$564,265,000,000 in outlays;

(4) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary category $542,032,000,000 in new budget authority and

$564,396,000,000 in outlays; and

(5) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary category $551,074,000,000 in new budget authority and

$560,799,000,000 in outlays;

as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency

appropriations.

(b) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), it

shall not be in order in the Senate to consider—

(A) a revision of this resolution or any concurrent

resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001,

or 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on

such a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in

excess of the discretionary spending limit or limits for

such fiscal year; or

(B) any bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or

conference report on such bill or resolution) for fiscal year
H. Con. Res. 84—20

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 that would cause any

of the limits in this section (or suballocations of the discretionary limits made pursuant to section 602(b) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to be exceeded.

(2) EXCEPTION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—This section shall not apply if a

declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a

joint resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has

been enacted.

(B) ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY LIMITS IN FISCAL

YEAR 1998.—Until the enactment of reconciliation legislation

pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of section 104 of this

resolution—

(i) subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) shall not

apply; and

(ii) subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall apply

only with respect to fiscal year 1998.

(c) WAIVER.—This section may be waived or suspended in the

Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,

duly chosen and sworn.

(d) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the

Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited

to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the

appellant and the manager of the concurrent resolution, bill, or

joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of threefifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall

be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of

the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

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

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

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

on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget

of the Senate.

SEC. 202. ALLOWANCE FOR THE IMF.

(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—In the Senate, for fiscal year 1998, 1999,

2000, 2001, or 2002, and in the House of Representatives, for

fiscal year 1998 or 1999, after the reporting of an appropriations

measure (or after the submission of a conference report thereon)

that includes an appropriation with respect to paragraph (1) or

(2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall increase

the appropriate allocations, budgetary aggregates, and, in the Senate only, discretionary limits, by the amount of budget authority

in that measure that is the dollar equivalent, in terms of Special

Drawing Rights, of—

(1) an increase in the United States quota as part of

the International Monetary Fund Eleventh General Review

of Quotas (United States Quota); or

(2) any increase in the maximum amount available to

the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 17 of the

Bretton Woods Agreement Act, as amended from time to time

(New Arrangements to Borrow).
H. Con. Res. 84—21

(b) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on Appropriations may report to its House appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the adjustments made pursuant

to subsection (a).

SEC. 203. ALLOWANCE FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

(a) ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—For fiscal year

1998, after the reporting of an appropriation measure (or after

the submission of a conference report thereon) that includes an

appropriation for the renewal of expiring contracts for tenant- and

project-based housing assistance under section 8 of the United

States Housing Act of 1937, the chairman of the Committee on

the Budget may increase the appropriate allocations in this resolution by the amount provided in that appropriation measure for

that purpose, but not to exceed $9,200,000,000 in budget authority

and the appropriate amount of outlays.

(b) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on Appropriations may report to its House appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the adjustments made pursuant

to subsection (a).

SEC. 204. SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATION.

(a) COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.—After the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

report a bill (or after the submission of a conference report thereon)

or in the Senate, after the Committee on Environment and Public

Works reports a bill (or after the submission of a conference report

thereon) to reform the Superfund program to facilitate the cleanup

of hazardous waste sites that does not exceed—

(1) $200,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 1998,

(2) $200,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and

(3) $1,000,000,000 in budget authority for the period of

fiscal years 1998 through 2002,

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of that House may

increase the appropriate allocations of budget authority in this

resolution by the amounts provided in that bill for that purpose

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

(b) PRIOR SURPLUS.—In the Senate, for the purposes of section

202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress), legislation

reported (or the submission of a conference report thereon) pursuant

to subsection (a) shall be taken together with all other legislation

passed pursuant to section 104 of this resolution.

SEC. 205. PRIORITY FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EXCHANGES.

(a) ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—For fiscal year

1998, after the reporting of an appropriation measure (or after

the submission of a conference report thereon) that provides $700

million in budget authority for fiscal year 1998 for Federal land

acquisitions and to finalize priority Federal land exchanges, the

Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of each House shall

increase the appropriate allocations by that amount of budget

authority and the outlays flowing from such budget authority to

the Committee on Appropriations of that House.

(b) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on

Appropriations may report to its House appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the
H. Con. Res. 84—22

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the adjustments made

pursuant to subsection (a).

SEC. 206. ALLOWANCE FOR ARREARAGES.

(a) ADJUSTMENT FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—(1) In the

Senate, for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002, or in

the House of Representatives, for the period of fiscal years 1998

and 1999, after the reporting of an appropriations measure (or

after the submission of a conference report thereon) that includes

an appropriation for arrearages for international organizations,

international peacekeeping, and multilateral development banks

during that fiscal year, the Chairman of the Committee on the

Budget shall increase the appropriate allocations, aggregates, and,

in the Senate only, discretionary spending limits, in this resolution

by an amount provided for that purpose in that appropriation

measure.

(2) In the Senate, the adjustments described in paragraph

(1) for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002 may not exceed

$1,884,000,000 in budget authority and the outlays flowing in all

years from such budget authority.

(b) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on Appropriations shall report to its House appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the adjustments made pursuant

to subsection (a).

SEC. 207. INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL

YEARS 1998–2002.

(a) IN GENERAL.—If legislation is enacted which generates revenue increases or direct spending reductions to finance an intercity

passenger rail fund and to the extent that such increases or reductions are not included in this concurrent resolution on the budget,

the appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted if

such adjustments do not cause an increase in the deficit in this

resolution. Necessary authorizing reforms and additional funding

contained in this reserve fund for intercity passenger rail should

both occur in this Session, and if such funds are appropriated

before the enactment of such reforms, such appropriated funds

shall not be made available until the enactment of such reforms.

(b) ESTABLISHING A RESERVE.— (1) ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPTURE SAVINGS.—After the enactment of legislation described in subsection (a), the Chairman

of the Committee on the Budget may submit revisions to the

appropriate allocations and aggregates by the amount that

provisions in such legislation generates revenue increases or

direct spending reductions.

(2) DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM DISCRETIONARY ALLOW- ANCE.—Upon the submission of such revisions, the Chairman

of the Committee on the Budget shall also submit the amount

of revenue increases or direct spending reductions such legislation generates and the maximum amount available each year

for adjustments pursuant to subsection (c).

(c) ADJUSTMENTS FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—

(1) REVISIONS TO ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—After

either—

(A) the reporting of an appropriations measure, or

after a conference committee submits a conference report

thereon, that appropriates funds for the National Railroad
H. Con. Res. 84—23

Passenger Corporation and funds from the intercity passenger rail fund; or

(B) the reporting of an appropriations measure, or

after a conference committee submits a conference report

thereon, that appropriates funds from the intercity passenger rail fund (funds having previously been appropriated

for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for that

same fiscal year),

the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may submit

increased budget authority allocations, aggregates, and, in the

Senate only, discretionary limits, for the amount appropriated

for authorized expenditures from the intercity passenger rail

fund and the outlays in all years flowing from such budget

authority.

(2) REVISIONS TO SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on

Appropriations may submit appropriately revised suballocations

pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(d) LIMITATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The revisions made pursuant to subsection (b) shall not be made—

(A) with respect to direct spending reductions, unless

the committee that generates the direct spending reductions is within its allocations under sections 302(a) and

602(a) of the Budget Act in this resolution (not including

the direct spending reductions envisioned in subsection

(b)); and

(B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues

are at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution

(not including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection (b)).

(2) BUDGET AUTHORITY.—The budget authority adjustments

made pursuant to subsection (c) shall not exceed the amounts

specified in subsection (b)(2) for a fiscal year.

SEC. 207A. INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998–2002.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, if legislation is enacted which

generates revenue increases or direct spending reductions to finance

an intercity passenger rail fund and to the extent that such

increases or reductions are not included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary levels and limits

may be adjusted if such adjustments do not cause an increase

in the deficit in this resolution.

(b) ESTABLISHING A RESERVE.—

(1) ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPTURE SAVINGS.—After the enactment of legislation described in subsection (a), the Chairman

of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may submit

revisions to the appropriate allocations and aggregates by the

amount that provisions in such legislation generates revenue

increases or direct spending reductions.

