```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5238-H5259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Watts of Oklahoma). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 149 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 
67.

                              {time}  1035

                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1996, 
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Sensenbrenner in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 
17, 1995, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in House Report 104-125 
is adopted and the concurrent resolution, as amended, is considered 
read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 67, as amended by House 
Resolution 149, is as follows:
                            H. Con. Res. 67
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1996.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1996, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, as required by 
     section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1995, October 1, 1996, 
     October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, October 1, 
     2000, and October 1, 2001:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,057,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,058,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,099,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,138,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,189,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,247,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,316,600,000,000.
     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $14,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: -$24,393,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: -$34,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$48,354,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$58,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$69,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$71,859,000,000.
     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $103,815,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $108,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $114,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $120,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $126,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $133,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $140,425,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,285,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,321,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,355,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,388,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,421,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,459,800,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,287,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,313,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,326,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,363,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,400,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,414,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,437,300,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: -$229,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: -$255,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: -$227,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$224,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$211,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$167,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$120,700,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,195,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,516,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,809,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,099,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,374,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,614,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,806,100,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1995, October 1, 
     1996, October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, 
     October 1, 2000, and October 1, 2001 are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $193,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $40,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $187,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $42,300,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $185,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $183,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $184,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $186,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $46,100,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $187,600,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and 
     new secondary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 
     1996 through 2002 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):

[[Page H5239]]

       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     [[Page H5240]]   Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
     [[Page H5241]]   (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $121,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $132,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $136,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $141,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $149,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $177,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $175,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $186,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $185,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $195,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $194,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $206,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $203,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $214,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $212,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $232,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $235,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $243,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,000,000,000.
     [[Page H5242]]   (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $21,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $20,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     [[Page H5243]]   (E) New secondary loan guarantee 
     commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $314,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $319,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $320,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a)(1) Not later than July 14, 1995, the House committees 
     named in paragraphs (1) through (12) of subsection (b) of 
     this section shall submit their recommendations to the House 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (2) Each committee named in paragraphs (1) through (11) of 
     subsection (b) shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee for--
       (A) fiscal year 1996,
       (B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2000, and
       (C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2002,
     does not exceed the total level of direct spending in that 
     period in the paragraph applicable to that committee.
       (3) Each committee named in paragraphs (2)(B), (4)(B), 
     (5)(B), and (6)(B) of subsection (b) shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction as set forth in the paragraph 
     applicable to that committee.
       (4) The Committee on Ways and Means shall carry out 
     subsection (b)(12).
       (b)(1) The House Committee on Agriculture: $35,824,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $171,886,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $263,102,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services: -$12,897,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     -$43,065,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and -$57,184,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     would reduce the deficit by: $0 in fiscal year 1996, 
     -$100,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and 
     -$260,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (3) The House Committee on Commerce: $293,665,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $1,726,600,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $2,625,094,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (4)(A) The House Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities: $13,727,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1996, $61,570,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $95,520,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the House Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities shall report program changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that would result in a reduction 
     in outlays as follows: -$720,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     -$5,908,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and 
     -$9,018,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (5)(A) The House Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight: $57,725,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $313,647,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $455,328,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the House Committee on Government Reform 
     and Oversight shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by: -$988,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1996, -$9,618,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2000, and -$14,740,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (6)(A) The House Committee on International Relations: 
     $14,246,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $62,076,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, 
     and $83,206,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2002.
       (B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the House Committee on International 
     Relations shall shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by: 
     -$19,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, -$95,000,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and -$123,000,000 in fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2002.
       (7) The House Committee on the Judiciary: $2,580,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $14,043,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $20,029,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
     [[Page H5244]]   (8) The House Committee on National 
     Security: $38,769,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $224,682,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $328,334,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (9) The House Committee on Resources: $1,558,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $6,532,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $12,512,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (10) The House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure: $16,636,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1996, $83,227,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $117,079,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (11) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs: 
     $19,041,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $105,965,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $154,054,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (12)(A) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee for--
       (i) fiscal year 1996,
       (ii) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2000, and
       (iii) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2002,

     does not exceed the following level in that period: 
     $356,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $2,152,905,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $3,297,787,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the 
     total level of revenues for that committee for--
       (i) fiscal year 1996,
       (ii) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2000, and

       (iii) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2002,
     is not less than the following amount in that period: 
     $1,027,612,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $5,371,087,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $7,836,405,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (c)(1) Not later than September 14, 1995, the House 
     committees named in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Budget Committee 
     shall report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out 
     all such recommendations without any substantive revisions.
       (2) In addition to changes in laws reported pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(3), the House Committee on Commerce shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee for--
       (A) fiscal year 1996,
       (B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2000, and
       (C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2002,

     does not exceed the following level in that period: 
     $287,165,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $1,592,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $2,338,694,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (3) In addition to changes in laws reported pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(12), the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending such that the total level of direct 
     spending for that committee for--
       (A) fiscal year 1996,
       (B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2000, and
       (C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year 1996 and 
     ending with fiscal year 2002,

     does not exceed the following level in that period: 
     $349,836,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $2,018,505,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $3,009,387,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (d) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct 
     spending'' has the meaning given to such term in section 
     250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 5. AGRICULTURAL SAVINGS.

       Congress shall re-examine budget reductions for 
     agricultural programs in the United States Department of 
     Agriculture for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 unless the 
     following conditions are met--
       (1) land values on agricultural land on January 1, 1998, 
     are at least 95 percent of the same values on the date of 
     adoption of this resolution;
       (2) there is enacted into law regulatory relief for the 
     agricultural sector in the areas of wetlands regulation, the 
     Endangered Species Act, private property rights and cost-
     benefit analyses of proposed regulations;
       (3) there is tax relief for producers in the form of 
     capital gains tax reduction, increased estate tax exemptions 
     and mechanisms to average tax loads over strong and weak 
     income years; and
       (4) there is no government interference in the 
     international market in the form of agricultural trade 
     embargoes in effect and there is successful implementation 
     and enforcement of trade agreements,

     including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 
     and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to lower 
     export subsidies and reduce import barriers to trade imposed 
     by foreign governments.

     SEC. 6. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the prohibition on scoring asset sales has discouraged 
     the sale of assets that can be better managed by the private 
     sector and generate receipts to reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit;
       (2) the President's fiscal year 1996 budget included 
     $8,000,000,000 in receipts from asset sales and proposed a 
     change in the asset sale scoring rule to allow the proceeds 
     from these sales to be scored;
       (3) assets should not be sold if such sale would increase 
     the budget deficit over the long run; and
       (4) the asset sale scoring prohibition should be repealed 
     and consideration should be given to replacing it with a 
     methodology that takes into account the long-term budgetary 
     impact of asset sale.
       (b) Budgetary Treatment.--For purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the amounts realized from sales of assets 
     shall be scored with respect to the level of budget 
     authority, outlays, or revenues.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under 
     section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Treatment of Loan Assets.--For purposes of this 
     section, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a loan 
     shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990.

     SEC. 7. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.

       (a) Adjustments.--(1) For purposes of points of order under 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and concurrent 
     resolutions on the budget--
       (A) the discretionary spending limits under section 
     601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumulatively 
     adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each outyear;
       (B) the allocations to the Committee on Appropriations 
     under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (C) the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the most 
     recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

     shall be adjusted to reflect the amounts of additional new 
     budget authority or additional outlays (as defined in 
     paragraph (2)) reported by the Committee on Appropriations in 
     appropriation Acts (or by the committee of conference on such 
     legislation) for the Internal Revenue Service compliance 
     initiative activities in any fiscal year, but not to exceed 
     in any fiscal year $405,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $405,000,000 in outlays.
       (2) As used in this section, the terms ``additional new 
     budget authority'' or ``additional outlays'' shall mean, for 
     any fiscal year, budget authority or outlays (as the case may 
     be) in excess of the amounts requested for that fiscal year 
     for the Internal Revenue Service in the President's Budget 
     for fiscal year 1996.
       (b) Revised Limits, Allocations, and Aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), and 
     again upon the submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation (if a conference report is submitted), the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives (as the case may be) shall submit to 
     that chairman's respective House appropriately revised--
       (1) discretionary spending limits under section 601(a)(2) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (and those limits as 
     cumulatively adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each 
     outyear;
       (2) allocations to the Committee on Appropriations under 
     sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (3) appropriate budgetary aggregates in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

     to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary 
     spending limits, allocations, and aggregates shall be 
     considered for purposes of congressional enforcement under 
     that Act as the discretionary spending limits, allocations, 
     and aggregates.
       (c) Reporting Revised Suballocations.--The Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to 
     sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to carry out this section.
       (d) Contingencies.--
       (1) The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the 
     Treasury have certified that they are firmly committed to the 
     principles of privacy, confidentiality, courtesy, and 
     protection of taxpayer rights. To this end, the Internal 
     Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury have 
     explicitly committed to initiate and implement educational 
     programs for any new employees hired as a result of the 
     compliance initiative made possible by this section.
