H 5238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Lantos

Latham

LaTourette

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Lipinski

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Longley

Lowey

Lucas

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Manzullo

Markey

Martinez

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McCollum

McDade

McDermott

McHale

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Meek

Metcalf

Meyers

Mfume

Mica

Miller (FL)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Morella

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nadler

Neal

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Oxley

Packard

Pallone

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pomeroy

Porter

Portman

Poshard

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Regula

Reynolds

Rivers

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Salmon

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Schumer

Scott

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skeen

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Souder

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Thornton

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Upton

Velazquez

Visclosky

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Watt (NC)

Watts (OK)

Waxman

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—37

Brown (CA)

Clayton

Costello

Crane

DeFazio

Durbin

Engel

Fazio

Filner

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gillmor

Green

Hastings (FL)

Hefley

Hilliard

Jacobs

Kennedy (MA)

Levin

Lewis (GA)

McKinney

McNulty

Menendez

Miller (CA)

Peterson (FL)

Pickett

Pombo

Rush

Sabo

Schroeder

Shays

Stark

Taylor (MS)

Thompson

Vento

Volkmer

Waters

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

Harman

NOT VOTING—36

Abercrombie

Armey

Berman

Bono

Brownback

Chapman

Clay

Coburn

de la Garza

Dingell

Ensign

Fattah

Fields (TX)

Gunderson

Gutierrez

Hinchey

Istook

Kleczka

Largent

Laughlin

Livingston

McCrery

McHugh

Meehan

Moran

Pryce

Richardson

Riggs

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Spence

Stokes

Tucker

Weldon (FL)

Wise

Young (AK)

b 1035

So the Journal was approved.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

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.

b 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):
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5239

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.
H 5240 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5241

(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.
H 5242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

(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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5243

(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.
H 5244 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

(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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5245

(B) any funds made available pursuant to

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

activities.

SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that:

(1) Baselines are projections of future

spending if existing policies remain unchanged.

(2) Under baseline assumptions, spending

automatically rises with inflation even if

such increases are not provided under current law.

(3) Baseline budgeting is inherently biased

against policies that would reduce the projected growth in spending because such policies are scored as a reduction from a rising

baseline.

(4) The baseline concept has encouraged

Congress to abdicate its constitutional responsibility to control the public purse for

programs which are automatically funded

under existing law.

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

the Congress that baseline budgeting should

be replaced with a form of budgeting that requires full justification and analysis of budget proposals and maximizes congressional accountability for public spending.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EMERGENCIES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that:

(1) The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempted from the discretionary spending limits and the Pay-As-You-Go requirements for

entitlement and tax legislation funding requirements that are designated by Congress

and the President as an emergency.

(2) Congress and the President have increasingly misused the emergency designation by—

(A) designating funding as an emergency

that is neither unforeseen nor a genuine

emergency, and

(B) circumventing spending limits or passing controversial items that would not pass

scrutiny in a free-standing bill.

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

Congress that Congress should study alternative approaches to budgeting for emergencies, including codifying the definition of

an emergency and establishing contingency

funds to pay for emergencies.

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

MARKETING ASSOCIATION (SALLIE

MAE).

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that:

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

adequate private sector funding for federally

guaranteed education loans.

(2) Since 1972, student loan volume has

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

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

program.

(3) With securitization and 42 secondary

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

(4) Maintaining Student Loan Marketing

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

liability.

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

Congress that the Student Loan Marketing

Association should be restructured as a private corporation.

SEC. 11. SENSE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

REGARDING DEBT REPAYMENT.

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

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

repay the Federal debt;

(2) the Congress should enact a plan that

balances the budget, and then also develops

a regimen for paying off the Federal debt;

(3) after the budget is balanced, a surplus

should be created, which can be used to begin

paying off the debt; and

(4) such a plan should be formulated and

implemented so that this generation can

save future generations from the crushing

burdens of the Federal debt.

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

LEGAL LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

It is the sense of Congress that—

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

(2) the fiscal year 1996 reconciliation bill

should be enacted into law before passage of

the debt limit extension; and

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

SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE

BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR DIRECT LOANS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that the

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

loans because administrative costs are not

included in the net present value calculation

of Federal direct loan subsidy costs.

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

the Congress that the cost of a direct loan

should be the net present value, at the time

the direct loan is disbursed, of the following

cash flows for the estimated life of the loan:

(1) Loan disbursement.