(2) DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM DISCRETIONARY ALLOWANCE.—Upon the submission of such revisions, the Chairman

of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall also submit

the amount of revenue increases or direct spending reductions

such legislation generates and the maximum amount available

each year for adjustments pursuant to subsection (c).
H. Con. Res. 84—24

(c) ADJUSTMENTS FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—

(1) REVISIONS TO ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—After

either—

(A) the reporting of an appropriations measure, or

after a conference committee submits a conference report

thereon, that appropriates funds for the National Railroad

Passenger Corporation and funds from the intercity passenger rail fund; or

(B) the reporting of an appropriations measure, or

after a conference committee submits a conference report

thereon, that appropriates funds from the intercity passenger rail fund (funds having previously been appropriated

for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for that

same fiscal year),

the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate

may submit increased budget authority allocations, aggregates,

and discretionary limits, for the amount appropriated for

authorized expenditures from the intercity passenger rail fund

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

(2) REVISIONS TO SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on

Appropriations of the Senate may submit appropriately revised

suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(d) LIMITATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The revisions made pursuant to subsection (b) shall not be made—

(A) with respect to direct spending reductions, unless

the committee that generates the direct spending reductions is within its allocations under sections 302(a) and

602(a) of the Budget Act in this resolution (not including

the direct spending reductions envisioned in subsection

(b)); and

(B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues

are at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution

(not including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection (b)).

(2) BUDGET AUTHORITY.—The budget authority adjustments

made pursuant to subsection (c) shall not exceed the amounts

specified in subsection (b)(2) for a fiscal year.

SEC. 208. MASS TRANSIT RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE FOR FISCAL

YEARS 1998–2002.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, if legislation generates revenue

increases or direct spending reductions to finance mass transit

and to the extent that such increases or reductions are not included

in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted if such adjustments do

not cause an increase in the deficit in this resolution.

(b) ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET AUTHORITY.—After the reporting

of legislation (the offering of an amendment thereto or conference

report thereon) that reduces non-mass transit direct spending or

increases revenues for a fiscal year or years, the Chairman of

the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may submit appropriately revised allocations and aggregates by an amount that

equals the amount such legislation reduces direct spending or

increases revenues for a fiscal year or years.

(c) ESTABLISHING A RESERVE.—
H. Con. Res. 84—25

(1) REVISIONS.—After the enactment of legislation described

in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget

of the Senate may submit revisions to the appropriate allocations and aggregates by the amount that provisions in such

legislation generates revenue increases or direct nonhighway

spending reductions.

(2) REVENUE INCREASES OR DIRECT SPENDING REDUCTIONS.—After the submission of such revisions, the Chairman

of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall also submit

the amount of revenue increases or non-mass transit direct

spending reductions such legislation generates and the maximum amount available each year for adjustments pursuant

to subsection (d).

(d) ADJUSTMENTS FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—

(1) REVISIONS TO ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—After

the reporting of an appropriations measure, or after a conference committee submits a conference report thereon, that

makes available funds for mass transit, the Chairman of the

Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit increased

outlay allocations, aggregates, and discretionary limits for the

amount of outlays flowing from the additional obligational

authority provided in such bill.

(2) REVISIONS TO SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on

Appropriations of the Senate may submit appropriately revised

suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(e) LIMITATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The revisions made pursuant to subsection (c) shall not be made—

(A) with respect to non-mass transit direct spending

reductions, unless the committee that generates the direct

spending reductions is within its allocations under sections

302(a) and 602(a) of the Budget Act in this resolution

(not including the non-mass transit direct spending reductions envisioned in subsection (c)); and

(B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues

are at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution

(not including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection (c)).

(2) OUTLAYS.—The outlay adjustments made pursuant to

subsection (d) shall not exceed the amounts specified in subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal year.

SEC. 209. HIGHWAY RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE FOR FISCAL YEARS

1998–2002.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, if legislation generates revenue

increases or direct spending reductions to finance highways and

to the extent that such increases or reductions are not included

in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted if such adjustments do

not cause an increase in the deficit in this resolution.

(b) ADJUSTMENTS FOR BUDGET AUTHORITY.—After the reporting

of legislation (the offering of an amendment thereto or conference

report thereon) that reduces nonhighway direct spending or

increases revenues for a fiscal year or years, the Chairman of

the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may submit appropriately revised allocations and aggregates by an amount that
H. Con. Res. 84—26

equals the amount such legislation reduces direct spending or

increases revenues for a fiscal year or years.

(c) ESTABLISHING A RESERVE.—

(1) REVISIONS.—After the enactment of legislation described

in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget

of the Senate may submit revisions to the appropriate allocations and aggregates by the amount that provisions in such

legislation generates revenue increases or non-highway direct

spending reductions.

(2) REVENUE INCREASES OR DIRECT SPENDING REDUCTIONS.—Upon the submission of such revisions, the Chairman

of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall also submit

the amount of revenue increases or direct nonhighway spending

reductions such legislation generates and the maximum amount

available each year for adjustments pursuant to subsection

(d).

(d) ADJUSTMENTS FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.—

(1) REVISIONS TO ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—After

the reporting of an appropriations measure, or after a conference committee submits a conference report thereon, that

makes available funds for highways, the Chairman of the

Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit increased

outlay allocations, aggregates, and discretionary limits for the

amount of outlays flowing from the additional obligational

authority provided in such measure.

(2) REVISIONS TO SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on

Appropriations of the Senate may submit appropriately revised

suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(e) LIMITATIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The revisions made pursuant to subsection (c) shall not be made—

(A) with respect to nonhighway direct spending reductions, unless the committee that generates the direct spending reductions is within its allocations under section 302(a)

and 602(a) of the Budget Act in this resolution (not including the nonhighway direct spending reductions envisioned

in subsection (c)); and

(B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues

are at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution

(not including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection (c)).

(2) OUTLAYS.—The outlay adjustments made pursuant to

subsection (d) shall not exceed the amounts specified in subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal year.

SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND IN THE HOUSE FOR

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) PURPOSE.—In the House, the purpose of this section is

to adjust the appropriate budgetary levels to accommodate legislation increasing spending from the highway trust fund on surface

transportation and highway safety above the levels assumed in

this resolution if such legislation is deficit neutral.

(b) DEFICIT NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT.—(1) In order to receive

the adjustments specified in subsection (c), a bill reported by the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House that

provides new budget authority above the levels assumed in this
H. Con. Res. 84—27

resolution for programs authorized out of the highway trust fund

must be deficit neutral.

(2) A deficit-neutral bill must meet the following conditions:

(A) The amount of new budget authority provided for programs authorized out of the highway trust fund must be in

excess of $25.949 billion in new budget authority for fiscal

year 1998, $25.464 billion in new budget authority for fiscal

year 2002, and $127.973 billion in new budget authority for

the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

(B) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new

budget authority set forth in subparagraph (A) must be offset

for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 2002, and for the period of

fiscal years 1998 through 2002. For the sole purpose of estimating the amount of outlays flowing from excess new budget

authority under this section, it shall be assumed that such

excess new budget authority would have an obligation limitation sufficient to accommodate that new budget authority.

(C) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new

budget authority must be offset by (i) other direct spending

or revenue provisions within that transportation bill, (ii) the

net reduction in other direct spending and revenue legislation

(for purposes of such offset) that is enacted during this Congress

after the date of adoption of this resolution and before such

transportation bill is reported (in excess of the levels assumed

in this resolution), or (iii) a combination of the offsets specified

in clauses (i) and (ii).

(D) As used in 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.

(c) REVISED LEVELS.—(1) After the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House reports a bill (or after

the submission of a conference report thereon) meeting the conditions set forth in subsection (b)(2), the chairman of the Committee

on the Budget of the House shall increase the allocation of new

budget authority to that committee by the amount of new budget

authority provided in that bill (and that is above the levels set

forth in subsection (b)(2)(A)) for programs authorized out of the

highway trust fund.