       (2) This section shall not apply to any additional new 
     budget authority or additional outlays unless--
       (A) the chairmen of the Budget Committees certify, based 
     upon information from the Congressional Budget Office, the 
     General Accounting Office, and the Internal Revenue Service 
     (as well as from any other sources they deem relevant), that 
     such budget authority or outlays will not increase the total 
     of the Federal budget deficits over the next five years; and
     [[Page H5245]]   (B) any funds made available pursuant to 
     such budget authority or outlays are available only for the 
     purpose of carrying out Internal Revenue Service compliance 
     initiative activities.
     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Baselines are projections of future spending if 
     existing policies remain unchanged.
       (2) Under baseline assumptions, spending automatically 
     rises with inflation even if such increases are not provided 
     under current law.
       (3) Baseline budgeting is inherently biased against 
     policies that would reduce the projected growth in spending 
     because such policies are scored as a reduction from a rising 
     baseline.
       (4) The baseline concept has encouraged Congress to 
     abdicate its constitutional responsibility to control the 
     public purse for programs which are automatically funded 
     under existing law.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that baseline budgeting should be replaced with a form of 
     budgeting that requires full justification and analysis of 
     budget proposals and maximizes congressional accountability 
     for public spending.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempted from the 
     discretionary spending limits and the Pay-As-You-Go 
     requirements for entitlement and tax legislation funding 
     requirements that are designated by Congress and the 
     President as an emergency.
       (2) Congress and the President have increasingly misused 
     the emergency designation by--
       (A) designating funding as an emergency that is neither 
     unforeseen nor a genuine emergency, and
       (B) circumventing spending limits or passing controversial 
     items that would not pass scrutiny in a free-standing bill.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should study alternative approaches to budgeting for 
     emergencies, including codifying the definition of an 
     emergency and establishing contingency funds to pay for 
     emergencies.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRIVATIZATION OF THE 
                   STUDENT LOAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION (SALLIE 
                   MAE).

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Student Loan Marketing Association was established 
     in 1972 as a government-sponsored corporation dedicated to 
     ensuring adequate private sector funding for federally 
     guaranteed education loans.
       (2) Since 1972, student loan volume has grown from 
     $1,000,000,000 a year to $25,000,000,000 a year. The Student 
     Loan Marketing Association was instrumental in fostering this 
     expansion of the student loan program.
       (3) With securitization and 42 secondary markets, there 
     currently exist numerous alternatives for lenders wishing to 
     sell or liquidate their portfolios of student loans.
       (4) Maintaining Student Loan Marketing Association as a 
     Government-sponsored enterprise exposes taxpayers to an 
     unnecessary liability.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense Congress that the 
     Student Loan Marketing Association should be restructured as 
     a private corporation.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING DEBT 
                   REPAYMENT.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) the Congress has a basic moral and ethical 
     responsibility to future generations to repay the Federal 
     debt;
       (2) the Congress should enact a plan that balances the 
     budget, and then also develops a regimen for paying off the 
     Federal debt;
       (3) after the budget is balanced, a surplus should be 
     created, which can be used to begin paying off the debt; and
       (4) such a plan should be formulated and implemented so 
     that this generation can save future generations from the 
     crushing burdens of the Federal debt.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REPEAL OF HOUSE RULE 
                   XLIX AND THE LEGAL LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) rule XLIX of the Rules of House of Representatives 
     (popularly known as the Gephardt rule) should be repealed;
       (2) the fiscal year 1996 reconciliation bill should be 
     enacted into law before passage of the debt limit extension; 
     and
       (3) the debt limit should only be set at levels, and for 
     durations, that help assure a balanced budget by fiscal year 
     2002 or sooner.

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE BUDGETARY TREATMENT 
                   OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR DIRECT LOANS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the Federal Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990 understates the cost to the Government of 
     direct loans because administrative costs are not included in 
     the net present value calculation of Federal direct loan 
     subsidy costs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the cost of a direct loan should be the net present 
     value, at the time the direct loan is disbursed, of the 
     following cash flows for the estimated life of the loan:
       (1) Loan disbursement.
       (2) Repayments of principal.
       (3) Interest costs and other payments by or to the 
     Government over the life of the loan after adjusting for 
     estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other 
     recoveries.
       (4) In the case of a direct loan made pursuant to a program 
     for which the Congressional Budget Office estimates that for 
     the coming fiscal year (or any prior fiscal year) loan 
     commitments will equal or exceed $5,000,000,000, direct 
     expenses, including expenses arising from--
       (A) activities related to credit extension, loan 
     origination, and loan servicing;
       (B) payments to contractors, other Government entities, and 
     program participants;
       (C) management of contractors;
       (D) collection of delinquents loans; and
       (E) write-off and close-out of loans.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING COMMISSION ON THE 
                   SOLVENCY OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY AND CIVIL 
                   SERVICE RETIREMENT FUNDS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the Federal 
     retirement system, for both military and civil service 
     retirees, currently has liabilities of $1.1 trillion, while 
     holding assets worth $340 billion and anticipating employee 
     contributions of $220 billion, which leaves an unfunded 
     liability of $540 billion.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that a high-level commission should be convened to study the 
     problems associated with the Federal retirement system and 
     make recommendations that will ensure the long-term solvency 
     of the military and civil service retirement funds.

  3The CHAIRMAN. No further amendments are in order except the 
amendments printed in section 2 of House Resolution 149, which may be 
considered in the following order:
  First, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], printed in the Congressional Record of 
May 16, 1995;
  Second, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 66;
  Third, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], 
printed in the Congressional Record of May 16, 1995; and
  Fourth, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the minority 
leader or a designee based on a revised Presidential budget, if printed 
in the Congressional Record of May 17, 1995.
  The amendments may be offered by a Member designated, shall be 
considered as read and shall not be subject to amendment. Each 
amendment will be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  The adoption of any amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
constitute conclusion of the amendment process.
  At the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there will be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member on the Committee on the Budget.

    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. gephardt

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Gephardt:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
  

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1996.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1996, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, as required by 
     section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriated for the 
     fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1995, October 1, 1996, 
     October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, October 1, 
     2000, and October 1, 2001:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,043,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,083,818,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,136,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,191,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,253,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,322,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,397,102,000,000.

     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $0.
       Fiscal year 1997: $0.
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
     [[Page H5246]]   Fiscal year 2001: $0.
       Fiscal year 2002: $0.

     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $103,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $109,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $114,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $120,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $126,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $133,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $140,400,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,278,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,308,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,356,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,395,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,452,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,474,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,523,900,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,279,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,305,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,334,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,377,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,430,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,459,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,506,100,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $236,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $222,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $198,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $185,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $177,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $137,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $109,300,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,195,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,516,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,809,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,099,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,374,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,614,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,806,100,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1995, October 1, 
     1996, October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, 
     October 1, 2000, and October 1, 2001 are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $193,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $40,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $187,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $42,300,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $185,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $183,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,600,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $184,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $186,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $46,100,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $187,600,000,000.
  

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and 
     new secondary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 
     1996 through 2002 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       [[Page H5247]] (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,00,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-7,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-5,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-7,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-3,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-3,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,000,000.
     [[Page H5248]]   (B) Outlays, $-3,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $153,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $169,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
     [[Page H5249]]   (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $212,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $235,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $226,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $21,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $20,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
     [[Page H5250]]   (A) New budget authority, $19,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $302,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $310,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $311,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $311,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $-8,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-6,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $-8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $-7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-7,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $-37,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-38,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $-39,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-41,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $-41,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-41,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-42,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-42,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
  

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.
       (a) Not later than September 14, 1995, the House committees 
     named in subsections (b) through (o) of this section shall 
     submit their recommendations to the House Budget Committee. 
     After receiving those recommendations, the House Budget 
     Committee shall report to the House a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution or both carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
     [[Page H5251]]   (b) The House Committee on Agriculture shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and 
     outlays as follows: $1,120,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $1,120,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $2,530,000,000 
     in budget authority and $2,530,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1997, $2,650,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $2,650,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, $2,810,000,000 
     in budget authority and $2,810,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1999, $2,650,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $2,650,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $2,700,000,000 
     in budget authority and $2,700,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2001, and $2,760,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $2,760,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (c) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority 
     and outlays as follows: $910,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $910,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $930,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $930,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1997, $950,000,000 in budget authority and $950,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $1,030,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,030,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $1,050,000,000 in budget authority and $1,050,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $1,070,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,070,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $1,070,000,000 in budget authority and $1,070,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (d) The House Committee on Commerce shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $15,780,000,000 in budget authority and $15,650,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $30,830,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $30,830,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $36,070,000,000 in budget authority and $36,080,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $49,820,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $50,010,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $59,140,000,000 in budget authority and $59,140,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $68,760,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $68,760,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $82,480,000,000 in budget authority and $82,480,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002.