(2) Repayments of principal.

(3) Interest costs and other payments by or

to the Government over the life of the loan

after adjusting for estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other recoveries.

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

coming fiscal year (or any prior fiscal year)

loan commitments will equal or exceed

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

(A) activities related to credit extension,

loan origination, and loan servicing;

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

(C) management of contractors;

(D) collection of delinquents loans; and

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

SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING

COMMISSION ON THE SOLVENCY OF

THE FEDERAL MILITARY AND CIVIL

SERVICE RETIREMENT FUNDS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that the

Federal retirement system, for both military

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

worth $340 billion and anticipating employee

contributions of $220 billion, which leaves an

unfunded liability of $540 billion.

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

the Congress that a high-level commission

should be convened to study the problems associated with the Federal retirement system

and make recommendations that will ensure

the long-term solvency of the military and

civil service retirement funds.

The 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.
H 5246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5247

(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.
H 5248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

(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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5249

(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:
H 5250 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

(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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5251

(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
H 5252 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

fund surpluses. Therefore, it is the sense of

the Congress that upon reaching a balance in

the Federal budget, the Government should

move toward balance without consideration

of trust fund surpluses.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LOCKBOX.

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

(1) The current practice of reallocating for

other spending purposes spending cuts made

during floor consideration of appropriations

bills should be ended.

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

be established to collect these spending reductions.

(3) These spending reductions should be

used for deficit or debt reduction.

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

measures and have such score card published

in the Congressional Record.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FIREWALLS.

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

enforced through spending limits for each

category with firewalls to prevent funds

from being shifted between categories.

SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

It is the sense of the Congress that, in

order to ensure that a balanced budget is

achieved by 2002 and remain in balance

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

(1) require the Federal Government to

reach a balanced Federal budget by fiscal

year 2002 and remain in balance thereafter;

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

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

Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 and for

each year thereafter, use accurate assumptions;

(4) require the Committees on the Budget

of the House of Representatives and Senate

to report budget resolutions that achieve a

balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2002

and for each year thereafter, using accurate

assumptions; øand¿

(5) establish a comprehensive system of

budgetary enforcement to ensure that the

levels of discretionary spending, mandatory

spending, and revenues in this resolution are

met.

SEC. 12. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.

(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—(1) For purposes of

points of order under the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 and concurrent resolutions on the budget—

(A) the discretionary spending limits under

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

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

(B) the allocations to the Committee on

Appropriations under sections 302(a) and

602(a) of that Act; and

(C) the appropriate budgetary aggregates

in the most recently agreed to concurrent

resolution on the budget,

shall be adjusted to reflect the amounts of

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

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

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

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

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

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

outlays’’ shall mean, for any fiscal year,

budget authority or outlays (as the case may

be) in excess of the amounts requested for

that fiscal year for the Internal Revenue

Service in the President’s Budget for fiscal

year 1996.

(b) REVISED LIMITS, ALLOCATIONS, AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon

the submission of a conference report on

such legislation (if a conference report is

submitted), the chairman of the Committee

on the Budget of the Senate or the House of

Representatives (as the case may be) shall

submit to that chairman’s respective House

appropriately revised—

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

Act of 1974 (and those limits as cumulatively

adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each

outyear;

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

that Act; and

(3) appropriate budgetary aggregates in the

most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

to carry out this subsection. These revised

discretionary spending limits, allocations,

and aggregates shall be considered for purposes of congressional enforcement under

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

(c) REPORTING REVISED SUBALLOCATIONS.—

The Committees on Appropriations of the

Senate and the House of Representatives

may report appropriately revised

suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1)

and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 to carry out this section.

(d) CONTINGENCIES.—

(1) The Internal Revenue Service and the

Department of the Treasury have certified

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

outlays unless—

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

the Congressional Budget Office, the General

Accounting Office, and the Internal Revenue

Service (as well as from any other sources

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

of the Federal budget deficits over the next

five years; and

(B) any funds made available pursuant to

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

activities.

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

It is the Sense of Congress that Medicaid

block grants should be distributed based on a

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

poverty level in each State.

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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5253

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.

b 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
H 5254 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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, $31⁄2

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 latebreaking 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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5255

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
H 5256 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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.

b 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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5257

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 StenholmOrton 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
H 5258 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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.

b 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 Housepassed 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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5259

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-ofcontrol 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.