(2) After the enactment of the transportation bill described

in paragraph (1) and after the reporting of a general, supplemental,

or continuing resolution making appropriations by the Committee

on Appropriations of the House (or after the submission of a conference report thereon) establishing an obligation limitation above

the levels specified in subsection (b)(2)(A) (at a level sufficient

to obligate some or all of the budget authority specified in paragraph

(1)), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House

shall increase the allocation and aggregate levels of outlays to

that committee for the appropriate fiscal years.

(d) OFFSETTING ADJUSTMENTS.—Upon the enactment of legislation providing offsets pursuant to subsection (c), the chairman of

the Committee on the Budget shall make offsetting adjustments

in the appropriate allocations and aggregates.

(e) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term ‘‘highway

trust fund’’ refers to the following budget accounts (or any successor

accounts):

(1) 69–8083–0–7–401 (Federal-Aid Highways).
H. Con. Res. 84—28

(2) 69–8191–0–7–401 (Mass Transit Capital Fund).

(3) 69–8350–0–7–401 (Mass Transit Formula Grants).

(4) 69–8016–0–7–401 (National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration-Operations and Research).

(5) 69–8020–0–7–401 (Highway Traffic Safety Grants).

(6) 69–8048–0–7–401 (National Motor Carrier Safety

Program).

SEC. 211. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

(a) LIMITATION.—Subsections (b) through (d) of this section

shall not apply to the sale of any asset resulting from the enactment

of any reconciliation bill referred to in section 104 or 105 of this

resolution.

(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of this concurrent resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

no amounts realized from the sale of an asset shall be scored

with respect to the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues if such sale would cause an increase in the deficit as

calculated pursuant to paragraph (2).

(2) CALCULATION OF NET PRESENT VALUE.—The deficit estimate of an asset sale shall be the net present value of the

cash flow from—

(A) proceeds from the asset sale;

(B) future receipts that would be expected from

continued ownership of the asset by the Government; and

(C) expected future spending by the Government at

a level necessary to continue to operate and maintain the

asset to generate the receipts estimated pursuant to

subparagraph (B).

(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 the purposes of this

section, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a loan shall

be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act of

1990.

(e) INTENT.—The asset sale rule may be revisited when the

Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 is extended.

SEC. 212. DETERMINATIONS OF BUDGETARY LEVELS; REVERSALS.

(a) DETERMINATIONS.—For purposes of this title, budgetary

levels shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the

Committee on the Budget.

(b) REVERSALS AND ADJUSTMENTS.—(1) In the House of Representatives, if any legislation referred to in this title is not enacted

into law, then the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall,

as soon as practicable, reverse adjustments made under this title

for such legislation and have such adjustments published in the

Congressional Record.

(2) In the Senate, the adjustments and revisions to allocations,

aggregates, and limits made by the Chairman of the Committee

on the Budget pursuant to this title for legislation shall only apply

while such legislation is under consideration in the Senate and

shall only permanently take effect upon the enactment of such

legislation.

(c) EFFECT OF REVISIONS.—Any revisions made by the chairman

of the Committee on the Budget under this title, and in the Senate,
H. Con. Res. 84—29

under section 104(d), shall be considered for purposes of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations and aggregates,

and in the Senate, the discretionary spending limits, contained

in this resolution, and the chairman shall have such revisions

published in the Congressional Record.

SEC. 213. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

The Congress adopts the provisions of this title—

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

and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such

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

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

rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they

are inconsistent therewith; and

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

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

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

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

TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS,

HOUSE, AND SENATE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Sense of the Congress

SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON REPAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL

DEBT.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Congress and the President have a basic moral

and ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the

Federal debt, including the money borrowed from the Social

Security Trust Fund.

(2) The Congress and the President should enact a law

which creates a regimen for paying off the Federal debt within

30 years.

(3) If spending growth were held to a level one percentage

point lower than projected growth in revenues, then the Federal

debt could be repaid within 30 years.

(b) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING PRESIDENT’S

SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that—

(1) the President’s annual budget submission to Congress

should include a plan for repayment of Federal debt beyond

the year 2002, including the money borrowed from the Social

Security Trust Fund; and

(2) the plan should specifically explain how the President

working with Congress would cap spending growth at a level

one percentage point lower than projected growth in revenues.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON TAX CUTS.

It is the sense of the Congress that this resolution assumes

that—

(1) a substantial majority of the tax cut benefits provided

in the tax reconciliation bill will go to middle class working

families earning less than approximately $100,000 per year;

and

(2) the tax cuts in the tax reconciliation bill will not cause

revenue losses to increase significantly in years after 2007.
H. Con. Res. 84—30

SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE 10-YEAR REVENUE LOSS

FROM THE TAX RELIEF PACKAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED

$250,000,000,000.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) a May 15, 1997 letter from the Speaker of the House

of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate to

the President of the United States, representing the agreement

on the tax package in the Bipartisan Budget Agreements, states

that, ‘‘It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion

through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007.’’;

(2) a May 15, 1997 letter from the Speaker of the House

of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate to

the Chief of Staff to the President, contained in the same

Bipartisan Budget Agreement and referring to the tax package,

states that ‘‘The proposal shall not cause costs to explode in

the outyears.’’; and

(3) the text of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement issued

on May 15, 1997 states that ‘‘If bills, resolutions or conference

reports are deemed to be inconsistent, remedial efforts shall

be made by all parties to assure consistency. Such efforts shall

include bipartisan Leadership consultation and concurrence on

amendments and scheduling as necessary.’’.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—

(1) 10-YEAR COST.—The 10-year cost of the tax reconciliation

bill resulting from this resolution shall not exceed

$250,000,000,000 and any revenue loss shall be certified by

the Joint Committee on Taxation in consultation and cooperation with the Office of Tax Analysis of the Department of

Treasury.

(2) 5-YEAR COST.—The 5-year cost of the tax reconciliation

bill resulting from this resolution shall be $85,000,000,000 and

any revenue loss shall be certified by the Joint Committee

on Taxation in consultation and cooperation with the Office

of Tax Analysis of the Department of Treasury.

Subtitle B—Sense of the House

SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON COMMISSION ON LONG-TERM

BUDGETARY PROBLEMS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House finds that—

(1) achieving a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 is

only the first step necessary to restore our Nation’s economic

prosperity;

(2) the imminent retirement of the baby-boom generation

will greatly increase the demand for government services;

(3) this burden will be borne by a relatively smaller work

force resulting in an unprecedented intergenerational transfer

of financial resources;

(4) the rising demand for retirement and medical benefits

will quickly jeopardize the solvency of the Medicare, Social

Security, and Federal Retirement Trust Funds; and

(5) the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that

marginal tax rates would have to increase by 50 percent over

the next 5 years to cover the long-term projected costs of

retirement and health benefits.
H. Con. Res. 84—31

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

legislation should be enacted to create a commission to assess

long-term budgetary problems, their implications for both the babyboom generation and tomorrow’s workforce, and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate to ensure our Nation’s future

prosperity.

SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON CORPORATE WELFARE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House finds that the functional levels and

aggregates in this budget resolution assume that—

(1) the Federal Government supports profit-making enterprises and industries through billions of dollars in payments,

benefits, and programs;

(2) many of these subsidies do not serve a clear and compelling public interest;

(3) corporate subsidies frequently provide unfair competitive advantages to certain industries and industry segments;

and

(4) at a time when millions of Americans are being asked

to sacrifice in order to balance the budget, the corporate sector

should bear its share of the burden.

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

legislation should be enacted to—

(1) eliminate the most egregious corporate subsidies; and

(2) create a commission to recommend the elimination of

Federal payments, benefits, and programs which predominantly

benefit a particular industry or segment of an industry, rather

than provide a clear and compelling public benefit, and include

a fast-track process for the consideration of those recommendations.

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON BASELINES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House finds that—

(1) baselines are projections of future spending if existing

policies remain unchanged;

(2) under baseline assumptions, spending automatically

rises with inflation even if such increases are not mandated

under existing law;

(3) baseline budgeting is inherently biased against policies

that would reduce the projected growth in spending because

such policies are portrayed as spending reductions from an

increasing baseline; and

(4) the baseline concept has encouraged Congress to

abdicate its constitutional obligation to control the public purse

for those programs which are automatically funded.