       (e) The House Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: $460,000,000 
     in budget authority and $390,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1996, $770,000,000 in budget authority and $730,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $800,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $790,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, 
     $830,000,000 in budget authority and $830,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1999, $880,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $880,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $1,210,000,000 
     in budget authority and $1,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2001, and $1,290,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $1,280,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (f) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority 
     and outlays as follows: $280,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $280,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $570,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $570,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1997, $890,000,000 in budget authority and $890,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $1,220,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,220,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $1,810,000,000 in budget authority and $1,810,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $840,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $840,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, and 
     $1,160,000,000 in budget authority and $1,160,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (g) The House Committee on International Relations shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and 
     outlays as follows: $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1996, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1997, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1998, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1999, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 2000, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 2001, and $0 in budget authority and $0 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (h) The House Committee on the Judiciary shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $120,000,000 in budget authority and $120,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $130,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $130,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $140,000,000 
     in budget authority and $140,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1998, $270,000,000 in budget authority and $150,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1999, $270,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $160,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, 
     $280,000,000 in budget authority and $160,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 2001, and $290,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $170,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (i) The House Committee on National Security shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1996, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1997, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1998, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1999, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2000,
       (j) The House Committee on Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $60,000,000 in budget authority and $60,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal year 1996, $80,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $80,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $2,330,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $2,330,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1998, $1,090,000,000 in budget authority and $1,090,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1999, $290,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $290,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, 
     $3,970,000,000 in budget authority and $3,970,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2001, and $3,380,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $3,380,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (k) The House Committee on Science shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $0 in budget authority and $0 in fiscal year 2002.
       (l) The House Committee on Small Business shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1996, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1997, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1998, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1999, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2000, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2001, and $0 in budget authority and $0 in fiscal year 
     2002.
       (m) The House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: $550,000,000 
     in budget authority and $550,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1996, $550,000,000 in budget authority and $550,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $550,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $550,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, 
     $610,000,000 in budget authority and $610,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1999, $620,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $620,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $620,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $620,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     2001, and $620,000,000 in budget authority and $620,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002.
       (n) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $300,000,000 in budget authority and $300,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $300,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $300,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $400,000,000 
     in budget authority and $400,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1998, $500,000,000 in budget authority and $500,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1999, $1,200,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, 
     $1,300,000,000 in budget authority and $1,300,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2001, and $1,500,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (o) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit, as follows: $14,370,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $27,550,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $28,460,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, $35,960,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, 
     $35,340,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, $42,320,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2001, and $50,220,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (p) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct 
     spending'' has the meaning given to such term in section 
     250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and the term ``new budget authority'' has 
     the meaning given to such term in section 3(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
  

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TAX CUTS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that changes in tax laws 
     which stimulate private investment of savings should be 
     enacted if the deficit reduction targets in this resolution 
     are met.
  

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EMERGENCIES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should study 
     alternative approaches to budgeting for emergencies, 
     establishing regular procedures and funds for paying for 
     emergencies.
  

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DEBT REDUCTION.

       It is the sense of the Congress that eliminating the 
     deficit by producing a balanced budget is only the first step 
     toward the ultimate goal of reducing and eventually 
     eliminating the public debt.
  

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TRUST FUND SURPLUSES.

       Congress finds that all recent year Federal budgets, as 
     well as both fiscal year 1996 budget resolutions reported out 
     by the Budget Committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate, have masked the magnitude of annual deficits by 
     counting various trust 
     [[Page H5252]] fund surpluses. Therefore, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that upon reaching a balance in the Federal 
     budget, the Government should move toward balance without 
     consideration of trust fund surpluses.
  

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LOCK-BOX.

       (a) It is the sense of the Congress that:
       (1) The current practice of reallocating for other spending 
     purposes spending cuts made during floor consideration of 
     appropriations bills should be ended.
       (2) A ``Deficit Reduction Lock-Box'' should be established 
     to collect these spending reductions.
       (3) These spending reductions should be used for deficit or 
     debt reduction.
       (b) To facilitate Deficit Reduction Lock-Box compliance by 
     the Committees on Appropriations, the Congressional Budget 
     Office shall score all general appropriation measures and 
     have such score card published in the Congressional Record.
  

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FIREWALLS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the discretionary 
     spending totals for defense, international, and domestic 
     spending should be enforced through spending limits for each 
     category with firewalls to prevent funds from being shifted 
     between categories.
  

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, in order to ensure 
     that a balanced budget is achieved by 2002 and remain in 
     balance thereafter, strict enforcement should be enacted. 
     Such language should--
       (1) require the Federal Government to reach a balanced 
     Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 and remain in balance 
     thereafter;
       (2) establish procedures for developing honest, accurate, 
     and accepted budget estimates;
       (3) require that the President propose annual budgets that 
     would achieve a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 
     and for each year thereafter, use accurate assumptions;
       (4) require the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate to report budget resolutions that 
     achieve a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 and for 
     each year thereafter, using accurate assumptions; [and]
       (5) establish a comprehensive system of budgetary 
     enforcement to ensure that the levels of discretionary 
     spending, mandatory spending, and revenues in this resolution 
     are met.
  

     SEC. 12. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.

       (a) Adjustments.--(1) For purposes of points of order under 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and concurrent 
     resolutions on the budget--
       (A) the discretionary spending limits under section 
     601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumulatively 
     adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each outyear;
       (B) the allocations to the Committee on Appropriations 
     under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (C) the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the most 
     recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

     shall be adjusted to reflect the amounts of additional new 
     budget authority or additional outlays (as defined in 
     paragraph (2)) reported by the Committee on Appropriations in 
     appropriation Acts (or by the committee of conference on such 
     legislation) for the Internal Revenue Service compliance 
     initiative activities in any fiscal year, but not to exceed 
     in any fiscal year $405,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $405,000,000 in outlays.
       (2) As used in this section, the terms ``additional new 
     budget authority'' or ``additional outlays'' shall mean, for 
     any fiscal year, budget authority or outlays (as the case may 
     be) in excess of the amounts requested for that fiscal year 
     for the Internal Revenue Service in the President's Budget 
     for fiscal year 1996.
       (b) Revised Limits, Allocations, and Aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), and 
     again upon the submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation (if a conference report is submitted), the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives (as the case may be) shall submit to 
     that chairman's respective House appropriately revised--
       (1) discretionary spending limits under section 601(a)(2) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (and those limits as 
     cumulatively adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each 
     outyear;
       (2) allocations to the Committee on Appropriations under 
     sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (3) appropriate budgetary aggregates in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

     to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary 
     spending limits, allocations, and aggregates shall be 
     considered for purposes of congressional enforcement under 
     that Act as the discretionary spending limits, allocations, 
     and aggregates.
       (c) Reporting Revised Suballocations.--The Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to 
     sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to carry out this section.
       (d) Contingencies.--
       (1) The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the 
     Treasury have certified
       (2) This section shall not apply to any additional new 
     budget authority or additional outlays unless--
       (A) the chairmen of the Budget Committees certify, based 
     upon information from the Congressional Budget Office, the 
     General Accounting Office, and the Internal Revenue Service 
     (as well as from any other sources they deem relevant), that 
     such budget authority or outlays will not increase the total 
     of the Federal budget deficits over the next five years; and
       (B) any funds made available pursuant to such budget 
     authority or outlays are available only for the purpose of 
     carrying out Internal Revenue Service compliance initiative 
     activities.
  

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

       It is the Sense of Congress that Medicaid block grants 
     should be distributed based on a formula that takes into 
     account the proportion of individuals with income below the 
     poverty level in each State.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt] will be recognized for 30 minutes and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] rise in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. KASICH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
allotted to me under the rule be yielded to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton], a key author of the amendment, and that he may control the 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is their objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the minority leader for submitting 
our budget resolution to the committee when the Committee on Rules 
refused to make it in order and allow us to bring it to the floor. So I 
thank the gentleman for doing that, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to acknowledge 
and thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority 
leader, for allowing us this opportunity to present this budget this 
morning. On behalf of the coalition I extend a warm appreciation to him 
for this time because we may not have had this opportunity had it not 
been for Mr. Gephardt allowing us to present this budget. I also want 
to recognize and commend the task force chairman from the Coalition, 
the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder], and the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] for their work on this budget. Let me also 
say three members on that task force are members of the Committee on 
the Budget, and for the Members who may not be committed yet on this 
proposal, they should understand that those three Members are well 
informed about the budgetary process, about this proposal, and they 
intend to explain it today and hopefully persuade my colleagues to be 
supportive of it.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also say that none of the proposals before this 
House today is perfect. I say to my colleagues, if you're looking for 
perfection, you will not find it because we have to make some serious 
choices about where we're headed in terms of the financing of this 
country, and some of the choices that we have to make are difficult and 
hard, and we don't want to make them, but let me tell you it's been 27 
years since we've had a balanced budget in this country, 27 years, and 
if we move to 2002, that makes it 35 years until we've had a balanced 
budget in this country. That is way too long.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we came to grips with this issue and 
that we restored integrity, financial integrity, to this Government, to 
this House. So I would urge my colleagues today:
  You know, if you're looking for perfection, you won't find it, but if 
you're 
[[Page H5253]] looking for a beginning, a beginning to balance the 
budget, to get us on a glide path, this is your opportunity. I 
encourage you to support this budget proposals today.
  Mr. Chairman, for the past several months the coalition, a group of 
23 Democrats committed to seeking bipartisan solutions to our Nation's 
problems, has played an active and constructive role in the issues 
considered by the House. As a cochair of the coalition, I have been 
extremely proud of our work on unfunded mandates, regulatory reform, 
tort reform, welfare, the Clean Water Act, and numerous other issues. 
Today, the coalition will play a central role in the passage of a 
balanced Federal budget.
  I rise today in strong support of a balanced Federal budget. As all 
of us know, our current budgetary policies cannot continue. The budget 
deficit in 1994 was around $200 billion. The accumulated national debt 
is approaching $4.8 trillion. The human costs of the national debt are 
staggering. For every $200 billion we add to the debt, each American 
child will pay an additional $7,000 in taxes over their working 
lifetime just to meet debt service costs. A few years ago, the cost of 
the net national debt to every man, woman, and child was $10,000. If 
spending patterns are not changed, the national debt will be about 
$64,000 per American in the year 2030. Clearly, these levels are 
unsustainable.
  Just a few months ago, this body debated a balanced budget amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of the amendment said it was 
unnecessary because Congress already had the ability to balance the 
budget. Those people were right, we do have the ability to balance the 
budget--all we need now is the will to do it.
  Well, today is the day that my colleagues can demonstrate whether 
their actions match their words. If you support a balanced budget, then 
vote for a balanced budget. Before the House today are four 
alternatives that will get the budget in balance by the year 2002.
  The budget resolution authored by my good friend, Congressman Orton 
of Utah, which is offered on behalf of the coalition, is a good budget. 
It is a realistic proposal that makes the necessary cuts in a fair and 
reasonable manner. It actually produces a bigger budget surplus in the 
year 2002 than does the House Budget Committee budget. By not including 
the tax reductions that are included in the House Budget Committee 
proposal, the coalition budget allows the deficit to be eliminated with 
less cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans. For these reasons, 
I prefer the coalition budget to the other alternatives, and I will 
support it when it comes up for a vote.
  Should the coalition budget fail, and I suspect that it might, I will 
also support the budget produced by the House Budget Committee under 
the leadership of Chairman John Kasich.
  When I came to this body in 1989, budget deficits were running around 
$300 billion a year. To think that the budget resolution that we pass 
today will bring about a balanced Federal budget is an enormous and 
historic accomplishment.
  Many of my colleagues have criticized the House Budget Committee 
budget as being too harsh on various segments of our society. In 1990 
and 1993, we avoided tough spending cuts and increased taxes in order 
to reduce the deficit. As we know, neither of these proposals gave us a 
balanced budget. In 1993, my constituents told me over and over that we 
should cut spending first. The House Budget Committee proposal does 
this. It eliminates numerous Federal programs, cuts other programs, and 
reduces the rate of growth in others.
  We have heard a lot of talk about Medicare cuts during this debate. 
While no one is pretending that reducing the deficit will be easy or 
painless, the fact of the matter is that Medicare spending in the House 
Budget Committee document will increase over the next 7 years. Current 
projections have the Medicare Program increasing by 11 percent a year. 
The House Budget Committee budget increases Medicare by 5 percent a 
year over the next 7 years. Only in Washington is a 5-percent increase 
in a program considered a cut.
  Another point about Medicare that needs to be made is that the 
trustees of the program have informed the Congress and the 
administration that the Medicare Program will become insolvent in the 
year 2002 if we do not change course. I think it is a shame that some 
would ignore the looming bankruptcy of our Nation's health program for 
senior citizens in order to score a few cheap political points. This is 
the type of behavior that the American people rejected last November 
and want changed.
  Under the House Budget Committee budget, total Federal spending over 
the next 7 years will go from $9.4 to $11.9 trillion. Is an increase of 
$2.5 trillion over 7 years too cruel for America to withstand? I don't 
think so and I suspect that most Americans don't either.
  Our last balanced Federal budget was in 1968--27 long years ago. 
Every year we keep saying that we'll do better--and we never do. Today 
some are saying that we cannot and should not try to balance the budget 
in 7 years. Wait until 2010, until 2020, they say. They justify these 
views by saying that cutting the
 spending necessary to balance the budget will hurt too much. Mr. 
Chairman, the pain will only get worse the longer we wait. We cannot 
afford to postpone this task any longer. Today, we should be bold and 
responsible and vote for a balanced budget.

  Because of our debt and our spending patterns, over 70 percent of the 
budget is already determined for us. Mandatory entitlement programs and 
interest on the debt already consumes most of our revenues and leaves 
very little left over to spend on other Federal priorities. Our debt 
service is close to $300 billion each year. The money we spend on 
interest payments for the debt is money that is denied to health care, 
nutrition programs, national defense, student loans, farm programs, 
community development, crime, education, and aid to local governments. 
By being fiscally responsible and eliminating our budget deficit, we 
will free up billions of dollars which can be reinvested in these 
worthy public policy concerns.
  Rarely do we have before us a truly historic vote. Today we set upon 
the path to a balanced Federal budget. No more excuses, no more 
evasions, no more misrepresentations. The partisan bickering and 
gamesmanship needs to be put aside. Instead of a partisan dispute, the 
national debt belongs to all of us--and the solution we adopt will 
determine our future as a nation. None of the proposals are perfect--
and they never will be. There are few attractive options to balancing 
the budget, but we must do it. Let us begin now. I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote to balance the budget.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all let me begin by saying that I commend the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and the other members of his group for 
the effort that they have made, and I do think that they have certainly 
made something that would have to be considered a substantial 
improvement over what the President submitted in his budget. This, 
after all, the proposal before us, does reach a balanced budget, but I 
think it is seriously flawed. It is seriously flawed in several 
respects, and let me just highlight for the moment, as we begin this 
debate, what I would say are some of the errors or the flaws in this 
proposal.

                              {time}  1045

  In the first case, it does spend considerably more than the 
committee's budget proposal does, 102 billion more in spending. That is 
actual spending. Now again, let us recognize that we get to the same 
balanced budget but it has more spending in it.
  It contains total discretionary spending nearly identical with that 
of the committee budget, but it spends more than $50 billion more on 
welfare over 5 years than the committee would propose to do. It also 
cuts defense spending by $55 billion below that that is in the 
committee level.
  I think all the Members of this body who have, certainly those that 
have been around here a few years or who have looked at budgets over 
the last several years can see the decline that we have had in defense 
spending. I think most of us recognize that there is a point below 
which you do not cut spending without significantly damaging the 
national security of this country.
  Where that is exactly, I think, is open for debate. But I think most 
of us, most in this body would agree that the 55 billion additional cut 
coming on top of the one steady decreasing baseline that we have seen 
over the last 10 years in the budget, in defense spending, is 
precipitous, is probably not warranted and certainly is subject to a 
lot more debate before we could justify that kind of cut.
  The alternative proposal that we are debating now also contains $8 
billion in fees, including an airport slot fee and a Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission transaction fee. These fees, we would suggest, are 
really not much more than some kind of tax on certain groups.
  There are $96 billion more on Medicare than in the committee budget, 
but it does nothing. It has no plan to really reform the program. Thus, 
it fails to ensure any kind of long-term solvency for the Medicare 
program.
  The proposal that is offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] would spend $49 
billion 
[[Page H5254]] more over the next 7 years on Medicaid than the 
committee proposes in its mark. It provides most importantly, and this 
is where we get to the bottom line because we do both agree, we have a 
zero at the end for a balanced budget, most importantly with the 
discretionary cuts that it has, which are going to be painful. They are 
going to be difficult. This committee, this proposal has no tax relief 
for families or for seniors, no incentives for economic growth. In 
other words, it preserves entirely the $250 billion tax increase that 
this Congress enacted in 1993 as part of President Clinton's tax 
increase proposal.
  I think when we are talking about this kind of cut in discretionary 
spending, and we acknowledge, we must acknowledge that there are going 
to be difficulties, there is going to be pain. And you cannot do this 
easily, that when we do this, that we should acknowledge, we should say 
to people, there is going to be some reward at the end. There is 
something for you in this. And the something for you should be for 
American families to have some kind of tax relief, for senior citizens 
some kind of tax relief, and for the economy, for the country to have 
some kind of tax incentives for economic growth.
  None of that, none of that is going to be found in the alternative 
budget proposal that we are debating here today. So I would say, Mr. 
Chairman, that this proposal, while certainly it represents a step 
forward from what the president submitted to this Congress, is far, 
falls far short of what we should be doing in terms of balancing the 
budget, reforming Medicare, and giving tax relief to American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I wish to thank our minority leader, Mr. 
Gephardt, for filing this substitute budget resolution on our behalf, 
when the Committee on Rules refused to make it in order, and allowing 
us to bring it to the floor. Without his action, we would not have had 
the opportunity to present a balanced budget proposal which does come 
to balance in the year 2002.
  During the 1980's, Congress made a fundamental error in attempting to 
balance the budget. They cut taxes first and then never got around to 
cutting spending. Here we are again, $3\1/2\ trillion later. This time 
we believe we should cut spending first, balance the budget, and then 
cut taxes. If you are trying to climb out of a $5 trillion hole, you do 
not start by digging yourself $700 billion deeper.