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

budgeting should be replaced with a budgetary model that requires

justification of aggregate funding levels and maximizes congressional and executive accountability for Federal spending.

SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION

CLARIFYING AMENDMENT.

(a) FINDINGS.—The House finds the following:

(1) Domestic violence is the leading cause of physical injury

to women. The Department of Justice estimates that over

1,000,000 violent crimes against women are committed by

intimate partners annually.
H. Con. Res. 84—32

(2) Domestic violence dramatically affects the victim’s ability to participate in the workforce. A University of Minnesota

survey reported that one quarter of battered women surveyed

had lost a job partly because of being abused and that over

half of these women had been harassed by their abuser at

work.

(3) Domestic violence is often intensified as women seek

to gain economic independence through attending school or

training programs. Batterers have been reported to prevent

women from attending these programs or sabotage their efforts

at self-improvement.

(4) Nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by

the Taylor Institute of Chicago, Illinois, document, for the first

time, the interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare by showing that from 34 percent to 65 percent of AFDC

recipients are current or past victims of domestic violence.

(5) Over half of the women surveyed stayed with their

batterers because they lacked the resources to support themselves and their children. The surveys also found that the

availability of economic support is a critical factor in poor

women’s ability to leave abusive situations that threaten them

and their children.

(6) The restructuring of the welfare programs may impact

the availability of the economic support and the safety net

necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse without risking

homelessness and starvation for their families.

(7) In recognition of this finding, the House Committee

on the Budget unanimously passed a sense of Congress amendment on domestic violence and Federal assistance to the fiscal

year 1997 budget resolution. Subsequently, Congress passed

the family violence option amendment to last year’s welfare

reform reconciliation bill.

(8) The family violence option gives States the flexibility

to grant temporary waivers from time limits and work requirements for domestic violence victims who would suffer extreme

hardship from the application of these provisions. These waivers

were not intended to be included as part of the permanent

20 percent hardship exemption.

(9) The Department of Health and Human Services has

been slow to issue regulations regarding this provision. As

a result, States are hesitant to fully implement the family

violence option fearing it will interfere with the 20 percent

hardship exemption.

(10) Currently 15 States have opted to include the family

violence option in their welfare plans, and 13 other States

have included some type of domestic violence provisions in

their plans.

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

(1) States should not be subject to any numerical limits

in granting domestic violence good cause waivers to individuals

receiving assistance for all requirements where compliance with

such requirements would make it more difficult for individuals

receiving assistance to escape domestic violence; and

(2) any individuals granted a domestic violence good cause

waiver by States should not be included in the States’ 20

percent hardship exemption.
H. Con. Res. 84—33

Subtitle B—Sense of the Senate

SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG TERM ENTITLEMENT

REFORMS, INCLUDING ACCURACY IN DETERMINING

CHANGES IN THE COST OF LIVING.

(a) FINDINGS.—

(1) ENTITLEMENT REFORMS.—The Senate finds that with

respect to long term entitlement reforms—

(A) entitlement spending continues to grow dramatically as a percent of total Federal spending, rising from

fifty-six percent of the budget in 1987 to an estimated

seventy-three percent of the budget in 2007;

(B) this growth in mandatory spending poses a longterm threat to the United States economy because it crowds

out spending for investments in education, infrastructure,

defense, law enforcement and other programs that enhance

economic growth;

(C) in 1994, the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement

and Tax Reform concluded that if no changes are made

to current entitlement laws, all Federal revenues will be

spent on entitlement programs and interest on the debt

by the year 2012;

(D) the Congressional Budget Office has also recently

issued a report that found that pressure on the budget

from demographics and rising health care costs will

increase dramatically after 2002; and

(E) making significant entitlement changes will significantly benefit the economy, and will forestall the need

for more drastic tax and spending decisions in future years.

(2) CPI.—The Senate finds that with respect to accuracy

in determining changes in the cost of living—

(A) the Final Report of the Senate Finance Committee’s

Advisory Commission to study the CPI has concluded that

the Consumer Price Index overstates the cost of living

in the United States by 1.1 percentage points;

(B) the overstatement of the cost of living by the

Consumer Price Index has been recognized by economists

since at least 1961, when a report noting the existence

of the overstatement was issued by a National Bureau

of Economic Research Committee, chaired by Professor

George J. Stigler;

(C) Congress and the President, through the indexing

of Federal tax brackets, Social Security benefits, and other

Federal program benefits, have undertaken to protect taxpayers and beneficiaries of such programs from the erosion

of purchasing power due to inflation; and

(D) the overstatement of the cost of living increases

the deficit and undermines the equitable administration

of Federal benefits and tax policies.

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

the provisions in this resolution assume that—

(1) Congress and the President should continue working

to enact structural entitlement reforms in the 1997 budget

agreement and in subsequent legislation;

(2) Congress and the President must find the most accurate

measure of the change in the cost of living in the United
H. Con. Res. 84—34

States, and should work in a bipartisan manner to implement

any changes that are necessary to achieve an accurate measure;

and

(3) Congress and the President must work to ensure that

the 1997 budget agreement not only keeps the unified budget

in balance after 2002, but that additional measures should

be taken to begin to achieve substantial surpluses which will

improve the economy and allow our nation to be ready for

the retirement of the baby boom generation in the year 2012.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TACTICAL FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

PROGRAMS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the Department of Defense has proposed to modernize

the United States tactical fighter aircraft force through three

tactical fighter procurement programs, including the F/A–18

E/F aircraft program of the Navy, the F–22 aircraft program

of the Air Force, and the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program

for the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps;

(2) the General Accounting Office, the Congressional

Budget Office, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology,

and several Members of Congress have publicly stated that,

given the current Department of Defense budget for procurement, the Department of Defense’s original plan to buy over

4,400 F/A–18 E/F aircraft, F–22 aircraft, and Joint Strike

Fighter aircraft at a total program cost in excess of

$350,000,000,000 was not affordable;

(3) the F/A–18 E/F, F–22, and the Joint Strike Fighter

tactical fighter programs will be competing for a limited amount

of procurement funding with numerous other aircraft acquisition programs, including the Comanche helicopter program,

the V–22 Osprey aircraft program, and the C–17 aircraft program, as well as for the necessary replacement of other aging

aircraft such as the KC–135, the C–5A, the F–117, and the

EA–6B aircraft; and

(4) the 1997 Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense

Review has recommended reducing the F/A–18 E/F program

buy from 1,000 aircraft to 548, and reducing the F–22 program

buy from 438 to 339.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that, within 30 days, the

Department of Defense should transmit to Congress detailed

information pertaining to the implementation of this revised acquisition strategy so that the Congress can adequately evaluate the

extent to which the revised acquisition strategy is tenable and

affordable given the projected spending levels contained in this

budget resolution.

SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CHILDREN’S HEALTH

COVERAGE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) of the estimated 10 million uninsured children in the

United States, over 1.3 million have at least one parent who

is self-employed and all other uninsured children are dependents of persons who are employed by another, or unemployed;
H. Con. Res. 84—35

(2) these 1.3 million uninsured kids comprise approximately

22 percent of all children with self-employed parents, and they

are a significant 13 percent of all uninsured children;

(3) the remaining uninsured children are in families where

neither parent is self-employed and comprise 13 percent of

all children in families where neither parent is self-employed;

(4) children in families with a self-employed parent are

therefore more likely to be uninsured than children in families

where neither parent is self-employed; and

(5) the current disparity in the tax law reduces the

affordability of health insurance for the self-employed and their

families, hindering the ability of children to receive essential

primary and preventive care services.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that from resources available in this budget resolution, a portion should be set aside for

an immediate 100 percent deductibility of health insurance costs

for the self-employed. Full-deductibility of health expenses for the

self-employed would make health insurance more attractive and

affordable, resulting in more dependents being covered. The government should not encourage parents to forgo private insurance for

a government-run program.

SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON A MEDICAID PER CAPITA CAP.

It is the sense of the Senate that in order to meet deficit

reduction targets in this resolution with respect to Medicaid—

(1) the per capita cap will not be used as a method for

meeting spending targets; and

(2) the per capita cap could represent a significant

structural change that might jeopardize the quality of care

for children, the disabled, and senior citizens.

SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT ADDED SAVINGS GO TO DEFICIT

REDUCTION.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) balancing the budget will bring numerous economic

benefits for the United States economy and American workers

and families, including improved economic growth and lower

interest rates;

(2) the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution crafted pursuant

to an agreement reached between the Congress and the

Administration purports to achieve balance in the year 2002;

(3) the deficit estimates contained in this resolution may

not conform to the actual deficits in subsequent years, which

make it imperative that any additional savings are realized

be devoted to deficit reduction;

(4) the Senate’s ‘‘pay-as-you-go’’ point of order prohibits

crediting savings from updated economic or technical data as

an offset for legislation that increases the deficit, and ensures

these savings are devoted to deficit reduction; and

(5) Congress and the Administration must ensure that

the deficit levels contained in this budget are met and, if

actual deficits prove to be lower than projected, the additional

savings are used to balance the budget on or before the year

2002.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that—
H. Con. Res. 84—36

(1) legislation enacted pursuant to this resolution must

ensure that the goal of a balanced budget is achieved on or

before fiscal year 2002; and

(2) if the actual deficit is lower than the projected deficit

in any upcoming fiscal year, the added savings should be

devoted to further deficit reduction.

SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FAIRNESS IN MEDICARE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) the Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds recently

announced that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund

is headed for bankruptcy in 2001, and in 1997, HI will run

a deficit of $26,000,000,000 and add $56,000,000,000 annually

to the Federal deficit by 2001;

(2) the Trustees also project that Supplementary Medical

Insurance (SMI), will grow twice as fast as the economy and

the taxpayers’ subsidy to keep the SMI from bankruptcy will

grow from $58,000,000,000 to $89,000,000,000 annually from

1997 through 2001;

(3) the Congressional Budget Office reports that when the

baby-boom generation begins to receive Social Security benefits

and is eligible for Medicare in 2008, the Federal budget will

face intense pressure, resulting in mounting deficits and erosion

of future economic growth;

(4) long-term solutions to address the financial and demographic problems of Medicare are urgently needed to preserve

and protect the Medicare Trust Funds;

(5) these solutions to address the financial and demographic

problems of Medicare are urgently needed to preserve and

protect the Medicare Trust Funds;

(6) reform of the Medicare Program should ensure equity

and fairness for all Medicare beneficiaries, and offer

beneficiaries more choice of private health plans, to promote

efficiency and enhance the quality of health care;

(7) all Americans pay the same payroll tax of 2.9 percent

to the Medicare Trust Funds, and they deserve the same choices

and services regardless of where they retire;

(8) however, under the currently adjusted-average-percapita cost (AAPCC), some counties receive 2.5 times more

in Medicare reimbursements than others;

(9) this inequity in Medicare reimbursement jeopardizes

the quality of Medicare services of rural beneficiaries and penalizes the most efficient and effective Medicare service providers;

(10) in some states, the result has been the absence of

health care choices beyond traditional, fee-for-service medicine

for Medicare beneficiaries, which in other counties and states

plan providers may be significantly over-compensated, adding

to Medicare’s fiscal instability; and

(11) ending the practice of basing payments to risk contract

plans on local fee-for-service medical costs will help correct

these inequities, mitigate unnecessary cost in the program,

and begin the serious, long-term restructuring of Medicare.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that the Finance Committee

should strongly consider the following elements for Medicare

reform—
H. Con. Res. 84—37

(1) any Medicare reform package should include measures

to address the inequity in Medicare reimbursement to risk

contract plans;

(2) Medicare should use a national update framework

rather than local fee-for-service spending increases to determine

the annual changes in risk plan payment rates;

(3) an adequate minimum payment rate should be provided

for health plans participating in Medicare risk contract

programs;

(4) the geographic variation in Medicare payment rates

must be reduced over time to raise the lower payment areas

closer to the average while taking into account actual

differences in input costs that exist from region to regional;

(5) Medicare managers in consultation with plan providers

and patient advocates should pursue competitive bidding

programs in communities where data indicate risk contract

payments are substantially excessive and when plan choices

would not diminish by such a bidding process; and

(6) Medicare should phase in the use of risk adjusters

which take account of health status so as to address overpayment to some plans.

SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ASSISTANCE TO

LITHUANIA AND LATVIA.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) Lithuania and Latvia reestablished democracy and free

market economies when they regained their freedom from the

Soviet Union;

(2) Lithuania and Latvia, which have made significant

progress since regaining their freedom, are still struggling to

recover from the devastation of 50 years of communist domination;

(3) the United States, which never recognized the illegal

incorporation of Lithuania and Latvia into the Soviet Union,

has provided assistance to strengthen democratic institutions

and free market reforms in Lithuania and Latvia since 1991;

(4) the people of the United States enjoy close and friendly

relations with the people of Lithuania and Latvia;

(5) the success of democracy and free market reform in

Lithuania and Latvia is important to the security and economic

progress of the United States; and

(6) the United States as well as Lithuania and Latvia

would benefit from the continuation of assistance which helps

Lithuania and Latvia to implement commercial and trade law

reform, sustain private sector development, and establish welltrained judiciaries.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that—

(1) adequate assistance should be provided to Lithuania

and Latvia in fiscal year 1998 to continue the progress they

have made; and

(2) assistance to Lithuania and Latvia should be continued

beyond fiscal year 1998 as they continue to build democratic

and free market institutions.
H. Con. Res. 84—38

SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION.

It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this resolution assure that a national commission should be established to

study and make specific recommendations regarding the extent

to which increases in student financial aid, and the extent to

which Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, contribute

to increases in college and university tuition.

SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LOCKBOX.

It is the Sense of the Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that to ensure all savings from Medicare reform are

used to keep the Medicare Program solvent, the Treasury Secretary

should credit the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Part

A) with government securities equal to any savings from Medicare

Supplemental Medical Insurance (Part B) reforms enacted pursuant

to the reconciliation instructions contained in this budget resolution.

SEC. 320. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) an April 1997 study by the Internal Revenue Service

of Earned Income Credit (EIC) filers for tax year 1994 revealed

that over $4,000,000,000 of the $17,000,000,000 spent on the

EIC for that year was erroneously claimed and paid by the

IRS, resulting in a fraud and error rate of 25.8 percent;

(2) the IRS study further concluded that EIC reforms

enacted by the One Hundred Fourth Congress will only lower

the fraud error rate to 20.7 percent, meaning over

$23,000,000,000 will be wasted over the next five years; and

(3) the President’s recent proposals to combat EIC fraud

and error contained within this budget resolution are estimated

to save $124,000,000 in scoreable savings over the next five

years and additional savings from deterrent effects.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that the President should

propose and Congress should enact additional programmatic

changes sufficient to ensure that the primary purpose of the EIC

to encourage work over welfare is achieved without wasting billions

of taxpayer dollars on fraud and error.

SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING LONG-TERM ENTITLEMENT REFORMS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that this resolution assumes

that—

(1) entitlement spending has risen dramatically over the

last thirty-five years;

(2) in 1963, mandatory spending (i.e., entitlement spending

and interest on the debt) made up 29.6 percent of the budget,

this figure rose to 61.4 percent by 1993 and is expected to

reach 70 percent shortly after the year 2000;

(3) this mandatory spending is crowding out spending for

the traditional ‘‘discretionary’’ functions of Government like

clean air and water, a strong national defense, parks and

recreation, education, our transportation system, law enforcement, research and development and other infrastructure

spending; and

(4) taking significant steps sooner rather than later to

reform entitlement spending will not only boost economic
H. Con. Res. 84—39

growth in this country, it will also prevent the need for drastic

tax and spending decisions in the next century.