  The coalition budget actually reaches a budget surplus in the year 
2002 and does it by cutting spending ratably over 7 years. Our cuts are 
not back loaded. We have a gradual glidepath to balance where the 
Kasich budget continues deficits well over $100 billion until the 6th 
year and then falls off the cliff.
  Our reductions are more responsible and allow funding of high 
priority programs while balancing the budget and actually accumulating 
a $160 billion less in public debt over the next 7 years.
  Specifically, our budget funds Medicare with $112 billion more than 
Kasich and $65 billion more than Domenici but $174 billion less than 
the current baseline. We reduce growth in Medicare costs sufficient to 
maintain solvency, but do not take an additional $100 billion to pay 
for a tax cut.
  We fund Medicaid with $50 billion more than Kasich and $38 billion 
more than Domenici but $138 billion less than current baseline. This 
allows States a more reasonable transition to block granting of 
Medicaid.
  We also assume the coalition welfare reform proposal, which saves $25 
billion over the 7 years.
  The coalition budget continues $19 billion of funding for student 
loans and in agriculture, which has already been cut by 60 percent, our 
budget cuts $13 billion less than the Kasich budget.
  We spend $60 billion less on defense than Kasich, but $37 billion 
more than the current baseline. By the way, this is also $11 billion 
more than the Solomon-Neumann budget, which you will have an 
opportunity to vote on later today, and $11 billion more than the 
Domenici budget.
  Nondefense discretionary programs receive $62 billion more than 
Kasich. By the way, $35 billion of this is in education. Our budget 
provides $56 billion more in domestic discretionary programs than 
Domenici. But this is still over $400 billion less than the current 
baseline.
  Finally, our budget does not include the $353 billion in upfront 
taxes, which, by the way, will cost almost $700 billion over the next 
10 years, nor does it include the unspecified $25 billion in corporate 
tax increases included in the Kasich budget.
  In summary, the coalition budget provides sufficient funding to 
maintain solvency in the Medicare trust fund, provide a more reasonable 
transition to Medicaid block grants for States, preserve American 
agriculture, continue student loan assistance, reform welfare, continue 
funding for Head Start, President Bush's Goals 2000, drug-safe schools, 
public libraries, Public Broadcasting, children's health and 
immunization, women's health programs, rural health programs, basic 
health research, economic development programs such as CDBG, and many, 
many more high priorities while balancing the budget and saving $160 
billion in debt accumulation by 2002.
  We say, cut spending first, balance the budget, then cut taxes.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the coalition budget substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for 
yielding time to me.
  I thank my friends on the other side of the aisle who brought forth 
this amendment. I listened with interest to my good friend from Utah 
thanking the distinguished minority leader for the time to bring this 
to the floor. I am sorry the minority leader had to leave the floor so 
quickly because I believe inherent in any question of policy is the 
question of process. So I find it very curious that it is widely 
speculated upon in the press that the distinguished minority leader 
will not vote for the budget plan which bears his own name.
  Perhaps there will be some late-breaking developments in this case, 
but I find it incredibly interesting that so bereft of ideas is the 
other side of the aisle that the minority leader, in final summation of 
the arguments, will not vote for this budget plan and indeed, despite 
the valiant efforts of our friends who are blue dogs, they are truly 
blue dogs today, in all respect I say that, because so many Members of 
their own party will abandon them.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, it is so ludicrous to bring up process, I 
will not even respond.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, under the arbitrary restrictions that Republicans have 
imposed on discussing the most important economic document that we are 
going to vote on, the coalition substitute is by far the best option 
that we have before us.
  It provides more deficit reduction without the draconian cuts that 
are in the Republican budget. How is that accomplished? It is $188 
billion actually less borrowing over the 7-year period. It is 
accomplished by providing earlier deficit reduction, by not giving 
defense a priority. The Republican budget exempts defense from any of 
the other cuts. That is not fair. Defense should be treated the same as 
any other program.
  And the coalition budget does deficit reduction first and does not 
provide for the tax breaks for the wealthy.
  Because of those changes, it allows us to restore $163 billion of the 
Republican cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which is desperately needed 
in order not to reduce the quality of care that our seniors are 
receiving. It allows us to restore the student loan cuts that the 
Republicans are suggesting to make it more difficult for students to be 
able to attend college. This budget removes that cut and restores those 
funds.
  It provides more realistic caps on domestic spending so that we can 
argue 
[[Page H5255]] on the floor the restoration of the cuts proposed by the 
Republicans on environmental clean up or commuter rail. We had the 
opportunity to restore those cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a clear choice before us. You have a choice to 
do deficit reduction first before tax breaks for the wealthy. You can 
do that if you vote for the coalition budget. I urge my colleagues to 
do that.
  Mr. Chairman, the annual debate we hold in this Chamber on the budget 
resolution is the most important statement we make on the role of the 
Federal Government in the kind of country we want to live in.
  Given the importance of this debate, it is vital that we have a full 
range of options to consider. We should present to the American people 
a broad discussion of each aspect of the budget.
  The overriding issue, of course, is the direction of fiscal policy we 
will take. We have strong agreement in this body that the most single 
important challenge we face remains the need to reduce the Federal 
budget deficit.
  We have less agreement on the best set of policies to achieve that 
goal. We disagree on the mix of spending cuts that should be enacted to 
reduce the deficit. We disagree on the wisdom of cutting taxes before 
we have even brought the deficit under control.
  The point of reducing the deficit is to strengthen the economy. The 
decision of whether to reduce the deficit by $500 billion, or $700 
billion, or $1 trillion over the next 7 years should be driven by 
what's best for the economy. It should also be driven by consideration 
of the value of the government programs that will be cut.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the House has denied the 
American people the debate they deserve. The people who promised an 
open house have made sure that we would not have a full and open debate 
on this crucial issue.
  Instead, they set up an arbitrary requirement. They said that it is 
not enough to propose a budget that dramatically reduces the deficit. 
They said the magic test is to balance the budget in 7 years or less, 
using their standards.
  The Republicans have brought the budget resolution to the floor under 
a gag rule designed to prevent either substitutes or amendments that do 
not comply with their narrow notion of sound fiscal policy. By shutting 
off debate and preventing responsible alternatives, they have denied a 
debate on the priorities that would reflect the interests of my 
constituents.
  The Republican leadership has set up artificial and short-sighted 
constraints to prevent a full and open debate on budget policy. But 
within those ideologically driven and extreme limits, one budget 
proposal has the promise of preserving America's priorities.
  The coalition budget meets all the requirements. It balances the 
budget in 7 years. In fact, over the period, it has dramatically lower 
deficits than the Republican committee
 budget.

  Let me emphasize that point. The coalition budget would borrow $188 
billion less over the 7-year period than the Republican budget. To 
those of us who are concerned about excess borrowing and the soaring 
expense of interest of the debt, the coalition budget is far superior 
to the Kasich budget. It will save billions of dollars in interest 
costs.
  In addition to lower deficits, the coalition budget also gets to a 
balanced budget without inflicting the harsh damage on important 
priorities the American people care about. The American people 
understand the need to make sharp spending reductions to reduce the 
deficit. But they do not understand making those cuts any deeper or 
more damaging than is absolutely necessary to achieve the goal.
  The Republican committee budget cuts Medicare and Medicaid by $475 
billion over 7 years. They have tried to justify this draconian plan by 
saying they are rescuing Medicare. I will work to rescue the Medicare 
trust fund. But we should do that work in the context of health care 
reform. This budget will force Medicare recipients to pay more for 
less. It does so not in the interest of improving or reforming health 
care for the elderly or anybody else, but to balance the budget and 
offset $360 billion in tax cuts.
  The coalition budget substitute will restore $163 billion of the cuts 
that the committee budget would make in Medicare and Medicaid. The 
coalition budget refuses to balance the budget on the backs of the 
elderly and the sick, and it says no to tax breaks until we have 
brought the deficit under control.
  When we set priorities to try to ensure our country's economic 
prosperity, nothing looms larger than the imperative of providing 
higher education to our young people. Yet the Republican committee 
budget will cut guaranteed student loans by nearly $19 billion. The 
coalition preserves full funding for guaranteed student loans, proving 
that we can balance the budget without turning back on young Americans 
trying to afford a college education.
  Another area where the coalition budget is far preferable to the 
Republican committee plan is in the preservation of valuable domestic 
priorities. The Republican committee budget will force drastic 
reductions in high priority programs like mass transit assistance, 
water treatment, women and children's health care, and the National 
Institutes of Health research, just to mention a few. When the American 
people say they want us to get spending under control and eliminate 
wasteful spending, these are not the types of programs they have in 
mind. They know better, and the coalition budget will permit us to fund 
these priorities.
  Finally, the chairman of the Budget Committee has said that he is 
especially proud that his budget leaves no aspect of the budget 
untouched. But under the committee budget, one area of Federal spending 
escapes the budget axe. Over 7 years, the plan will increase military 
spending by $76 billion. At a time when every other area of the budget 
is facing severe restraint, when children and the elderly and students 
are facing significant cuts in services, we cannot afford to increase 
spending on defense.
  For all these reasons, in my judgment, the coalition budget is much 
the best of a poor set of choices. It is far superior to the Republican 
committee budget, for all the reasons I have mentioned and many more.