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

that the levels in this budget resolution assume that Congress

and the President should work to enact structural reforms in entitlement spending in 1997 and beyond which sufficiently restrain the

growth of mandatory spending in order to keep the budget in

balance over the long term, extend the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, avoid crowding out funding for

basic Government functions and that every effort should be made

to hold mandatory spending to no more than 70 percent of the

budget.

SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) emergency spending adds to the deficit and total

spending;

(2) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempts emergency

spending from the discretionary spending caps and pay-go

requirements;

(3) the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 expires in 1998

and needs to be extended;

(4) since the enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act,

Congress and the President have approved an average of

$5,800,000,000 per year in emergency spending; and

(5) a natural disaster in any particular State is unpredictable, by the United States is likely to experience a natural

disaster almost every year.

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

the functional totals underlying this concurrent resolution on the

budget assume that the Congress should consider in the extension

of the Budget Enforcement Act and in appropriations Acts—

(1) provisions that budget for emergencies or that require

emergency spending to be offset;

(2) provisions that provide flexibility to meet emergency

funding requirements associated with natural disasters;

(3) Congress and the President should consider appropriating at least $5,000,000,000 every year to provide for natural

disaster relief; and

(4) Congress and the President should not designate any

emergency spending for natural disaster relief until such

amounts provided in regular appropriations are exhausted.

SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ENFORCEMENT OF BIPARTISAN

BUDGET AGREEMENT.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the bipartisan budget agreement is contingent upon—

(A) favorable economic conditions for the next 5 years;

(B) accurate estimates of the fiscal impacts of assumptions in this resolution; and

(C) enactment of legislation to reduce the deficit; and

(2) if any of the conditions in paragraph (1) are not met,

our ability to achieve a balanced budget by 2002 will be jeopardized.

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

the functional totals and limits in this resolution assume that—
H. Con. Res. 84—40

(1) reconciliation legislation should include legislation to

enforce the targets set forth in the bipartisan budget agreement

and to ensure the balanced budget goal is met; and

(2) such legislation shall—

(A) establish procedures to ensure the agreement is

enforced in every year;

(B) require that the President’s annual budget and

annual Congressional concurrent resolutions on the budget

comply the agreement in every year;

(C) consider provisions which provide that if the deficit

is below or the surplus is above the deficits projected in

the agreement in any year, such savings are locked in

for deficit and debt reduction; and

(D) consider provisions which budget for and control

emergency spending in order to prevent the use of emergencies to evade the budget agreement.

SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL

INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) heart disease was the leading cause of death for both

men and women in every year from 1970 to 1993;

(2) mortality rates for individuals suffering from prostate

cancer, skin cancer, and kidney cancer continue to rise;

(3) the mortality rate for African American women suffering

from diabetes is 134 percent higher than the mortality rate

of Caucasian women suffering from diabetes;

(4) asthma rates for children increased 58 percent from

1982 to 1992;

(5) nearly half of all American women between the ages

of 65 and 75 reported having arthritis;

(6) AIDS is the leading cause of death for Americans

between the ages of 24 and 44;

(7) the Institute of Medicine has described United States

clinical research to be ‘‘in a state of crisis’’ and the National

Academy of Sciences concluded in 1994 that ‘‘the present cohort

of clinical investigators is not adequate’’;

(8) biomedical research has been shown to be effective

in saving lives and reducing health care expenditures;

(9) research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health

has contributed significantly to the first overall reduction in

cancer death rates since record keeping was instituted;

(10) research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health

has resulted in the identification of genetic mutations for

osteoporosis; Lou Gehrig’s Disease, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington’s Disease; breast, skin and prostate cancer; and a variety

of other illnesses;

(11) research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health

has been key to the development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning

technologies;

(12) research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health

has developed effective treatments for Acute Lymphoblastic

Leukemia (ALL). Today, 80 percent of children diagnosed with

Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia are alive and free of the disease

after 5 years; and
H. Con. Res. 84—41

(13) research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health

contributed to the development of a new, cost-saving cure for

peptic ulcers.

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

this Resolution assumes that—

(1) appropriations for the National Institutes of Health

should be increased by 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal

years; and

(2) appropriations for the National Institutes of Health should be increased by $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 over

the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CERTAIN ELDERLY

LEGAL ALIENS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that—

(1) the Committee on Finance will include in its recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate

changes in laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Finance that allow certain elderly, legal immigrants who will

cease to receive benefits under the supplemental security

income program as a result of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

193; 110 Stat. 2105) to continue to receive benefits during

a redetermination or reapplication period to determine if such

aliens would qualify for such benefits on the basis of being

disabled; and

(2) the Committee on Finance in developing these recommendations should offset the additional cost of this proposal

out of other programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Finance.

SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING RETROACTIVE TAXES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) in general, the practice of increasing a tax retroactively

is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers; and

(2) retroactive taxation is disruptive to families and small

business in their ability to plan and budget.

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

the levels in this budget resolution assume that—

(1) except for closing tax loopholes, no revenues should

be generated from any retroactively increased tax; and

(2) the Congress and the President should work together

to ensure that any revenue generating proposal contained

within reconciliation legislation pursuant to this concurrent

resolution proposal, except those proposals closing tax loopholes,

should take effect prospectively.

SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND

BALANCING THE BUDGET.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) this budget resolution is projected to balance the unified

budget of the United States in fiscal year 2002;

(2) section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990

requires that the deficit be computed without counting the

annual surpluses of the Social Security Trust Funds; and

(3) if the deficit were calculated according to the requirements of section 13301, this budget resolution would be
H. Con. Res. 84—42

projected to result in a deficit of $108,700,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

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

the assumptions underlying this budget resolution assume that

after balancing the unified Federal budget, the Congress should

continue efforts to reduce the on-budget deficit, so that the Federal

budget will be balanced without counting Social Security surpluses.

SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING SUFFICIENT FUNDING

FOR VETERANS PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) veterans and their families represent approximately

27 percent of the United States population;

(2) more than 20 million of our 26 million living veterans

served during wartime, sacrificing their freedom so that we

may have ours; and

(3) veterans have earned the benefits promised to them.

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

(1) the assumptions underlying this Budget Resolution

assume that the 602(b) allocation to the Department of Veterans Affairs will be sufficient in fiscal year 1998 to fully fund

all discretionary veterans programs, including medical care;

and

(2) funds collected from legislation to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs’ ability to collect and retain reimbursement from third-party payers ought to be used to supplement,

not supplant, an adequate appropriation for medical care.

SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION

CLARIFYING AMENDMENT.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds the following:

(1) Domestic violence is the leading cause of physical injury

to women. The Department of Justice estimates that over

1,000,000 violent crimes against women are committed by

intimate partners annually.

(2) Domestic violence dramatically affects the victim’s ability to participate in the workforce. A University of Minnesota

survey reported that 1⁄4 of battered women surveyed had lost

a job partly because of being abused and that over 1⁄2 of these

women had been harassed by their abuser at work.

(3) Domestic violence is often intensified as women seek

to gain economic independence through attending school or

training programs. Batterers have been reported to prevent

women from attending these programs or sabotage their efforts

at self-improvement.

(4) Nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by

the Taylor Institute of Chicago, Illinois, document, for the first

time, the interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare by showing that from 34 percent to 65 percent of AFDC

recipients are current or past victims of domestic violence.

(5) Over 1⁄2 of the women surveyed stayed with their

batterers because they lacked the resources to support themselves and their children. The surveys also found that the

availability of economic support is a critical factor in poor

women’s ability to leave abusive situations that threaten them

and their children.

(6) The restructuring of the welfare programs may impact

the availability of the economic support and the safety net
H. Con. Res. 84—43

necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse without risking

homelessness and starvation for their families.

(7) In recognition of this finding, the Committee on the

Budget of the Senate in considering the 1997 Resolution on

the budget of the United States unanimously adopted a sense

of the Congress amendment concerning domestic violence and

Federal assistance. Subsequently, Congress adopted the family

violence option amendment as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

(8) The family violence option gives States the flexibility

to grant temporary waivers from time limits and work requirements for domestic violence victims who would suffer extreme

hardship from the application of these provisions. These waivers

were not intended to be included as part of the permanent

20 percent hardship exemption.

(9) The Department of Health and Human Services has

been slow to issue regulations regarding this provision. As

a result, States are hesitant to fully implement the family

violence option fearing that it will interfere with the 20 percent

hardship exemption.

(10) Currently 15 States have opted to include the family

violence option in their welfare plans, and 13 other States

have included some type of domestic violence provisions in

their plans.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that—

(1) States should not be subject to any numerical limits

in granting domestic violence good cause waivers under section

402(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

602(a)(7)(A)(iii)) to individuals receiving assistance, for all

requirements where compliance with such requirements would

make it more difficult for individuals receiving assistance to

escape domestic violence; and

(2) any individual who is granted a domestic violence good

cause waiver by a State shall not be included in the States’

20 percent hardship exemption under section 408(a)(7) of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)).

SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ASSISTANCE TO AMTRAK.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) Amtrak is in a financial crisis, with growing and substantial debt obligations approaching $2,000,000,000;

(2) Amtrak has not been authorized since 1994;

(3) the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation favorably reported legislation to reform Amtrak

during the last two Congresses, but no legislation was enacted;

(4) the Finance Committee favorably reported legislation

in the last Congress that created a dedicated trust fund for

Amtrak, but no legislation was enacted;

(5) in 1997 Amtrak testified before the Congress that it

cannot survive beyond 1998 without comprehensive legislative

reforms and a dedicated source of capital funding; and

(6) Congress is obligated to invest Federal tax dollars

responsibly and to reduce waste and inefficiency in Federal

programs, including Amtrak.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that—
H. Con. Res. 84—44

(1) legislative reform is urgently needed to address

Amtrak’s financial and operational problems;

(2) Congress should allocate additional Federal dollars to

Amtrak in conjunction with reforms requested by Amtrak to

address its precarious financial situation; and

(3) the distribution of money from any new fund to finance

an intercity rail passenger fund should be implemented in

conjunction with legislation to reauthorize and reform the

National Rail Passenger Corporation.

SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN’S HEALTH.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) Today’s children and the next generation of children

are the prime beneficiaries of a balanced Federal budget. Without a balanced budget, today’s children will bear the increasing

burden of the Federal debt. Continued deficit spending would

doom future generations to slower economic growth, higher

taxes, and lower living standards.

(2) The health of children is essential to the future economic

and social well-being of the Nation.

(3) The Medicaid Program provides health coverage for

over 17,000,000 children, or 1 out of every 4 children.

(4) While children represent 1⁄2 of all individuals eligible

for Medicaid, children account for less than 25 percent of

expenditures under the Medicaid Program.

(5) Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funding under

the Medicaid Program has allowed States to provide health

care services to thousands of uninsured pregnant women and

children. DSH funding under the Medicaid Program is critical

for these populations.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that the health care needs

of low-income pregnant women and children should be a top priority.

Careful study must be made of the impact of Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reform proposals on children’s health

and on vital sources of care, including children’s hospitals. Any

restrictions on DSH funding under the Medicaid Program should

not harm State Medicaid coverage of children and pregnant women.

SEC. 332. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DEPOSITING ALL FEDERAL

GASOLINE TAXES INTO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) Since 1956, Federal gasoline excise tax revenues have

generally been deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and

reserved for transportation uses.

(2) In 1993, Congress and the President enacted the first

permanent increase in the Federal gasoline excise tax which

was dedicated to general revenues, not the Highway Trust

Fund.

(3) Over the next five years, approximately $7,000,000,000

per year in Federal gasoline excise tax revenues will be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury, rather than the

Highway Trust Fund.

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

the provisions in this resolution assume that Congress should in
H. Con. Res. 84—45

the extension of the Budget Enforcement Act, ISTEA reauthorization, appropriations Acts, and in any revenue bills, consider dedicating all revenues from Federal gasoline excise taxes, including

amounts dedicated to general revenues in 1993, to the Highway

Trust Fund so that such taxes may be used for the purpose to

which they have historically been dedicated, promoting transportation infrastructure and building roads.

SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds the following:

(1) Scientific research on the development of the brain

has confirmed that the early childhood years, particularly from

birth to the age of 3, are critical to children’s development.

(2) Studies repeatedly have shown that good quality child

care helps children develop well, enter school ready to succeed,

improve their skills, cognitive abilities and socioemotional

development, improve classroom learning behavior, and stay

safe while their parents work. Further, quality early childhood

programs can positively affect children’s long-term success in

school achievement, higher earnings as adults, decrease reliance on public assistance and decrease involvement with the

criminal justice system.

(3) The first of the National Education Goals, endorsed

by the Nation’s governors, passed by Congress and signed into

law by President Bush, stated that by the year 2000, every

child should enter school ready to learn and that access to

a high quality early childhood education program was integral

to meeting this goal.

(4) According to data compiled by the RAND Corporation,

while 90 percent of human brain growth occurs by the age

of 3, public spending on children in that age range equals

only 8 percent of spending on all children. A vast majority

of public spending on children occurs after the brain has gone

through its most dramatic changes, often to correct problems

that should have been addressed during early childhood development.

(5) According to the Department of Education, of $29,400,000,000 in current estimated education expenditures,

only $1,500,000,000, or 5 percent, is spent on children from

birth to age 5. The vast majority is spent on children over

age 5.

(6) A new commitment to quality child care and early

childhood education is a necessary response to the fact that

children from birth to the age of 3 are spending more time

in care away from their homes. Almost 60 percent of women

in the workforce have children under the age of 3 requiring

care.

(7) Many States and communities are currently experimenting with innovative programs directed at early childhood care

and education in a variety of care settings, including the home.

States and local communities are best able to deliver efficient,

cost-effective services, but while such programs are long on

demand, they are short on resources. Additional Federal

resources should not create new bureaucracy, but build on

successful locally driven efforts.

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

the budget totals and levels in this resolution assume that funds
H. Con. Res. 84—46

ought to be directed toward increasing the supply of quality child

care, early childhood education, and teacher and parent training

for children from birth through age 3.

SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) there is no direct linkage between the fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and the transportation spending from the Highway Trust Fund;

(2) the Federal budget process has severed this linkage

by dividing revenues and spending into separate budget categories with—

(A) fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund

as revenues; and

(B) most spending from the Highway Trust Fund in

the discretionary category;

(3) each budget category referred to in paragraph (2) has

its own rules and procedures; and

(4) under budget rules in effect prior to the date of adoption

of this resolution, an increase in fuel taxes permits increased

spending to be included in the budget, but not for increased

Highway Trust Fund spending.

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

(1) in this session of Congress, Congress should, within

a unified budget, consider changing the Federal budget process

to establish a linkage between the fuel taxes deposited in

the Highway Trust Fund, including any fuel tax increases

that may be enacted into law after the date of adoption of

this resolution, and the spending from the Highway Trust

Fund; and

(2) changes to the budgetary treatment of the Highway

Trust Fund should not result in total program levels for highways or mass transit that is inconsistent with those assumed

under the resolution.

SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING TAX INCENTIVES FOR

THE COST OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION.

It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that any revenue reconciliation bill should include

tax incentives for the cost of post-secondary education, including

expenses of workforce education and training at vocational schools

and community colleges.

SEC. 336. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS.

It is the sense of the Senate that nothing in this resolution

shall be construed as prohibiting Congress in future years from

providing additional tax relief if the cost of such tax relief is

offset by reductions in spending or increases in revenue from alternative sources.

SEC. 337. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRUTH IN BUDGETING

AND SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the electromagnetic spectrum is the property of the

American people and is managed on their behalf by the Federal

Government;

(2) the spectrum is a highly valuable and limited natural

resource;
H. Con. Res. 84—47

(3) the auctioning of spectrum has raised billions of dollars

for the Treasury;

(4) the estimates made regarding the value of spectrum

in the past have proven unreliable, having previously understated and now overstating its worth; and

(5) because estimates of spectrum value depend on a

number of technological, economic, market forces, and other

variables that cannot be predicted or completely controlled,

it is not possible to reliably estimate the value of a given

segment of spectrum.