  Under the arbitrary and unfair ground rules that have controlled this 
debate, the priorities of my constituents have not been given fair 
consideration. But the coalition budget comes closest to achieving the 
goals that are important to my district and to the country, and I will 
vote for it as a substitute to the badly flawed Republican budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, last night, as we debated the first Budget Committee 
plan to balance the budget in 25 years, our friends on the other side 
of the aisle were upset about our tax relief for the American family. 
We hear this same objection in the amendment we are debating. Many of 
the same people who 2 years ago supported the largest tax hike in 
history can't believe that we're trying to return some of this money to 
the American family.
  They tried to divide American against American, employer against 
employee, worker against worker. But underlying their opposition to tax 
relief for American families is one undeniable, unbelievable fact: They 
actually think it's their money.
  They've gotten so used to a big Federal Government that takes $1 out 
of every $4 the American family earns that they actually have forgotten 
who earns the money. They forget that it's the American family's money 
to spend. It's not Washington's money to take.
  Mr. Chairman, the American family's hard earned dollars belong to the 
American family, not the Federal Government. It's the American people's 
money, Mr. Chairman, it's not ours. Support the balanced budget plan 
that reduces the government's budget and restores the family budget. 
Support the Budget Committee proposal.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Orton-Stenholm 
Democratic substitute, the fair balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, today is an historic debate that could result in 
balancing the Federal budget. I strongly support the Orton-Stenholm 
balanced budget, because it is the only fair, responsible budget this 
House will consider.
  The Orton-Stenholm budget is the best option for a difficult task. It 
balances the Federal budget in 7 years. It makes tough but reasonable 
cuts without dramatically hurting children and seniors as the Kasich 
budget would. It does not include tax cuts for the wealthiest which we 
cannot afford. This is right, because we should not cut taxes before 
our budget is balanced. We tried this in 1981 and quadrupled the 
national debt in the process.
  In contrast, the Republican budget is ill-conceived legislation. The 
Medicare cuts in the Republican budget are devastating for both seniors 
and the institutions that serve them. I will not support a bill which 
cuts health services to senior citizens, especially after they have 
already paid into the system. It will result in higher copayments, 
deductibles, and out of pocket costs and less choice of doctors. No 
matter how you shape it, less services for more money is a cut. It cuts 
Medicaid which will result in higher out of pocket costs to senior 
citizens for long-term care in nursing 
[[Page H5256]] homes. That is a cut. And the Republican budget cuts 
Medicare and Medicaid to pay for its tax breaks. This is imprudent.
  In my district, these cuts will have a severe impact on the Texas 
Medical Center. I am particularly concerned about the cuts that will 
reduce funding for graduate medical education. For many teaching 
hospitals such as Baylor College of Medicine and University of Texas 
Medical Center, these reductions will reduce the number of trained 
physicians. Medicare is a major contributor toward the cost of this 
education. Yet this budget will cut this function dramatically.
  The Orton-Stenholm budget is better for our Nation's children. 
Another institution in my area, Texas Children's Hospital, receives 48 
percent of its funding from the Medicaid Program in the form of 
reimbursement and disproportionate care. The Republican budget will cut 
Medicaid by 30 percent. This is unfair and should be stopped. The 
Stenholm budget restores $50 billion for Medicaid. Medicaid serves 
children and we should not forget these children in our efforts to 
balance the budget.
  Health research is also unfairly cut by the Republican budget. Their 
plan would cut over 10 percent in fiscal year 1996--that means many 
research projects for breast cancer, Alzheimer's, and HIV will go 
unfinished. I am pleased that the Orton-Stenholm budget will provide 
$11 billion more for health research programs like those conducted at 
University of Texas Health Science Center, M.D. Anderson, Methodist, 
St. Luke's, Baylor, and Hermann Hospitals.
  The Orton-Stenholm budget also incorporates all of the provisions of 
democratic welfare reform bill that requires welfare recipients to 
work. Ultimately, with a good paying job, welfare will not be 
necessary.
  The Orton-Stenholm budget restores funding of $18.7 billion for 
student loans. For many middle-class families, these student loans are 
critical to pay for the cost of a college education. The Republican 
budget would give a tax break to the very wealthiest in the name of 
economic growth and investment and yet it would cut student loans, 
education, and job training. This is an ironic folly.
  The Orton-Stenholm budget helps veterans. The Republican budget hurts 
veterans by reducing benefits for those who have served. The Republican 
budget breaks the promise that we made when we asked these valiant 
Americans to serve our Nation. I will not support breaking that 
promise.
  The Orton-Stenholm budget is better for Federal employees. The 
Republican budget will reduce pension benefits and health care benefits 
for Federal employees. The Stenholm budget will not require these cuts.
  The Orton-Stenholm budget also includes more funding for housing and 
economic development. In my district, a place to live and a job are the 
keys to one's success. Many of these housing programs help families to 
purchase their first home. I believe it is good public policy to 
encourage home ownership, not reduce it.
  It is a question of fairness. My constituents will accept cuts, if 
they are fair. Orton-Stenholm is fair. The Republican budget is not 
because it cuts benefits for senior citizens, children, students, and 
veterans while giving a tax break we cannot afford to the very 
wealthiest.
  As a new Member of Congress, I was elected by my constituents to 
reduce the deficit. And although there are many tough choices to be 
made and many programs ultimately will be cut, the Orton-Stenholm plan 
is the best way to achieve a balanced budget and a healthier economy 
without sacrificing our investments in the American people.
                              {time}  1100

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], a member of our task force.
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the substitute, which is the coalition budget proposal. This budget, 
which was drafted by the coalition budget task force and has been 
endorsed by the coalition, is the most responsible and sensible budget 
before the House.
  The coalition budget is based on the common-sense principle that we 
should not cut taxes until we have done the hard work to balance the 
budget. The coalition is not opposed to tax cuts. In fact, coalition 
members strongly support tax cuts to stimulate investment and savings. 
What the coalition budget says very clearly is that we should make 
certain that the budget is on a clear path toward balance before we 
consider tax cuts. If we do not bring the deficit under control first, 
any economic benefit from tax cuts will be undercut by the continued 
drag that our national debt places on the economy.
  We recognize that if we are not careful when we make changes in 
Medicare and Medicaid there will be severe consequences for individuals 
who depend on these programs and the small hospitals that will not be 
able to survive if we are not careful. The coalition budget calls for 
significant reforms to achieve savings in the Medicare and Medicaid 
Programs, but is based on a careful review of how much we can reduce 
those programs with out having an adverse impact on our health care 
system.
  The same is true in agriculture programs. Once again, agriculture is 
being asked to bear more than its fair share of cuts. Cuts of this 
magnitude will unilaterally disarm Americans farmers in the battle in 
the global economy. The coalition budget will require real cuts in 
agricultural programs that will require sacrifice on the part of many 
of my constituents. However, the coalition budget sets a reasonable 
level of cuts that can be made without dismantling agriculture policy.
  The budget we pass should make our country stronger for future 
generations by stopping the practice of putting an increasing burden of 
debt on their back and by providing funds for programs such as 
education, research and other programs which invest in the future of 
our country. We do not include reductions in the Stafford loan program 
that the committee budget requires. We provide $35 billion more than 
the committee in education and training programs that will help us 
achieve a strong economy and high standard of living.
  The coalition budget is a realistic budget that balances the budget 
by 2002 without jeopardizing valuable programs. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as we enter into this budget debate, I 
think it is very important to consider the job and the task at hand. 
Let us not miss this opportunity to reduce the role of the Federal 
Government in our lives.
  In the budget process, I think we need to concentrate on two things, 
and that is if government has a role in anything, let us push it to the 
most local level. Second, let us review and get out of the things that 
government should never have been doing. Let us being to privatize. 
That is what the Kasich budget does.
  We must also never pass up the opportunity to make the point that if 
people are taxed and regulated less, that they will be more productive, 
and there needs to be room in a budget to assume that that more 
productivity returns revenue into the Treasury.
  Third, let us not underestimate the ability of the American people to 
rise to the challenge of less bureaucratic control in Washington, DC. 
That is what the Kasich budget does.
  Fourth, let us beware of any proposal by a party whose leadership 
does not believe in less Federal Government in Washington, DC, and the 
leadership of a party who thrives on your dependence on a bureaucracy.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. JAckson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak for seniors and working families, children and 
the most needy. Already the State of Texas is burdened under this very 
horrible rescissions bill that we are facing with all of these cuts. 
However, after an extensive late-night review of all of the proposed 
budgets, the Republicans will certainly force greater hardships on 
poor, working, and middle-class Americans, without asking for a 
comparable sacrifice from those Americans who are comfortable and well 
off.
  Mr. Chairman, America's fiscal reality dictates that we begin to take 
effective action against our deficits and debt, because they represent 
the greatest danger to the futures of our children, so many of them in 
our community, and our grandchildren. The political reality is that the 
Republicans have the absolute wrong budget. It is important that we try 
to minimize the harm ultimately to the families of constituents that I 
represent, and throughout America's urban neighborhoods.