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

as auctions occur as assumed by this resolution, the Congress

shall take such steps as necessary to reconcile the difference

between actual revenues raised and estimates made and shall

reduce spending and make other appropriate adjustments accordingly if such auctions raise less revenue than projected.

SEC. 338. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION

PROJECTS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) 10 demonstration projects totaling $362,000,000 were

listed for special line-item funding in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982;

(2) 152 demonstration projects totaling $1,400,000,000 were

named in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation

Assistance Act of 1987;

(3) 64 percent of the funding for the 152 projects had

not been obligated after 5 years and State transportation officials determined the projects added little, if any, to meeting

their transportation infrastructure priorities; (4) 538 location specific projects totaling $6,230,000,000

were included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (5) more than $3,300,000,000 of the funds authorized for

the 538 location-specific projects remained unobligated as of

January 31, 1997;

(6) the General Accounting Office determined that 31 States

plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico would have

received more funding if the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act location-specific project funds were redistributed

as Federal-aid highway program apportionments;

(7) this type of project funding diverts Highway Trust

Fund money away from State transportation priorities established under the formula allocation process and under the

Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991;

(8) on June 20, 1995, by a vote of 75 yeas to 21 nays,

the Senate voted to prohibit the use of Federal Highway Trust

Fund money for future demonstration projects;

(9) the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency

Act of 1991 expires at the end of fiscal year 1997; and

(10) hundreds of funding requests for specific transportation projects in Congressional Districts have been submitted

in the House of Representatives.

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

(1) notwithstanding different views on existing Highway

Trust Fund distribution formulas, funding for demonstration

projects or other similarly titled projects diverts Highway Trust
H. Con. Res. 84—48

Fund money away from State priorities and deprives States

of the ability to adequately address their transportation needs;

(2) States are best able to determine the priorities for

allocating Federal-Aid-To-Highway monies within their jurisdiction;

(3) Congress should not divert limited Highway Trust Fund

resources away from State transportation priorities by authorizing new highway projects; and

(4) Congress should not authorize any new demonstration

projects or other similarly-titled projects.

SEC. 339. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF BUDGET

SAVINGS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) Poverty rates among the elderly are at the lowest level

since our Nation began to keep poverty statistics, due in large

part to the Social Security system and the Medicare Program.

(2) Twenty-two percent of every dollar spent by the Federal

Government goes to the Social Security system.

(3) Eleven percent of every dollar spent by the Federal

Government goes to the Medicare Program.

(4) Currently, spending on the elderly accounts for 1⁄3 of

the Federal budget and more than 1⁄2 of all domestic spending

other than interest on the national debt.

(5) Future generations of Americans must be guaranteed

the same value from the Social Security system as past covered

recipients.

(6) According to the 1997 report of the Managing Trustee

for the Social Security Trust Funds, the accumulated balance

in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

is estimated to fall to zero by 2029, and the estimated payroll

tax at that time will be sufficient to cover only 75 percent

of the benefits owed to retirees at that time.

(7) The accumulated balance in the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is estimated to fall to zero by 2001.

(8) While the Federal budget deficit has shrunk for the fourth straight year to $67,000,000,000 in 1997, measures need

to be taken to ensure that trend continues.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that budget savings in

the mandatory spending area should be used—

(1) to protect and enhance the retirement security of the

American people by ensuring the long-term future of the Social

Security system;

(2) to protect and enhance the health care security of

senior citizens by ensuring the long-term future of the Medicare

Program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1395 et seq.); and

(3) to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline to

ensure that the level of private investment necessary for longterm economic growth and prosperity is available.

SEC. 340. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR FUTURE RETIREES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Social Security system has allowed a generation

of Americans to retire with dignity. Today, 13 percent of the
H. Con. Res. 84—49

population is 65 or older and by 2030, 20 percent of the population will be 65 or older. More than 1⁄2 of the elderly do

not receive private pensions and more than 1⁄3 have no income

from assets.

(2) For 60 percent of all senior citizens, Social Security

benefits provide almost 80 percent of their retirement income.

For 80 percent of all senior citizens, Social Security benefits

provide over 50 percent of their retirement income.

(3) Poverty rates among the elderly are at the lowest level

since the United States began to keep poverty statistics, due

in large part to the Social Security system.

(4) Seventy-eight percent of Americans pay more in payroll

taxes than they do in income taxes.

(5) According to the 1997 report of the Managing Trustee

for the Social Security Trust Funds, the accumulated balance

in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

is estimated to fall to zero by 2029, and the estimated payroll

tax at that time will be sufficient to cover only 75 percent

of the benefits owed to retirees at that time.

(6) The average American retiring in the year 2015 will

pay $250,000 in payroll taxes over the course of his or her

working career.

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

the provisions of this resolution assume that no change in the

Social Security system should be made that would reduce the value

of the Social Security system for future generations of retirees.

SEC. 341. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH DIVIDEND

PROTECTION.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that with respect to the

revenue levels established under this resolution—

(1) according to the President’s own economists, the tax

burden on Americans is the highest ever at 31.7 percent;

(2) according to the National Taxpayers Union, the average

American family now pays almost 40 percent of their income

in State, local, and Federal taxes;

(3) between 1978 and 1985, while the top marginal rate

on capital gains was cut almost in half—from 35 to 20 percent—

total annual Federal receipts from the tax almost tripled from

$9,100,000,000 annually to $26,500,000,000 annually;

(4) conversely, when Congress raised the rate in 1986,

revenues actually fell well below what was anticipated;

(5) economists across-the-board predict that cutting the

capital gains rate will result in a revenue windfall for the

Treasury; and

(6) while a USA Today poll from this March found 70

percent of the American people believe that they need a tax

cut, under this resolution Federal spending will grow 17 percent

over five years while the net tax cuts are less than 1 percent

of the total tax burden.

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

with respect to the revenue levels established under this resolution,

to the extent that actual revenues exceed the revenues projected

under this resolution due to higher than anticipated economic

growth, that revenue windfall should be reserved exclusively for

additional tax cuts and/or deficit reduction.
H. Con. Res. 84—50

SEC. 342. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING FEDERAL, STATE, AND

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) Our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers

provide essential services that preserve and protect our freedoms and security, and with the support of Federal assistance,

State and local law enforcement officers have succeeded in

reducing the national scourge of violent crime, as illustrated

by a murder rate in 1996 that is projected to be the lowest

since 1971 and a violent crime total in 1996 that is the lowest

since 1990.

(2) Through a comprehensive effort to attack violence

against women mounted by State and local law enforcement,

and dedicated volunteers and professionals who provide victim

services, shelter, counseling, and advocacy to battered women

and their children, important strides have been made against

the national scourge of violence against women, illustrated

by the decline in the murder rate for wives, ex-wives, and

girlfriends at the hands of their ‘‘intimates’’ fell to a 19-year

low in 1995.

(3) Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts need

continued financial commitment from the Federal Government

for funding and financial assistance to continue their efforts

to combat violent crime and violence against women.

(4) Federal, State and local law enforcement also face other

challenges which require continued financial commitment from

the Federal Government, including regaining control over the

Southwest Border, where drug trafficking and illegal immigration continue to threaten public safety and menace residents

on the border and throughout the Nation.

(5) The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established

in section 310001 the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) fully funds the Violent

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, including

the Violence Against Women Act, without adding to the Federal

budget deficit.

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

the provisions and the functional totals underlying this resolution

assume that—

(1) the Federal Government’s commitment to fund Federal

law enforcement programs and programs to assist State and

local efforts to combat violent crime, including violence against

women, will be maintained; and

(2) funding for the Violent Crime Reduction program will

continue as authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994.
H. Con. Res. 84—51

SEC. 343. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN PREVENTION OF DRUG USE BY CHILDREN.

It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this resolution assume that, from resources available in this budget resolution,

a portion should be set aside for a national grassroots volunteer

effort to encourage parental education and involvement in youth

drug prevention and to create a drug-intolerant culture for our

children.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.