  [[Page H5257]] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas 
[Ms. Jackson-Lee] has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. We must be in on the process. This budget process is 
going on, and we must save Medicare, education, science, and research, 
legal services, student loans, and major job training.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. We must support a fair budget. Support the Stenholm-
Orton budget to be as fair as we can to all Americans.

                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] will 
confine her remarks to the time that has been yielded to her.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I am doing so, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I really want to, first of all, say that a lot of the 
people that are involved in this project are people that I like and 
respect, and I am hoping that at the end of the day they will be 
constructive partners with us, but there are some things that I have to 
point out.
  For those who are trying to understand why this is not a good 
proposal, first of all, I want to commend this group for using 
essentially the CBO economics that we have felt is the most 
conservative economics. They in fact have used it.
  What is the problem with this bill? The problem with this bill is 
this spends $233 billion more than the Domenici proposal. We are trying 
to figure out precisely how much more that is than our proposal. What I 
will tell the Members, though, Domenici does not save as much as we do, 
and this is $233 billion more in spending than Domenici.
  Of course they cannot afford tax cuts, because they take this money 
and they spend it on more programs. That is what they do in this 
proposal. They have $140 billion in interest savings, all of which they 
take and they spend. It is a hybrid of Clinton, essentially. This does 
not even get close to Domenici. This proposal takes all the interest 
savings, which is $140 billion. They spend $80 billion in spending more 
than Domenici, so that is $220 billion, plus $13 billion and more cuts 
in defense, it is $233 billion.
  Rather than taking the $233 billion and giving it back to the 
American taxpayers in tax relief, which they say that we should not do, 
they take the $233 billion, and instead of saving it, they spend it. Of 
course they cannot afford both tax relief and this proposal, because 
they do not have any money left over for tax relief, because they spend 
it all. That is the problem with this proposal. It is $207 billion more 
in social spending than what we have in our bill. That does not even 
count all the interest.
  The simple fact of the matter is that this does not do the job. This 
is warmed-over status quo. They made an effort to make some changes in 
some programs, and I compliment them.
  Frankly, I think if the conservative Democrats had been able to put 
together this proposal on their own, without having to reach out and 
moderate the proposal,
 frankly, I expected something much different than this. I expected a 
proposal that was going to be pretty much like the Senate budget 
proposal in terms of fiscal discipline, but that is not what we have 
here.

  Therefore, when Members are wondering about why there are no tax 
cuts, and the refrain is, ``We should not do tax relief until we 
balance the budget,'' of course we cannot do tax relief when we are 
going to spend $233 more on every program sprinkled throughout the 
Federal Government in order to attract the maximum number of votes.
  What I would suggest is, Mr. Chairman, we defeat this proposal, we 
come to the floor, we actually get to a balanced budget, we give people 
some of their money back in tax relief, and we will do precisely what 
we promised and precisely what the American people want. We do not need 
to keep pumping up the programs and refusing to pull any wasteful 
programs out by the roots. What we really need to do is to make some 
hard choices to get this budget on the path toward being balanced over 
the long haul by making necessary decisions. This simply falls short.
  If Members want to cut spending first, downsize Government, and give 
people some of their money back, then vote ``no.'' If they want to add 
$233 billion in additional spending over where the Senate plan is, then 
go ahead and vote for it. That is not where the American people are.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to point out that 
our budget balances and actually reduces the debt by $160 billion more 
than the Kasich budget over the same 7-year period.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Browder], a member of the Committee on the Budget and of our task 
force.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, first let me congratulate my friend on the 
other side for changing the nature of the debate that we are having 
around here, but also let me thank him for allowing us to come forward 
in response to his budget with what is a better budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to give the House today my top 10 reasons why 
the Coalition budget is better for America and my constituents than the 
other budgets being offered today.
  Reason No. 1, why our plan is better is that the Coalition plan 
balances the budget by 2002 with a sensible glide path, a deficit 
decline in every year to 2002.
  Reason No. 2, Medicare is not abused to balance the budget. Medicare 
savings are set at $174 billion, an amount sufficient to extend 
solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund for 10 years.
  Reason No. 3, Medicaid is turned over to the States as a block grant, 
but we restore $50 billion to help the States adjust to this new 
responsibility, without raising local taxes.
  Reason No. 4, the coalition plan does not eliminate in-school 
interest subsidies on student loans, and has sufficient funding to 
continue the impact aid program.
  Reason No. 5, it makes responsible cuts in farm programs, so we do 
not unilaterally disarm our farmers, who must compete against heavily 
subsidized foreign producers.
  Reason No. 6, it does not eliminate the Appalachian Regional 
Commission and Economic Development Administration, which support 
planning and industry in rural areas, allowing these areas to compete 
for jobs, and restores community development block grants that help 
small cities upgrade and provide services for their citizens.
  Reason No. 7, it does not require the sale of the power marketing 
administrations, an action which would require rural rate increases, 
and would make rural areas less attractive to new industries.
  Reason No. 8, it does not break faith with American working people on 
trade adjustment assistance training, which is designed to help areas 
that lose jobs to foreign competition.
  Reason No. 9, it does not make severe cuts in NASA funding, which 
would threaten the space industry and our high-technology economy.
  Reason No. 10, finally, it does not raise the
   retirement contributions from those people who work for our 
Government, but does call for congressional pension plans to be scaled 
back, to be in line with other Federal pension plans.

  That brings me back to No. 1, which is the most important reason: our 
budget balances the budget by 2002 with a sensible glide path.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman I want to commend the other side for helping 
us with an argument that we have been having with a number of people on 
their side of the aisle relating to the CPI. While we may disagree 
about what the number might be, apparently they have adopted and do not 
question the fact that the CPI is incorrect.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield for 5 seconds?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, we assume a five-tenths of 1 percent 
reduction in CPI.
  Mr. HOBSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand we 
disagree about the number, but obviously 
[[Page H5258]] those on the gentleman's side who have demagogued on 
this thing, not you and the other people who put this up, the gentleman 
is helping us, and I want to thank him for that argument, because we 
agree that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed.
  I think this brings the legitimacy across the aisles to this argument 
that we need to get it done, even though we do not agree as to what you 
wind up with in your budget, but I want to thank the gentleman for 
doing it. I think it is going to be helpful to get us on the road.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this 
substitute offered by Congressmen Stenholm and Orton.
  As my colleagues know, I believe it is essential for us to balance 
the Federal budget.
  Today we have the opportunity to adopt a plan that moves us toward a 
balanced budget.
  The Stenholm-Orton plan is not perfect. But it makes real choices--
difficult choices to balance the budget and, without any doubt, is a 
better alternative than the plan prepared by Chairman Kasich and the 
Republicans of the Budget Committee.
  The Kasich plan is an attack on working class Americans.
  Education would be severely slashed. Under this resolution, when 
needy students from Waldorf or Lexington Park in my district go to 
apply for a Perkins loan they would be told, ``Sorry--the Republicans 
have ended the low-interest loan program for needy college students.''
  Some 40 percent of Pell grant recipients come from families that earn 
less than $12,000. The Republicans have not left that program alone 
either.
  Even grants to help illiterate Marylanders learn basic work skills to 
become employable, taxpaying citizens would be terminated by the 
Republicans' proposal.
  The cuts in programs to educate, train, and prepare Americans for 
productive work are staggering. If I were in the majority party, I 
would be embarrassed to be associated with these extreme proposals.
  Health programs have fared little better. Over the past 20 years, a 
bipartisan commitment to funding the National Institutes of Health has 
put the United States on the cutting edge of global biomedical 
research.
  The economic returns--and the improvements in our Nation's health--as 
a result of this investment are immense. The Republican decision to cut 
NIH and preventive health resources are shortsighted and will cost us 
dearly down the line.
  Veterans programs, a priority for many of my constituents, would also 
be severely cut by the Kasich resolution.
  The Kasich proposal continues the assault on Federal employees by 
assuming that these civil servants will contribute an extra 2.5 percent 
annually to the Civil Service Retirement System and the newer Federal 
Employees Retirement System.
  As I have said time and time again, this proposal is not fair. It 
violates the contract we made with these employees when they were 
hired.
  Essentially, what this provision does is impose increased taxes on 
Federal workers to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy.
  The House should not have included these provisions in the Archer tax 
bill and we shouldn't have them in the budget resolution either.
  A lot has been said about the Republican cuts in Medicare--a total of 
$283 billion over the next 7 years.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us know that changes must be made in Medicare to 
ensure that it remains a strong program well into the 21st century. But 
the arbitrary, unspecified cuts included in the Kasich resolution will 
clearly have a devastating impact on the seniors that depend upon this 
program for basic health care.
  My question to every Member of this body is, ``will you join me in 
opposing a budget that will force seniors to pay an extra $1,060 a year 
for Medicare by 2002 simply so that those with much will have more?
  Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman, that more than 80 percent of 
Medicare recipients have incomes below $25,000 a year. I would suggest 
that some of my colleagues talk to their constituents, as I have in 
Maryland's Fifth District, about how tough it is to be retired and live 
on a fixed income.
  I want to take the rest of my time to say what is right with the 
substitute that we are now debating.
  There are changes I would make in the Stenholm-Orton substitute. I 
don't approve of the provisions included that would cap Government 
contributions to the Federal employee health benefit plans and base 
Federal retirement on employees' high-5 years.
  I remain concerned by the cuts in health and education funding that 
is included in this alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, the choices are hard. There is no easy way to balance 
our budget--a goal that must guide us as we consider this year's budget 
resolution.
  But it is my view that the Stenholm/Orton substitute is the best way 
to achieve that goal. This resolution actually results in a surplus of 
about $1 billion in 2002.
  Yet, in sharp contrast to the Republican plan, the Democratic 
substitute does so without the same draconian impact on the most 
vulnerable Americans.
  The Stenholm substitute rejects the proposed cuts in guaranteed 
student loans and sets more reasonable levels for Head Start, job 
training, and other education programs.
  Yes, it does not give a tax cut, but these programs are important for 
those in America who are going to rely on those young people being able 
to participate in the workplace.
  As a Democrat who believes that national defense must remain one of 
our highest priorities, I am pleased that the Stenholm bill actually 
raises defense spending starting in the year 2000.
  This Democratic alternative does not provide for tax cuts for the 
wealthy or for any other American until the budget is in balance. It 
remains my strongly held belief, as I have stated before on the floor, 
that deficit reduction must be our primary goal.
  I support language in the Stenholm substitute that calls for tax cuts 
to stimulate savings and investment once our Federal budget is in 
balance.
  That is the appropriate time to consider tax cuts. To do so now would 
be irresponsible, especially when you recall that the House-passed tax 
bill gives almost half of its benefits to the wealthiest 10 percent of 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to this House at the time of another Republican-
prescribed revolution. The formula is much the same today as it was in 
the early 1980's.
  Tax cuts and easy spending cuts right away. Postpone the tough 
decisions and deepest cuts until after the next election.
  That is the strategy of the Kasich resolution. We do not know how 
Medicare and Medicaid savings will actually be achieved.
  What we do know is that their plan pushes the most severe cuts in 
domestic spending off to the last 3 years. In contrast, the Stenholm 
plan is a true and realistic glidepath to a balanced budget. The Kasich 
plan has what I think has been correctly characterized as a cliff in 
2000 and 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know the disastrous results of the easy road 
taken in the 1980's even though some still do not like to admit it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject a repeat scenario. Vote for the 
Stenholm substitute--the best alternative for realistic yet fair 
achievement of a balanced Federal budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that the 
other side of the aisle can, in good conscience, vote today against 
balancing our Nation's budget. I can't believe that they are able to 
look their families in the eye after so carelessly playing partisan 
politics with their futures.
  The other side sees more importance in pitting Americans against 
Americans in class warfare than they do in securing the fiscal future 
of the Nation and its people.
  And they can stand down here all day long and talk about what the 
Republican budget will do. But, I have said it before and I will say it 
again, don't try to fool the American people into believing that 
balancing the budget and cutting taxes will hurt them--they know 
better.
  They know that the Government spends too much money. And they know 
that the only way to stop the Government from spending too much is to 
not give them too much money in the first place.
  And I want to remind you that this is not our money. This money 
belongs to 
[[Page H5259]] the taxpayers that get up every day and work hard for a 
living.
  So I have to ask how you can justify voting today to take more of 
that person's money to support your out-of-control spending habits--
which will drive the debt out of control and leave our children with 
nothing? I can't imagine what reasonable thinking person would vote 
that way.
  We need to remember what this vote is about. It is about the American 
people--it is their future that is on the line here. I challenge 
everyone in this body to make the most important vote in history--vote 
to balance the budget and restore security and prosperity to America--
vote against this substitute and for the Republican balanced budget 
plan.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], a member of our task force.
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the coalition 
budget substitute.
  The coalition budget is a responsible budget alternative that meets 
all the deficit reduction requirements for a balanced budget by 2002.
  In order to balance the budget, we must all support some cuts in 
valuable programs. However, cutting programs and eliminating them are 
two totally different alternatives. The coalition budget is much kinder 
on many programs important to all Americans than the Republican bill.
  We make no cuts in guaranteed student loans, while the Republicans 
cut student loans a drastic $18.7 billion. The coalition budget cuts 
$52 billion less in education, Head Start, rural health and economic 
development than the Republican bill. We cut agriculture $10 billion 
less than the Republican budget.
  We have $109 billion less in Medicare cuts than the Republican 
budget. We have $50 billion less in Medicaid cuts than the Republican 
bill. And, in addition to that, we save $160 billion on the debt over 
the Republican substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, this substitute reaches the same goal as the Republican 
budget--a balanced budget by 2002. And yet the coalition substitute 
provides more money for those in need.
  Mr. Chairman, whether or not you support tax cuts is not the issue 
today. Many of us in the coalition support tax cuts, and our bill will 
provide for tax cuts after we are on a path to balance our budget.
  I have long been an advocate for the capital gains tax. And, I 
strongly support the AMT tax relief which greatly helps our oil and gas 
industry. However, I firmly believe you ought to cut spending first 
before you give the money out for tax cuts.
  The coalition budget substitute, however, treats tax cuts in a much 
more responsible manner. If deficit targets are met and we are on the 
glidepath to a balanced budget, the coalition bill will allow tax cuts 
to be targeted to encourage savings and investments and stimulate jobs 
and growth.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the coalition 
substitute.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the Republican whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to add all my congratulations to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee and all his members and particularly 
the staff for an incredible piece of work and being part of history.
  Mr. Chairman, a great scientist once said, ``All truth, in the long 
run, is only commonsense clarified.''
  The Republican budget, in the long run, is common sense clarified.
  Everyone who has spoken today knows the truth.
  Our country faces a crisis. Our budget deficit threatens the security 
and stability of America's future. Our Medicare system nears 
bankruptcy. Interest payments eat up more and more of our discretionary 
spending. Entitlements, if unchecked, will break our financial backs.
  And if we do not change fundamentally our Government, our Nation may 
not remain prosperous and free into the next century.
  This substitute amendment does not fundamentally change government. 
This continues government, just at a little less cost.
  The substitute amendment we have before us is a flawed choice, but at 
least it is an alternative.
  I look to the leaders of the opposition, and wonder where they have 
been. I hear Mr. Gephardt may not vote for his own alternative. That is 
a shame.
  President Clinton worked to defeat the balanced budget amendment 
while refusing to submit a fiscally responsible budget alternative. 
That is a shame.
  It is a shame, because to get our country out of this crisis, to 
successfully change government to meet the needs of all the American 
people, we need their help.
  This debate should not be about politics. It should not be about 
class war. It should be about Democrats and Republicans coming together 
to make commonsense changes to save America's future.
  But Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the battle to balance the budget, 
Democrat leaders have been conscientious objectors, sitting out this 
fight instead of finding ways to stop crippling deficits and runaway 
spending.
  Republicans and many responsible Democrats reject that passive 
policy.
  Republicans offer a plan that faces this budget crisis head-on.
  It will balance the budget by 2002.
  It changes programs, agencies, and bureaucracies to not only save 
money, but to also make government more efficient and more effective.
  Some of my Democrat friends have come to the floor with photographs 
of people they say will be affected by our budget reforms.
  I don't need photographs to remind me of the people who will be hurt 
by the inaction advocated by the Democrat leadership. I only need to 
look out into the gallery today, or walk down the street, or go home to 
my constituents.
  Because if we refuse to act today to save our future, every single 
one of us will be adversely affected. Our seniors will be hurt by a 
bankrupt Medicare system. Our children will be hurt by impossibly high 
tax rates. And our grandchildren will be hurt by limited economic 
opportunity.
  Inaction may be the choice of some of my colleagues. But that is not 
my choice.
  Yes, we will provide tax relief to people who need it the most.
  We have all heard the charges about our tax cuts. But who among us 
can say that families with children, taxed at rates approaching 50 
percent, do not deserve a tax break?
  Who can say that we should not have an adoption tax credit? Who will 
claim that our seniors deserve to be taxed at a rate twice that of 
millionaires if they choose to work? I dare my colleagues to make those 
claims.
  Tax relief is not about giving people something they don't deserve. 
It is about letting our citizens keep more of their own money to spend 
as they see fit.
  It is about freedom, not about giveaways. I hope someday, the 
Democrat leadership will finally get the message. But I'm not holding 
my breath.
  Mr. Chairman, today we make a historic choice. We can take the path 
of least resistance. We can please the interest groups and the 
bureaucrats. We can continue to spend at the present destructive rate. 
We can protect the status quo.
  Or we can take a courageous stand for America. We can make the 
Government work for people, while cutting out wasteful spending and 
cutting down painful taxes.
  If we make the first choice, I fear that America will become fiscally 
frail, economically weak, a land of limited opportunity awash in a sea 
of tax troubles and Government waste.
  But if we take the responsible course, I am confident that this great 
land of ours will awaken to limitless opportunity, abound in free 
market creativity, spurred on by low interest rates and low taxes.
  And in the final analysis, when our budget is balanced, when our 
Government is stable, and when our people are free, we will see that 
this choice was in fact common sense clarified.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed substitute and vote 
for the Kasich budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message from the President.

                          ____________________
```